what would be the alternative to trusting the official data and narrative? — Janus

I think the other issue here is this kind of epistemo-moral imperative which has somehow been snuck in to recent narratives. No longer is it sufficient that one's view is justified with good reasons (such as expert opinion, evidence, etc), but now there's an additional mandate that one's view must also conform directly with the 'majority' of scientists. We've abandoned the judgement of good reason for a childlike correspondence test against whatever seems currently to be 'the consensus'.

Reality, however, is not decided by vote - not even expert votes, so I don't know from where this requirement gets it's normative force.

The effect is to remove options from the layman, making their decision easier I suppose, but at the cost of any mature engagement with science. I'm not sure that's worth it.

I've no idea which "popular left-wing media" you're referring to but, as a leftist & news junky (re: US media e.g. Pacifica Radio, Democracy Now, Dissent, The Intercept, Jacobin, The Nation, Mother Jones, etc), I've found countless investigative articles critical of Big Pharma's notorious practices and abuses. And not at all "popular", quite marginalized, almost fringe. You must mean mainstream corporate media because they have certainly jumped on the bandwagon and given Big Pharma a pass for ... decades.

I've no idea which "popular left-wing media" you're referring to — 180 Proof

Mainly the UK Guardian/Obsever, plus my experience with generally left-wing colleagues who've perhaps read more widely. I read the Jacobin quite frequently, and have to say they've been quite critical, which is why I confined my critique to 'popular', I think 'mainstream' would have captured better what I was trying to say.

I've found countless investigative articles critical of Big Pharma's notorious practices and abuses. — 180 Proof

It's not so much their practices and abuses, but rather the claims resulting from them. It's as if (again, mainstream only, perhaps) everyone knows the industry is riddled with the usual corporate deceit, yet somehow everything which comes from it is nonetheless perfect.

"Perfect"? You must live in the UK because that assessment is certainly not "popular" in the US despite all the status quo cheerleading in mainstream corporate media.

that assessment is certainly not "popular" in the US despite all the status quo cheerleading in mainstream corporate media. — 180 Proof

I suppose 'popular' and 'mainstream' go pretty much hand-in-hand here. We've only recently got used to having more than four TV channels, whereas you have several million it seems. It may be a cultural difference, but the 'mainstream corporate media' as you put it is popular here, both left and right leaning versions. Alternative news sources are not anywhere near what I would call popular, perhaps even less so in the left wing than the right.

Their client could have mandated vaccinations, didn't, and someone died - big payout: Their client mandated a fully approved vaccination and someone died from it - FDA's fault, no payout. — Isaac

That's what I'm saying. The lawyers gave the green light prior to fda approval.

you answered nothing. Thank you for a pointless response. Perhaps next time you could provide reasoning?

notice your initial response had you packing a gun to potentially protect your family, and once I supported that position, with rationale, you suddenly shifted to your child packing a gun to school and began babbling as if the gun would protect him from covid, as if that were the initial threat the gun were supposed to protect from. Poor form changing the parameters because you are unable to defend your position without doing so.

Also, and really the fundamental question, why is the school expected to protect your child from something his is just as likely to catch in the community, or bus, or simply by living? Covid is endemic now and should be treated as such.

So, about 70% of the population should either take the vaccine or be certain of their acquired immunity. — Isaac

Agreed.

The issue isn't really with how many though so much as who. — Isaac

People not likely to be injured from a vaccine is how I would make a determination. In order to allow for the 30% that either can't take it or don't respond to it. But you suggest otherwise,

Some people are massively more at risk from the disease than others and some people are massively more at risk of spreading it than others. — Isaac

The elderly and the unvaccinated.

If we simply assume that there is a moral obligation not to put your community at too great a risk by your lifestyle choices, then you should take the vaccine... — Isaac

Agreed.

....if you feel (after listening to expert opinion) that doing so would be necessary to absolve that social responsibility. — Isaac

Add a rationalization.

That's simply not going to be the case for everyone. — Isaac

And all of a sudden; the directive toward 70% from your stated sources no longer applies?

It is either 70% or it is each person based on their personal interests. Because data suggest it isn't both.

Your response didn't make sense. You stated the population wouldn't feel the side effects; ignoring the population includes a majority that also takes a vaccine. Your analysis doesn't get past your own desire not to feel the discomfort of an immune system response. Neither did I, but I did it anyway. Didn't feel a thing.

But why? The population will not feel any side effects of the vaccination, but the individual will, therefore it is an individual decision. — Book273

That's what I'm saying. The lawyers gave the green light prior to fda approval. — frank

Ahh, I misread you. Interesting, but I don't think it's a majority is it? Most talk (Eric Topol recently, for example) has been about the difficulty mandating without full approval. As to the motivations of those that do on the EUA alone, I'd speculate it's still for the same reasons ultimately. A EUA still gives you someone to shift the blame to, for some lawyers that might be enough.

The consensus may be an excuse. They can't find another excuse? — Cheshire

Strange how the supply of evidence vacillates between being a marker of one's sanity to being entirely optional depending on which side of the debate one is on. — Isaac

↪Banno As soon as there's an approved (in the US or any other developed nation for that matter) vaccine, I'll get the stick. — 180 Proof

↪coolazice Well, you got me, I hadn't realized that those countries (fully approved?) the Pfizer vaccine. Still the overwhelming majority, including my country the US, haven't and that's reason enough for me to continue to hold off from vaccinating. — 180 Proof

People not likely to be injured from a vaccine is how I would make a determination. In order to allow for the 30% that either can't take it or don't respond to it. But you suggest otherwise, — Cheshire

So you think that 30% of the population are likely to be injured from taking the vaccine?

The elderly and the unvaccinated. — Cheshire

And the immunocompomised (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7332436/), the obese (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41574-020-0364-6), smokers (https://www.who.int/news/item/11-05-2020-who-statement-tobacco-use-and-covid-19), those with diabetes(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7332436/), people who don't exercise (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8050880/), people who live in polluted cities (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7517216/), those living in close proximity to others, those who don't mask, wash hands, clean surfaces...

And all of a sudden; the directive toward 70% from your stated sources no longer applies?

It is either 70% or it is each person based on their personal interests. Because data suggest it isn't both. — Cheshire

What data? You haven't cited a single source for anything you've said yet.

So you think that 30% of the population are likely to be injured from taking the vaccine? — Isaac

I'd expect better obfuscation from a tenured poster. I've rested my case.

Regarding safety and efficacy a quick search led to results including the following.

Some are of the misguided belief that safety and efficacy will not be established prior to FDA authorization.

COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/safety-of-vaccines.html

All three vaccines authorized for emergency use by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have been thoroughly tested and found to be safe and effective in preventing severe COVID-19. They continue to undergo continuous and intense safety monitoring.

https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/coronavirus/is-the-covid19-vaccine-safe#:~:text=Vaccine%20for%20Coronavirus%3A%20Is%20it,continuous%20and%20intense%20safety%20monitoring.

Several COVID-19 vaccines are authorized for emergency use by the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA). These vaccines were shown to be safe and effective in clinical trials. They were developed, tested and authorized using the same rigorous process used for other successful vaccines.

These vaccines also passed independent review by medical experts in the Scientific Safety Review Workgroup, as part of the Western States Pact (English only). See our FAQs for more information.

Data show the COVID-19 vaccines are safe, and serious side effects are rare.

https://www.doh.wa.gov/Emergencies/COVID19/VaccineInformation/SafetyandEffectiveness

rigorous clinical trials have proven that they’re safe and effective.

https://healthy.kaiserpermanente.org/health-wellness/coronavirus-information/vaccine-learn/safe-and-effective

I'd expect better obfuscation from a tenured poster. I've rested my case. — Cheshire

Eh?

Are we just going to go through the whole dance again?

Safe and effective are not binomial measures. They're continuous variables. Things can be safe, and then more safe. Things can be effective, and then more effective.

Eh? — Isaac

Your inference regarding my statement was absurd. Which is understandable when maintaining an untenable position. But, to say I'm suggesting

So you think that 30% of the population are likely to be injured from taking the vaccine? — Isaac

is almost child like, so my complaint concerns the quality of the evasion. Eh?

What data? You haven't cited a single source for anything you've said yet. — Isaac

I cited your source of 70% uptake. It is 70% need to take it or choose as each individual sees fit. Data suggest 70% is the better guide post.

We agreed that 70% of the population should take the vaccine.

I asked who the 70% should be, you replied...

People not likely to be injured from a vaccine is how I would make a determination. — Cheshire

Leaving the 30% to be made up of people likely to be injured from the vaccine... or else you've left off a criteria.

It is 70% need to take it or choose as each individual sees fit. — Cheshire

Not if 70% of people see fit to take it. Then there's no 'or'. The two sets are not mutually exclusive... unless you have some data demonstrating them to be

Populations, as a whole, do not feel the side effects that an individual feels, therefore, the decision to immunize or not should be from an individual perspective, not from the society perspective. From a "benefit to society" perspective I can justify all sorts of horrible things to the individual, for the betterment of the greater good. Society will not miss weeks of work with covid arm, the individual does. Society does not experience days of fever or rigors, the individual does. I could go on with this for hours. Thank you for demonstrating the intellectual diversity on this site, I had mistakenly thought that I would not need to be so specific in my explanations. My error.

Leaving the 30% to be made up of people likely to be injured from the vaccine... or else you've left off a criteria. — Isaac

Please repeat this unreasonable comment again.

Not if 70% of people see fit to take it. Then there's no 'or'. The two sets are not mutually exclusive... unless you have some data demonstrating them to be — Isaac

The pandemic that doesn't seem to be ending due to lack of uptake of gd preventive tool demonstrates they may be mutually exclusive.

..therefore, the decision to immunize or not should be from an individual perspective, not from the society perspective. — Book273

Alright. We won't arrive at an agreement as long as we disagree with this point. I'm satisfied with that much.

Please repeat this unreasonable comment again. — Cheshire

Not sure how you think repeating it is going to help. You could just explain how you think the inference is wrong. Unless you genuinely think that my deliberate misinterpretation is the only explanation, that your written presentation is so utterly without flaw that the only way anyone could have misinterpreted it is with deliberate intent. You wouldn't be the first.

The pandemic that doesn't seem to be ending due to lack of uptake of gd preventive tool — Cheshire

Why? How quickly are you expecting the pandemic to end in your null hypothesis?

You could just explain how you think the inference is wrong. — Isaac

General knowledge that vaccines that harm 30% are not released to the public. Common knowledge. Rational thought. It is an unreasonable inference; you may be confused as to my meaning. But, given the context and reasonable intake of reality; this inference can not be arrived upon.

Why? How quickly are you expecting the pandemic to end in your null hypothesis? — Isaac

Looking like a lot longer than I expected.

General knowledge that vaccines that harm 30% are not released to the public — Cheshire

The VAERS data is freely available here https://vaers.hhs.gov/data.html . It's considerably less than 30%.

Common knowledge. Rational thought. It is an unreasonable inference; you may be confused as to my meaning. But, given the context and reasonable intake of reality; this inference can not be arrived upon. — Cheshire

I really can't make any sense of that I'm afraid.

Looking like a lot longer than I expected. — Cheshire

Why would how long you expected it to last give you a figure for the uptake of the vaccine? I'm not seeing the connection.

It's considerably less than 30%. — Isaac

It doesn't require research.

Why would how long you expected it to last give you a figure for the uptake of the vaccine? I'm not seeing the connection. — Isaac

I acknowledge a proper level of obfuscation has been achieved. Good job?

Are we just going to go through the whole dance again? — Isaac

We would not have gone through it the first time if not for your penchant for disputation. I said the vaccines were safe and effective. Authoritative sites support that claim.

Safe and effective are not binomial measures. — Isaac

A favorite ploy. You have done this several times, arguing against your own claim as if I had made the claim.

It doesn't require research. — Cheshire

I acknowledge a proper level of obfuscation has been achieved. Good job? — Cheshire

Well, this has taken a turn for the Kafkaesque

No. It doesn't require research to know that fewer than 30% of the population are injured by vaccines. It doesn't make it any clearer why you decided to use the inverse figure to populate your 70% who should take the vaccine.

I don't think obfuscation is at fault here. You claimed to know that the uptake of the vaccine will be less than the required 70% on the basis of the fact that the pandemic is lasting longer than you thought it would. The claim's quite clear, it's just a really odd thing to claim.