My concern was about messaging: if you're vaccinated you can't transmit. That's not true. — frank

So your "main concern" was, as usual, a complete fabrication, since no one here has once said that. Or perhaps you struggle with reading comprehension -- which is fine, but at least give us a heads up about that.

How bizarre it is to have to create straw man after straw man, an imaginary enemy, just to feel good about yourself when you tear it down. Maybe sad is a better word.

I think it's worthwhile to take a moment here and just reflect on the absurdity of this situation.

Here we are in a pandemic, and we all want to get back to normal. I also assume we don't want to harm other people if we don't have to. We have a vaccine that is very safe, very effective, and helps slow or stop the spread of the virus.

And yet we're here, on a philosophy forum (where you'd think has a higher level of critical thinking skills and respect for science), still debating with people (mostly trolls) about whether we should get vaccinated or not.

It's like playing whack-a-mole. One absurd claim made and debunked, another two pop up.

It loops us back to the OP question:

They're immune to facts and they will not change their minds no matter what happens, which is interesting psychologically. But should we engage for the sake of others who are rational yet "on the fence"? — Xtrix

It comes down to whether or not anyone who's "on the fence" is even listening. I guess we have to assume they are -- otherwise this is an exercise in futility. Although I have learned a bit about communication, psychology, and delusion.

It's a mistake to spread the rumor that vaccinated people can't transmit.

The main reason to be vaccinated is to potentially save your own life. — frank

At this point you’re just lying. Either that or you haven't been paying attention.

Vaccinated people can transmit the virus, when they're infected. Those are called breakthrough cases. Whether those who are vaccinated and get infected spread the virus as readily as those who are infected and unvaccinated is undetermined at this time. But that entirely misses the issue, because breakthrough cases are rare compared to cases in the unvaccinated -- which is why we see the unvaccinated account for the vast majority of cases, hospitalizations, and deaths.

Also, the "main reason is to potentially save your life" depends on your motivations. If you're relatively young and healthy, or otherwise don't care about getting the flu or COVID because you think you can handle it, and you refuse the flu shot or the COVID shot, you're simply overlooking the fact that it's not necessarily all about you. This apparently has to be repeated over and over again.

I don't trust the pharmaceutical industry
— Isaac

Bit hasty there? Distrusting diabetics die. :death: — jorndoe

No no no, it's only to be distrusted when it's been POLITICIZED. Same with anything in medicine and science: if we're whipped into a frenzy, we know more than the experts and it's important to ask questions, be skeptical, etc.

Everything else: no questions, no skepticism, no thought. Insulin injections? Perfectly fine. But let's try to change that right now and hope it catches on: insulin is part of a Big Pharma plot to keep those with diabetes reliant on their medicine! It's a HOAX!

Imagine if social media existed during the polio vaccine rollout?

"Salk is a Nazi trying to experiment on us!"

You can tell he’s a scholar, can’t you?

Makes Isaac look reasonable.

They only know what they read in pop headlines. — MondoR

Pop headlines…Web MD is pop journalism? The study they are discussing is from the Annals of Internal Medicine.

Eh, nevermind.

What the heck are you talking about? Trying to switch direction?? — MondoR

I’ve been talking about the exact same thing. Try reading and thinking before responding like a child.

Keep googling, maybe you’ll find something from Infowars.

Anti-vaxxers are funny.

pop journalism propaganda. — MondoR

The Annals of Internal Medicine? :rofl:

https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M21-1577

From your Googled source:

A new study found that people vaccinated against coronavirus who have also contracted the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2 could have similar peak levels of the virus as people who have not had a vaccination.

See the bold emphasis.

Now let’s see if you can understand what that means…

No? Okay, I’ll just give the answer:

This is dealing with breakthrough cases. You don’t seem to understand what that is, so I encourage you to read about it.

Or simply go back to sleep.

I also came across this article in the Atlantic by a practicing physician, worth a read:

No, Vaccinated People Are Not ‘Just as Likely’ to Spread the Coronavirus as Unvaccinated People

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/620161/

In the aftermath of the Provincetown announcement, many who had gotten their shots were confused about what the news meant for them, especially when headlines seemed to imply that vaccinated individuals are as likely to contract and transmit COVID-19 as the unvaccinated. But this framing missed the single most important factor in spreading the coronavirus: To spread the coronavirus, you have to have the coronavirus. And vaccinated people are far less likely to have the coronavirus—period. If this was mentioned at all, it was treated as an afterthought.

I wonder if this means anti-vaxxers and their enablers will now stop saying the vaccinated and unvaccinated both spread the virus equally?

:chin:

I’m going with: no.

No, there has been more research since January, which the article itself said was needed.
— Xtrix

Which of the three facts you claim so obviously show vaccines reduce transmission did this 'research' only recently discover? — Isaac

I’m sorry you’re having trouble reading, so I’ll repeat what I said:

Let’s try this in numbered form:

(1) If vaccines protect against COVID infections and
(2) you cannot transit COVID if you’re not infected, then
(3) who is more likely to spread COVID? The vaccinated or the unvaccinated? — Xtrix

Then (emphasis mine):

This would seem to make the (1) claim currently unsupported, yes. Until you realize that this article was last updated 8 months ago, and is originally from January. — Xtrix

The transmissibility is lowered even with lower symptoms, which is established. But with lowered infections, even more so — you can’t transmit it if you don’t have it. Research seems to have confirmed the latter as well, which isn’t always the case in vaccines:

'Gold Standard' Study Confirms mRNA Vaccines Prevent Infection

https://www.webmd.com/vaccines/covid-19-vaccine/news/20210722/gold-standard-study-mrna-vaccines-prevent-infection

July 22, 2021 -- Clinical trials of mRNA vaccines have consistently demonstrated high effectiveness against COVID-19, but now a large, real-world study confirms that the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines are more than 95% effective in preventing confirmed infection.

Emphasis mine, to help your reading comprehension.

Here’s another, from Forbes (in case you thought this knowledge was obscure):

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/williamhaseltine/2021/03/30/moderna-and-pfizer-vaccines-prevent-infection-as-well-as-disease-key-questions-remain/amp/

According to the study, which was conducted on nearly 4,000 healthcare workers, first responders, and other essential workers at the frontlines in eight locations across the country, the mRNA vaccines are 90 percent effective at preventing infection. That means in addition to stopping the development of Covid-19 symptoms, they can stop the disease from spreading from one person to another, too.

Predictably, you’ll find a way to ignore all this. I post it for others’ benefit, however, not yours.

This is relevant to the question @Harry Hindu was asking too.

Woah, so the way vaccines interact with viruses has changed since January! — Isaac

No, there has been more research since January, which the article itself said was needed.

But keep trying.

From the article you cite:

“ verdict: Missing context. There is no conclusive evidence to claim COVID-19 vaccines do not prevent people spreading the disease. Scientists are not yet sure of how the vaccine affects transmission – and this is currently undergoing research. People are still required to follow restrictions even after vaccination to account for this uncertainty.“

This would seem to make the (1) claim currently unsupported, yes. Until you realize that this article was last updated 8 months ago, and is originally from January.

But keep fighting the good fight, Isaac.

Take a look at this for something more recent:

https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/doh/downloads/pdf/covid/covid-19-post-vaccination-data-082321.pdf

Let’s try this in numbered form:

(1) If vaccines protect against COVID infections and
(2) you cannot transit COVID if you’re not infected, then
(3) who is more likely to spread COVID? The vaccinated or the unvaccinated?

:chin:

I know this is a tough one, but think about it for a second.

vaccinated do not spread the virus as much as the unvaccinated.
— Xtrix

This is why you should be totally ignored. — MondoR

Says an anti-vaxxer who doesn’t know what breakthrough cases are.

The vaccinated are far less likely to spread the virus, because they’re far less to be infected by the virus. It’s that simple.
— Xtrix

Rofl! It's already been shown the virus load is the same for vaccinated same vaccinated. — MondoR

As an anti-vaxxer, I know there’s a mental block to this stuff, but I’ll repeat it again for anyone else listening: since the vaccines protect against the virus extremely well, the vaccinated do not spread the virus as much as the unvaccinated. Not even close.

In breakthrough cases, the evidence is still out about whether the vaccinated who get infected have the same viral loads as the unvaccinated who get infected. But there’s evidence to suggest they don’t.

What do they all have in common? Some here have called them stupid but I don't think that's it — TheMadFool

I don’t think so either.

This all is simply a way to sustain the economy by more debt financing. — ssu

I don’t think you’re referring to the reconciliation bill. What I’m talking about includes measures for child care, climate change, and many other provisions that would be good for this country.

True, it involves debt. But the 350 billion a year is nothing next to the 700 billion we spend on military contracts. Apparently we can afford that every year.

I don’t buy this sudden interest in the debt. The debt isn’t the problem. This bill also pays for itself in multiple ways. But even if it didn’t, given that borrowing is essentially free right now, it’s the best time to spend some money on things that matter, especially climate change.

As I pointed out, even the vaccinated can carry and spread the virus. So again, what is the point of vaccinating? — Harry Hindu

The vaccinated are far less likely to spread the virus, because they’re far less to be infected by the virus. It’s that simple.

Which you’d know if you bothered to read anything.

but I don't trust what the government and the state-run media says. — Harry Hindu

Or medical experts, apparently. Fine— then don’t pretend like it’s only a matter of not having your very original questions answered.

I do know how science works. You only arrive at the correct answer after making all possible mistakes. — Harry Hindu

That’s not close to how science works.

Anti-vaxxer says what?

One of my many flaws, apologies! — TheMadFool

No problem. Just one man’s opinion anyway.

It's a zombie apocalypse! — TheMadFool

Why are you never funny?

That doesn't mean the plants will stop burning coal. And of course China is not suspending its own coal plant building program. — Bitter Crank

All true. Still, given how much China is investing in foreign infrastructure, that’s a significant reduction.

Not at all. Just pointing out that the madmen who created the virus are now, in high shrill and pure hysteria, trying to force everyone to partake in their madness. Their rationale: well heck, we are all dying sooner or later. — MondoR

Anti-vaxxer says what?

China announces no more foreign coal plant building

EPA will finalize rules to faze out HFCs.

Couple pieces of somewhat good news.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2021/09/22/world/asia/china-coal.amp.html

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/573522-epa-finalizes-rule-cutting-use-of-potent-greenhouse-gas-used-in%3famp

are, have done a bad job of making their case. Why else is there so much controversy? Compare climate science to physics and consider how the latter has a better reputation than the former. — TheMadFool

I mentioned why there’s controversy. The controversy has been manufactured. Just as the “controversy” about smoking and cancer was manufactured by tobacco companies, fossil fuel companies have deliberately created controversy here— and it’s all documented.

The controversies in physics don't threaten the pocket books of the billionaires. — James Riley

The evidence in physics doesn’t, yes. The evidence of climate change does, just like the evidence for evolution threatens Biblical literalists.

You two are just fun to pick on. — frank

Right, that’s what’s happening. :lol:

You are all hung up on sticking stuff into yourself and people. — MondoR

:rofl:

Another anti-vaxx troll.

62% vaccinated -- better than the US. Apparently less anti-vaxxer bullshit/pushback in Sweden.
— Xtrix

Nuanced, not hysterical. — MondoR

So pushing for vaccines is "nuanced"? OK, so the US is nuanced as well -- just with far more pushback from hysterical anti-vaxxers. Got it.

US policy is not based on hysteria, it's based on the recommendations of medical experts
— Xtrix

The same chaps who created the virus. — MondoR

That's likely untrue, but the fact you believe it is telling. If you want to learn about it, see here:

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01529-3

Even if it were true, it was created by a Chinese lab. I'm talking about the United States. Those aren't the "same chaps." You really don't have a clue about what you're talking about.

Like most anti-vaxxers.

Climate change denial.

Climate change denial, or global warming denial, is denial, dismissal, or unwarranted doubt that contradicts the scientific consensus on climate change, including the extent to which it is caused by humans, its effects on nature and human society, or the potential of adaptation to global warming by human actions.[3][4][5] Many who deny, dismiss, or hold unwarranted doubt about the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming self-label as "climate change skeptics"] which several scientists have noted is an inaccurate description. Climate change denial can also be implicit when individuals or social groups accept the science but fail to come to terms with it or to translate their acceptance into action. Several social science studies have analyzed these positions as forms of denialism, pseudoscience, or propaganda.

frank and your initial comments were fundamentally stupid. — James Riley

One's a climate denier and the other either is one or tries to sound like one. So don't expect too much.

The trouble with vaccinations is that no one knows what the long term effects will be. — MondoR

We do know.

This is one of the many claims that anti-vaxxers often use. In the "long run" we're all dead, as Keynes once said. 6 billion shots given, it's been 9 months and given a level of scrutiny unlike anything else in history -- I think it's safe to say they're safe. They're also remarkably effective.

It's unfortunate that scientists created a virus that killed millions — MondoR

This is unproven. But even if true, and it was created in a lab, scientists also created nuclear energy. That doesn't mean they had in mind Hiroshimo.

I don't consider them a good source for advice. — MondoR

And what, pray tell, *is* a "good source" besides virologists, epidemiologists, physicians, etc?

Now, unlike the U.S model, which is based upon pure hysteria and permanent pharmaceutical spending, the Swedish have done quite well. — MondoR

62% vaccinated -- better than the US. Apparently less anti-vaxxer bullshit/pushback in Sweden.

The US policy is not based on hysteria, it's based on the recommendations of medical experts -- just like in Sweden. The hysterics are coming from those, like you, who buy into the many false and misleading claims of anti-vaxxers, and anti-vaxxers themselves. The same people claiming the vaccines magnetized people, would sterilize them, had a chip implanted that could track them, etc. etc. I guess that's not "hysteria."

I had a mild case, and my long-term immune prospects are quite good. — MondoR

Wonderful. I guess that proves it.

It'll be precisely people like you who run to the vaccines when a virus comes around that's more deadly. And it'll happen.

For anyone still keeping up with this bill (arguably the most important news story there is), what do we think will happen here? A watered down version or nothing whatsoever? The clock is ticking.

climatologists have more work to do, proving that climate change is due to CO2 emissions from human activity. That's why I suggested that they need to do two things:

1. Explain the rise in earth temperatures with the greenhouse effect of (raised) CO2 levels.

2. Make a prediction of how temperatures will rise in (say) the next 10 or 20 years. — TheMadFool

Unless you've been living in a cave somewhere, this information is readily available. Perhaps you missed the latest IPCC report as well. Made some news a few weeks ago.

CO2 levels and increased average temperature of the earth are very well correlated, with data going back tens and hundreds of thousands of years.

Predictions about temperature rise have been made, shown to be accurate, and continue to be made. There are many scenarios taken into account -- business as usual versus a real shift in fossil fuel use, for example.

The evidence is overwhelming. Denial is rampant because it's a difficult thing to accept and because of a massive propaganda campaign from the fossil fuel industry, especially around 2009 -- of which you seem to be a casualty.

What's the best gameplan for us given that we don't know the truth about climate change? Should we assume climate change is real or should we assume it isn't and act accordingly? — TheMadFool

We do know the truth about climate change, with as much certainty as we can know about anything. It's now easy to see all around us, and to anyone who can read a graph.

But even if there were a 10% chance of catastrophe, we should still do something about it, yes -- especially given that there's almost no downside.

Try to keep up.
— Xtrix
You know, I will repay you and your ilk for this contempt. — baker

:broken:

I hold no contempt for you. If I did, I wouldn't bother talking to you at all. I don't think you're inferior to me -- I think you're wrong. You're confusing the two.

Riiight, you are the embodiment of kindness. — baker

Yes, because you're been so very kind in this discussion so far, starting the entire thing off with a condescending "irrelevant," and then accusing me of hatred and contempt. Spare me.

We weren't talking about what happens on the ground between doctors and patients, so this is irrelevant.
— Xtrix
It's the level on which trust in the medical system is build, or destroyed. — baker

The issue which was being discussed was whether laypeople, knowing nothing else but that high consensus levels existed among experts, should go with that consensus or not.

Incidentally, there are plenty of people who would otherwise trust their doctors who are not doing so now. Why? Because this has become politicized. That is a function of belief systems and perceptions shaped largely by media (including social media), not by the messaging of doctors on the ground level.

No one is arguing perfection.
— Xtrix

Given your righteous indignation, given your contempt, your hatred: only perfection justifies and warrants those.

If you want to be justified hate people for not thinking and acting the way you think they should, then you better be perfect. — baker

I don't feel any of that. Your projections are your own.

What does it help if the national health institute says one thing, but on the ground level, even medical personnel is skeptical about vaccination? — baker

About 96% of doctors in the US are vaccinated, with half of the rest willing to be vaccinated. And this was back in June.

There is an overwhelming consensus about vaccines among experts. If you want to talk about how this message is disseminated, or stress the importance of the ground-level relationship between doctors and patiences, fine -- but that's not what was being discussed. Try to keep up.

So the question is: how many times does the consensus of experts need to be proven true before we simply (as laypeople) trust them?
— Xtrix
Irrelevant. What is relevant is what happens on the ground level.

Ie. in terms of medicine, what is relevant is how actual doctors and other medical personnel actually interact with actual patients. This is the level at which trust is build, or destroyed. — baker

We weren't talking about what happens on the ground between doctors and patients, so this is irrelevant.

Irrelevant. — baker

Only for those like you who wish to change the topic.