My point was that my position does not correlate with my social identity — Hanover

I believe it does. You're just confusing social identity with political affiliation. They're not the same thing.

You're doing some torturous disservice to the phrase "lifestyle choice" if you're now using it to describe an adherence to evidence based science. — Hanover

How so? Is rejection of societal norms not a lifestyle choice? Beatniks, anarchists, Protestants...all seem to be lifestyle choices. Rejecting the authority of the state, the church, the establishment, 'da man'...are all lifestyle choices, but rejecting the authority of medical sciences is not? Why not?

But sure, if you mean some choose to be irrational and some not — Hanover

What's a 'rational' decision about who to trust? What's the logical algorithm we put in place here, whereby we can say "you ought to trust X, it's the rational thing to do". Or are you seriously suggesting that people have no grounds at all to not trust governments, government agencies and the pharmaceutical industry?

People not getting vaccines puts us on the brink of another shut down and another requirement to wear masks. — Hanover

Again, you'd need to present some evidence for this, I've not seen any.

Sure, if 95 people are needed to put out a raging fire and there are 100 in the room, you can sit it out and wait for everyone else to throw water on it and claim you're just as good as all those who helped out. — Hanover

That's not what's happening here at all. The fire actually needs 95 people to throw water on it, but 5 people don't agree, they think throwing water on it will make it worse. That's OK because only 95 people need to throw water on it. Public policy doesn't need to do anything to compel those 5 to act against their sincere beliefs, moralising flag waivers don't need to either.

What goes wrong here is that the situation is changing rapidly as new data gets analysed. There's been genuine uncertainty among the vaccine experts about who should and should not have the vaccine. There's still disagreement about the under 12 age group, there's disagreement about intervals, about boosters... the one thing that makes it difficult to enact public policy in that environment is not the handful of malcontents who aren't going to follow anyway (we factored them in from the start, they're a known quantity) it's people treating interim guidance as if it were the 11th commandment. It makes changes much harder to implement and sets up strongly polarized groups which are then hard to reach out to even if they might otherwise have been responsive to new developments.

We all have ultimately a right to defend ourselves against stupidity. — tim wood

Not usually, no. Usually stupidity is a mob rules kind of thing. And mobs are fairly easily led, provided you use the right tool. Fear is the best tool. As fear increases, rational thought decreases, and people are more easily led. We have fear by the truck load now, every t.v, every radio, and every newspaper is just spewing it all over. The internet is awash with it. Currently the touted solution to the fear, that which will save us all, is the vaccine. And woe unto any that dareth counter that claim. They are the heathen, the non-believer, to be vilified and reviled at every opportunity. Wait a year or two, then the non-believer will be placed into camps via the train load by the enlightened mob.

There isn't much chance to defend oneself against that level of stupid. But everybody has to die sometime eh, so no worries. It'll all end the same way eventually.

Hey all, I know everyone enjoys the friendly bashing, but please try to answer this question seriously --

Firstly, imagine a fixed number of viral particles floating around in a given environment/room. Further imagine a 'masked' vulnerable un-vaccinated elderly lady (who was too vulnerable to receive the vaccine) is within this room. I think we all agree that this poor lady is at great risk here in this environment. So now imagine that an 'unmasked' healthy (w/ strong immune system) vaccinated young man walks into the same room as this poor lady. What happens now, is this lady now "more safe" or "less safe"?

A. She is definitely less safe -- because people who don't wear masks are highly likely to shed viral particles back into the environment, creating a greater viral load (and risk) to this poor lady.

B. She is potentially less safe -- because we don't know if this young man is a shedder or not.

C. She is twice as safe -- because the more people that share the same viral load within a given environment, the lower the proportional risk is to any individual within that environment.

D. She is more than twice as safe -- because this young man is maskless he is breathing in these viral particles, thereby reducing the total number of viral particles within the room. The longer he stays, the less contaminated the room, and the safer the lady becomes.

E. Both C & D



I would like to see where everybody stands on this. My vote is obviously E, ...but what say you?

the more people that share the same viral load within a given environment, the lower the proportional risk is to any individual within that environment. — Roger Gregoire

this young man is maskless he is breathing in these viral particles, thereby reducing the total number of viral particles within the room. The longer he stays, the less contaminated the room, and the safer the lady becomes. — Roger Gregoire

Both show the same fundamental misunderstanding of his viruses work which you were told the last time you posted this crap.

The viruses in the environment are ephemeral and so of trivial importance in long term public health policy. Viruses multiply rapidly in people. So the only population we're remotely concerned about in your scenario is that inside the woman and inside the man. The population outside either is tiny by comparison and will all become inactive soon anyway.

So the woman is at greater risk because the unmasked man has exposed her to his population in addition to that which is in the environment. The amount he removes from this environmental population is trivially small compared to the amount he sheds.

Viruses multiply rapidly in people. — Isaac

Isaac, does this include healthy people with strong immune systems that have been vaccinated???

From what I've read, the amount of viral replication within the body is dependent on one's immune system. In other words, those with weak immune systems will replicate more than one with a marginal immune system, and those with strong healthy immune systems will have little to no replication.

Isaac, does this include healthy people with strong immune systems that have been vaccinated — Roger Gregoire

Yes.

From what I've read, the amount of viral replication within the body is dependent on one's immune system. In other words, those with weak immune systems will replicate more than one with a marginal immune system, and those with strong healthy immune systems will have little to no replication. — Roger Gregoire

Correct. All of which are still much much larger than the quantities they remove from any environment (which, don't forget, were going to become inactivated anyway within hours).

Isaac, so are you saying that the lady would be 'safer' if she were all alone (socially isolated/distanced), within this contaminated room?

Isaac, so are you saying that the lady would be 'safer' if she were all alone (socially isolated/distanced), within this contaminated room? — Roger Gregoire

That's correct, yes. The numbers of virus particles in that room is smaller than the population in the vast majority of even asymptomatic carriers and, more importantly, they'll all be inactivated within a few hours anyway. The main risk to the woman in your scenario is if someone continually replenishes the environmental population from their own.

So in general (disregarding this particular room example), do you believe that surrounding a vulnerable person with immune (vaccinated) people makes it 'more safe' or 'less safe' to this vulnerable person?

Less safe, obviously. The main source of viruses for the vulnerable person is other people. If there are no other people around her the viruses in the environment will rapidly be inactivated and she'll be completely safe from infection.

To be abundantly clear -

Being isolated is best, within a few hours they'll be no more viruses at all for you to pick up

Being surrounded by immune people is second best as they'll be replenishing the surrounding air and surfaces, but not by much.

Being surrounded by asymptomatic people is next best as asymptomatic people shed fewer viruses.

Being surrounded by symptomatic people is worst as they will be replenishing the environmental population, possibly even faster than it is being inactivated.

Removal of virus particles from the environment via breathing them in is completely irrelevant. The rate at which a person breathes in viruses and then inactives them with their own immune system is considerably slower than the rate at which they're inactivated anyway by UV and dehydration.

So you don't believe in "herd immunity"? ...in other words, so you don't believe there is protective effect to the vulnerable by integrating immune people within the herd?

So you don't believe in "herd immunity"? ...in other words, so you don't believe there is protective effect to the vulnerable by integrating immune people within the herd? — Roger Gregoire

I just said, being surrounded by immune people is better than being surrounded by non-immune people. Are you having trouble reading?

And also - 'herd immunity' isn't "protective effect to the vulnerable by integrating immune people within the herd" it is explained here https://vk.ovg.ox.ac.uk/vk/herd-immunity . It's about reducing the wider population of the virus by limiting it's ability to reach new hosts before it's current host kills the population in their own body.

So you don't believe in "herd immunity"? ...in other words, so you don't believe there is protective effect to the vulnerable by integrating immune people within the herd? — RJG

I just said, being surrounded by immune people is better than being surrounded by non-immune people. Are you having trouble reading? — Isaac

That wasn't my question. My question was not about immune versus non-immune, for that's a no brainer (we all agree immune is safer than not immune).

Is being surrounded by immune people (rather than no people) safer tor the vulnerable person? — Roger Gregoire

No, of course not. Surrounded by immune people the person's environment is being replenished with live viruses (albeit at a slow rate), surrounded by no one their environment will be devoid of live viruses within a matter of hours.

No, of course not. Surrounded by immune people the person's environment is being replenished with live viruses (albeit at a slow rate), surrounded by no one their environment will be devoid of live viruses within a matter of hours. — Isaac

So then you believe immune people provide no protective effect to the (vulnerable within the) herd?

So then you believe immune people provide no protective effect to the herd? — Roger Gregoire

No, they just don't provide better protection than spreading everybody out six foot apart, which would be far and away the quickest way of killing the virus population off.

Okay, although I absolutely disagree with your interesting viewpoint, I thank you for clearing up my understanding of your view. Thanks again, take care.

Usually stupidity is a mob rules kind of thing — Book273

Yes. The most flagrant sign of stupidity is people silencing all those who disagree leading to echo chambers. Both can be found in COVID conspiracy theory communities.

Fear is the best tool. As fear increases, rational thought decreases, and people are more easily led — Book273

Who's more scared, someone who believes that there is a pandemic and that it can be stopped or someone who believes that there is a massive conspiracy by the elite ? Which threat is the hardest to stop ? An important component of fear is the feeling of powerlessness.

Also, emotions evolved for a reason. They often point to a problem to solve. Granted, accepting someone else's solution without thinking is bad, but pretending there's no problem at all is bad too.

The most flagrant sign of stupidity is people silencing all those who disagree leading to echo chambers. Both can be found in COVID conspiracy theory communities. — Hello Human

This expression is too often misused. 'Silencing' would mean the we don't get to hear from them. Many groups have had the dissemination of their views restricted during this pandemic, but few have been successfully 'silenced'.

What worries me considerably more than the issue of whether nutjobs are allowed to post on corporate hosted vanity projects, is the restrictions on scientific research. Here we'll run into actual silence, as in we'll never hear, by any source, that which might otherwise have been known.

Things like

Covid-19: Sweden vows greater protection for academics as researcher quits after aggressive social media attack

and...

a group of academics described the “hazards” experienced by vaccine researchers, including being ostracised by peers for challenging the status quo... — in Bragazzi NL, Watad A, Amital H, et al.Debate on vaccines and autoimmunity: do not attack the author, yet discuss it methodologically. Vaccine2017

there is considerable evidence that many editors and referees are hostile to papers that challenge prevailing beliefs (Armstrong, 1996, 1997; Campanario, 1995; Epstein, 1990; Horrobin, 1990; Lang, 1998; Mahoney, 1976, 1979; Thompson, 1999). The result in some cases can be that publication of innovative ideas, and data that backs them, is delayed or blocked. — Suppressing Research Data: Methods, Context, Accountability, and Responses, Accountability in Research, Vol. 6, 1999, pp. 333-372

Back in 1995, Susan Wilson did a survey of Australian environmental scientists asking if they believed that they could jeopardise their career prospects or research funding success by speaking out on environmental issues, 50% said 'yes'

In fact in a parallel study of information suppression from scientists, the number one cited reason for self-censorship was "concern about how I may be represented by the media".

As Charles Mills famously said "the deepest problem of freedom for teachers is not the occasional ousting of a professor, but a vague general fear - sometimes politely known as ‘discretion’, ‘good taste’, or ‘balanced judgment’. It is a fear which leads to self-intimidation and finally becomes so habitual that the scholar is unaware of it. The real restraints are not so much external prohibitions as control of the insurgent by the agreements of academic gentlemen."

Honestly, I couldn't care less if the clearly insane conspiracy theorists are given a slot on Farcebook or not. Any restriction on actual scientific research is a hundred times more worrying than the media circus platforms of a few tinfoil hats.

:100:

That's not what's happening here at all. The fire actually needs 95 people to throw water on it, but 5 people don't agree, they think throwing water on it will make it worse. That's OK because only 95 people need to throw water on it. Public policy doesn't need to do anything to compel those 5 to act against their sincere beliefs, moralising flag waivers don't need to either. — Isaac

Let's first acknowledge a truth here and that is that water does put out fires. The Covid vaccine works. There is no evidence to the contrary. I mean truth does matter here, right? Why we need to now start asking ourselves about hurting the feelings of those who insist water doesn't stop fires, or the vaccine doesn't work, I'm not real sure. I do have a problem with 5% of the fire stations not having water in order to satisfy the anti-waterers.

Let's also acknowledge that we don't have 95% of the people in agreement here so that we can now leave the loony toons to themselves. If 40% of the people are getting vaccinated and we need that number to be 80%, we're going to have to force 40% in the other direction. It's not as if our anti-vaxxers are this tiny insignificant number.

What worries me considerably more than the issue of whether nutjobs are allowed to post on corporate hosted vanity projects, is the restrictions on scientific research. Here we'll run into actual silence, as in we'll never hear, by any source, that which might otherwise have been known. — Isaac

This seems like a non-sequitur false dichotomy. I'd rather murderers be imprisoned than nutjobs be silenced, but I'm not real sure why I'm being given such a strange choice. That is to say, can we not protect our scientists from being silenced and do what is necessary to shut down the persuasiveness of the nutjobs so that we don't get political pushback for rational societal decisions?

Teen wins Covid vaccine lottery in NC

Teen wins Covid vaccine lottery in NC — frank

I was skeptical about this news but after reading this:

Chavis said she plans to use her money to fund her education. She plans to major in psychology and wants to become a therapist. She also said she may treat herself to a shopping spree.

I changed my perception.

Yes, I am happy that amount of money lands on wisdom and responsible hands.

Yeah, cool story. It's more likely that she'll become a social worker and get super burned out by her 40s from working with crazy people and drug addicts, so hopefully she'll save some of the money for vacations.

:rofl: :death: That's a pretty Kierkegaardian point of view but I am agree because life tend to be pity and dreams are just dreams.

That's a pretty Kierkegaardian point of view but I am agree because life tend to be pity and dreams are just dreams. — javi2541997

Or maybe every rose has its thorns? :worry:

can we not protect our scientists from being silenced and do what is necessary to shut down the persuasiveness of the nutjobs so that we don't get political pushback for rational societal decisions? — Hanover

Well, I hope so, but that's not what the authors I've cited see happening (nor my own personal experience - but that counts for little in public debate).

The problem is that the nutjobs are being 'silenced' by checking to see who's following 'The Science'™. The trouble is there's no such thing as 'The Science' yet if by the term we simply mean prevailing scientific opinion, then it is not only allowable, but in fields such as medicine, absolutely essential that actual scientists do question 'The Science' it's their job to do so.

As Dr Thana Cristina de Campos-Rudinsky wrote in the JME recently

Quantifiable empirical data and scientific evidence, though essential, are almost never sufficient, as an impoverished interpretation of the ‘follow the science’ imperative may suggest. — Dr Thana Cristina de Campos-Rudinsky - Journal of Medical Ethics

What's happening in academic establishments and publication media is that researchers questioning the prevailing scientific view, as is their job, are being targeted by the same Twitter and Facebook vigilantes who think they're helping by ostracising the nutjobs. The trouble is the most are not scientifically literate enough to tell the difference.

It's a perfect storm, unfortunately, as the prevailing scientific opinion just happens, right now, to coincide with the vested interests of the world's largest and most powerful corporate bodies. It's hard, but not impossible, to research and publish areas which clash with these interests in normal times. When they have a small home guard of laymen patrolling the borders it's basically impossible.

The Covid vaccine works. There is no evidence to the contrary. I mean truth does matter here, right? — Hanover

And this is an example...

It's not the truth that the Covid vaccine works. The Covid vaccination programme is unquestionably an excellent public health initiative, as most vaccination programmes are, there's barely a scientist in the world who would disagree with that. But that's not the same as it being true that it works (where by 'works' I assume you're referring to some amalgam of efficacy, safety, and prospect of reducing the viral population).

Does it reduce symptoms in the full range of vulnerability? Will it reduce transmission below that of a healthy immune response? Will it reduce the wild viral population as a genotype? Is it suitable for children? Is it more or less effective than other available strategies? What are the long term effects beyond the five year mark?

You'll find 'the science' is not anywhere near sure about any of those things, and of course it's not, it's not even meant to be. The drug's not even past it's final testing stage yet, the FDA have yet to even approve it. Their emergency approval is

It’s reasonable to believe that the product may be effective and that the known and potential benefit outweigh the known and potential risks.

...i.e. as I said - an excellent public health strategy, not a validation of any and all scientific claims about the vaccine itself. But even after full approval, the science continues. Only last year scientists discovered that Roaccutane worsens depression and has been linked to increased suicide rates, it's been prescribed to teenagers for years, passed all of it's safety and efficacy trials at the time, a fully approved drug, but the depression link was something which took longer to develop than the trial period tested for. Fortunately, scientists continue to question, test, and refine treatments, as they should. Another example is the efficacy of the HPV vaccine in preventing cervical cancer, promoted heavily at the time (again, an excellent public health initiative), but later reviews only last July have shown substantial flaws in the trial methodologies leading the reviewers to conclude that "It is still uncertain whether human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination actually prevents cervical cancer".

It is unnecessary and unhelpful to create (worsen really) an environment which is so hostile to any questioning of the prevailing scientific opinion that actual scientists doing their job in questioning it feel they will be demonised for doing so.

Meh.

Communicating the individual and prosocial benefits of high vaccination rates, payments and a combination of both strategies did not increase vaccination intentions. — experimental evidence that payments do not increase willingness to be vaccinated against COVID-19 - JME

using coercion or incentivisation to promote COVID-19 vaccination risks a public backlash and may well be unsuccessful in promoting COVID-19 vaccination. It is already apparent that scepticism about the virulence of COVID-19 and strong suspicion of pharmaceutical companies, scientists, and policy-makers has become part of some people’s social and political identities. An attempt to coerce rather than persuade may be seen as a threat from distant and patronising elites and feed into existing social and political divisions without resulting in higher rates of vaccination. — Persuasion, not coercion or incentivisation, is the best means of promoting COVID-19 vaccination - JME

the people and institutions attempting to remedy the supposed problem are the very people and institutions that are not trusted and where there is no trust, attempts to nudge or coerce are likely to be strenuously resisted — Ana Wheelock in Vaccine confidence, public understanding and probity: time for a shift in focus? - JME

A fairly comprehensive review by Nancy Jecker at the Department of Bioethics and Humanities, University of Washington School of Medicine concluded against payment incentives, saying that "people who, for a variety of reasons, are reluctant to vaccinate should be treated like adults, not children."

The overwhelming majority of people opposed to vaccination are opposed to it because of a lack of trust in the authorities responsible for creating, administering, and promoting it. Payments are just going to waste precious resources on people who were probably going to take the vaccine anyway, and further erode the trust which is vital in recruiting the people who are currently opposed to it.

:100:

An excerpt from a post I wrote back in April and it's still my position (until the Pfizer vaccine is approved by the FDA next month as forecast):

I live in the US and I won't take any Covid-19 vaccine until there is a version which receives APPROVAL from the FDA. Wearing a mask, social distancing, frequent hand washing, etc will have to (and do) suffice in significantly slowing the spread of the contagion until then. — 180 Proof

Meh — Isaac

You're highly fixated on research. Did you know the vast majority of medical decisions are not based on research?