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

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.

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

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.

claims are the propositions followed by an indication of the source - a citation, a quote, a mention of the origin... something like that. — 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.

In what way would that be a conspiracy? — Isaac

It is where one's ego conspires against one's mind to justify it's position.

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 agree, but given that the non-expert mob mentality will ensure that this is just what will happens, then it would be better to have open forum and debate on contentious issues confined within the fields of study and then the results made public when or if consensus within the community of experts is reached. 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. The public take is always uninformed, gratuitously sensationalized and politicized. .

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. I don't hold with morally condemning anyone who chooses not to be vaccinated; but they will have to live with the restrictions that will likely be placed on them, not by governments so much as businesses and industries.

In Australia the prime minister is already warning businesses that if they place such restrictions on the unvaccinated they may be subject to litigation. 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. .

I was just acknowledging not everyone needed stacks of evidence in order to make an assessment. — Cheshire

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.

Why do you demand some special degree of verification apart from what's publicly available. — Cheshire

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...

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

But governments demonstrably are not sensible enough. So what do we do? The governments of the US, UK, France Germany and Israel for a start are rolling out booster programmes despite every health and vaccine authority on the world telling them not to. Why would they do that? - The hysteria generated by social media. Tell everyone you've got a panacea, then try to restrict distribution. Sure recipe for a riot. The government's hands are tied on this really, and now millions more will die as a result.

Governments hyped the numbers to start with (and still are) just to get people to take the action they needed to, then they overplay the vaccine efficacy, just to get the necessary take up. I get why they did both and I don't even disagree strongly with what they did, but it has consequences further down the line. Consequences we're feeling now as supplies of vaccines run low and Western countries are using up vital doses leaving developing countries to act a breeding grounds for new variants.

Similarly, I think clandestine decision-making might be supportable now for the reasons you give, but it will come back to bite us later as trust in governments and scientists is eroded, just at a time when we need that trust to be as high as possible. It's a very risky strategy.

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

Yes. I agree. This is one of the moral questions I think this crisis raises. If your community want to pursue a solution which requires your compliance, to what extent are you morally obliged to comply, even if you think it harmful? To comply would be to cause harm to others (in your view), avoiding which seems like the essence of acting morally; but to not comply means that a solution the majority agree with cannot be enacted - you're essentially abusing your power to have your way against the majority view. Not an easy dilemma.

don't hold with morally condemning anyone who chooses not to be vaccinated — Janus

Our countries are well over 50% vaccinated, but with under 20% of our vaccine stock left. Countries in the developing world are lower than 10% vaccinated, not even enough to cover the vulnerable, and struggle to even get a share of the limited stocks available. Again - really interesting altering of the ethical landscape this crisis has produced. What we're seeing is the powerful making a grab for limited stocks of something to save their own skin at the expense of others more vulnerable. Normally this would be ethically frowned upon, today it's morally mandated. How did that happen?

Imagine this was food. There's a limited supply, people are starving. Rich people, who've already eaten and can probably handle a few days without a meal, are scooping up all the remaining food leaving others, who can't so easily handle the privation, to starve. In what world does that become even morally permissible, let alone morally promoted?

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

Yes, I get that feeling too. I'm dumbfounded at the ease with which people accept the idea of a government mechanism being in place to, in any sense, legally require (or impose) the purchase of a privately produced, profit-making product. 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? Would you have trusted your government to invest all their climate change funding into a scheme devised by the major energy companies and not be even a little suspicious that it might serve their interests a little more than ours? The pharmaceutical companies have the largest lobbying budget of any industry - four times larger than even their next nearest contender, and that's before the quarter of a billion they added to it just as this crisis broke. Do you think it's reasonable to assume that all that money has, just on this one occasion, had no effect whatsoever on policy?

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

Seems like a valid observation. Continuing to argue based on carefully constructed attempts at mutual objectivity just warranted a beating.

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

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.

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

They did it's called the tobacco institute. It's about 10 miles from my location. Rather the building is currently standing.

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 problem with this line of argument is that the vaxxed are every bit as contagious as the unvaxxed. The number of breakthrough infections is significant. How significant we don't know, because The CDC stopped tracking breakthrough cases in May. Wonder why.

Now it's true that if you are vaxxed and you get covid anyway, your symptoms will be reduced. That's a good reason to be vaccinated. But if you do get a breakthrough case, you're just as contagious. And there are a lot of breakthrough cases. Israel, which has an 80% vaccination rate, reports that the Pfizer shot is only 39% effective.

So your numbers just don't add up. The average person you meet is highly unlikely to be contagious at that moment in the first place. Of those that are, they're more likely to be vaccinated for the simple reason that most people are vaccinated, and the vaccines simply aren't that effective.

So there's no scientific argument at all to decree that unvaccinated individuals should "forfeit the right to move freely in society," which was @Wayfarer's original quote that I objected to.

And even if you could make such an argument, the downsides of such Othering of a group -- dirty, disease-ridden, danger to society -- would outweigh any good. I defy you to name any time in history that such an Othering came out well. And I'm sure you know all the bad instances I could name.

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

Ok. Now that is entirely different than what @Wayfarer said. You agree that the vaccinated yet infected should be isolated. That's not even what we're talking about, and you are in effect conceding my point.

Vaccination should be a requirement for entry to high risk areas such as transportation, supermarket, bars, restaurants, movie theaters, etc. — hypericin

I'm not even talking about that. @Wayfarer said that the unvaccinated should "forfeit the right to move freely in society." I'm pointing out that this is one, not scientifically supported because of the high vaccine failure rates, the fact that the vaxxed are just as contagious as the unvaxxed, and the Othering that would inevitably produce results that nobody would want to see.

I'm not talking about any other issues, whether the unvaxxed should be allowed into bars and whatnot. I'm talking about "forfeit[ing] the right to move freely in society." That's a tremendous overreach and poorly thought out position. I wouldn't be surprised if @Wayfarer would be willing to say, "You know, I just typed that in, but I didn't really think about it, and it's wrong on many levels and totally unworkable." I don't know. You're taking up an argument on someone else's behalf but you yourself don't seem to remember what the argument was.

The rest of your post is slippery slope — hypericin

Asking someone to drill down a level of detail is not a slippery slope. If you propose to restrict the free movement of the unvaccinated, how do you determine who they are? You have to interrogate everyone. Perhaps you discount an additional, say, one million police/citizen encounters per day. Maybe you haven't read the papers about public opinion of police encounters. It's not a slippery slope argument to challenge a highly impractical suggestion by asking the proposer to supply the details of how their idea would be implemented.

hysteria — hypericin

How so? The proposal is to restrict the free movement of 75 million or so Americans. I think I understated the likely consequences of such a nonsensical and dangerous idea.

and race baiting. — hypericin

How so? I pointed out that only 31% of blacks are vaccinated, so that if you start restricting their movement or rights in large numbers, you would create social problems that hardly need to be mentioned to be perfectly obvious to anyone who follows the news. You act like you don't follow the news.

In any event, the New York Times made much the same point when they reported four days ago, Why Only 28 Percent of Young Black New Yorkers Are Vaccinated.

Perhaps you could read that article in its entirety and explain whether you think the New York Times is race baiting too.

In any event, my comments were regarding New York City's plan to require vaccinations for entry into public spaces. The New York Post reported on the details of the plan today. They said that the venues themselves would be fined, not the individuals. Seems that unlike you, New York City actually put some thought into the consequences of their policy, and enacted enforcement mechanisms intended to avoid the obvious racial consequences instead of exacerbate them.

See how that works? People have an idea, but then they have to think through the consequences and modify and implement their policies accordingly. That's what you call "hysteria" and "race baiting." I call it basic thoughtfulness and common sense.

This doesn't address the larger harm the unvaccinated, and the scumbag public figures that encourage them, do to society. — hypericin

Yes, you're just the person I'd pick to Other 75 million Americans and select them for special treatment. What could possibly go wrong?

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. So there is no scientific argument to be made that the unvaxxed are any more dangerous to society than the vaxxed.

What's dangerous is people letting their fear cloud their common sense. And don't you think the lockdowns themselves are harming society? Children born during pandemic have lower IQs, for one thing. The increase in alcoholism, domestic violence, and substance abuse are noteworthy. Every action has consequences both good and bad. There's no thoughtfulness and balance in the simplistic "lock everyone down and shoot the unvaxxed" kind of thinking.

What, am I being hysterical again? UP AGAINST THE WALL: California Congressional Candidate Says Anti-Vaxxers Should Be Shot. I'm not hysterical, I'm just someone who follows the news from a variety of sources.

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

Might. And might not. The adverse reactions to the vaccine are off the chart, and nobody knows the long term consequences because there haven't been any studies. You're making a claim that can't be backed up by science. You're letting your lizard brain flood you with fear. Take a step back and try to think. Who's violating hygiene and social distancing? Who's arguing against it?

I'm arguing against the thoughtless and mindless claim that the unvaxxed should "forfeit the right to move freely in society." That's what I'm arguing against and that's ALL I'm arguing against. Are you sure you're not the one who's hysterical?

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

Well that's just terrible, I agree. I'm disagreeing that it's practical to selectively restrict the freedom of movement of 75 million Americans without a lot of unexpected and highly negative consequences. Why don't you stick to the actual topic of what I said, and try to think the issue through?

Really, from that perspective the restriction of freedom of movement is too mild. Vaccination should be mandatory, full stop. — hypericin

The vaccines don't even work all that well. The adverse reactions, including death, are off the charts. Nobody knows if they're safe long term because the studies haven't been done. They have no FDA approval. I think you are so panicked by the media hysteria you'd send Jews to the ovens if someone told you they carried disease, which is exactly what the German media told people. You're just that kind of person. I hope you'll step back and get a grip on your own hysteria.

I haven't considered any government enforced denial of freedom of movement, so any disagreement I might raise isn't to that effect. — Cheshire

Ok, and I appreciate your saying that. Because other than that one point, I haven't said or advocated anything. Except to push back on my hysterical and propaganda-addled friend @hypericin.

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 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.

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.

The Wall Street Journal is a Murdoch paper, is it not? — Wayfarer

Yes, but are you denying their factual claim that only 31% of black are vaccinated? As I posted above, the New York Times reported that only 28% of young blacks are vaccinated. If the WSJ prints a fact, then it's a verifiable fact no matter how you feel about their editorial stances. Right? If you don't like the WSJ's 31% number, then just take the NYT's 28% if you prefer that.

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

Well I don't much care either, I just want to see the hilarity ensue. A bit of sarcasm, don't get excited.

But as I also linked above, the New York Post reported that the enforcement actions in New York City will be against the venues and not against individuals. Meaning that they took my point to heart and realized that the optics of arresting or ticketing or shooting (as one California congressional candidate wants to do) unvaccinated black people would not look too good in heavily black NYC.

You see once again that I am trying to get people to be thoughtful about what they're saying; and as support for my position, New York City itself was thoughtful about this point. Whether they are genuinely concerned about black people or whether they just don't want the bad optics; they're only fining venues and not individuals.

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

LOL. Don't hold back, tell us how you really feel.

You're right, I actually quoted too much from the WSJ article. All I cared about was the 31% number. If I'd known it would trigger you I wouldn't have bothered.

But it's a fascinating point. The stanard mainstream belief is that the unvaxxed are MAGA-hat wearing racist deplorables. 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. The article didn't say why, but my guess is that people who have done actual scientific research can recognize the sham, politicized pseudoscience for what it is.

I would never cite or refer to any articles published by any Murdoch outlet in support of any point whatever. — Wayfarer

I gave you a New York Times link reporting much the same information. You seem to have forgotten to argue your own point, you got so triggered by the WSJ.

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

Now that is an entirely different matter that your original suggestion that the unvaxxed should forfeit the right of free movement.

I might (or might not) argue against a general lockdown, but I'm not discussing lockdowns here. Lockdowns affect everyone equally. To implement a lockdown you don't have to Other 75 million people (in the US), subject everyone to demands to show their papers, and add a few million or so daily police/citizen interactions. Those are the issues I'm concerned about.

Lockdowns, regardless of their merits, apply to everyone equally, and therefore don't have the problems I'm concerned about regarding your earlier idea.

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

I looked this up. Australia has some 25M people versus 300M in the US. And the US has only 1.27 times the area. So Australia has a much smaller population and much much sparser population density. You have no idea what it's like to get 300 million crabby Americans to do anything.

And besides, having just discovered that the US government has been lying to us for 20 years about the progress of the war in Afghanistan, which we are even as we speak losing in a majorly humiliating fashion, I doubt that American are inclined to believe anything the government says. I remember the anti-government sentiment of the 1970's after our loss in Vietnam, and I expect the same to happen now. So you can't lock down the US. Can't be done even if was the black plague.

And from what I hear, Australia has surrendered its civil liberties in ways that. to this American, are truly frightening. I always thought of Austrlians as liberty lovers, Crocodile Dundee kinds of folks. Guess that was only a movie.

I'm not saying lockdowns wouldn't be effective. Only that American is an unruly country full of unruly people not currently inclined to believe anything the government says. It's just a practical matter.

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

I don't disagree that locking everyone down works in a pandemic. China was apparently successful doing that. But they're a majory authoritarian regime. And like I say, Australia has a much smaller population.

But mainly, why are we talking about lockdowns? I'm not talking about lockdowns. Lockdowns are imposed on everyone equally. To lock down a country you just patrol the streets and shoot or fine or chastize everyone who's out without a good excuse. Your original idea, to restrict the free movement of only the unvaxxed, involved interrogating everyone, necessitating millions of cop/citizen interactions every day, many of which, if you read the US papers, don't go particularly well, especially when there are minority groups involved. Black people are not interested in being accosted by the police in the US and frankly I can't say I blame them.

And by the way, where are you getting all these extra cops? As a result of the anti-cop sentiment in the US, cops are quitting in droves. You can't find enough cops to enforce a selective lockdown that involves asking everyone for their papers.

So a lockdown for all, whether it's a good or bad thing, is completely different than a lockdown for some.

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

Not disagreeing. Only pushing back hard on the idea that the unvaxxed should have their freedom restricted; especially because there are a lot of breakthrough infections, and that the vaxxed are just as contagious as the unvaxxed. So the statistical argument for restricting only the unvaxxed is false. Let alone the problems of asking for everyone's papers in a country like the US that is in the midst of both an anti-cop hysteria and a crime wave.

As to whether lockdowns have to be enforced, I still don’t see any other option. — Wayfarer

Why did you so radically change the subject? You can enforce a lockdown easily, just shoot/arrest/fine/shame anyone you see on the street.

A selective lockdown, on the other hand, entails interrogating EVERYONE and asking for their papers. Which entails a lot of cop/citizen interactions; which, in the US, often go south in terrible ways. So that's a bad idea.

AND it's statistically unsound, since your chances of meeting a contagious vaxxed or a contagious unvaxxed person are about the same, and they are equally contagious. So you haven't got a case, and you have a very poorly thought out position.

Have you backed off your earlier proposal, or just changed the subject to universal lockdowns?

The laissez faire approach of some of the US GOP governors simply results in higher rates of infections and more deaths. — Wayfarer

Statistics are mixed. Some red states are doing better. But I am not discussing laissez faire approaches. I'm pointing out that restricting the free movement of ONLY the unvaxxed would one, be a complete policing disaster; two, would in fact fall heavily on minorities, as I've documented; and three, is flat out wrong anyway since the vaxxed are just as contagious and there are a lot of breaktrhough infections, which in the US the CDC will not even report.

So your idea is a non-starter. Is that why you changed the subject?

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

Well we're not talking about lockdowns at all. You proposed selective lockdowns against a population that can't be distinguished from the vaxxed and therefore needs to be challenged for their papers; would mostly consist of harassing minorities; would be an unmitigated policing disaster; and wouldn't help anyway, since the vaxxed are potentially just as contagious.

And that's the only point I was making. A selective lockdown against the unvaxxed wouldn't work and wouldn't help.

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

Your link is dodgy. The Carnegie study direct from the preprint server is here https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.20.21260795v1.full-text

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

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.

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

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.

Don't over run your medical system. As long as anti-vaxer's also refuse the hospital it shouldn't be a problem. — Cheshire

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.

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

So explain to me why they should refuse hospital treatment and not the overweight, or smokers, or reckless drivers, or alchoholics, or bacon-eaters...

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

I doubt that's a static figure. The people at the hospitals seemed concerned. Do you work at the hospital?

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

Didn't say they should do anything. I said it wouldn't be a problem if they did.

I doubt that's a static figure. — Cheshire

I'm sure it isn't. It would need to fluctuate over a thousand-fold to affect the argument.

The people at the hospitals seemed concerned. — Cheshire

Why on earth wouldn't they be concerned. They're seeing thousands of extra people needing hospital treatment. I'd be concerned.

Didn't say they should do anything. I said it wouldn't be a problem if they did. — Cheshire

So it would be a problem if they didn't? So is it a problem if the overweight, or smokers, or reckless drivers, or alchoholics, or bacon-eaters... don't refuse hospital treatment?

I'm sure it isn't. It would need to fluctuate over a thousand-fold to affect the argument. — Isaac

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.

Why on earth wouldn't they be concerned. They're seeing thousands of extra people needing hospital treatment. I'd be concerned. — Isaac

Has bacon eating simply escalated to unheard of levels? How do you account for this anomaly of happenstance?

So it would be a problem if they didn't? — 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?

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

Can you cite the studies or at least actual statistics that substantiate your claims here. You said Israel's population is 80 % vaccinated which is incorrect; it is around 60% fully vaccinated.

80% was the New York Times latest figure. It explains why there is high number among the vaccinated. Because they represent the super majority of anything that occurs.

Well it seems they may have their figures wrong, at least if they mean fully vaccinated:
https://ourworldindata.org/vaccination-israel-impact

In any case this may be of some interest given the current situation in Israel and the Israeli prime minister's claim that the Pfizer vaccine is only "38% effective" at stopping transmission. The article states that in the trials Pfizer was never tested for its efficacy at preventing transmission whereas AZ was. AZ may turn out to be the better choice after all.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/health/2021-02-05/covid-19-vaccines-do-they-prevent-coronavirus-transmission/13121348

I took issue with fishfry's blanket statement that the vaccines are less than 50% effective. It may turn out to be true of Pfizer, but it doesn't follow that it will apply to other vaccines.

If you want to see 80% that's where you can find it. It's in an article directly addressing the issue. I don't make any further claims.

Fair enough, but I was not questioning the statement that the NY Times claimed 80%.

You are correct the New York Times isn't doing a study.

I checked into it and the difference is demographic. 85% Adult Pop.
https://yourlocalepidemiologist.substack.com/p/israel-50-of-infected-are-vaccinated

Right, well found, I hadn't thought of that.

:up:

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

Wrong about what? I don't see how this statement follows at all from anything I've said.

Has bacon eating simply escalated to unheard levels? How do you account for this anomaly of happenstance? — Cheshire

Covid-19 obviously, why would you think it had anything to do with bacon? Where, in what I've written, did I suggest I thought the recent rise in hospitalisation had anything to do with bacon? Honestly, you can't expect to have an intelligent discussion by just skimming the first and last words and throwing together a response, you have to read. 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. Literally any reduction in hospitalisation form any source will free up the same space. 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. A reduction in any of those patients will ease the pressure on services brought about by the pandemic. There are specific cases (such as intubation) where demand is for particular equipment and so easing that demand would require easing of cases using that equipment, but it's still not unique to covid, any such case will have an identical effect.

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?

No, generally it's frowned upon to deny people life saving care. — Cheshire

Then what's your point? What point are you trying to make with

As long as anti-vaxer's also refuse the hospital it shouldn't be a problem. — Cheshire

...?

Wrong about what? I don't see how this statement follows at all from anything I've said. — Isaac

Vaccinating people is a necessary step in the control of a pandemic. GD revolutionary idea apparently.

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

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.

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

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.

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

Yes, it's exasperating when educated and intelligent people won't simply agree with your totally unsubstantiated assertions... and you even used your most condescending tone as well...

You poor thing. If only there wasn't that legal contract forcing you to reply...

If this makes sense then what is there to argue about?

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

The problem is not imaginary and shifting subjects will not solve it. There is no argument.

Try to think rather than fall back on the narrative you've been fed. What doesn't make sense?

The health services have a number of incoming patients to deal with, that is their 'burden'. These patients have all sorts of conditions with all sorts of causes. Some of those causes are preventable, some of these preventable causes are deliberate choices made by the patient.

I'm asking you to justify why the deliberate choice, made by a patient to risk covid infection by not taking a vaccine counts as over burdening the health service, whereas the deliberate choice by the patient to eat a poor diet counts merely as an ordinary burden.

It isn't proportion - the obese make up a higher proportion of patients than the unvaccinated covid cases.
It isn't risk - the chances of a healthy young adult needing hospitalisation with covid are much smaller then their chances of needing hospitalisation from obesity.
It isn't harm to others - there's no evidence that being unvaccinated increases transmission to any greater extent than non-pharmaceutical measures, and taking a vaccine if you're healthy reduces the number available for other countries who need them to protect their vulnerable.

The overwhelming pressure on hospitals always was, and still is, poor health, resulting from poverty, reduction in community healthcare and lobbying by fast food manufacturers and pharmaceutical companies. That they can't cope with extra covid cases is not anyone's fault but the criminal lack of investment in health.

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.

A series of massive, completely predictable failures of governments and institutions have lead to millions of deaths and an almost unprecedented transfer of wealth to the rich. And all you guys can find to direct your vitriol toward are an unlikely minority hodgepodge of nutcases and cynics. It's one of the most pathetic displays of corporate bootlicking I've had the misfortune to witness.

@Banno @Hanover @Fooloso4 @coolazice @Isaac @praxis and anyone else who's scolded me recently :point: I received my first Pfizer jab yesterday (8/18), joining the Big Pharma guinea pigs club. Discussions, concerns and admonishments have been appreciated. :mask:

https://vaers.hhs.gov/

Joking. Hope all goes well. For discussion see...well, literally anything I've posted for the last month!

Try to think rather than fall back on the narrative you've been fed. What doesn't make sense? — Isaac

And choose perhaps your narrative.

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

That they can't cope with extra covid cases is not anyone's fault but the criminal lack of investment in health. — 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.

The problem is of a marginal rate of patients accelerating do to the acceleration in transmission. It seems too painfully obvious to argue against, so putting down these cleverly constructed absurdities just requires a frame of reference I'm not able to invoke.

If I translated what I'm reading into a fire fighting strategy it would be some acknowledgement of smoke and complete denial of fire or the possibility water should be a reasonable prescription.