:100: :up:

:100: Yeah, it's like the experts were saying early on: The U.S. could distance, mask, vax and wash their hands 100% but it would be all for naught if the rest of the world was not on board. Turns out we were the recalcitrants. And now, because the adults didn't play ball, the kids are the new petri dishes that they have always been. Saddle up, boys. It's going to be a long ride.

How would you talk to these folks? — Srap Tasmaner

Can I ask, in return, at whom do you think the pro-vaccine invective here is aimed? With the largest proportion of vaccine hesitancy among the PhD educated, do you think the collection of guesswork, swearing and press clippings here are going to be persuasive in their turn to that demographic?

Protagoras to the rescue (again):

A. Perceived dilemma

1. Either vaccines are mandatory or vaccines are optional
2. If vaccines are mandatory then freedom is at risk
3. If vaccines are optional then many will die
Ergo,
4. Freedom is at risk or many will die (1, 2, 3 CD) [lose-lose]

B. Protagorian solution

1. Either vaccines are mandatory or vaccines are optional
2. If vaccines are mandatory then fewer will die
3. If vaccines are optional then freedom is secure
Ergo,
4. Fewer will die or freedom is secure (1, 2, 3 CD) [win-win]

BUT...of what use is freedom if you're dead?!
Conversely, of what use is life without freedom?
Tough call!
:chin: Hmmm.

We don't need 100% vaccination and there's other countries need the vaccines far more urgently. — Isaac

Cool. That and the rest of your post makes sense.

I'm not here much anymore. Looked in and couldn't quite figure out what axe you were grinding.

What's the difference?
Less will die or more will die. Freedom is at risk in the first case and assured in the second case.

As an irrational anti-vaxxer (why should I be thankful?) the second case seems to be the more appealing as long Im alive. I dont agree with that Philippinean tyrant who wants people to be put in jail and have a needle stuck in their ar....., eeeehm, bottom. "Bottoms up, preeeesent aass!" No thanks.

Last month loads of that stuff were superfluous here in Holland. Why not giving them to poor countries? Costs too much. Maybe THAT's something to worry about!

Can I ask, in return, at whom do you think the pro-vaccine invective here is aimed? — Isaac

Ah

other countries need the vaccines — Isaac

Why? Do they work?

My phone thought I had said enough there, but I could add: no idea.

Using this forum is not an effective way of broadcasting your opinions, though I admit not everyone seems to share that view.

I'm not here much anymore. — Srap Tasmaner

Yes, noted your absence - quality of conversation deteriorated.

Looked in and couldn't quite figure out what axe you were grinding. — Srap Tasmaner

...and so you asked. Lamentably a novelty these days.

Using this forum is not an effective way of broadcasting your opinions — Srap Tasmaner

Indeed. It is, however, an excellent means of gathering opinions, or more specifically arguments. A godsend for a curator like me.

Why? Do they work? — James Riley

Work at what? Like asking 'do cars work?' They get you from A to B, in general. Fine if you're at A and your dinner's at B. Useless otherwise.

There's still the bulk of the population to vaccinate in the developing world. There's only one thing preventing that - vaccine supply.

And what's holding up vaccine supply? The pharmaceutical company's profiteering and morons like you whipping up such a frenzy that all the rich white folk want their double dose plus boosters regardless of their actual risk.

What's the difference between having a well founded and most rational argument for non-vaxxin and just not wanting it? — Prishon

Do you mean the non-vaxxers who hold arguments? — Prishon

↪Prishon Distribution of a potentially harmful argument that others mistake for medical advice. — Cheshire

Yes, in order to distribute an argument it would have to exist first. It's the difference between stating a preference and reason. Simply, stating one's preference doesn't imply others should believe they have a reason to be compelled to share it. The "reason" element would be derived from an argument. I feel like I'm over explaining; was that rhetorical?

So just saying I dont want it is more harmful than giving arguments or reasons?

No. The other way round I mean.

↪Prishon Distribution of a potentially harmful argument that others mistake for medical advice. — Cheshire

Whats a harmful argument in this context?

Work at what? — Isaac

That's obvious moron: Do they work at whatever would compel you to say they are needed. Do they work at that?

If they do, I will then ask you what they work at, if anything.

And what's holding up vaccine supply? — Isaac

That would be irrelevant if they don't work. First, tell me if they work. Then I will ask you what they work for. Then we can discuss whether morons like me are holding up the supply, or morons like you are dissuading people from using them. First things first, Isaac. Do they work?

First, tell me if they work. Then I will ask you what they work for. Then we can discuss whether morons like me are holding up the supply, or morons like you are dissuading people from using them. — James Riley

Cool, I've never taken part in a scripted argument before, sounds intriguing.

Me: They work, yes.

(Exits pursued by bear) --am I allowed my own stage direction?

Me: They work, yes. — Isaac

Cool. What do they work for? (Why would you say they are needed? What for?)

morons like you whipping up such a frenzy that all the rich white folk want their double dose plus boosters regardless of their actual risk. — Isaac

Me and Riley have blocked one another but in all honesty I have to say that he certainly is no moron!!!

Cool. What do they work for? — James Riley

They work by having a high chance of reducing the severity and duration of the disease to below that experienced by most adults, especially those who are overweight or have comorbid conditions. This then reduces the burden on healthcare services. They might also reduce the extent to which an average person can transmit the virus, although that is less clear. Also, if around 70% of people in a population are immune, the virus may not be sufficiently able to find a new host before it is eliminated from the one it's in (herd immunity). The vaccine works by giving some immunity to those which don't have sufficient acquired immunity or who may come to harm acquiring it.

Okay, we established that it is needed.
We established that it works.
I'm going out on a limb here and assuming it is needed because it works, and not for some other reason. I forgot to insert that question in the appropriate order. Correct me if my assumption is wrong, and if there is some other reason that it is needed instead of the fact that it works.

As to what it works for, part of the reason is:

The vaccine works by giving some immunity to those which don't have sufficient acquired immunity or who may come to harm acquiring it. — Isaac

This raises a question in my mind: If it gives some immunity to the people you mention, does it not provide some immunity to other people? Or does it only provide some immunity to those you mention? Is there something about the people you mention that allows them to get some immunity, but others not?

If it gives some immunity to the people you mention, does it not provide some immunity to other people? Or does it only provide some immunity to those you mention? Is there something about the people you mention that allows them to get some immunity, but others not? — James Riley

It'll give immunity to almost anyone, but some people already have some immunity, others can acquire immunity using their own antibodies without suffering too much harm. Others will not get sufficient immunity, the vaccine is not 100% effective.

We agree it's needed (but maybe not here in the U.S.);
We agree it works.
We agree it's needed because it works.
We agree it works for several reasons, some more than others, and some possible, but not proven.

Now, another assumption on my part: You came to these conclusions through application of your analytic and critical thinking skills applied to the peer-reviewed and expert literature, after considering debate within the community of experts. Great! More power to you.

I just listened to https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/keythingstoknow.html?s_cid=10493:covid%2019%20vaccination:sem.ga:p:RG:GM:gen:PTN:FY21

and listened to the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Administrator of the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, and the Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and the Chief Medical Advisor to the President.

After listening to them, I got the J&J on April Fools Day. Now, granted, the U.S. Government is fucked up for many reasons, and they have screwed the pooch in several misadventures (the most recent of which is Afghanistan), and they have, or have allowed the use of U.S. citizens as Guinea Pigs (like black folks and venereal disease, etc.), but all in all, I don't think they are out to get me. So I vaxed. And I encourage everyone else to get vaxed. And I think that if everyone would have followed the polite request of the government, there would be no variants and there would be no pass-throughs and we would have herd immunity, and hell, had we distanced and masked, we might not have even needed the vax!

Anyway, I'm glad you agree it's needed and works for several reasons.

One and done. I take those risks all the time, every day. I don't know what's in half the shit I eat or drink and I put my life in the hands of countless idiots every time I get on the road. I took a shot. Whooptie Doo!

I'll go find another thread to argue about some other shit. Fuck Covid and all the maelstrom surrounding it. I did my part and will continue doing so. If I end up magnetic, or Bill Gates starts telling to buy his shit when I sleep, or I up and die because I took the vax, so be it. I'm a rebel! A devil-may-care, risk-taking captain of daring-do! Gotta get me one of them Stars and Bars flags. But I guess I've been trod on, so I can't get one those snake flags. I'm bummed.

They might also reduce the extent to which an average person can transmit the virus, although that is less clear. — Isaac

There's a lot of work being done there by "can" right? (I'm asking because you're better with the science and have clearly done more research than I have )

What I mean is, a person must go from shedding (if that's the right term) no virus right before they're infected to quite a lot once the disease has taken hold. I don't expect a simple linear relationship between how sick you are and how dangerous you are to others (probably more sigmoid) but there's a positive relationship.

On the other hand, if you're sick enough, say, to be bedridden, you probably have fewer transmission opportunities. If sick but not too sick people take no precautions to protect others, being a little sick could be much worse for their community than being very sick. If that's true, vaccines alone would be a terrible public health policy.

But vaccines should also reduce the time it takes your body to clear the virus right? And that surely reduces the number of people you transmit to, for most people.

And I encourage everyone else to get vaxed. — James Riley

And therein lies the problem. Not everyone needs to get vaccinated and you 'encouraging' (quite vociferously, you'll grant) everyone to get it creates a demand in rich countries which the pharmaceuticals are only too happy to meet, at the expense of the people who actually do need it (the vulnerable, the city dwellers, the obese etc.) in the developing world.

Making people feel like idiot scum for not being vaccinated when you're happily approaching your 70% target already doesn't help (using up 85%of your vaccine stock in doing so). Not only does it create unhelpful demand, but it makes the hesitant even less likely (when stocks finally reach high enough levels for everyone) because all you've done is entrenched their paranoia - "the vaccine is 'harmless', well that's a lie from the outset, what are these people tryin' a hide? Why are they so mad for me to get it?"

Whats a harmful argument in this context? — Prishon

It would take the form of "I'm not getting a vaccine and other's shouldn't as well because of X"

Do I have to state this isn't a conversation between doctors?

Yes, there's a lot of complexities; much of the viral load is in the airway mucosa and the vaccine doesn't seem to reach there (although there's disagreement about that), sick people stay in bed, whereas vaccinated carriers move around (as you rightly point out - a particular flaw in the PHE study which excluded Pillar I reports, the very sick), the problem is massively exacerbated by the vaccine being advertised (falsely) as a way out of restrictions, then there's the problem of decreasing effectiveness over time (if people are unaware of this, they may confuse covid with flu and not isolate)... A ton of, mostly behavioural stuff, muddies the otherwise only slightly murky water of scientific theory - that's why there's so much consultancy work around at the moment for psychology academics. Pandemic's been an earner for me. Forget China, I'd look to the BPS or APA for the real instigators!

There's only been a handful of studies on this in the world (to my knowledge), and absolutely no cohort studies - comparing different groups of unvaccinated rather than only as a single cohort. No studies have examined transmission in high vulnerability groups, no studies have compared vaccination to various non-pharmaceutical measures to check which is most effective - all this, obviously, is only what I've been told, there may be stuff out there I've missed.

vaccines should also reduce the time it takes your body to clear the virus right? And that surely reduces the number of people you transmit to, for most people. — Srap Tasmaner

Yes, I don't think there's any doubt that the broad theory works, for most people. The devil will be in the details.

I can link any sources you want tomorrow, it's late here now and I'm on my phone.

LOL! First you say I'm:

'encouraging' . . . everyone to get it creates a demand — Isaac

Then you say I'm making them:

even less likely . . . because all you've done is entrenched their paranoia — Isaac

Which is it?

And you say we are:

happily approaching your 70% target — Isaac

Uh, no. We aren't happily approaching our target. And we aren't because idiots like you aren't backing your own hand. That's why we have variants. And then, when the vax won't work, you'll be blaming me and my ilk. DOH! You're like the tobacco champ saying their is conflicting evidence about smoking and cancer. "I mean, just read the papers and the science and here's this guy (who works for Phillip Morris) who says blah blah blah."

The answer isn't to coddle the Faux-News-hesitant, and hope they come along while we vax up the rest of the world. The answer is to vax up the whole fucking world, including us. We are already on the losing side of this while others clamor for the vax. Seems the foreigners (many who want the vax) are ready to play ball. Get them the vax. But little good that will do if all the imbeciles in America are listening to you and we create new variants and render the vax useless.

Finally, I'm no fan of big pharma. For the life of me, I could not figure out why everyone was worried about espionage. All the science should have been shared, world-wide, free of charge, to any swinging dick or tit that wanted it. After all, it was U.S. taxpayer dollars, or the promise of them, that was and is going to pay for it in the U.S. If it was really a ww emergency then we should have been spreading all the latest data around like a rampant virus. Up to and including dumping pallets of the vax on our enemies in Afghanistan. From what I've heard, the virus doesn't respect borders.

I can link any sources — Isaac

No, no. Just nice to get a take from someone who's looked at some research. I've only dug into the culture war part of it, which ... <sigh>.

Thanks for humoring me.