Well, according to you, I'm doing you a favor and freeing up the vax for overseas. — James Riley

Did I speak too quickly for you?

Can't prove a negative. — James Riley

Well then don't use one as support for an argument.

That's my plan. Calling out your BS so everyone who thinks you're the bees knees can see it. Trying to get you to change your plan, take a seat and quit killing people. — James Riley

The plan I was referring to was how to get the whole world vaccinated. Even if everyone was 100% in favour of vaccination the problem we're facing now would be untouched. It's about distribution of vaccines, not willingness to take them.

What is 'psuedo' about the scientists I've cited, are you suggesting the BMJ is a 'pseudo' scientific journal, is the World Health Organisation a 'psuedo' health organisation? — Isaac


I didn't say they were, I said you are. — James Riley

That's why I cite my sources. These aren't my arguments, they are the arguments of experts in their field.

I already taught you about the professions and how they work. — James Riley

So you are an expert now? You know all about how the academic world works yes? What level of academic qualification do you have? How many years have you spent in the field?

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/08/24/cdc-study-shows-unvaccinated-people-are-29-times-more-likely-to-be-hospitalized-with-covid.html

Better?

You cited a paywall. — Cheshire

Not my problem, I'm happy to retract any pay-walled citations, it doesn't affect the argument, there aren't enough vaccine shots for the world to be vaccinated, it's not a controversial claim. A good overall view is here https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00727-3



That study shows that unvaccinated infected are 29 times more prevalent than vaccinated infected. It would only translate to one's 'chances' if it were random. We already know it isn't. I suggest you learn some statistics before trying to use them in an argument.

Here's a primer - If the prevalence of yellow balls in a container is 20% and red 80%, my chances of picking a yellow ball are 20% assuming I pick randomly. If, however, I'm predisposed to pick yellows, my chances of picking yellow are greater than 20% even though the prevalence of yellows remains unchanged.

Did I speak too quickly for you? — Isaac

You didn't speak at all. You wrote. You opined that I was unsuccessful in my intent, and driving people away from the vax. You know, freeing it up for the other countries.

Well then don't use one as support for an argument. — Isaac

Then don't ask for it. It's like I taught you, Isaac: It's all academic BS that you'd probably waste time and resources studying instead of distancing, masking and vaxxing.

The plan I was referring to was how to get the whole world vaccinated. Even if everyone was 100% in favour of vaccination the problem we're facing now would be untouched. It's about distribution of vaccines, not willingness to take them. — Isaac

I've already explained my desires on viewing the planet without borders. The problem we are facing would not exist if people would have distanced, masked and vaxxed. No thanks to you and your ilk.

That's why I cite my sources. These aren't my arguments, they are the arguments of experts in their field. — Isaac

And I already taught you about how experts in their field deal with peer issues. But after pressing you, it turns out you agree with me and Fauci on the vax. So that issue has been resolved.

So you are an expert now? You know all about how the academic world works yes? What level of academic qualification do you have? How many years have you spent in the field? — Isaac

I know how licensing works. Decades ago I was an expert on it, with attorney's and engineers, and I was involved in some medical malpractice claims. I'm also a blue-booker, so I know how to properly cite, and I'm trained in analytic and critical thinking. But the most important thing is this: I don't pretend to know shit about things I don't know shit about. I know when to defer to experts in a given field, and if I want to take them on, I put them on the witness stand and ask questions I already know the answers to because I hired one of their peers to help me do it.

Here's a primer - If the prevalence of yellow balls in a container is 20% and red 80%, my chances of picking a yellow ball are 20% assuming I pick randomly. If, however, I'm predisposed to pick yellows, my chances of picking yellow are greater than 20% even though the prevalence of yellows remains unchanged. — Isaac

You can be predisposed but how can that influnce your picking of a ball? Im predisposed every time to win the lottery but never won it.

Not my problem, — Isaac

Good. Not my problem either.

That study shows that unvaccinated infected are 29 times more prevalent... — Isaac

Correct.

Perhaps get a shot then.

You can be predisposed but how can that influnce your picking of a ball? Im predisposed every time to win the lottery but never won it. — Prishon

Yes. The lottery is an example of something which is random. As I said

my chances of picking a yellow ball are 20% assuming I pick randomly. — Isaac

--

Perhaps get a shot then. — Cheshire

Why would I do that based on the prevalence? Did you not understand my explanation of the difference between risk and prevalence? Would you like me to walk you through it?

The prevalence of head injury for helmet-wearing motorcycle riders is many times lower than the prevalence for non-helmeted riders. So should I wear a helmet, even when not riding a bike? There's an independent risk factor involved (riding a bike), if I know my grouping (non bike-rider) I can know my risk is not the average.

Same with covid. There are known risk factors which I know I don't have, so the average chance (prevalence) is definitely not my chance (risk).

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. — Isaac

One thing to consider is that the symptomatic are probably more likely to spread the disease than the asymptomatic simply because they cough a lot more, so if the vaccination reduces the chances of symptomatic COVID then the vaccination reduces transmissibility, irrespective of whether or not it reduces viral load.

Yes. But if you pick a ball with the intention to pick a yellow one and truly pick it you have to look into the container.

One thing to consider is that the symptomatic are probably more likely to spread the disease than the asymptomatic simply because they cough a lot more, so if the vaccination reduces the chances of symptomatic COVID then the vaccination reduces transmissibility, irrespective of whether or not it reduces viral load. — Michael

The vaccine reduces symptomatic Covid by reducing viral load. The question is whether it does so to a greater degree than a healthy immune system's own antibody production when taking the viral particles of the airway into account. We've only evidence that it does so on average (ignoring known cohort variation in immune response to SARs-cov-2 infection)

The natural immune system produces an Ig response in the airway mucosa too, the vaccine doesn't because it's injected into the blood (although, as I said, there's some disagreement on this, last I checked). There's been some talk of a nasal vaccine that would produce the Ig response in the nasal mucosa - that would really lessen transmission, but nothing in production yet, as far as I know.

But if you pick a ball with the intention to pick a yellow one and truly pick it you have to look into the container. — Prishon

Yep. It was just an example of the difference between random selection and biased selection. In this case the bias is you looking and preferring yellow, I could have had the bias being someone putting all the yellow balls to the top before you picked.

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. — Isaac

And it's not just about transmissibility. The increased hospitalisations of the unvaccinated increases the burden on the health care system, taking up ICU beds and doctors' time. That's part of the reason that those who refuse a vaccine are vilified. Getting a vaccine is hardly a burden, and doesn't require any lifestyle changes, and so refusing one is seen as a pointlessly selfish societal harm.

And it's not just about transmissibility. The increased hospitalisations of the unvaccinated increases the burden on the health care system, taking up ICU beds and doctors' time. — Michael

Again, true of the average, which is why I've said many times that I think vaccination is good public health policy. It's not true of all cohorts. My chances of needing a hospital bed, even if I get infected, are absolutely tiny. Way smaller than my chances of needing a hospital bed from a dozen other lifestyle choices not so vilified - like eating bacon, or drinking excess alcohol, or skiing, or...

Getting a vaccine is hardly a burden — Michael

If you're happy with the risks as presented to you, then no. If you don't trust those presenting the risks to you then yes, it is a burden.

refusing one is seen as a pointlessly selfish societal harm. — Michael

Indeed, and for many, it would be. But for others, the risk of them either transmitting or needing hospital treatment for the disease is way smaller than the risk from many other lifestyle choices not so vilified.

The vaccine reduces symptomatic Covid by reducing viral load. The question is whether it does so to a greater degree than a healthy immune system's own antibody production when taking the viral particles of the airway into account. We've only evidence that it does so on average (ignoring known cohort variation in immune response to SARs-cov-2 infection) — Isaac

I don't think there's any way of knowing if one's own natural immune system works better than or as well as the vaccine, so the studied average is the only evidence we can use to make the decision. Young and healthy people can, and have, caught COVID and been symptomatic, so one can't use one's age and lifestyle as evidence.

The scientific evidence is that getting the vaccine reduces the chances of illness and the severity of illness and of showing symptoms, and so if symptomatic COVID increases transmissibility then the vaccine reduces transmissibility.

I don't think there's any way of knowing if one's own natural immune system works better than or as well as the vaccine, so the studied average is the only evidence we can use to make the decision. Young and healthy people can, and have, caught COVID and been symptomatic, so one can't use one's age and lifestyle as evidence. — Michael

The evidence is overwhelming that comorbidities are strongly correlated with the need for hospital treatment. Over 90% of hospital admissions for covid have comorbidities which are easily identifiable. Things like being obese (OR of about 10), having diabetes (OR of about 6), having high blood pressure (OR of about 2), ...and so on. The evidence is not even in question here - hospitalisation with covid is overwhelmingly the result of comorbidity.

Here's the proportions with age for example https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsif.2020.0982

Here with obesity https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32788355/, and another https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32857454/

Way smaller than my chances of needing a hospital bed from a dozen other lifestyle choices not so vilified - like eating bacon, or drinking excess alcohol, or skiing, or... — Isaac

People who drink excess alcohol are vilified.

In cases like eating bacon or skiing they're not vilified (except by some vegetarians in the case of eating bacon) because we understand the reason(s) why people choose to do them, and deem them acceptable reasons. But this isn't the case for not getting a vaccine. Unless you have allergies or other underlying health conditions that make vaccinations more dangerous than COVID, there are no acceptable reasons to not have the vaccine. Even among those who have a low risk of death or serious illness from COVID, the risk of death or serious illness from the vaccine is even lower, so it's irrational to not get vaccinated, hence it being an unacceptable decision (given the effects having COVID may/can have on transmissibility and hospitalisation).

In cases like eating bacon or skiing they're not vilified (except by some vegetarians in the case of eating bacon) because we understand the reason(s) why people choose to do them, and deem them acceptable reasons. But this isn't the case for not getting a vaccine. Unless you have allergies or other underlying health conditions that make vaccinations more dangerous than COVID, there are no acceptable reasons to not have the vaccine. Even among those who have a low risk of death or serious illness from COVID, the risk of death or serious illness from the vaccine is even lower, so it's irrational to not get vaccinated, hence it being an unacceptable decision (given the effects having COVID may/can have on transmissibility and hospitalisation). — Michael

That's true. I don't see what that's got to do with the case I'm arguing. I'm not suggesting that society finds the risks from lack of vaccination to be acceptable, or the risks form eating bacon unacceptable. I'm quite clear on what society thinks of the matter. None of this changes the cold hard fact that the risks (for certain cohorts) are comparable.

Let me give an example.

Hospital admission rates for heart disease are something in the region of 200/100,000, depending on which country you're in. The CDC has determined that 80% of heart disease hospitalisations could be prevent by a combination of dietary changes and exercise (both of which I've adopted). The hospitalisation rate just for my age group from covid is somewhere between 1 and 70 per 100,000 depending on where in the spread of the pandemic we were. We know that having none of the relevant comorbidities reduces my risk to at least one tenth of that, so already vaccination to prevent a 7 in 100,000 risk of hospitalisation is a whole order of magnitude below dietary changes and exercise to prevent a 160 in 100,000 risk from heart disease.

Edit - I should add that I'm quite old. The comparison for young people is astronomically smaller. Virtually everything they do carries a greater risk of hospitalisation than avoiding vaccination does.

Oh, and...

People who drink excess alcohol are vilified. — Michael

... is bullshit. Try posting you went on a bender last night here on this forum, then post that you've no intention of getting the vaccine. Get back to me when you receive the same sort of response to both and I'll reconsider this line of argument.

That's true. I don't see what that's got to do with the case I'm arguing. I'm not suggesting that society finds the risks from lack of vaccination to be acceptable, or the risks form eating bacon unacceptable. I'm quite clear on what society thinks of the matter. None of this changes the cold hard fact that the risks (for certain cohorts) are comparable. — Isaac

Assume that the effects on the health care system of people eating bacon is the same as the effects on the health care system of people not getting vaccinated against COVID. Given that the reason(s) for eating bacon are acceptable we don't vilify those who eat bacon, and given that the reason(s) for not getting vaccinated against COVID are unacceptable we vilify those who don't get vaccinated against COVID.

What people inject into their bodies is no business but their own. Whatever reasons they may have, no matter how illogical to outsiders, does not factor into whether they should have the right to make their own decision. To me, this discussion is as clear cut as abortion.

What people inject into their bodies is no business but their own. Whatever reasons they may have, no matter how illogical to outsiders, does not factor into whether they should have the right to make their own decision. To me, this discussion is as clear cut as abortion. — Tzeentch

If your decision affects others then reasons do matter. An irrational decision that harms others is one that ought be vilified. A rational decision that harms others is one that can be excused.

Assume that the effects on the health care system of people eating bacon is the same as the effects on the health care system of people not getting vaccinated against COVID. Given that the reason(s) for eating bacon are acceptable we don't vilify those who eat bacon, and given that the reason(s) for not getting vaccinated against COVID are unacceptable we vilify those who don't get vaccinated against COVID. — Michael

Yes, agreed. But the reasons we, as a society, currently find acceptable are not in question. I'm arguing about the data, not society's capricious preferences.

Yes, agreed. But the reasons we, as a society, currently find acceptable are not in question. I'm arguing about the data, no society's capricious preferences. — Isaac

The simple facts are that a) the risks of death and illness from the vaccine are less than the risks of death and illness from COVID (except for those who have health conditions that make vaccinations more dangerous), b) being unvaccinated against COVID increases the chances of placing a burden on the health care system (and possibly of transmitting the virus), even if young and healthy, and c) getting vaccinated is a minor inconvenience at best.

Therefore (except for those who have health conditions that make vaccinations more dangerous), there is no rational reason to not get vaccinated and so those who choose not to ought be vilified.

My reasons for not getting the vaccine are: it's unnecessary for my age/health group the risk is lower than many other acceptable risks, there is limited supply and my vaccine would be better off given to a diabetic slum dweller in India than to me, I don't trust my health to a private profiteering corporation with more lobbying power than the arms industry.

In what way are those less acceptable than - I like the taste of bacon.

Abortions affect others as well.

it's unnecessary for my age/health group the risk is lower than many other acceptable risks — Isaac

That risk is still greater than any risks from getting the vaccine, and so being vaccinated is better than being unvaccinated.

there is limited supply and my vaccine would be better off given to a diabetic slum dweller in India than to me

You not getting vaccinated doesn't mean that your vaccine gets to go to a diabetic slum dweller in India. It just means that your vaccine goes to waste.

Millions of Covid vaccines could go to waste as states stockpile them (USA)

Covid vaccines ‘thrown away as not enough people coming forward’ (UK)

I don't trust my health to a private profiteering corporation with more lobbying power than the arms industry.

So you're saying that you believe the vaccine is more dangerous than COVID? That's just flat-out false.

In what way are those less acceptable than - I like the taste.

In that your reasons are either false or irrational.

Abortions affect others as well. — Tzeentch

And there are rational reasons to have an abortion, which is why it can be excused. Whereas there isn't a rational reason to not get vaccinated (except in those with health conditions that make vaccinations dangerous), and so can't be excused.

Didn't know you were the arbitrator of what is rational and what is not.

Didn't know you were the arbitrator of what is rational and what is not. — Tzeentch

I'm not the arbiter, but I am right.