if vaccines are say 70% effective at preventing infection then you would have only 3 chances in 10 or about 30% the chance of being infected than a vaccinated person does. — Janus

Vaccines don't prevent you from being infected, nor from carrying the virus, they help you to clear the virus and so limit the chances of needing hospital care. The theorised reduction in transmission is because the viral load should be lower (on average) in the vaccinated because of this speedier clearance. Neither affect the viral load outside the bloodstream, in the nasal mucosa, for example, which, as I cited earlier, carries a significant proportion of the transmitted virus particles.

The point is, that as the current evidence stands there no reason to assume vaccination reduces viral load to any greater degree than a healthy immune system does (only the average immune system of the study's cohort), and there's no reason (no medical mechanism even) to assume it has any effect on the most transmissible viral load in the nasal mucosa. Hence the ambiguity about transmission.

The studies that are needed would be cohort studies against health groups already known to respond differently to the virus (the young, the fit...). To my knowledge, these have not been done. Certainly the PHE study the CDC are using for their transmissibility claims doesn't, as the authors themselves admit - (not that this makes the CDC wrong, they never claimed it reduces transmission in all cases).

As has been a theme here, it's a very good public policy bet that mass vaccination will reduce transmission. This doesn't translate into a moral claim that one ought to get vaccinated because an individual has other options which (as current evidence stands) are equally efficacious given known factors of their personal circumstances.

In the moment one looks the other direction and simply doesn't feel anything. Needle tech has come a long way in 20yrs. There isn't even a pinching sensation anymore; one would have to be trying to feel it. — Cheshire

I sure as hell felt it. Maybe it's the technique of the person injecting, which makes a difference, like the dentist with freezing. And afterwards, I felt like I got punched in the arm.

I can see how that applies to philosophy, but do you think it applies to science? I mean would there not be "one true answer" to the question:'does vaccination reduce viral transmission?' even if we might not presently know just what that answer is? — Janus

Rather off topic, but as far as I can see, 'truth' is a human term which can only be understood of propositions already conceptualised (and so constructed). If there's one external state of affairs which cause our perceptions (which I believe there is), it's not this to which we refer when we use the word 'truth', it propositions constructed internally.

The data here overdetermines the theory (the same data fails to falsify more than one theory), so... more than one 'truth'. Some things, of course, are false, and maybe one day 'does vaccination reduce viral transmission?' will be something to which a false answer might be possible, but I don't think that's today.

You think in black and white terms, all or nothing. No nuance, no detail, nothing. Like a total redneck. This is what puts many people off. — baker

Apparently you lack experience with real rednecks. For one thing, they generally don't even think in binary terms. Not "black and white," but black or white, and usually white. But invective is usually a red herring, a diversion. The science on vaccines and masks is 2+2=4. And the issues are not private and individual, but communal.

If you want a discussion on vaccination and masks as individual choice and an exercise of personal freedom, then make it individual and privately personal. And you cannot.

I asked for any argument against this:

Vaccines and masks have a proven track record. There is no excuse whatsoever for not using them appropriately. for oneself, for one's family, for one's community. Any argument against? — tim wood

You do realize your entire reply is a non-sequitur, yes?

We are at the mercy of the free will of fools. Act accordingly. — Cheshire

Fools do not possess free will. They are the subjects of their foolishness. Discussion of their "freedom" is immediate absurdity.

"I Don't Know How To Explain To You That You Should Care About Other People." Dr. Fauci

But only if it suits the narrative. When the "other people" are the millions of individuals that have to change their way of life, or when the state is walking the thin and slippery line of infringing upon citizens' right to bodily autonomy by attempting to pressure them into vaccination on the basis of incomplete information, I'm not sure if Fauci believes we should care about that.

So, since a person has options as to how they might meet their moral obligations other than by vaccination, I don't see any moral imperative to get vaccinated. I do see a moral imperative to do something to absolve both those duties, but it's not yet demonstrated that that something has to be vaccination. — Isaac

When there is a social stampede, it is one's moral obligation to run with it, even if one sees that the stampede is heading toward a cliff ...

When the "other people" are the millions of individuals that have to change their way of life, or when the state is walking the thin and slippery line of infringing upon citizens' right to bodily autonomy by attempting to pressure them into vaccination on the basis of incomplete information, I'm not sure if Fauci believes we should care about that. — Tzeentch

"Have to change there way of life?" By social distancing, wearing a mask and vaxing? How inconvenient. :roll: Fuck the state. The state has not done shit but ask, politely, for people to step up. But would they? No. Not because of "incomplete information." But, rather, because they are inconsiderate, disrespectful, selfish, obstinate little babies.

They eat all kinds of food and take all kinds of medicine and do all kinds of shit based solely on their precious "convenience" and based on incomplete information. Like the turd who was interviewed coming out of 30 days in the ICU on vent (to the exclusion of others who needed the bed) and, when asked "Do you wish you would have taken the vax?" He said "No." When asked why, he said "Incomplete information, and not approved by FDA." The doctor (being the kind, considerate, Hippocratic oath guy that he was), did not point this out to the dummy, but mentioned to the camera, that virtually all the drugs that dummy was treated with to save his worthless life were experimental and not approved by the FDA. DOH!

And you watch, just as soon as the FDA approves the vax (tomorrow?) all the little babies will pivot to some other reason for not taking it. And the irony of all this is, a lot of these dummies don't trust government to get the vax but they don't vax because the government hasn't approved it yet. That just shows why this had nothing to do with what the idiots claim. They are un-American cowards who won't step up in a time of war. They might say they would take a bullet for their country but they won't even take a vax for their neighbor.

The government has not forced anyone to do anything. I hope the private sector ostracizes all these people. I hope hospitals turn away all covid patients who didn't get vaxed. But they won't. You know why? Because of the Hippocratic Oath. But you wait, some guy is going "fall down" and "break bad" and I hope he walks and the judge says "Hey, the turd he ripped off the vent and killed to make way for his wife was a parasite."

I understand you believe the sacrifices others must make are benign. Others disagree. But I'm getting the impression you are already past the point of considering the subjectiveness of your own position.

I understand you believe the sacrifices others must make are benign. Others disagree. But I'm getting the impression you are already past the point of considering the subjectiveness of your own position. — Tzeentch

I know my position is subjective. Entirely. But the fact that others disagree and have every right to be wrong, does not mean they are right. They don't have to distance, mask or vax. But they should stay away from other people who do. They should stay home and hide under the bed. And if they get Covid, they should stay the fuck out of the hospital and away from the people (doctors) who told them how to not get Covid.

I saw a good meme the other day about driving drunk. Yeah, your body, your right. But it affects others. People wear clothes when they don't have to, but they won't wear a mask? Seat belts, helmets, they keep the insurance rates down for everyone.

No one is treading on their rights. They are treading on their privileges'. You don't have right to get a disease any more than you have a right to get meth. You don't have a right spread disease any more than you have a right to deal meth. And it's not about libertarian rights to do what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home. It's about society having to pay for your right to come out in public and be an asshole. If you think January 6th was evidence of people getting fed up, you ain't seen nothing yet. You wait and see what happens when this virus continues to mutate because of assholes.

When there is a social stampede, it is one's moral obligation to run with it, even if one sees that the stampede is heading toward a cliff ... — baker

An unusual position...

Another issue which cropped up in a discussion I had with colleagues yesterday regarding the possibility of mandatory vaccines, slightly related to the issue you raised here.

In mandated court psychological treatment, there has to be a clear benefit to the public interest. The defendant's mental health issue doesn't have to be proven beyond reasonable doubt, it's sufficient that they have such a condition on the balance of probabilities alone - but the benefit to society (ie that they actually committed the crime we're trying to stop them from doing again) does have to be shown beyond reasonable doubt.

We could not, for example force people to take carbamazepine on just a balance of probabilities that their aggression would otherwise be harmful to society.

So, is it sufficient to show that a person is more likely than not to harm others by avoiding vaccination, or do we require it to be shown beyond reasonable doubt. If not, are we going wrong in assuming such a high threshold of proof for other court mandated medicines such as psychological drugs? Would we be happy to have every impulsive aggressive forced to take carbamazepine on the balance of probabilities that it will reduce the harm they'd otherwise probably cause?

As has been a theme here, it's a very good public policy bet that mass vaccination will reduce transmission. This doesn't translate into a moral claim that one ought to get vaccinated because an individual has other options which (as current evidence stands) are equally efficacious given known factors of their personal circumstances. — Isaac

These other options are becoming increasingly obsolete, as there is an ever greater need for covid passes, so the trend is to make vaccination something one does in order to get a covid pass. Vaccination is becoming an administrative/bureocratic measure.

When you quoted Fauci your point seemed to be that others should care. From what you've written so far you seem to care little about others yourself.

Indeed. Morally reprehensible, but such are the downsides of democracy which we accept for lack of better alternative.

An unusual position... — Isaac

Not at all. Issues of social psychology need to be taken into account. In times of crisis, people tend to give up critical thinking. It's not clear for how many people this applies, but some of those for whom it does apply are extremely vocal and influential. Resisting those people can result in short-term and long-term harm for the resisters.

There are also issues of the placebo effect, en masse: If enough people have enough faith in the covid vaccines, the covid vaccines can, in effect, be more safe and more effective than they would be without that faith.

Is it moral to refuse to participate in a mass social delusion, if said delusion can have at least short-term good effects for society at large and for the individual as well?

Is it moral to refuse to participate in a mass social delusion, if said delusion can have at least short-term good effects for society at large and for the individual as well? — baker

I think so, yes. I don't think much morality has ever been based on short-term gains, I mean, Epicureanism suffices for that. Morality, typically, has been about encouraging people to do that for which the immediate benefits are not readily apparent. Seems a bit redundant if the gains are all obvious.

When you quoted Fauci your point seemed to be that others should care. From what you've written so far you seem to care little about others yourself. — Tzeentch

That's only because you lack depth of thought, and think only of yourself. Had you any analytic reading skills, you would have seen all the care for others, replete throughout my posts. Fauci's point was not so much an expression of frustration, but a simple acknowledgement that he, like me, lack the ability to teach. We don't have that Tucker Carlesonesqe ability to persuade, to dumb things down for simple people. As I stated, those who know lack confidence (Socrates?) and those who don't know are full of confidence (Tucker Carlson, et al).

A long time ago, archaeologists and anthropologists discovered, along with our innate human capacity to kill each other, and to fear (hate), we also had the ability to care. We'd set bones, or bring food to the wounded and nurture them along. We'd even show reverence for the dead. Fauci was referring to this latter quality. If you can't step up, then he really doesn't know what to do with you. It's not his job. He's done his job. He would help the stupid people if he could. But you can't fix stupid. Covid can, but Faucci can't. Covid can, but I can't.

If you are missing that innate human tendency to feel empathy for, and care for, and work with your fellow man (by and through your own chosen democratic processes) for a common good, then I'm sorry. So you continue to roll coal, fuck the planet, fuck others, for your "convenience." We will continue to take care of you, even in your fundamental stupidity and selfishness. That's just they way we are. If you won't listen to your own fucking doctor, then there is nothing we can do for you. You are sick. We'll just continue to feed you, take care of you, and allow your socialist, parasitic ass to continue to suck off the rest of society.

But if it comes down to my loved ones, or another person acting for his loved ones, then I will support tossing a non-vaxxed Covid patient out the hospital window to make room for a human being. That doesn't make me selfish.

Had you some good science behind you, then you would not take it to the public. You'd take it to your peers. There would be legitimate, peer-reviewed dissent. But all you have is Tucker Carlson, Putin, and their ilk, spinning you up like the little sheep you claim folks like me to be.

I guess we'll just have to wait to find out who was right. Me? I don't know the vax is right. I'm just not a selfish pussy. If the vax kills me, it won't be because I was mislead by charlatans or Jewish space lasers. It will be because my heart was in the right place and I rolled the dice for my fellow man (of which we have way too many).

Arguing with some folks on TPF:

https://chrismaley.com/2021/08/03/their-undeserving-little-smiles-are-called-einsatzgruppens/?fbclid=IwAR2PkhSVhRvloL0YuSiHQzdhqhm-fi_sLrXo5ovZOE7Rayt3ngJy3uu007c

There would be legitimate, peer-reviewed dissent. — James Riley

Dissent to what? What exactly is the view you think the peer-reviewed science supports?

Indeed! I have seen it on TV here in Holland. There were two people not willing to take the vaccine. They were almost burned down by those in favor. They were even considered a thread to the majority taking the vaccine... How could they? The ones vaccinated can't get ill no more. So they believe (and probably true).

Dissent to what? What exactly is the view you think the peer-reviewed science supports? — Isaac

That's my point. I don' know. I'm not a "peer." But, like climate change, it seems most peers are on one side of the coin. Right or wrong, I'm throwing my lot in with those who have BTDT, paid their dues, got the schooling and seem to have a consensus. If there are peers who disagree, let them hash it out with their peers. I'm certainly not going to take my que from posers. You know, the ones who pivot from experts on virus one day to Afghan defense experts on the next day.

The ones vaccinated can't get ill no more. — Prishon

Not true. Especially when dummies are propagating new variants all the time. By "dummies", I mean those who think the "vaccinated can't get ill no more."

That's my point. I don' know. — James Riley

But you said...

Had you some good science behind you, then you would not take it to the public. You'd take it to your peers. There would be legitimate, peer-reviewed dissent. — James Riley

...How do you know there is no such dissent if you don't even what the view is there'd be dissent against?

As I stated, those who know lack confidence (Socrates?) and those who don't know are full of confidence (Tucker Carlson, et al). — James Riley

Don't you think that this is a bit ironic, given the content of your posts?

You barely know me, but I am sick, a pussy, selfish, etc., and all the other things you assumed I must do or be. Your heart may be in the right place, but your writings suggest you have no ability to sympathize with people whose opinions you do not share, and upon those people with whom you do not agree you project the worst of qualities.

You fault people for not caring about the problems of others, yet you don't care about their problems either.

The link you shared likens those who do not share your opinions to "Einsatzgruppen", Nazis, murderers. It drips with pure, inept hatred, and people that are capable of harboring such burning hatred for people on the basis of ideological differences have no right to call anyone else a nazi; more irony. Well-placed as your heart may be, I sincerely hope yours is not as dark.

Your avatar is a fitting symbol - a walking contradiction? I think I may have said that before, haven't I?

If say 40% of all people (I would be one of them) would refuse to take the Covid19 vaccine, how would society or politics react. — Prishon

All 50 states require that children take the measles vaccine before they fan go to school. Why should this be any different? Employers, especially in health care and other critical jobs, should require employees to be vaccinated before they come to work. If they don't, they should be liable for damages for employees and others who are infected.

If you don't want to be inoculated, I'm ok with that. Just stay in your room with the door closed.

For what it's worth, at least 40% of all people in all but seven states have been fully vaccinated.

it are mainly the non-vaccinated who suffer from the majority of the vaccinated. — Prishon

The non-vaccinated are suffering from the delta variant at the moment. They'll get some immunity that way.

You barely know me, but I am sick, a pussy, selfish, etc., and all the other things you assumed I must do or be. — Tzeentch

Here's where your thinking fails you. I have a saying which is a play on words from another, older saying: "If the shoe doesn't fit, then why the hell are you wearing it?"

Discuss among yourselves.

.How do you know there is no such dissent if you don't even what the view is there'd be dissent against? — Isaac

I think there is confusion between the merits of the argument and the existence of the argument. I don't know shit about the former, but I am aware of the latter.

I don't know climate science, but I know the view that global warming is, at least in part, man-caused. I know there is dissent, but it has not held up to peer review, outside of Faux News. The people I see in dissent sound like idiots to me, and I'm not even an expert! Likewise Covid. I am aware of the science says take the vaccine. There may very well be some scientists who disagree. But my doctor took it and he advises me to take it and all the dissent I see is on Faux News with no peers. And all those dissenters sound like idiots to me, and I'm not even an expert.

So, I decide to roll the dice and side with those who say man-caused global warming exists, smoking is bad, wear your seat belt, take the vaccine and side with those who appear, from my lay-perspective, to have paid their dues. Especially when the dissent sounds like idiots.

I hope that clears that up for you.