The dubious predictions weren’t a reason not to lockdown, but they also weren’t a good reason *to* lockdown.

I misunderstood what you said (the “question begging bit”). I didn’t argue that though.

Not at all. I was not accusing you of being cavalier, but suggesting that you could be taken that way if you weren't pretty careful about how you compared death tolls, and how you relied on different death tolls in arguing. (I didn't say you were Buck Turgidson, just that you don't want to sound like him.) — Srap Tasmaner

If you weren’t taking what I said that way then don’t say anything. If someone else does they can tell me, and I’ll tell them they’re arguing poorly.

But I wouldn't try arguing that we didn't need to do lockdowns because far fewer people have died than in some of the early speculative projections. — Srap Tasmaner

This is the question begging bit. There’s little cause to think the lockdowns had anything to do with the smaller death toll compared to the predictions if you’re not assuming it.

I expect we’ll keep doing the same things regardless, or including further restrictions. To lessen the response would be to admit the others were overdone and governments can’t do that without holding themselves accountable for the destruction caused by the measures.

So we’re seeing numbers 2 and 3 from you now, from my post about poor argument. You’re beginning to get upset (accusing me of being cavalier about millions of deaths) and question begging (it hasn’t been demonstrated that lockdowns caused fewer deaths, I’ve shared a couple of things that suggest they don’t, and pointed out that the early estimates were by someone with a history of making grossly inaccurate predications).

You can look also at the way the virus behaved in different contexts. The Oxford epidemiologist Sunetra Gupta said some time ago that despite differing degrees of lockdown between countries the virus came and went in the same fashion, indicating natural immunity was the governing force in this and not the varying lockdowns. Can it even be shown that they bought us anything at all that a request that people take care wouldn’t have? And I’d say it’s better not to trust or emulate what comes out of a regime like China’s.

I think Neil Ferguson managed to scare the world into reacting insensibly, and what we’ve seen since is justification by doubling down on the initial mistake. Fairly normal human behaviour on a tragic scale.

The acknowledgment of their harms is appreciated. However, I do find the view that they were entirely unnecessary compelling. The initial scare was a product of Neil Ferguson/Imperial College’s prediction that there would be half a million deaths in the UK and millions in the US if we did nothing. Neil Ferguson has a history of grossly inaccurate predictions. Lockdown began in the UK on the 23rd of March but deaths began decreasing very soon afterwards, suggesting that the important changes had come before the lockdown had actually begun, i.e. people were taking care around the vulnerable, hand washing etc.

I haven’t kept up to date with things, but the last time I was there hadn’t been any cogent demonstrations of the effectiveness of lockdowns.

I’m reasonably sure. I like arguing and I want to do it well. I’ve changed my mind about large issues before and I listen in particular to people who argue intelligently. The philosopher Graham Oppy has interesting things to say about the nature of arguments and his lead is one I follow in my approach to them.

But as I’ve recently posted elsewhere, in my experience almost everyone does this:

1. They say things
2. They become upset when asked to defend what they say
3. They beg the question
4. And ultimately pretend that no argument against their position has been made

If or when I do those things I’d actually like to hear it, because I don’t want to be that way. On my terms if you routinely argue in that way and can’t change that then you can’t think.

You can consider it rhetorical, but equally I just don’t accept that a person can be good without being able to think. And judging by the way most people argue almost no one can really think.

Something else I wonder is this:

LBC radio got a caller once who had voted for the UK to leave the EU. He cried down the phone (“What have I done to my country?”) because he felt so strongly that he’d made a mistake.

How far from such feelings are advocates for these restrictions and mandates? Do they dare consider what they’ve done? It doesn’t seem so to me.

Consider it: you’re not a good person.

There was a woman on the BBC’s Big Questions program a while ago talking about the effects of lockdowns, in particular the student suicides that have occurred. There have also been reports of these restrictions contributing to the deaths of babies and young children. I assume you advocate for these policies, so arguably you share some of the blame for these deaths.

Stop thinking of yourself as a good person. You’re not. Hardly anyone is. My own arrogance doesn’t even extend to that assumption about myself.

As an avid social distancer he’s probably more up your street.

You read this stuff and you conform. No questioning—only frightened, dim-witted conformity.

Conformist assumptions. You assume mass vaccination of the young and healthy is substantially helpful. You assume the consequences of the vaccines are insignificant. You don’t demonstrate either of these things. You employ these assumptions in question begging arguments.

It's reasonable not to walk in a field, as there have been deaths by lightning. It's reasonable not to own a house, as they have collapsed. It's reasonable not to get in a tub, as people have slipped and died on them -- far more than from any vaccines, in fact. — Xtrix

If person deems those dangers to be significant then I’d at least say it’s fine for them to avoid them if doing so does them and others no substantial harm.

One case presented out of 5 billion isn't an assumption of insignificance. It's the definition of insignificance. Given that's the only evidence you've presented for "deaths" thus far, what else can be concluded? — Xtrix

Again, your assumption is that it’s the only case, or that the case number, whatever it is, isn’t significant. I consider even just one case significant, but I don’t turn this into the view that people *shouldn’t* get the vaccine. My view is that it’s a choice and to decline it is fine.

If data were presented that showed that there were a high percentage of deaths -- even something like 1% -- I would count that as significant. I would count 0.1% death rate from vaccinations as significant. The data do not show this. — Xtrix

You’ve been purposefully downplaying or dismissing the occurrences I’ve referred to, the examples and the statistics. You do this because you’ve made the assumption that the vaccines are unequivocally safe. This is both your premise and your conclusion. It’s a conformist assumption. It’s question begging.

Like most anti-vaxxers, you didn't read your own article. But it doesn't matter, because I'm willing to grant it as "true" -- I in fact anticipated this several posts earlier. — Xtrix

This is from the article: “The coroner said: "Lisa died due to complications of an AstraZeneca Covid vaccination."”

In that case, there's death and debilitation associated with literally everything, including walking in a field -- because people have been struck by lighting. So walking in a field involves death and debilitation. — Xtrix

Yeah, sometimes people with dogs get trampled by cows. It’s one reason why you wouldn’t say that people *should* walk their dog through a field of cows, and it’s reasonable for them to avoid doing so.

One case presented out of 5 billion doses is a freak case, yes. 5,000 cases would be freak cases, in that sense. More people die in bathtubs.

But keep trying. — Xtrix

Underlying this characterisation is the assumption that it doesn’t happen often enough to be significant. Underlying that assumption is your principle one that vaccines are unequivocally safe. It’s question begging.

Rather, look at the evidence and then form an opinion. Not the other way around. — Xtrix

You’re entirely impartial, sure. If evidence supports a view then that’s what it does I’m afraid.

A person "reporting" something is not a report. — Xtrix

Check.

So one ("likely") example out of 5+ billion doses. — Xtrix

I posted a quotation from the article that showed the coroner’s verdict was far more definitive than that.

There is no death and debilitation with COVID vaccines. They're safe and effective, as the evidence shows. — Xtrix

This is question begging.

Dying from a blood clot is both death and debilitation. Call it a “freak-case” if you like but underlying that is more question begging.

It's never a guarantee that you'll be asymptomatic. Those who are vaccinated protect themselves from getting sick, and the community at large. The more people vaccinated, the quicker we get to herd immunity. — Xtrix

No, but young healthy people have a high chance of mild or asymptomatic infection. If they become ill they can distance themselves from vulnerable people. If they’re asymptomatic I haven’t seen it demonstrated that they’re any more likely to spread it than a vaccinated person.

It isn't. Why? Because the vaccines are safe and effective. Given that over 5 billion doses have been given around the world, I think the data speak for themselves. — Xtrix

This is question begging. You claim they’re safe by assuming they are and dismissing anything that casts doubt on the claim.

You cite a case where a woman may have died after taking the vaccine — Xtrix

She did die after taking the vaccine.

Sorry -- unless you have good reasons for doing so, it isn't reasonable to ignore what doctors and virologists are telling us to do. — Xtrix

It can be if you can think.

That the vaccines are safe is a fact. This is based on overwhelming evidence, of which I've given a sample. That they are effective, likewise. That they slow the spread, likewise. — Xtrix

You assume these things and dismiss anything that casts doubt on them. It’s question begging.

Plus, even without a strict mandate there’s coercion happening as a consequence of views such as yours, so speaking against mandates comes into this.

Suddenly it's only about mandates, which is a different topic. We have had vaccine mandates for years, but that's simply not what's being discussed. If that's your issue, then stop making a fool of yourself attempting to argue against the vaccines safety and efficacy. — Xtrix

If you bring up the potential consequences of other things like ibuprofen then it’s pertinent for me to give the same view about them: you don’t have to do or take those things and it’s fine if you don’t.

You, on the other, hand, assume your position is true, and then search desperately for evidence that supports it. — Xtrix

Looking for evidence to support a view is called “thinking”, so it’s quite funny that you pour scorn on the endeavour.

So you disagree with your own weak citations.

Thank you, but I'll go with their conclusions on this matter over an anti-vaxxer on the internet. I guess this is "begging the question." — Xtrix

I disagree with the parts that say people shouldn’t feel disinclined to get the vaccine. They can feel that (or otherwise) if they want.

No, that wouldn’t be begging the question.

12-15 year olds are a different subject. That's currently being studied, as it should be. My guess is that this will be approved shortly.

You keep wanting to bring this up as if it supports your non-arguments. It doesn't. — Xtrix

The JCVI’s view shows there is that balance to consider between the vaccine’s benefits and it’s costs. This is what makes it relevant.

They do not, as the articles themselves say. — Xtrix

I posted a quotation from each showing that to be untrue.

They are not reports. They are not studies. They are data -- data which is misinterpreted by you and your anti-vaxxer "sources." — Xtrix

Data based on reports made to the MRHA.

The clotting cases you cited are weak. It's hardly "death and debilitation," which is a delusion. It can be said of anything, given the rarity. — Xtrix

I posted a quotation from the article showing this isn’t true. Dying from a blood clot is both death and debilitation.

"The same clotting conditions were substantially more likely to occur — and over longer periods — among people infected with the coronavirus, the study found.
-- NY times — Xtrix

In the young and healthy?

Ask yourself why the world's experts are recommending these vaccines. Is it a global conspiracy? Do you really think they don't have answers to your questions? Do you really think there's no studies and data and mountains of evidence behind it? I can point you to plenty of them. — Xtrix

Through witnessing arguments on social media and YouTube I discovered that most people, regardless of their qualifications and expertise, can’t reason their way to the end of a syllogism. How is it that a vaccinated individual is supposedly less likely to spread the virus than an unvaccinated asymptomatic individual? Can you direct me to an answer to that, that takes into account what I’ve previously said?

Also, we're not talking mandates. We're talking whether people should take the vaccine. — Xtrix

This discussion opened with me saying it was perfectly reasonable to decline receiving the vaccine. Not that anyone should or shouldn’t take it.

The answer is yes, they should -- not only for themselves, but for the community. They're safe, effective, and slow the spread of the virus -- these are facts, however many times you want to assert the opposite. — Xtrix

This is question begging.

I misread your post and thought you’d said something about unrelated car accidents. But to my awareness cognitive difficulty is another possible symptom of these vaccines, and so car accidents could potentially be linked to them.

And so I don’t wish to see the driving of cars mandated and it’s reasonable for people to decline using them.

You apparently don't know what "begging the question" means. — Xtrix

I’ve been told this before, also by someone who liked begging the question. You’re inclined to argue simply by assuming your position is true.

I haven't arbitrarily dismissed the examples -- I'm quoting FROM the examples, which state explicitly that one should not use these cases as reasons not to take the vaccine. Very strange, given your use of them to support exactly that. — Xtrix

I disagree with them. The JCVI partially disagrees with that claim in not recommending universal vaccination for 12-15 year olds. The important thing about the examples and statistics is that they show that death and health conditions can reasonably be thought to occur sometimes after a vaccine dose.

No, this is what the article said. The doctor said it was "likely," that's not conclusive. — Xtrix

Ms Dilks [the coroner] said Ms Shaw was previously fit and well but concluded that it was "clearly established" that her death was due to a very rare "vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia", a condition which leads to swelling and bleeding of the brain.

It's also ONE case out of hundreds of millions of doses given -- which you repeatedly want to ignore. — Xtrix

It’s one example that demonstrates that it can happen. How much is it happening? How much is too much? In my view that number does not have to be high to justify people having the right to choose. And it’s not the only side-effect.

A study links the Pfizer vaccine to blood clots also.
— AJJ

It does not, as the article mentions. — Xtrix

The Pfizer coronavirus vaccine has been linked to an increased chance of developing thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura (TTP), a rare blood disorder, Israeli researchers said Monday.

Many reports have been made of death and health conditions following taking ibuprofen. I guess that settles it.

By "reports" you mean anecdotes, not studies. Anecdotes, I repeat, are not evidence. — Xtrix

And so I don’t wish to see the taking of Ibuprofen mandated and it’s reasonable for people to decline using it.

The MRHA is a system to which these things are reported. They are reports.

I point out that you’re arbitrarily dismissing the examples and statistics I linked to and begging question. Your response is to do the same thing again. You can’t see it; hardly anyone can.

You've cited evidence which is inconclusive and non-credible. — Xtrix

I expect you’d say that about any evidence. A coroner rules that woman has died from a vaccine induced blood clot. A number of countries suspended the use of the AstraZeneca vaccine over blood clot fears. A study links the Pfizer vaccine to blood clots also. Many reports have been made of deaths and health conditions following a vaccine dose. You yourself make an example of the will on your side to dismiss or downplay these occurrences.

You say my ignorance is getting people killed. Would it surprise you to learn that I think the same of you (and with better cause, considering the caliber of your argument)?

As I said, I'm sure you can find freak cases — Xtrix

You said there was no evidence whatsoever to support the claim that death and debilitation are occurring among healthy vaccinated people. This isn’t true.

So this is "death and debilitation"? — Xtrix

People getting and dying from blood clots is, yes. So is Guillain-Barré syndrome, heart inflammation and eye disorders.

There is no "death and debilitation" from the vaccines, and no evidence whatsoever supporting such a claim. — Xtrix

This is why I say you’re arguing about this poorly (I expect you do about everything). I’ve given examples and statistics to support what I say, you arbitrarily dismiss them and beg the question. The vast majority of people:

1. Say things
2. Become upset when asked to support what they say
3. Beg the question
4. And ultimately pretend that no argument against their position has been made

They do this because they can’t think. This whole affair is a consequence of so many people being this way.

Now what?

Vaccines are very effective against COVID. The fact that people "still get ill" does not detract from this statement. Nor do booster shots. — Xtrix

It does detract from that statement, because people still get ill despite being vaccinated and need further shots for the vaccination to work adequately.

When breakthroughs do happen, they're much milder. — Xtrix

The infection is already likely to be mild or asymptomatic in young healthy people with normal immune systems.

It's not debatable -- again, it's a matter of fact. 173 million people have been vaccinated. How many deaths? — Xtrix

In the UK is was 1,440 by the end of June: https://rightsfreedoms.wordpress.com/2021/07/15/fact-deaths-due-to-the-covid-vaccines-in-the-uk-after-6-months-are-407-higher-than-deaths-due-to-all-other-vaccines-combined-in-the-past-11-years/

"Even when the size of the viral loads are similar, the virus behaves differently in the noses and throats of the vaccinated and the unvaccinated." — Xtrix

Where is this from?

Not even close. On most issues in the real world — ones that haven’t been politicized— we allow the possibility of being wrong, since our identities don’t hinge on it. — Xtrix

I’m quite certain that you’ve hinged your identity on this issue because you argue about it poorly.

Because there's no evidence to support that claim whatsoever. So not only "tenuous," but an outright delusion. — Xtrix

This just isn’t true: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-tyne-58330796.amp

So you'll now retract that ridiculous claim, I assume? — Xtrix

I don’t need to retract: https://m.jpost.com/health-science/pfizer-covid-19-vaccine-linked-to-rare-blood-disease-israeli-study-671694

You, who know nothing about virology, immunology or epidemiology would say "unnecesarily"? On the basis of anecdotes that may or may not be accurate? Are you serious? — Janus

I wouldn’t pull a rather gruesome trigger on a set of people simply because others were upset about me not doing so, no.

If vaccinating the world provides no special benefit that healthy immune systems and taking care when sick do not, then even a small number of deaths and terrible health conditions among the young and healthy should not be accepted in trade. The JCVI essentially made this judgement recently regarding the universal vaccination of 12-15 year olds.

it's a wonder you aren't hiding under your bed. — James Riley

There’s a particular saying that should immediately enter your mind on reading this back.

If there are figures showing these side effects are occurring and also anecdotal reports of ones that have gone unreported then this is worth considering when we talk of (I would say unnecessarily) vaccinating the world multiple times.

My point is that, regarding blood clots, there’s cause for concern with the other vaccines and we don’t know how many clots are going unreported. I take this same concern to apply to the other side effects also.

One example is a runner called Sage Canaday who developed a blood clot after his second Pfizer dose. From what I’ve just gathered it wasn’t confirmed as being caused by the vaccine, which could mean that it wasn’t or that it was and went unreported as such.

Because, like those who challenge Covid deaths based upon comorbidities, any death and debilitation that supposedly occurs within the former group have not been shown to be the result of the vaccine. — James Riley

This in turn casts doubt on the claimed severity of the virus if both sides are inflating the figures in this way. But presumably those numbers will include actual vaccine deaths/injuries just as the others will include actual Covid deaths.

Regardless, even if, the numbers are within a statistical norm for people who didn't get the shot. — James Riley

I’d be interested to see where you’re getting this from.

I find it odd that two people in the same thread find so many things to be "odd." — James Riley

I think it’s a common polite way of telling someone they’re dodging something.

In any event, I haven't seen a reluctance t provide an answer to you question about why viral loads are supposedly lower in vaccinated individuals. It could be because we aren't experts in the field. — James Riley

That’s fine, but it’s a pertinent question and without an answer the claim that a vaccinated individual will be less likely to spread the virus than an unvaccinated asymptomatic one is suspect.

Go to Idaho. Go to any other location where people like you are coming in sick, begging for the vax, taking up beds, getting treated and sometimes saved by medicines that are not fully approved by the FDA, and sometimes dying; all while others are turned away because of the likes of you. — James Riley

Where are you getting this from? It makes no sense according to my own experience of those around me catching the virus. If “young healthy people” in Idaho are as a rule becoming seriously ill then they’re for some reason in the vulnerable category instead.

The type caused by blood clots, for example. Are you disputing that blood clots are a potential side effect of these vaccines?

The allegations of death and debilitation that supposedly occurs within the former group are tenuous, at best — James Riley

How so?

whereas the aid to the vulnerable community is proven. — James Riley

Then I find odd the reluctance to provide an answer to my question about why viral loads are supposedly lower in vaccinated individuals compared to unvaccinated asymptomatic (or mildly symptomatic) individuals.

If the death and debilitation that supposedly occurs within the former group are less, by huge orders of magnitude, than the death and debilitation that occurs in that group from Covid, and if their occupation of hospital beds and their drain on resources kills other people suffering from non-covid related injury or disease, then is it okay to rip the vents out of their yaps and dump their bodies out the hospital window to make room for human beings? — James Riley

It’s been long known that young healthy people aren’t particularly troubled by this virus so I’m not getting the intended force of this hypothetical.

What would be the grounds for such a debate? — Janus

Whether vaccinating the young and healthy on balance helps the vulnerable community enough to warrant the death and debilitation that occurs within the former group.

It won’t make a shred of difference. — Xtrix

It would.

Because the very fact that you have decided to “question” this issue, but don’t do so in almost any other area of your life — Xtrix

I question in all areas of life. I enjoy it.

means you’re one more person who’s jumping in with a “side” — Xtrix

We all have a “side”.

and you’ve happened to pick the wrong side — Xtrix

Have I though?

probably because of political or religious reasons and, hence, in bad faith. — Xtrix

This is basically saying I believe things for reasons. This is true. I hold my political and religious beliefs for reasons too.

You’re not interested in learning anything. — Xtrix

I am.

You’ve taken a side, and are now out to prove what you want to prove. — Xtrix

This is what you’re doing. It’s what everyone does all the time.

Vaccines are effective. — Xtrix

Not that effective. People still get ill and a train of booster shots is on the cards.

Vaccines are safe. — Xtrix

Debatable. Lots of documented side-effects, some truly awful.

Vaccines slow the spread of COVID. — Xtrix

Perhaps, but if they do this by reducing viral load and a healthy person’s immune system does this anyway then they’re a superfluous risk for those people.

Even if one is otherwise healthy— it’s not simply about YOU, it’s about the community. — Xtrix

It might be *about* the community, but whether they’re overall good for a community is debatable.

They haven’t to my awareness dealt with those questions—I thought of those because I think. If my second question in particular has an answer then it isn’t easy to find. Feel free to direct me to it.

John Ioannidis and Jonathan Sumption are two good examples of reputable persons who have advocated for caution and freedom since the beginning.