I was suggesting you misrepresented Janus's post. His question of nothing to debate was in regards to your rhetoric; not the topic at large. Hence the debate.As to the inference, are you suggesting that it's untrue that media posts treat vaccine safety as a binomial function, statements like "the vaccine is completely/totally safe" don't occur? — Isaac
Is this where you do the thing you are accusing me of doing? No, I don't pretend to speak for the world's population. I was just acknowledging not everyone needed stacks of evidence in order to make an assessment.Ah, so you do know the difference between rhetoric and claim. Or are you prepared to stand by this statement as the proven truth about 'the rest of the public's motives? — Isaac
What would this evidence even look like; constant demands for some unknown data that you can't seem to find on your own. Why do you demand some special degree of verification apart from what's publicly available.claims are the propositions followed by an indication of the source - a citation, a quote, a mention of the origin... something like that. — Isaac
It is where one's ego conspires against one's mind to justify it's position.In what way would that be a conspiracy? — Isaac
What I (and the majority of medical ethicists) am saying is that the treatment of dissenting views from qualified experts by ordinary citizens (via social media, even forums like this) is detrimental to the resolution of the pandemic. — Isaac
I was just acknowledging not everyone needed stacks of evidence in order to make an assessment. — Cheshire
Why do you demand some special degree of verification apart from what's publicly available. — Cheshire
Governments, if they are sensible enough to follow expert advice will always follow what is perceived by their own political advisers to be the best expert advice, that is what the expert consensus is understood to consist in at any given time. — Janus
If a sector of the populace rejects the official line in an emergency, this can only serve to undermine the strategies that have been adopted to address the crisis. — Janus
don't hold with morally condemning anyone who chooses not to be vaccinated — Janus
It's going to be interesting to see how this plays out, but I would hazard a guess that the majority of people support the unvaccinated being subject to such restrictions. . — Janus
Seems like a valid observation. Continuing to argue based on carefully constructed attempts at mutual objectivity just warranted a beating.Indeed. But you acknowledged it by making a unsupportable claim, in other words, you used a rhetorical tool to give some force to that acknowledgement. A well-known and perfectly legitimate device...or a 'lie' depending, of course, on whose side you're on. — Isaac
Yeah I know. Yet you don't hesitate to request it at every turn. I don't think this can be reconciled by demanding black swans from one position.I don't believe the data supporting your claims is publicly available. I don't believe it's privately available. I have my doubts about it being transcendently available too... — Isaac
They did it's called the tobacco institute. It's about 10 miles from my location. Rather the building is currently standing.Prior to this, would you have trusted your government to work closely with the tobacco industry to produce a 'healthy' cigarette and not be unduly influenced by the industry's lobbying power? — Isaac
Wow I'm really not following this "logic". The argument that a random individual is unlikely to cause harm is generally an excellent argument against separating that individual from society. Infection, unvaxxed status, serial killerhood are all reasons for separation of that person from society. — hypericin
The vaccinated and infected are rare. If they are identified as such, they should be restricted.
Drunk drivers are rare. If they are identified, they should be restricted. — hypericin
Vaccination should be a requirement for entry to high risk areas such as transportation, supermarket, bars, restaurants, movie theaters, etc. — hypericin
The rest of your post is slippery slope — hypericin
hysteria — hypericin
and race baiting. — hypericin
This doesn't address the larger harm the unvaccinated, and the scumbag public figures that encourage them, do to society. — hypericin
If everyone was vaccinated, and diligently performed basic social distancing and hygiene during local outbreaks, we might be done with the pandemic, at least in the US. — hypericin
Instead, hospitals and morgues are filling up again, and actual freedom, the freedom to enjoy life without risk of death or mutilation, has slipped away. — hypericin
Really, from that perspective the restriction of freedom of movement is too mild. Vaccination should be mandatory, full stop. — hypericin
I haven't considered any government enforced denial of freedom of movement, so any disagreement I might raise isn't to that effect. — Cheshire
My issue is with the pronouncement that the possibility of a vaccinated person spreading a virus and the possibility of an unvaccinated person spreading the virus are treated as equal. Or the first makes the latter not matter. It seems to me a strong argument could acknowledge that one is taking place regularly and the other is somewhere between rare and not impossible. You disagree above, but maybe I missed something. — Cheshire
The Wall Street Journal is a Murdoch paper, is it not? — Wayfarer
More likely crying crocodile tears over the poor benighted black population to feed meat to their civil-libertarian right-wing audience than out of any genuine concern for the former. — Wayfarer
Murdoch media worldwide are probably alone responsible for tens hundreds of thousands of infections by spreading their anti-vaccination nonsense along with all the many other lies and propaganda they peddle around the world every day. — Wayfarer
I would never cite or refer to any articles published by any Murdoch outlet in support of any point whatever. — Wayfarer
I acknowledge that all forms of lockdown and restriction of movement are an infringement on civll liberties, but in light of the severity of this illness, I believe that imposing a lockdown is a lesser of two evils. I mean, giving up some freedom of movement and even income, is generally preferable to getting a life-threatening illness, in my opinion. — Wayfarer
Australia generally has succeeded in controlling the infection, although the Delta variant outbreak that started in Sydney June 16 has well and truly escaped the net. — Wayfarer
There is a lot of commentary that the mistake the NSW Govt made was in not locking down faster and harder - there was a super-spreader event on June 26th that transmitted the virus from Sydney’s East to the vast Western Suburbs, which is when it really began to escape, as there are many more large households and a high degree of geographic mobility. That’s where it remains - yesterday’s case numbers were 344, two deaths, and also cases appearing in regional centres. — Wayfarer
As I think I said earlier, community attitudes to vaccination have dramatically shifted in the last month, due to the insidious nature of this variant, and the fact that there’s a lot of younger people in ICU, with two otherwise healthy and comparatively young people dying. I think everyone now realises that getting a severe case of COVID-19 is a life-changing event even if it doesn’t kill you. So vaccination rates have ticked up enormously, supply problems are being overcome, the Moderna vaccine has now been approved and the country is on track to be around 80-90% vaccinated by year’s end. — Wayfarer
As to whether lockdowns have to be enforced, I still don’t see any other option. — Wayfarer
The laissez faire approach of some of the US GOP governors simply results in higher rates of infections and more deaths. — Wayfarer
Some US states with comparable populations to NSW are having thousands of cases and hundreds of deaths every day, which NSW might easily be matching, had not the lockdowns been enforced. — Wayfarer
But it turns out that the real unvaxxed are blacks and Latinos. And Ph.D.s. That's right, the single group with the greatest degree of vax avoidance is people who hold PhDs. — fishfry
I thought that data set was misleading when I checked it out last week. I believe the 39% was the lowest of quite a range being considered and that was specifically the result of the variant which the vaccine wasn't tested or designed for initially. Arguably, transmission out paced production and uptake; meaning the product itself arrived viable.The numbers don't bear you out. As I posted, the Israelis, who are 80% vaccintaed, report that the Pfizer shot is only 39% effective. The numbers for the other shots are in that range. And now everyone is supposed to get a booster shot. So in terms of effectiveness, the vaccines are essentially a bust. Yes they do make you less sick than you'd be otherwise; but you are just as contagious. — fishfry
Like you acknowledged; I'm not arguing for any restriction on the right to free movement. But, I wouldn't extrapolate from the Israel numbers onto a millions of people population. The statistical argument is the same as it's always been. Don't over run your medical system. As long as anti-vaxer's also refuse the hospital it shouldn't be a problem.And since most people are vaxxed, the chances that the next person you run into is contagious and vaxxed or contagious and unvaxxed are more or less the same. So there's no statistical argument to be made about treating one class differently than the other on the basis of contagion. — fishfry
Don't over run your medical system. As long as anti-vaxer's also refuse the hospital it shouldn't be a problem. — Cheshire
For anyone below middle age, your chances of hospitalisation are around 9-10 in 100,000 (source https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsif.2020.0982). Your chances of needing hospital services just from being overweight are about 50 times that (source https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/publications/statistical/statistics-on-obesity-physical-activity-and-diet/england-2020/part-1-obesity-related-hospital-admissions-copy). So, the vaccine's effectiveness is irrelevant here 1/10,000 risk of hospitalisation is already not something we normally have a moral imperative to avoid in the first place so any reduction carries no normative weight. — Isaac
I doubt that's a static figure. The people at the hospitals seemed concerned. Do you work at the hospital?I've already covered this, the whole of covid hospitalisation are about one fiftieth of those caused by obesity alone. The unvaccinated represent about half of those. — Isaac
Didn't say they should do anything. I said it wouldn't be a problem if they did.So explain to me why they should refuse hospital treatment and not the overweight, or smokers, or reckless drivers, or alchoholics, or bacon-eaters... — Isaac
I doubt that's a static figure. — Cheshire
The people at the hospitals seemed concerned. — Cheshire
Didn't say they should do anything. I said it wouldn't be a problem if they did. — Cheshire
I don't see the argument being affected by much of anything. It's bad enough now in my state that I just hope I'm wrong.I'm sure it isn't. It would need to fluctuate over a thousand-fold to affect the argument. — Isaac
Has bacon eating simply escalated to unheard of levels? How do you account for this anomaly of happenstance?Why on earth wouldn't they be concerned. They're seeing thousands of extra people needing hospital treatment. I'd be concerned. — Isaac
No, generally it's frowned upon to deny people life saving care. I didn't expect that to be outside of your wheelhouse. What's the counter position? People bare the cost of the decisions they so freely made; instead of choosing to confuse their political identity with public health and safety measures. No, that wouldn't be fair, and it's what's fair that matters. Right?So it would be a problem if they didn't? — Isaac
But as I pointed out, your statistical logic is flat out wrong. The vaccines aren't even 50% effective. There are huge numbers of breakthrough cases, so many that the CDC won't even report them. And while the vaccines keep you from getting as sick as you would without them, you are just as contagious. — fishfry
I don't see the argument being affected by much of anything. It's bad enough now in my state that I just hope I'm wrong. — Cheshire
Has bacon eating simply escalated to unheard levels? How do you account for this anomaly of happenstance? — Cheshire
No, generally it's frowned upon to deny people life saving care. — Cheshire
As long as anti-vaxer's also refuse the hospital it shouldn't be a problem. — Cheshire
Vaccinating people is a necessary step in the control of a pandemic. GD revolutionary idea apparently.Wrong about what? I don't see how this statement follows at all from anything I've said. — Isaac
I knew what you were getting at; but I couldn't slam my head against the wall at the correct angle in order to interpret how you found it compelling. I see the above explains the logic-sink I was originally faced with interpreting. So, it's incorrect because when the last thing you packed was an exponentially growing virial infection, then it's obvious what needs to be addressed to anyone.The point I made is that the total number of hospitalisations is made largely from other preventable lifestyle choices. If you've over-packed you suitcase, it's not compulsory to take out the last thing you put in, you can take out anything, it will have the same effect. The covid pandemic has over-burdened our health services, that doesn't somehow mean that the only way to reduce that burden has to be via reducing covid cases. — Isaac
There is no question because immoral things can be morally permissible and this is one of those cases. You don't want to help push fine; don't complain as loudly when efforts fail. I suppose as long as one refrains from deliberately transmitting a virus then they have risen to only imposable moral floor. It's beyond tedious, the only correct approach to antivaccination rhetoric is swift, uncalculated, dismission to guard against accidentally validating a phobia. Want to fix things by telling people vaccination isn't an imperative; then by all means proceed. Let me know when it starts working. Till then we'll keep digging 6ft holes, to fill with your brilliant observations.So the question still stands - at this time of crisis for the health services where we desperately need to reduce the burden of services, what is the moral imperative that it must be the unvaccinated who must bear that burden (and do what they'd rather not do) when absolutely anyone using the health service to support a riskier lifestyle choice could have the same effect? — Isaac
I couldn't slam my head against the wall at the correct angle in order to interpret how you found it compelling. I see the above explains the logic-sink I was originally faced with interpreting. — Cheshire
The problem is not imaginary and shifting subjects will not solve it. There is no argument.Health services are not overburdened with covid cases that's the media misrepresenting the facts to sell stories. Health services are overburdened with patients, many of whom have covid infections. — Isaac
And choose perhaps your narrative.Try to think rather than fall back on the narrative you've been fed. What doesn't make sense? — Isaac
If you want to help prop up the corporate feeding trough by joining in this global exercise in distraction then be my guest, it only reflects poorly on your critical capacity, but don't expect to do it uncontested. — Isaac
No, it's the waste of resources that would be necessary constantly to maintain a pandemic cycle peak level of infrastructure. It would be like adding a 100 doors to every building on the off chance everyone wants to leave at once on any given day.That they can't cope with extra covid cases is not anyone's fault but the criminal lack of investment in health. — Isaac
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.