No one here is an immunologist. — Isaac

Some of us know more than some others about immunology, or climate, but when we speak we are not always listened to. And for this reason, there are no obvious reason for any competent poster to engage you on the matter of immunology here. For that to happen, you'd have to pay any serious attention first.

I for one haven't occupied the TPF bandwidths with countless arguments about immunology. TPF isn't a medical journal.

In any case, each member can come to his or her conclusion and we can all decide to take our medical advice from our medical doctor, or from Fauci, or from Trump, or from you or anyone else here for that matter. I know who I trust and who I don't.

Some of us know more than some others about immunology, or climate, but when we speak we are not always listened to. And for this reason, there are no obvious reason for any competent poster to engage you on the matter of immunology here. For that to happen, you'd have to pay any serious attention first. — Olivier5

Maybe, but how would anyone know (and trust) who those people were such as to ensure they paid sufficiently serious attention to them? I haven't read anyone declaring a professional or academic qualification in immunology.

I for one haven't occupied the TPF bandwidths with countless arguments about immunology. — Olivier5

Then what's...

I've already explained it to you. Bis repetitas: 1) variants are a big factor. This thing keeps mutating and one may develop an immunity for one variant one has been exposed to but not to another; this is why we are not all immune to the flue as that bug too constantly mutates. 2) the article was based on blood samples taken from 50 individuals, 40 of whom had had covid. Results from blood analysis show that: " 95% of the people [38 people out of 40 if my math is correct] had at least 3 out of 5 immune-system components that could recognize SARS-CoV-2 up to 8 months after infection." It says nothing about their actual in vivo immune response, and extrapolating from 38 people to billions would be a bit iffy and so they don't do it either. 3) the finding is limited to this 8 month period and says nothing about what happens later. — Olivier5

...an argument about?

each member can come to his or her conclusion and we can all decide to take our medical advice from our medical doctor, or from Fauci, or from Trump, or from you or anyone else here for that matter. I know who I trust and who I don't. — Olivier5

Of course. But that's not what you're arguing here. Your claim is that people here argue in bad faith and I'm one of them. That's the claim I'm asking you to defend. Nothing to do with where we get our medical advice from.

Should we engage in the “hard work” of thoroughly debunking each and every claim made by these people?
— Xtrix

No. As I've said dozens of times before. They don't meet the normal minimum standard of being experts in the appropriate field without discoverable conflicts of interest or histories of bias. — Isaac

They would disagree with you. It's as if you think you've stumbled upon just the right wording, or the magical principle upon which we can finally ground a criterion for truth.

Creationists, infamously, tout their credentials and often point to the "conflicts of interest and biases" of "evolutionists" (as they call them). They say that "evolutionists" are working from a framework or "model," and that they are working from a different one -- the "creation model."

Given this, do we just ignore them? Isn't it wrong to assume because others are ridiculous that this INDIVIDUAL making claims is also ridiculous?

What are the reasons that these individuals are saying such things?”
— Xtrix

And you'd have insight into this how? — Isaac

It's not insight -- they tell you outright. But aside from that, ask yourself the question: exactly what "insight" do you have for determining someone's "conflicts of interests or histories of bias"?

Apart from my views, what do you know about me that could possibly provide you with any data at all about my reasons? — Isaac

Your views are enough. As for your intentions or motives, of course I can't be 100% certain. I can make an educated guess -- as I can for creationists, and as you can for those with a "history of biases" or whatever criteria you want to use. Remember: everyone claims to be the "exception." Unlike those other people, you don't fit the mold and it's absolutely wrong of me to lump you in with anti-vaxxers or creationists or anyone like that.

It's the same objection I hear from Christian or Muslim people when I point out that they come from areas that are predominantly Christian or Muslim, hence their belief. They want to believe they've decide things on their own, that while it may be true of others it's not true of them, etc.

Hence the ridicule of your notion. You're saying that on no other grounds than that they disagree with you, you can somehow determine a person's motives. Do you seriously not see how utterly absurd and frankly messianic that sounds? — Isaac

But I haven't once said that. It's not simply that they "disagree with me." Nor can I ever say for certain what their intuitions or motives are -- what I care about is actions, decisions, and evidence. As I said before -- I think you, and many others I disagree with, are sincere people. I'm sure you think the same about many creationists or 9/11 truthers despite disagreeing with them.

But in the same way we shouldn't be shocked that those counties that voted for Trump are more likely to be unvaccinated, or that someone from India is more likely to be Hindu than Christian, or that someone who says the Bible is the inerrant and literal word of god believes the earth is 6,000 years old -- I don't think it's much of a stretch to say those who are pushing against mandates or who are "questioning" government or "critical" of vaccines are doing so largely because this issue has become politicized. Why? Because it's clear it has been politicized, for one thing -- plenty of data about that. Secondly, because vaccine mandates have been around for decades.

When something like vaccines and mandatory vaccination -- or any other phenomenon that's been around for decades -- suddenly becomes "controversial," we have to start asking "Why now?" We can engage with people who have questions and go through the arguments and debate the data and all of that as well, if we want to. But it should be fairly obvious something else is happening here. If you can't see that in this case, or feel it's an exception, or believe it's truly just good faith "skepticism," and not manufactured or motivated by political ideology, then perhaps we have to agree to disagree.

Xtrix You can find stuff here: https://www.gapminder.org/

This guy you've probably heard of: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDytm8jnpk — I like sushi

I asked for your economic claims -- I don't see the relevance of the first link, and certainly not for the second. If you're really getting your climate change information from Lomborg, you might as well go to Prager University.

an argument about? — Isaac

That's one post. Keep counting.

Your claim is that people here argue in bad faith and I'm one of them. That's the claim I'm asking you to defend. — Isaac

I have already. Not to your personal satisfaction of course but that would be impossible.

@Isaac, seems clear enough that you're coming in from a rather ideological angle (no, can't just shut down media :smile:). Pharma, for one, receives your blanket :fire: distrust (period), yet is good enough for others, going by your comments. The rest is then a matter of attempting to justify vaccine-denial, means to an end.

Meanwhile, there's a public crisis, where the pathogen isn't really bad, just bad enough, this time around, and doing the right thing generally is socially dependent.
So, now what? Do the right thing (like help stomping the pathogen down)? Cancel membership of society? Something else?

(There are scores of mad/ideological anti-vaxxeries out there, spreading and lapping up dis/mal/misinformation/bullshit; probably best to distance from those.)

Given this, do we just ignore them? Isn't it wrong to assume because others are ridiculous that this INDIVIDUAL making claims is also ridiculous? — Xtrix

Not wrong, no. It's about having reasons, not proving beyond doubt that those reasons are true.

If a 'climate scientist' is being paid by the oil industry, that's a reason to disregard his conclusions. If a holocaust denier consistently views ambiguous evidence in favour of the Nazis and against the Jews. that's a reason to disregard his conclusions. If a creationist geology professor is a life long fundamentalist Christian, that's a reason to disregard his theories about the age of the earth. They may not be affected by these conflicts and biases. I might be wrong to dismiss them. But I have good reason to.

In all these cases, the reasons precede the theories. You are doing the opposite. You're saying first that anyone whose theory is that vaccination should be restricted must hold that theory because of some bias or conflict of interest, then you go looking for what that might be. You're not first finding some bias or conflict of interest and then saying "well, we might want to take whatever they say with a pinch of salt", you're assuming there must be a bias, just because they're saying something you think is implausible.

ask yourself the question: exactly what "insight" do you have for determining someone's "conflicts of interests or histories of bias"? — Xtrix

Conflicts of interest are declared, usually at the bottom of the paper. Biases are an historical matter. If every paper favours one side in an ambiguous matter, that's bias. David Irving famously lost his libel case on exactly those grounds, sufficiently established for a court of law, it's not that nebulous at all and can be established. The problem I'm highlighting here is that if you establish nefarious motive from the argument's conclusion only, then you're just dogmatically dismissing anything you don't find plausible.

I don't think it's much of a stretch to say those who are pushing against mandates or who are "questioning" government or "critical" of vaccines are doing so largely because this issue has become politicized. Why? Because it's clear it has been politicized, for one thing -- plenty of data about that. Secondly, because vaccine mandates have been around for decades. — Xtrix

Why do you think politicisation only affects one side of the disagreement?

When something like vaccines and mandatory vaccination -- or any other phenomenon that's been around for decades -- suddenly becomes "controversial," we have to start asking "Why now?" — Xtrix

Because it's a new technology, a different economic climate, a different political climate and the pharmaceutical companies have more than a tenfold increase in lobbying power since childhood vaccinations were first mooted. But in any case, I'm opposed to mandatory childhood vaccination too, always have been. It's convenient to dismiss your opponents by finding some unlikeable group who share some of their conclusions. It's just cheap shot, not worthy of a serious discussion forum.

If you can't see that in this case, or feel it's an exception, or believe it's truly just good faith "skepticism," and not manufactured or motivated by political ideology, then perhaps we have to agree to disagree. — Xtrix

If the sum total of the evidence with which you dismiss a whole slew of experts is that "vaccinations have been around for a while" then yes, we'll have to agree to disagree. I need a substantially stronger reason to dismiss expert opinion than that.

If a 'climate scientist' is being paid by the oil industry, that's a reason to disregard his conclusions. If a holocaust denier consistently views ambiguous evidence in favour of the Nazis and against the Jews. that's a reason to disregard his conclusions. If a creationist geology professor is a life long fundamentalist Christian, that's a reason to disregard his theories about the age of the earth. They may not be affected by these conflicts and biases. I might be wrong to dismiss them. But I have good reason to. — Isaac

I think so too.

You're saying first that anyone whose theory is that vaccination should be restricted must hold that theory because of some bias or conflict of interest, then you go looking for what that might be. — Isaac

Someone who holds that holds a theory that the Grand Canyon was carved out by something other than glaciers doesn't necessarily have some bias or conflict of interest -- they could be doing so because that's where the evidence has led them. Ditto with natural selection -- for example, with the ideas of punctuated equilibrium (often cited by creationists, out of context). Is Stephen Jay Gould "biased"?

No, I wouldn't say so. I would look at what they have to say, check out what other experts think about the proposals and theories, etc.

If someone holds a theory that the Grand Canyon was carved out by the Genesis Flood, then we rightly dismiss them.

If someone gives a theory about vaccinations -- who is a layman -- during a time when the issue has been highly politicized, and vaccine mandates have been around for years, and who would otherwise just trust the opinions of medical experts...yeah, at that point I think we have good reason to simply say "This is coming from a place of x, not from an unbiased assessment of evidence."

Again, we'll probably have to just disagree about that. I do believe this is what you're doing and you're as unaware of it as a creationist looking at the Grand Canyon is.

You're not first finding some bias or conflict of interest and then saying "well, we might want to take whatever they say with a pinch of salt", you're assuming there must be a bias, just because they're saying something you think is implausible. — Isaac

No, I'm doing exactly the first part. I'm saying we should take you with a pinch of salt -- despite the fact that you could be the rare exception. But I've ALSO engaged with you many times on this issue, and so far I've seen a lot of smoke being blown. If all you're arguing for is a nuanced and careful approach to vaccines -- fine, we agree. Just say that. I find it more likely that you just like attempting to poke holes in what you consider "pro-vaccine dogma" -- and are doing so very poorly.

The problem I'm highlighting here is that if you establish nefarious motive from the argument's conclusion only, then you're just dogmatically dismissing anything you don't find plausible. — Isaac

So we'd be wrong to attribute any "nefarious motive" to the conclusion that the earth is 6,000 years old and the Grand Canyon was created by Noah's flood? Knowing nothing else about the person, of course -- just that conclusion alone. Is that wrong? No, I don't think so. I think the conclusion gives away the bias and the motive, to a degree.

I'm not saying your case is as cut and dry as creationists. If you told me, for example, that you've been protesting or arguing against the use of vaccine mandates for years, then that would separate you from most people arguing against mandates today -- although I still would think you're wrong.

Why do you think politicisation only affects one side of the disagreement? — Isaac

I don't. But in this case, I think it's being brought out by anti-vaxxers, not "pro-vaxxers." During the Scopes Monkey trial or the controversy about teaching "Intelligent Design" in schools, biologists and other experts had to come out and "debate" the issue, in the latter case in court. They were just effected by the polarization and politicization as well. Climate change has been politicized as well -- and many on the side of scientists don't know a thing about it, despite being what I would say is the "right side."

The reason I engage with anti-vaccine nonsense, and mostly ignore creationists and holocaust deniers and flat earthers, is because I do consider this a time when it matters. It's important. I've known of the anti-vax movement for years and don't engage with them. But this is a special case. So I'm part of the conversation as well. But I feel it's only honest if I say what I really feel about it -- that it's on par with these other "debates" as well.

I do tend to "align" with science and medicine, yes. I align with the consensus of biologists that we evolved. I align with epidemiologist and virologists and doctors that vaccinations are safe and effective and that people should get them. I align with the vast number of historians that talk about the holocaust. If this is me being "political," fine. Consider my political party that of science. True, it can sometimes seem as dogmatic as religion. But it's the best we have. These conflicts are all, ultimately, about what we want to believe running up against facts and evidence and expertise and consensus -- and science.

I choose the latter.

When something like vaccines and mandatory vaccination -- or any other phenomenon that's been around for decades -- suddenly becomes "controversial," we have to start asking "Why now?"
— Xtrix

Because it's a new technology, a different economic climate, a different political climate and the pharmaceutical companies have more than a tenfold increase in lobbying power since childhood vaccinations were first mooted. — Isaac

It's really not new technology. But even if it were, this excuse can be used at any time. The polio vaccine was "new" technology, too, after all.

A different economic and political climate is like saying we're in a certain point in history. No kidding. compared to what?

Big Pharma has lobbying power for all tax breaks, subsidies, etc. That has nothing to do with whether aspirin is safe and effective. There are instances where perhaps they rush things and sneak things by the FDA, that eventually need to be pulled from the shelves. If you think the COVID vaccines -- the most widely watched in world history -- are in this camp, you're just off in space.

But anyway -- I figured you'd have some reason to believe it's "different" this time. You say you're against and always have been against mandatory school vaccinations. That pretty much sums it up for me.

I need a substantially stronger reason to dismiss expert opinion than that. — Isaac

Expert opinion is that vaccines are safe, effective, and slow the spread of the virus. I'll repeat that over and over again. Thus, mandates are necessary if people aren't voluntarily getting them. You have no right to harm others. Stay home from school or quit your job.

If it were up to you and your ilk, we would have never eradicated the diseases we have. This is why the anti-vaxxer movement is so dangerous. All in the name of "freedom," of course.

It would do us all well to ask: Where did this anti-vax bullshit come from? The answer is that there was a paper published in 1998 that apparently linked autism with vaccines. That was later debunked. But the hysteria stuck around. Enter social media, and here we are today.

But of course it's "different" this time -- we're not anti-vaxxers. Likewise, we're not conspiracy theories or climate deniers -- we just don't want to do anything about climate change.

Your claim is that people here argue in bad faith and I'm one of them. That's the claim I'm asking you to defend. — Isaac


I have already. — Olivier5

By citing one post. Keep counting.

So, now what? Do the right thing (like help stomping the pathogen down)? — jorndoe

Yes. That one. But why would I do what you think is the right thing? Would you do what I think is the right thing?

(There are scores of mad/ideological anti-vaxxeries out there, spreading and lapping up dis/mal/misinformation/bullshit; probably best to distance from those.) — jorndoe

Weren't we just talking about stepping up and doing the right thing? Now you think I should be more concerned about my public image?

I don't want to make too big a fuss about it, given that you and I agree on what to do next, by and large. So we agree on what's important.

The rest, your bad faith, your odd obsession about perpetual movement... oh sorry, it was about vaccines, right? It doesn't matter.

If someone gives a theory about vaccinations -- who is a layman -- during a time when the issue has been highly politicized, and vaccine mandates have been around for years, and who would otherwise just trust the opinions of medical experts...yeah, at that point I think we have good reason to simply say "This is coming from a place of x, not from an unbiased assessment of evidence." — Xtrix

Yep. I agree with you on that one.

No, I'm doing exactly the first part. I'm saying we should take you with a pinch of salt -- despite the fact that you could be the rare exception. — Xtrix

How have you done the first part? How have you determined the presence of a conflict of interest or history of bias with me, you've not read any of my work.

If all you're arguing for is a nuanced and careful approach to vaccines -- fine, we agree. — Xtrix

No we don't. Mandating vaccines is not nuanced. Not even every medical expert agrees with it.

So we'd be wrong to attribute any "nefarious motive" to the conclusion that the earth is 6,000 years old and the Grand Canyon was created by Noah's flood? — Xtrix

No, but those matters are well established, so grand claims need grand evidence. The claim that we didn't ought to mandate vaccines or that not everyone needs vaccinating is not remotely grand, it's quite an ordinary position, even if an unpopular one. It's nothing like invoking supernatural beings to create geographical features. It's just daft to suggest it is.

It's really not new technology. — Xtrix

mRNA vaccines are a new type of vaccine to protect against infectious diseases. — https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/different-vaccines/mrna.html

even if it were, this excuse can be used at any time. The polio vaccine was "new" technology, too, after all. — Xtrix

Yes. And the same would be true then.

Expert opinion is that vaccines are safe, effective, and slow the spread of the virus. — Xtrix

Yep. And we've already agreed on that. It's not the issue here. The question here is whether that fact is sufficient justification for mandates, whether it's sufficient justification for administering vaccines to low risk groups, whether it's sufficient justification for focussing on vaccination to the exclusion of other health policies...

The only solution to our ecological woes will be to transition to a non-growth, even a shrinking, economy.
— Janus

I asked how this is viable. The reply was not given (avoided). — I like sushi

Politically, it will probably not be viable before a long time, although I wish to think frugality as a way of life is making progress in 'western' cultures.

I asked how this is viable. The reply was not given (avoided). — I like sushi

I don't know how it is viable, but I do know continued growth is not. Hopefully a solution will present itself.

When it comes to economics and resources the key factor regarding the ecology is to provide as many people as possible with cheap energy so they can more easily get out of poverty. The point being that burning more coal and gas in the short term is actually the best way to protect the ecology of the planet. — I like sushi

Burning more coal and gas is indeed the most likely near future scenario. Transition to green technologies cannot be achieved overnight. And there is probably a lot of fudging of the figures in claims to have achieved "net zero emissions". What we will be doing by burning more coal and gas is not protecting the ecology of the planet, quite the opposite, we will be attempting to protecting our prosperity, comfort and convenience; our current lifestyle to which we feel entitled, and we will be attempting to bring billions of others up to our level of prosperity, all to the detriment of the ecology of the planet and our long-term well-being.

What will happen is what will happen, unfortunately; there is no halting the juggernaut. The idea that we are in control of our destinies is absurd. What we should be doing is putting all our energy into trying to use less resources individually, to transition to non-growth economies, to genuinely non-carbon polluting energy technologies; but I believe that in order to do that we would need to accept a fairly reduced level of prosperity, comfort and convenience. Do we have the collective will? Only time will tell..

No we don't. Mandating vaccines is not nuanced. Not even every medical expert agrees with it. — Isaac

There are allowed exceptions, and not every company is handling it the same way. Some allow for regular testing, etc. That's what I mean by nuanced. Remember these mandates are coming after months of allowing it be voluntary. There were too many holdouts, for mostly irrational reasons, and so now it's time for mandates. Seems reasonable to me. Quit your job and keep your kid out of school if you can't bring yourself to take a simple jab in the arm.

The fault is ultimately on social media, the ambiguous approach of Donald Trump and Republicans, and their media, and the 20+ year growth of the anti-vax movement.

The claim that we didn't ought to mandate vaccines or that not everyone needs vaccinating is not remotely grand, it's quite an ordinary position, even if an unpopular one. — Isaac

Belief in UFOs and 9/11 as an "inside job" are also "quite ordinary" positions.

Vaccines, their safety and efficacy -- as well as vaccine mandates -- have all been well established and around for decades. There does indeed require "grand evidence" to justify the sudden wave of resistance. No justification has been given beyond conspiracy theories and misunderstanding data.

It's really not new technology.
— Xtrix

mRNA vaccines are a new type of vaccine to protect against infectious diseases.
— https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/different-vaccines/mrna.html — Isaac

From same source: "Researchers have been studying and working with mRNA vaccines for decades."

Expert opinion is that vaccines are safe, effective, and slow the spread of the virus.
— Xtrix

Yep. And we've already agreed on that. — Isaac

So why mention "newness" if you agree they're safe and effective?

The question here is whether that fact is sufficient justification for mandates, whether it's sufficient justification for administering vaccines to low risk groups, whether it's sufficient justification for focussing on vaccination to the exclusion of other health policies... — Isaac

To the first question, I think the jury is in: yes, it is sufficient to mandate safe, effective vaccines during a pandemic, that protect others, slow the spread, and get our lives and economy back on track after 9 months of refusal from a significant portion of the population.

Low risk groups -- yes, I'm also low risk. It's not about *me*. Whether you're low risk or not, you can still contract and spread the virus.

I think there should be other health policies as well -- hand washing, mask wearing, social distancing, frequent testing, etc. To say nothing about the general health of our population -- their diets, the lack of exercise, etc. Vaccines should be a major part of an overall project.

But don't take my word for it. Take it up with the medical establishment and present them your theories.

But Republicans have grown increasingly hostile to the notion of mandatory vaccines — despite vaccine mandates existing in the background in parts of the United States since the 19th century — and have parlayed the fight against COVID-19 into a political battle, with vaccine mandates as the latest frontier in the great American defense of freedom and liberty.

https://www.npr.org/2021/10/17/1046598351/the-political-fight-over-vaccine-mandates-deepens-despite-their-effectiveness

https://www.gapminder.org/tools/#$model$markers$bubble$encoding$y$data$concept=children_per_woman_total_fertility&space@=country&=time;;&scale$domain:null&zoomed:null&type:null;;;;;;&chart-type=bubbles&url=v1

If you're really getting your climate change information from Lomborg, you might as well go to Prager University. — Xtrix

By that I assume you mean you didn’t listen to what he says, ignored the data he presented and assume he’s a crackpot?

Note: He agrees with the data about how to deal with climate change NOT the politics. Sounds fine to me.

Burning more coal and gas is indeed the most likely near future scenario. Transition to green technologies cannot be achieved overnight. — Janus

I'm not saying these things are not worth investing in but I agree with the analysis of many (including Lomborg) when it comes to finding better solutions. The issue is the innovation comes from those that can afford to pay for it and those people are often viewed with contempt by middling income populations.

The cheaper the fuel the quicker the poor can benefit (as energy is huge issue). China will shift to more to nuclear power and hopefully make some innovations in this area that make it more affordable for other countries too.

If you look at the link I gave (gapminder) you can play around with some of the stats to see how some trends relate to each other. The singular most obvious one is that when GDP goes up so does healthcare and education, whilst population growth declines. If the primary issue is the number of people in your mind then getting people out of poverty is the way to do it (the data we have on this is pretty solid).

Note: There are numerous qualified people who openly state that a lot of the media coverage around this subject is hyperbolic but NONE of them deny the problem exists. The backlash they get is usually along the lines of 'pseudoscience' but generally they are just ignored because it doesn't suit the story some want to portray. Solar has made strides mainly thanks to multimillionaires (not government funding) but even they are quite aware (because it is their business) that some renewable avenues are nowhere near enough atm. Elon Musk knows that solar and wind power are not particularly useful in their current or near-future states.

There are some projects ongoing that could solve the energy issue (note: the term 'private'):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eoZ9wGtruEU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TceN_hOWhMY

In reality these are long term solutions. The current issue is making more efficient (effectively cleaner and more affordable) nuclear power stations and more efficient coal and gas power stations.

The reality is also that these things are being looked into and invested in. The reality is also that the media and political circles are more focused on negative news (as always) because just like those investing in the areas mentioned they are out to serve their own purposes. Sadly their purpose is to sell 'ideas' and 'stories' that satisfy the consumer (and the consumer wants drama and crisis rather than innovation and optimism).

Humans are quite strange creatures. There is a weird balance between our inability to think on larger scales (underestimation when it comes to exponential growth), inbuilt 'bias' (we adjust our opinions that skew to our beliefs rather than those that don't) and the ability to attempt the so-called 'impossible' either out of stupidity or overambition (and break the rules of what is and isn't considered 'impossible').

We cannot eradicate our 'flaws' but we can reimagine them and turn them into tools to guide us. People in severe poverty are screwed because they cannot afford to spend their time with any concerns other than what is directly effecting them from moment to moment and because they likely lack a decent education.

Studies in Kerala showed a lot of promise in the effects of education young women. If we wish to reduce population growth then educating young women is the most effective way to do this. Of course there are still what some would consider unforeseen problems that arise from such rapid societal shifts:

https://opendocs.ids.ac.uk/opendocs/bitstream/handle/20.500.12413/3053/wp341.pdf?sequence=1

I happen to be in the privileged position to have the time and energy to research numerous topics that interest me. I know most people don't and this is an issue of managing information - the economics of information (which is why this thread is interesting).

The most mind blowing thing to occur in our life times is not the computer or the internet. It is CRISPR ... it's not just that this technology has endless potential it is that it is incredibly cheap to boot! The answers to the climate problem will (in my mind) undoubtedly be littered with uses of CRISPR technology (be this is livestock alterations or through human alteration). With such world changing technologies comes a whole new swathe of problems and conjectures too.

Climate change doesn't really worry much tbh. Not that I think it is a trivial matter either.

But in any case, I'm opposed to mandatory childhood vaccination too, always have been. — Isaac

Right, ideology.

I need a substantially stronger reason to dismiss expert opinion than that. — Isaac

Select opinions. Means to an ideological end.

Elon Musk knows that solar and wind power are not particularly useful in their current or near-future states. — I like sushi

Then why is he promoting battery-powered cars? If batteries are charged using fossil fuel derived energy they would be, due to efficiency losses at every stage, less green that fossil-fuel powered cars.

Also, nuclear energy is arguable undesirable as it is dangerous on account of the more enriched uranium you have the more potential there is for more nuclear weapons, and waste disposal is an
unsolved issue.

Also decline in reproduction rates due to increased prosperity will arguably be too little too late, even if the prediction panned out, which it may not In different cultures, places and circumstances.

I think the most likely scenario is that we will continue to use fossil fuels, and if it is viable, wind and solar along with perhaps hydrogen will gradually replace their use. What we should be doing is scrapping all privately owned cars that are not needed for practical purposes (trades, transport, agriculture etc), using public transport and electric powered bicycles, turning all the lights out at night, and adopting any measure we can, fuck the inconvenience, to reduce fossil fuel use; but I won't hold my breath expecting it to happen.

We may be lucky enough that there will be some super viable technological breakthrough in either cheap energy production or carbon sequestration, but we would be fools to depend on it.

You seem to have bought into the fantasy of scientism, but you're by no means unique in that. I don't share your optimism, but then I also think that, if there is to be any solution, it will have to come from science, because very few will be willing to downscale their lifestyles.

the point we now find ourselves, where one's conclusions are all that matter, not the diligence with which one has arrived at them — Isaac

Here's an example that horrified me, a few months ago I think it was.

The US Census Bureau had finally released some results, late. There had been a lot of concern about the potential of (another) minority undercount, because of the pandemic, funding and operational issues, various sorts of political interference in the process like the public debate over the citizenship question, and so on. The results showed a perfectly predictable decline in the "non-Hispanic white" percentage of the total population, in line with all other recent results.

The day these numbers were released, I heard a discussion on the radio in which a 'journalist' was asked for her reaction to the news and she said, "I was surprised that the census was so accurate." "Accurate" was her word. "Accurate."

I have a lot of respect for the statisticians at the US Census Bureau. It's my understanding that enormous amounts of social science and political analysis relies directly or indirectly on their products. As near as I can tell, their work is the gold standard. They were months late, needing extensions, to produce their report, and this 'journalist' glanced at a top-line summary, saw that it included the numbers she wanted to see, and immediately pronounced it "accurate".

I don't know how to react to that except with contempt and disgust.

Then why is he promoting battery-powered cars? If batteries are charged using fossil fuel derived energy they would be, due to efficiency losses at every stage, less green that fossil-fuel powered cars.

Also, nuclear energy is arguable undesirable as it is dangerous on account of the more enriched uranium you have the more potential there is for more nuclear weapons, and waste disposal is an
unsolved issue.

Also decline in reproduction rates due to increased prosperity will arguably be too little too late, even if the prediction panned out, which it may not In different cultures, places and circumstances. — Janus

He invests in everything I mentioned because he is looking at both short term and long term action as far as I can tell. Some will pay off more than others. The primary point I was making was that it is nonsensical to invest ALL money in an area that doesn't look to make any drastic changes unless it helps both long term and short term. Hence there needs to be, and actually is, a careful gamble on what currently help[s and what could help in the future.

Elon Musk main contribution is going to Mars and batteries. His view, last I heard, was to harness solar power by way of storing the power effectively. Investment in solar tech has made it more affordable for many (in fact I can see them lookin gout of my window right now). The reason people buy them is because it saves them money not because it saves the environment (trust me people in the country I reside are really not all that interested in the effects of global warming even though it has been effecting the farming industry due to salt water inundating fields).

Nuclear power is undoubtedly the best short term solution BUT the issue is that is it too costly. It is clean energy and has no carbon emissions (which we know is a major cause of current global warming trends). Luckily other countries are investing in creating the next generation nuclear power plants because they are concerned enough to realise that switching from coal power stations is needed (solar and wind are nowhere near replacing coal power). Gas is far better than coal too so more efficient gas power makes sense and it's cost coming down will help poor people out and reduce population growth. Of course I'm drastically oversimplifying this but it is no more oversimplified that stating that reducing carbon emissions will help lower the rate of global warming. The complexity comes with weighing and balancing what can be done and what is most cost effective (the later cannot be ignored!).

Too little too late? We're not all going to die out. We are a species that is highly adjustable and at every point in our history the doom and gloom has not turned out to be such a problem when innovation helps staves off the doomsday scenarios repeatedly forecast. If you call this 'scientism' and can only ask where you draw the line. I'm not denying there are problems but I am denying there is any one fix to these issues. As for CRIPSR you'll see the effects and controversy start to rise over the next decade or two.

What we should be doing is scrapping all privately owned cars that are not needed for practical purposes (trades, transport, agriculture etc), using public transport and electric powered bicycles, turning all the lights out at night, and adopting any measure we can, fuck the inconvenience, to reduce fossil fuel use; but I won't hold my breath expecting it to happen. — Janus

I don't wish to sound patronising here but I need to highlight this. This is the typical attitude of western living. In the parts of the world that matter people cannot CHOOSE between private and public transportation because they reside in countries that are too poor to accommodate this option.

In terms of in the west this is more viable but people won't do it so you need to provide private and cleaner transportation methods. For some (very few in global terms) it is an 'inconvenience' whereas elsewhere such things are a necessity of mere survival.

So yes, coal replaced in more economically developed countries sooner rather than later (yet no nuclear power stations on the horizon in terms of innovation or construction), whilst the other growing economies are responding by investing in nuclear power and using cheaper methods of energy extraction. To be fair Fracking has made a drastic reduction in gas costs and helped lessen the cost of living for many - again though hyperbolic media coverage and do-gooders have not promoted this venture just like they don't promote nuclear power (which is WAY better than solar and wind in term of energy production and could be much better with some innovation).

We may be lucky enough that there will be some super viable technological breakthrough in either cheap energy production or carbon sequestration, but we would be fools to depend on it. — Janus

It won't be 'luck'. Governments, and private developers, are actively investing in these areas (in the west it is more down to private ventures it seems) so they will happen. In some cases massive amounts of resources will be used with no real pay off. In other cases it will pay off. It will pay off for nuclear power I reckon because the stations current designs are pretty bad (the next generation will improve matters).

You seem to have bought into the fantasy of scientism, but you're by no means unique in that. I don't share your optimism, but then I also think that, if there is to be any solution, it will have to come from science, because very few will be willing to downscale their lifestyles. — Janus

I live by the code 'expect the worse and hope for the best'. I'm fairly aware of my own stupidity and other people's. I don't need to look at the negative aspects of life and the future because I expect them to happen all the time. I'm more fascinated by things than concerned about my or anyone else's so-called mortality.

I think I am correct in stating that better communication and cooperation across the board is something we should probably attend to more is reasonable enough. Beyond that I'm not in much of a position to say what should be done and only express what can be done and consider - with as little bias as possible - what the benefits and detriment of each options are and how they effect each other and how seemingly extrinsic factors might get tangled up in this too.

Hence, poverty is a big issue when it comes to climate change as it effects health, education, economy (basically energy production and use), population and the political mood. These are all fractured into different areas around the globe and reasonable and measured communication could do a lot to reduce hyperbole and get to the heart of what works rather than what seems like a good idea but is actually not tenable at the moment. That is why I don't see halting economic growth as anything like a viable plan in the near future (within this century) as it would effectively pin a large proportion of the Earth's human population in poverty for 'eternity'. I'm sure there are ideas about how it could work and reduce poverty and I'm all ears to hearing about that if you have any articles/ideas on this subject to share.

Do we not have an epistemic responsibility in life? If our actions have ripple effects, and our actions are largely an outgrowth of our beliefs, then isn't it irresponsible to believe in things that lead to harmful actions? Shouldn't we be more careful about what we believe in? — Xtrix

Once you come to understand that much or most of what people believe is a matter of psychology, which is to say, that beliefs, in general, are more influenced by things other than epistemology. Even people who are well trained in epistemology are quite susceptible to the power of psychological influences on their beliefs (their politics, their religious views, their friends, their family, the influence of their peers, etc.).

So, my point is that the subject of beliefs is much more complicated than you realize, including your own beliefs. Many philosophers can't even agree on what's good epistemology. If they can't agree, then how's the ordinary person trying to live their lives going to have any epistemic responsibility that's coherent. Most people have just enough understanding to live their lives and that's about it.

There were too many holdouts, for mostly irrational reasons, and so now it's time for mandates. Seems reasonable to me. — Xtrix

To the first question, I think the jury is in: yes, it is sufficient to mandate safe, effective vaccines during a pandemic, that protect others, slow the spread, and get our lives and economy back on track after 9 months of refusal from a significant portion of the population.

Low risk groups -- yes, I'm also low risk. It's not about *me*. Whether you're low risk or not, you can still contract and spread the virus.

I think there should be other health policies as well — Xtrix

This is not a Gallup poll. I don't think anyone on this site (and I suspect anyone within a twenty mile radius of you) is in any doubt as to what you think. The question is whether your assumption about the motives of anyone who doesn't think what you think is justified.

Take it up with the medical establishment and present them your theories. — Xtrix

They're not my theories and I don't need to present them to the medical establishment. There are already hundreds of experts in the medical establishment who believe them - that's who I've been citing.

If you just want to engage in the same mud-slinging Olivier started then I'm not interested. If you think I've proposed a theory that is not supported by experts in the medical establishment then quote me and I can provide the relevant support.

Vaccines, their safety and efficacy -- as well as vaccine mandates -- have all been well established and around for decades. There does indeed require "grand evidence" to justify the sudden wave of resistance. — Xtrix

You do realise that the UK has never had childhood vaccine mandates? Are you seriously suggesting that the whole of UK public health policy is akin to belief in UFOs or 9/11 'truthing', requiring some 'grand evidence' it currently lacks?

The official UK Government Position is

Medical and ethical opinion is divided on the introduction of immunisation policies that involve some degree of coercion (such as fines)...The effectiveness of mandatory vaccination policies is not clear, partly because attitudes to immunisation vary between countries and there can be several factors contributing to declining or poor immunisation coverage. — UK Vaccine Policy Briefing

In fact the UK has never had mandatory vaccines without 'objector' clauses.

In the Lancet...

getting rid of non-medical exemptions altogether and making mandatory vaccination truly compulsory risks substantial public backlash and could be counterproductive to the ultimate objective of reaching and sustaining high rates of immunisation coverage and disease control. — https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(15)00156-5/fulltext

From the BMJ regarding healthcare professionals...

Under this analysis, mandating COVID-19 vaccination for HCP would not be ethically permissible insofar as the less coercive measure of providing proper PPE and other protections to HCP has not been fulfilled. — Ethical Issues in Mandatory COVID-19 Vaccination of Healthcare Personnel - BMJ Global

Is your argument that the health services in several major countries, the Lancet and the BMJ are touting a theory which is on a par with UFOs?

From same source: "Researchers have been studying and working with mRNA vaccines for decades." — Xtrix

Yep. As I said before...

Of possible interest...

https://www.statnews.com/2020/11/10/the-story-of-mrna-how-a-once-dismissed-idea-became-a-leading-technology-in-the-covid-vaccine-race/

The problem, she knew, was that synthetic RNA was notoriously vulnerable to the body’s natural defenses, meaning it would likely be destroyed before reaching its target cells. And, worse, the resulting biological havoc might stir up an immune response that could make the therapy a health risk for some patients.

behind the scenes the company’s scientists were running into a familiar problem. In animal studies, the ideal dose of their leading mRNA therapy was triggering dangerous immune reactions — the kind for which Karikó had improvised a major workaround under some conditions — but a lower dose had proved too weak to show any benefits.


mRNA is a tricky technology. Several major pharmaceutical companies have tried and abandoned the idea, struggling to get mRNA into cells without triggering nasty side effects.

The indefinite delay on the Crigler-Najjar project signals persistent and troubling safety concerns for any mRNA treatment that needs to be delivered in multiple doses — https://www.statnews.com/2017/01/10/moderna-trouble-mrna/


The technology is so old because no one could get it to work without triggering nasty immune responses. The exact type of response some experts are concerned about now, particularly with multiple booster doses. — Isaac

Scientists have been "studying and working with mRNA vaccines for decades" because they couldn't get the damn thing to work without nasty side effects. That they now can is new technology.

So why mention "newness" if you agree they're safe and effective? — Xtrix

Come on! It's you that keeps insisting that the word 'safe' doesn't mean 'without risk'.

Seems like you've just fallen back on your characteristic confusion of 'things you think' and 'things which are actually the case'. I can draw a diagram if you like...

Too little too late? We're not all going to die out. We are a species that is highly adjustable and at every point in our history the doom and gloom has not turned out to be such a problem when innovation helps staves off the doomsday scenarios repeatedly forecast. — I like sushi

This is so reassuring!

Not. Past a certain level of climatic stress, there will be a collapse of society in many places, and research will collapse too.

To the first question, I think the jury is in: yes, it is sufficient to mandate safe, effective vaccines during a pandemic, that protect others, slow the spread, and get our lives and economy back on track after 9 months of refusal from a significant portion of the population. — Xtrix

Yes to that.

Right, ideology. — jorndoe

Select opinions. Means to an ideological end. — jorndoe

So are we all ideologically driven. Or is it just conclusions opposed to yours?

:flower: