Isnt it possible that people getting mad at non-vaccinators (and hinestly, I must get one if I wanna go to my family in Italy) are getting mad maybe because they are afraid of infecting them? So they cant give them a hug anymore? — Prishon

I can't make heads or tails of that. I need to know who the "they" is. Making some assumptions about what you meant, I suppose that might be a reason for some. Not me. It's more generalized for me. Here's a tip of the iceberg:

"Here we go, Texas. There is an ER doc from Houston crowdsourcing on a physician Facebook group of 50K doctors. Patient is mid-40s, sick w/ something w/ high probability of death (not COVID) & needs ICU care & GI procedure stat. ER doc can’t find any beds and “will fly anywhere.”

This is why people saying “my choices and personal freedom don’t affect you” drive me insane. When large hospital systems get overwhelmed by largely unvaccinated patients who all of the sudden decide to trust doctors and want non FDA-approved treatment, everyone suffers.

The group of 50.000 doctors came through and he’s on a helicopter. Doc didn’t say where but this dude is really, really sick. I hope he pulls through."
https://twitter.com/dremilyportermd/status/1429222295919337477

Mod note: this is going to be used as a vaccine discussion megathread from now on.

sick — James Riley

"They" are the vaccinated.

People who dont wanna take the vaccine (untill now still me) and then, when ill, wanna get treatment are hypocrites. But still people. On who you can get mad. People are irrational. You have to live with that. Nkn-vaccinated getting ill should be treated too, if they want. But if a vaccinated gets ill too he or she must be treated firstly.

“I know I’m a hypocrite and irrational. You can be mad at me but I won’t do anything about it”

Typical anti-vaxer

What’s the point of discussing anything with you then if you know you’re wrong and don’t care?

No one can make me. — Prishon

In the United States at least, yes we can. The Supreme Court ruled on that issue over a hundred years ago. It is vaguely within the doctrine usually referred to as "the US Constitution is not a suicide pact".

"They" are the vaccinated — Prishon

So, rewriting, it would say: "Isnt it possible that people getting mad at non-vaccinators . . . are getting mad maybe because the vaccinated are afraid of infecting them? So the vaccinated cant give them a hug anymore?"

Okay, possible. But I don't think that is the primary reason. I'll stick by my other response.

But still people. On who you can get mad. People are irrational. You have to live with that. — Prishon

Agreed. Especially in the U.S. where everyone thinks he's a rebel. :roll:

point — khaled

Who says Im an anti vaxer? If people wanna have their shot then Im not saying they cant.

...what are we learning 'bout the recalcitrants, folks?

What clever, well-informed, articulate folk they be.

2mReplyOptions — Banno

"The recalcitrants"

If there is anything that pi... makes me recalcitrant then it is this presumptious and prejudicious use of language. Im not "a recacitrant". Im just a human being with things he wants and things he doesn't.

"And what do WE learn..."

Sticking to a group. Always safe. And cowardly.

point — khaled

"know I’m a hypocrite and irrational. You can be mad at me but I won’t do anything about it”

Where did I write that? I wrote that people who are nonvaccinated demanding treatment for their covid19 infection afterwards are hypocrites. I didnt say I demand it. Im not irrational. The reason I don't want it is because I dont want it. I dont think about others in that case. So? Should I be forced to think about others? I think about others. They can do whatever they want. Take the juice or not.

And cowardly — Prishon

As cowardly as being scared of a needle?

I didnt say I demand it. — Prishon

Right… but I’m pretty sure you would. You’re telling me if you got COVID you would simply lie down and say “Ah, well, time to accept my fate”?

The reason I don't want it is because I dont want it. I dont think about others in that case. — Prishon

Yea. That’s the problem isn’t it.

If someone robs you and justifies it with “I don’t want to live honestly because I don’t want to. I don’t think about others in that case” would you think this is a reasonable justification? Is he in the right now? Should he not be punished?

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

Yes, from your point of view I'm acknowledging the severity of the problem and suggesting people continue to make it worse through doubtful conversation. It must appear to be quite absurd.

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

Yes, this is a bit of a red herring. People certainly have free will and invalidating it is problematic to making a convincing argument. In regards to the immediate context, to the counter position I'm suggesting you don't share. Which is ok. If we all agreed there would be nothing left to fix on Tuesday.

I was baiting Tim. But since the topic changed. No anti-vaccination is an irresponsible position. Fine if you don't participate, but don't drag others down with you that are unaccounted for do to the nature of the issue.

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. — Isaac


Do you have references for this claim? — Janus

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33320052/

The information I have been able to find on the issue of viral load suggests that the more infected you are the more virus you will be shedding. — Janus

Same here.

the vaccinated will be on average significantly less infected and hence less infectious — Janus

Less infected and infectious than whom? Less infected and infectious than the unvaccinated in general? Yes. Less infected and infectious than a healthy young adult? What reason have we to assume that? Both the vaccinated and the healthy immune system are doing the same job - quickly clearing the virus. We'd need to see that the vaccine cleared it more quickly, on average, over the time between doses/boosters. No such study has been done, to my knowledge.

OK, but you haven't addressed the point as to why one should not adopt all the strategies that work, because together they will be even more efficacious than any single strategy. You are offering other strategies as alternatives to vaccination, why should they not be adjuncts? — Janus

Because one is usually held to have satisfied one's moral duty at a reasonable point. It's not normal to expect one to do absolutely everything in one's power to protect others from harm. Think about your actions which put others at risk of harm - driving, sports, consumer choices, polluting activities... is it not generally held sufficient that you take steps to reduce the harm these cause, rather than expend every effort until such harms are eliminated? We have to have a concept of reasonable risk, otherwise society would grind to a halt.

Are you saying that there might some day be a true answer to the question as to whether vaccination reduces viral transmission, but that there is no fact of the matter today because we are not able to determine it? — Janus

No, I'm saying that the proposition "vaccination reduces viral transmission" is already constructed, it's a human social construction - the terms, the grammar, the logical structure... If we apply the word 'truth' to such constructions (and it seems we do) then it is already overdetermined, the proposition itself is already constructed of theories. What we'll one day find is something we're (mostly) happy to apply the word 'true' to.

I wasn't suggesting that unvaccinated people should be accused, much less convicted, of actually infecting people, so I'm not seeing your analogy here. — Janus

Oh I wasn't suggesting you did, I'm sorry if I wasn't clear enough. It was related to you point about it being more likely than not the the vaccinated have lower transmission rates. I only brought it up because I thought you might be interested in, or have an opinion on, the related ethical dilemma.

Is it not the case that people may be confined if they are judged to be mentally by professionals ill in a way and to a degree that makes it seem likely to the psychologist(s) that makes the judgement and commit them to an institution that they will be a danger to themselves or others? — Janus

Yes, but only if that can be shown beyond reasonable doubt. That was the point, it's not usually sufficient that it be only more likely than not that medication will prevent harm.

Those people you reference don't exist. — James Riley

What an unusual claim. Carrying on though...

when it turns out they were wrong, they want to come, on bended knee, to the very system they failed to trust — James Riley

So do you not do anything the medical system has told you is a risk? Never smoke, drink, eat red meat, exercise too little, get stressed, skip the veggies, engage in sports, ski, drive, breathe city air, travel...

what kind of society raises people who think they can listen to a charlatan and somehow know better? — James Riley

You've just got finished telling us you don't know what the experts are actually saying, nor do you know what the dissenters are actually saying. You said you trusted the institutions of your government. So this has nothing to do with charlatanism - you're not in a position to judge that. This has to do with choices about who to trust, that's the only thing you personally have any knowledge about. You trust the institutions of your government and what you perceive to be the consensus of scientists. Others don't. That's all you can judge on, because that's all you're qualified to know about the situation.

Those who chose differently, yes, I would expect them to kick me to the street. After all, that is the kind of people they are.
But I would NEVER, not in a million years, go to them for treatment. — James Riley

As above - do you never engage in any activity the healthcare system has told you is a risk to your health?

others — khaled

If someone robs you and justifies it with “I don’t want to live honestly because I don’t want to. I don’t think about others in that case” would you think this is a reasonable justification? Is he in the right now? Should he not be punished?

Soeone robbing me wants it. Do you compare me with a robber?
So actually I want to take it. But I just say that I diont want?

...what are we learning 'bout the recalcitrants, folks?

What clever, well-informed, articulate folk they be. — Banno

The majority of vaccine hesitancy is among those educated to PhD level.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.20.21260795v1.full-text

Until this latest freakshow turned up there was a well informed, properly cited and intelligent debate which drew zero response from you.

Further investigation into hesitancy among those with a PhD is warranted.

Yep.

And?

...until then we just assume whatever explanation suits our narrative?

What do you want? Yes, the result is interesting. Have you an explanation?

Yes, the result is interesting. Have you an explanation? — Banno

Yes, but I don't think that's relevant, I'd be just speculating.

The point is already made - you scanning a few posts is clearly sufficient for you to draw the conclusion that recalcitrants are not "clever, well-informed, articulate folk" yet a massive, peer-reviewed, study conducted by experts on the matter apparently is insufficient as yet to draw any substantive conclusions...

The simple fact is that your 'what we've learned' has been demonstrably shown wrong, to at least the same standard of evidence used to draw the first conclusion, if not substantially better.

You might not be aware that my comments were on a novel thread created by Prishon, which caught my attention and to which I posted prior to it's being merged here.

But I have posted to this thread previously.

You might not be aware that my comments were on a novel thread created by Prishon, which caught my attention and to which I posted prior to it's being merged here. — Banno

I wasn't aware of that, no. But as you were aware, it may have behoved you to make a more reasonable assessment of the general tenor of vaccine-hesitant posts before judging the entire position... If you've posted to this (new) thread before then presumably you'll have been aware of reasonable, cited, arguments derived from experts in their field?

Man refused to get vaccinated even after his own father died of COVID – now he’s dead from COVID too (Aug 19, 2021)

I guess ... something ... runs in that family.

Less infected and infectious than a healthy young adult? What reason have we to assume that? — Isaac

No reason, I was only saying that it seems plausible to think the vaccinated in general would be less infectious than the unvaccinated in general.

Not from Prishon, no.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/motorsport/48297727

Yeah, same with motorsports...

I was only saying that it seems plausible to think the vaccinated in general would be less infectious than the unvaccinated in general. — Janus

Indeed. Only, 'in general' doesn't apply to the moral argument. An individual need not consider their own actions as if they knew nothing of their circumstances.