Whether or not they are as contagious once infected, they are infected at lesser rates. As continual testing of everyone is impractical, they therefore present less danger to the public than the unvaccinated. — hypericin
Perhaps their freedom of movement may also be curtailed, though less so. Perhaps 'social distancing', the wearing of masks, and other hygeine measures, will henceforth remain as part of civil society. — Wayfarer
The unvaccinated are making this choice to (in their mind) improve their well being, at the expense of the public well being. It is therefore rational public policy to restrict their freedom of movement, to both protect the public well being, and to discourage this selfish choice. — hypericin
The situation is rather similar to driving. Everyone on the road presents some danger. But drunk drivers, as a result of their selfish decision to be drunk drivers, present a greater danger. Therefore their freedom of movement is restricted, to protect the public and to discourage drunk driving. — hypericin
The modern progressive speaks the language of high-minded purpose but always ends with coercion. Witness New York Mayor Bill de Blasio, the uber progressive, who announced Tuesday that New Yorkers will soon need proof of vaccination to do everything from dining out to working out at a gym. He’s proud that New York is the first U.S. city to impose such a mandate.
“It’s time for people to see vaccination as literally necessary to living a good and full and healthy life,” he said at his press conference. You gotta love Mr. de Blasio telling you what is necessary for a good and full life. According to the data, roughly 55% of the city’s residents are fully vaccinated, ranging from 46% in the Bronx to 67% for Manhattan.
His response is to exclude the unvaccinated from many of the functions of daily life. He doesn’t seem to care that this burden will fall heaviest on the city’s black population, which is only 31% fully vaccinated (versus 71% for Asian Americans, 42% for Hispanics and 46% for whites). — WSJ
I don't follow you. Why, if it's on average 90% efficacious would it be less likely in all categories? If, on average drunk people are more likely to have a car accident, does that mean drunk people are more likely to have a car accident even among those who don't drive? Averages don't apply to all groups unless the criteria are random, which, with susceptibility to hospitalisation with covid-19, we know they're not. — Isaac
Perhaps you and Wayfarer would like to say, specifically, how you think the restriction of free movement in the US (or your country, whatever it may be) should be implemented. — fishfry
You disagree with my facts? My reasoning? Or are you you all in on "show me your papers" to every non-white face in New York City — fishfry
I haven't considered any government enforced denial of freedom of movement, so any disagreement I might raise isn't to that effect. My issue is with the pronouncement that the possibility of a vaccinated person spreading a virus and the possibility of an unvaccinated person spreading the virus are treated as equal. Or the first makes the latter not matter. It seems to me a strong argument could acknowledge that one is taking place regularly and the other is somewhere between rare and not impossible. You disagree above, but maybe I missed something.Feedback appreciated. You disagree with my facts? My reasoning? Or are you you all in on "show me your papers" to every non-white face in New York City? You want to bring back stop-and-frisk but for vax cards instead of guns and knives?? And if you did implement nationwide walking and driving checkpoints, how long do you think it would be before the inevitable scope expansion and mission creep set in? Check for your vax card, check your wants and warrants. Behind on your child support? Carrying any unapproved contraband? Tweet any unapproved thoughts recently? — fishfry
What's good about anti-vaxxers is they give a clear signal to the medical & scientific establishment that people won't tolerate substandard work/products.
— TheMadFool
Rigorous industry standards have nothing to do with anti-vaxxers. Vaccines are only one class of regulated pharmaceutical products. — Fooloso4
we don't have effective treatment modalities against viruses.
— TheMadFool
Shingrix and Gardasil are effective viral vaccines. But you are right, more work products need to be brought to market. — Fooloso4
You give baby aspirin to enough people and someone will choke to death. It is an unreasonable expectation on the part of the anti-vaxer that supports their position.What I meant was scientists/doctors developed vaccines, a heroic feat no doubt, but they didn't make the follow-up move which is to make vaccines better in the sense reduce the number and severity of their side-effects. Had they done that, anti-vaxxers would have never been able to do what they're doing right now - undermine decades of medical progress. — TheMadFool
You give baby aspirin to enough people and someone will choke to death. It is an unreasonable expectation on the part of the anti-vaxer that supports their position. — Cheshire
Oral medication can be improved e.g. powder forms that'll prevent choking . A similar logic should apply to vaccines. The medical/pharmacological communities are asleep at the wheel. — TheMadFool
Don't people generally warn each other of danger? Why is this the exception? Out of everyone taking it and yet not one person has told me; I regret it. — Cheshire
Yes. Because of the time sensitive nature. Like, take all the time you want waiting on the japanese encephalitis vaccine to get a golden review; I'm not headed to Tokyo. If we wait to meet unreasonable standards then the benefits of a vaccine aren't realized. I think we shouldn't defeat our own purpose.Now I see where you're coming from - you think vaccineas hould be accepted in spite of causing more common minor discomfort (minor side-effects, MiSE) and the rare death/disability (major side-effects MaSE). The benefits (disease immunity) , as has be shoved down our throats, outweigh the risks (MiSE/MaSE). — TheMadFool
Our difference would be that I think a vaccine is a novel product category. And I don't think it is dangerous. I think we should adopt this argument in regards to the actual product quality. People shop on price too much.What I'm advocating for is people to adopt an approach similar to if not identical to the approach we have towards good/products sold to us by businesses big and small; after all we do have to buy vaccines. What's this approach? — TheMadFool
I'm not really following you here. I understand what you are saying though.That this didn't happen indicates that vaccine manufactures don't care about quality (less/no MiSE and MaSE) as much as they do about money - it's more profitable to sell vaccines as they are (with risks) because people are more worried about not dying than dipping into their savings. — TheMadFool
Anti-vaxxers as a group are idiots in regards to their expertise in a subject of choice. I don't call NASA commenting on rover designs for the same reason.With anti-vaxxers, the situation has hopefully changed for the better - a clear message has been sent to vaccine manufacturers that people won't tolerate a compromise on quality, they want vaccine manufacturers to adopt the exact same policy towards their customers as Samsung & Apple have towards their clients - extra emphasis on quality which for vaccines must include, among other positive features, a reduction or elimination of negatives (risks), another name for safety. — TheMadFool
Yes. Because of the time sensitive nature. Like, take all the time you want waiting on the japanese encephalitis vaccine to get a golden review; I'm not headed to Tokyo. If we wait to meet unreasonable standards then the benefits of a vaccine aren't realized. I think we shouldn't defeat our own purpose. — Cheshire
Our difference would be that I think a vaccine is a novel product category. And I don't think it is dangerous. I think we should adopt this argument in regards to the actual product quality. People shop on price too much. — Cheshire
The problem is in thinking that a groups reaction correlates 1 for 1 with the actual quality. Perhaps people are idiots and not fit to judge the quality of a vaccine. But, suppose they don't know it and instead say whatever their little minds produce. — Cheshire
There was an antivax movement that lead to a measles outbreak on the island of Samoa that would serve as evidence if the casual implications aren't obvious enough for your tastes. As a follow up, try and guess how many covid cases they have today. — Cheshire
It may be rendered more safe if the FDA makes recommendations for changes with regard to labelling, packaging, identification of groups for whom the vaccine has greater risk because of age or health conditions or other things, but without making changes approving it does not render it more safe. It simply confirms that it is safe and effective. — Fooloso4
Evidence of what? The motives of experts who advocate getting the vaccine? — Fooloso4
Why would you think that I know what is going on right now at the FDA? — Fooloso4
f the virus is circulating through the community then everyone has an equal chance, statistically speaking, of coming into contact with it. — Janus
if you get vaccinated and you are exposed to the virus, your chances of infection are reduced, your chances of symptomatic infection are reduced, your chances of hospitalization are reduced and your chances of death are reduced. — Janus
I see no reason why this would not apply to the unhealthy, smokers, the obese, alcoholics, drug addicts, the healthy, athletes, fitness fanatics, and so on. — Janus
if you do come into contact with it your chances of a good outcome are increased greatly if the experts are to be believed.. — Janus
If your chances of infection, symptomatic infection, hospitalization and death are reduced, then chances are you will, if infected, carry less viral load and thus be less infectious. — Janus
So, on average, vaccination will reduce transmission. — Janus
All of this is assuming that what we are being told by the medical authorities, which is, or at least should be, assuming good will, the dominant expert consensus, is true. If we reject that then what do we have to guide us? — Janus
Simply untrue. The more isolated have a lower chance, those practising more non-pharmaceutical interventions have a lower chance. — Isaac
if you get vaccinated and you are exposed to the virus, your chances of infection are reduced, your chances of symptomatic infection are reduced, your chances of hospitalization are reduced and your chances of death are reduced. — Janus
Do you have any evidence for this? Or do you expect me to just argue against whatever you reckon? — Isaac
Unbelievable! How does one argue against such insanity? You're advocating injecting the entire population of the world with a chemical that had not even been invented a few years back on the basis of the fact that 'you don't see any reason not to...' Not on some evidence you've got immediately to hand. — Isaac
if you do come into contact with it your chances of a good outcome are increased greatly if the experts are to be believed.. — Janus
No, if your chosen experts are to be believed. I've presented evidence from experts who believe that vaccination does not significantly increase the chances of a good outcome. You've chosen to ignore them in favour of some vague notion that 'the experts' say it will without even having any evidence to that effect which you can cite. — Isaac
and you can't even be bothered to actually look up any evidence at all, — Isaac
why would I believe them as opposed to the official consensus? — Janus
what I meant was that if the virus is everywhere through the community then if you get out at all there is a fair chance you will come into contact with it. — Janus
if the vaccines stop the virus replicating then it seems to stand to reason that the vaccinated will, on average, carry a lower viral load than the unvaccinated, and thus shed less virus and be less infectious. — Janus
No, I'm advocating it because it seems to be the expert consensus motivating the official advice, and I don't have anything else to go by. — Janus
There's no question we've seen a lot of rushed studies. People who are doing the minimum they can to get something published, it’s hard to go through the normal academic rigor that it takes to really vet something scientifically. — Stanley Perlman, a microbiologist who studies coronaviruses at the University of Iowa.
Again, they are not my chosen experts, but the majority expert consensus. Or are you denying this? — Janus
If we followed your argument and applied it to global warming we might discard the majority expert consensus, and follow the minority that deny it on account of the fact that doing anything about climate change will hurt the economy and might cause more suffering and death than global warming will. — Janus
Of course this consensus might turn out to be wrong; there is always some risk, however small. But it is a matter of risk assessment — Janus
frankly you are sounding somewhat hysterical — Janus
This vaccine rollout, in the absence of any future evidence of likely significant negative outcomes, will proceed, and if you are unvaccinated your activities may be severely curtailed and you will have to make a decision based on whether you are prepared to give up eating out, travel, sporting and musical events, cinema and so on, just so that you can protect yourself against what seems to be the very minor risk of a serious negative outcome from vaccination. — Janus
This point is easily refuted. The fact that the average vaxxed person is statistically unlikely to infect you means nothing. After all, the average person is not a serial killer, but we endeavor to take serial killers out of society to protect the public. The argument that a random individual is unlikely to cause harm is no argument against separating that indvidual from society. — fishfry
The vaccinated and infected are rare. If they are identified as such, they should be restricted.Since contagious vaxxed people and drunk drivers alike are statistically rare, they should both be free to travel — fishfry
Vaccination should be a requirement for entry to high risk areas such as transportation, supermarket, bars, restaurants, movie theaters, etc.Perhaps you and Wayfarer would like to say, specifically, how you think the restriction of free movement in the US (or your country, whatever it may be) should be implemented. — fishfry
Safety is entirely about uncertainty. — Isaac
but without making changes approving it does not render it more safe. It simply confirms that it is safe and effective. — Fooloso4
... you're making the argument that their specific motivation is not the EUA but the evidence from millions of vaccine shots (despite me posting a direct quote from Marks to the contrary, but hey, evidence seems to be irrelevant on this thread, so...) — Isaac
Because you said that despite their main work being about ensuring the safety and efficacy of medicines, their current work is not related to safety and efficacy. — Isaac
the vaccine is approved on Tuesday it does not become safer than it was on Monday. — Fooloso4
Safety is entirely about uncertainty. — Isaac
I am simply saying that the evidence from the millions of vaccine shots supports the safety and efficacy of the vaccine. — Fooloso4
you said that despite their main work being about ensuring the safety and efficacy of medicines, their current work is not related to safety and efficacy. — Isaac
And yet again! I said no such thing. We have been through this already. — Fooloso4
At this point it is a matter of bureaucracy rather than safety or efficacy — Fooloso4
rather than
conj.
And not: "Gibson guitars—with their carved tops and necks that are fitted and glued to the body, rather than bolted on—are expensive to make"
The vaccinated and infected are rare. — hypericin
You requested* evidence for a causal relationship between vaccine hesitation and population harm. The case of a documented anti-vax movement resulting in an outbreak on an island seemed to match up for this particular request for evidence. The matter of effectiveness was not mentioned in my post.Why would evidence of the effectiveness of the measles vaccine have any bearing on the effectiveness of the covid-19 vaccines? We're not discussing the general point that vaccines work. We're discussing this one specific situation. Otherwise you could just generalise it to 'all medicines'. — Isaac
*
Evidence. Honestly, we can't have a proper discussion if you're just going to make shit up. I could just say "the vaccine is poisonous anyway so no one should take it". His does that constitute an argument. Cite your fucking sources! It's like arguing with children. — Isaac
It is safer on Tuesday because by Tuesday we'll be less uncertain about it's effects than we were before Tuesday, because the FDA will have finished checking the safety data. — Isaac
In direct contradiction of the expert I cited explaining how those millions of shots do not provide the level of safety information the FDA require. — Isaac
You said...
At this point it is a matter of bureaucracy rather than safety or efficacy — Isaac
No one is denying it's safe and effective. — Isaac
However, anti-vaxxers have a hidden benefit that seems to have escaped our notice. What they do or should do is galvanize vaccine developers into paying attention to reducing the risks, minor & major. Until now, vaccine developers have gotten away with it in a manner of speaking by constantly harping on the positives of vaccination and how the negatives are so negligible. — TheMadFool
You requested evidence for a causal relationship between vaccine hesitation and population harm. — Cheshire
It is a case where being wrong negatively effects others; made worse by distribution to others that might have otherwise decided correctly. — Cheshire
Regarding the article you cited,
"a higher percentage of breakthroughs may simply reflect that fully vaccinated people are a bigger chunk of the population," — frank
The degree of certainty of its safety does not make it more safe — Fooloso4
The millions of shots is evidence of safety and efficacy. That is not the same thing as saying this evidence alone is sufficient for the FDA to make its determination. Does this really need to be explained to you? — Fooloso4
Taking things out of context can change the meaning. — Fooloso4
We agree in principle on the generalized dynamic, but you require proof the covid vaccine is not an extraordinary case.'It' being the take up of the covid vaccine. Evidence would therefore have to apply to the covid vaccine. As I've said multiple times, I'm a staunch supporter of most vaccination programs. I think they save millions of lives and in most cases anti-vax campaigners are dangerous. — Isaac
I believe we have different definitions of what qualifies as blindly.That doesn't mean I'm just going to blindly throw my support behind every vaccine going. So to support your claim you need evidence from this vaccine, because our disagreement is entirely and only about this vaccine. — Isaac
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.