Or in simpler terms, I have a family. Are they safer if I have and wear guns to protect them, or if I do not have guns. Safer? Not safer? — tim wood
At this point it is a matter of bureaucracy rather than safety or efficacy — Fooloso4
Joe Biden told CNN's Don Lemon during a CNN Townhall that he expects Covid-19 vaccines could get full approval "quickly.
The above replaces the term 'me' with the term population and continues on as if that changes the perspective. It proves my point; that hesitation is a miscalculation that results from point of view.But why? The population will not feel any side effects of the vaccination, but the individual will, therefore it is an individual decision. — Book273
If I produced this paragraph I would question what else I was willing to rationalize. It's not a compelling argument. We aren't discussing suicide.The "better for the population long term" argument should also support non-intervention for anyone that is suicidal as less individuals would mean more resources for others, less environmental damage, more job availability, etc. And yet, we are not advocating suicide, despite being able to spin the positive effects for society. — Book273
You recognized the populations need and then described an individual strategy. It proves my point better than I could.Only if the resultant group exceeds the inverse of the proportion required for herd immunity. If not, it really doesn't matter at all. If they adopt other strategies to minimize transmission it also doesn't matter one jot. If I'm healthy, live alone, remain masked in my occasional public visits, sanitise my hands regularly and remain a few feet apart from anyone I meet, explain to me how I'm going to have a higher probability of passing on a virus than if I did none of those things but took a vaccine at 70% symptomatic effectiveness... and yes, I will expect you to cite sources, not just make it up. — Isaac
Gun enthusiasts are clinging to a value (a perfectly legitimate value) which is now outdated due to the weapons they claim to love.
Centuries ago, it was not really a big deal to walk around with a sword or a pistol. — darthbarracuda
Not part of the original question. Protect from what, and how? And train who, and how? Am I going to send my fourth-grader to school strapped so he can protect himself? Especially to a school that apparently will not protect him nor allow him to protect himself from Covid? From parents who won't either mask or vaccinate themselves or their children, or even understand Covid? This is crazy territory, and the crazy don't - or shouldn't - have guns.Safer if you, and they, know how, and are willing, to use said weapons to defend themselves. — Book273
As to dependence on social order, next time you're out and about, try to take in how much social order is in play to make your world work. As I imagine you do not loom your own sheets, I suspect you cannot get out of bed in the morning or into it at night without wrapping yourself in the products of social order.
Just for fun, can you list anything you provide for yourself that is not dependent on social order? — tim wood
no one takes a vaccine that might have worked. It's a rational strategy for an individual to optimize that is detrimental to a group outcome. — Cheshire
a rational strategy for an individual to optimize that is detrimental to a group outcome. — Cheshire
The fact that it's starting to be mandated tells you some high powered by lawyers were consulted about the risks. They gave it the thumbs up. Wonder what their calculations were. — frank
you could be doing all these things and also be vaccinated. — Banno
Switzerland and Australia have fully approved Pfizer — coolazice
The approval of a medicine that addresses unmet medical needs of patients on the basis of less comprehensive data than normally required. The available data must indicate that the medicine’s benefits outweigh its risks and the applicant should be in a position to provide the comprehensive clinical data in the future.
How many people should take the vaccine. In your opinion? — Cheshire
What we know about coronavirus so far suggests that, if we were really to go back to a pre-pandemic lifestyle, we would need at least 70% of the population to be immune to keep the rate of infection down (“achieve herd immunity”) without restrictions on activities.
In the context of our sickcare system & predatory Big Pharma industry, you see, there's no "benefit of the doubt" given or "good will" to be had in the US for public health exhortations to take a vaccine that is not fully approved in a nominally scientific fashion by the regulatory authorities. — 180 Proof
I don't know how they managed it — Isaac
My guess is that they managed it by developing good products which provide more benefit and prevent more harm than any alternative. — Cuthbert
They are reminding us that there are many uncertainties and that we are all anxious. We hate reminders like that and so we lay into the people who provide them. — Cuthbert
That they will make a huge profit from this feat is lamentable, and even disgusting, but does nothing to diminish the achievement — Janus
As I see it the salient question is what would be the alternative to trusting the official data and narrative? Where would rejecting that leave the layperson in their need to make a decision? — Janus
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.