Roughly 0.2%, no? — Tzeentch

And 0.2% of the world's population would be roughly 15.4 million dead.

0.2% of a large number is a large number.

What position is this argument in support of? "We should have behaved differently in the past" is not a policy — Srap Tasmaner

It's in support of the focus of future efforts which are at at risk of being subsumed by the current Disney version of events. Some very, very serious mistakes were made, the more talk there is of anti-vaxxers being to blame, the less there is about these massive government and societal failings which made us so vulnerable. Space in public fora is finite, it matters what we fill it with.

I suppose we all more or less agree on that, right? — Srap Tasmaner

Look at the responses. Do you see much agreement with what I've been saying? You've read a handful of my posts and you've already got a near perfect summary so it's not that people haven't understood. Literally no-one has agreed.

Anyone who gets vaccinated contributes to their community reaching the threshold set by the relevant public health agency. — Srap Tasmaner

No they don't. If their community are above that threshold then people getting vaccinated no longer contribute to meeting it. See booster issues between the WHO and America.

leaving aside whether that moral obligation trumps other reasons an individual may have for not getting vaccinated. — Srap Tasmaner

No, it's the position relative to these other reasons I'm interested in.

That's reasonable. It's probably the right policy, I don't know. It's also not clear it connects to (M) up there. — Srap Tasmaner

It connects thus. If you create a social narrative where everyone vaccinated is good and everyone not vaccinated is bad you create a strong individual demand for vaccines, not a community based one. Add that to a profiteering enterprise which makes money from such a demand, and a democratic government system which must respond to such a demand and you undermine your project of equitable distribution. We're seeing exactly that with boosters in the US.

For an individual, getting vaccinated if you have the opportunity to do so unquestionably helps your community reach its goal, so the simplest thing to do, if you support that goal, is get vaccinated. — Srap Tasmaner

True. But there are vulnerable people who need the vaccine first. I've other issues, but on this matter alone it would be about doing things in the right order.

Because in between there's a step:

I support this goal, but not this way of reaching it.

which is not so unusual. — Srap Tasmaner

Broadly, yes. I fully support the goal of getting 70% of the population vaccinated (I'd prefer to check natural immunity further first, but it's not a big deal). I think whipping up moral hysteria, exaggerating threats, underplaying risks (such as with children), and allowing rampant profiteering all the way, is so much the wrong way to do it that I think it's possibly more harmful than the end goal.

The point of the citations was to point out the clear insanity of the claim that you comply with every single state recommendation. — Isaac

If you can't do that on your own, they you can't think for yourself, not withstanding the fact that is what you accuse me of not being able to do. LOL! I tried to teach you that I don't comply with every single state recommendation because the state itself has created exceptions (remember the lesson about air pollution from cars? No? I didn't think so).

That's exactly what you're doing. You gave a pseudo-intellectual economic argument which you obviously don't understand as to why you needn't comply with a particular government recommendation. — Isaac

No, I did not. I gave you an example of the exceptions that the state provides, as stated in the last paragraph, and my continued schooling of you.

You're not an expert economist so why present the argument as if you understood it... smarter minds than you an' all... Just shut up and follow the recommendations. — Isaac

I do. That's why I still drive. Because the state says I can, even though I generate pollution. I'm not questioning their math as to why. They do it with corporations, too. Shareholders are given protection from having to take personal responsibility for their own actions (cost externalization) because the state deems it worth it to get cowards to come out from under the fridge with their money, invest it and stimulate the markets that we all benefit from. Sure, they are supposed to pay taxes on the profits they glean from this state largess, but that's another matter. The point is, the state sanctions all kinds of bad behavior. But they haven't sanctioned your arguments. Their experts, the experts, disagree with you.

You just did. — Isaac

No, I did not.

Experts say cut down in gas use, you present some neolib, half-cocked pseudo-economics denying you ought to. — Isaac

And I follow their advice. But I don't quit driving altogether because the state, and their experts don't want me to. They have deemed the risk worth it. Besides, remember the lesson I taught you about the futility of trying to do anything alone? No? I didn't think so. Remember what I taught you about state experts and recommendations, and gradients? No? I didn't think so.

Even if you would multiply that number by five, it would still leave 99% of people having to make permanent sacrifices in their way of living. That's beyond all proportionality to me.

Even if you would multiply that number by five, it would still leave 99% of people having to make permanent sacrifices in their way of living. — Tzeentch

Sacrifices? Distancing, wearing a mask, washing your fucking hands and getting free shot? Oh, here, let me shed a tear. I guess folks these days have gone soft. Besides, had they done what they were politely asked to do, the "sacrafices" (LOL) would not be permanent. Indeed, this shit would probably be over by now. But no, too many inconsiderate, disrespectful, selfish people couldn't put their fun on hold for the sake of others. Good thing we aren't storming the beaches of Normandy. Somebody might break a nail.

Why do you think there is so much resistance? Because the sacrifices are a lot higher than you care to admit. We've talked about this earlier: you accuse people of not caring about others, but you show not the slightest ability to understand others either. It makes all this yelling from a moral pedestal is very unconvincing.

Why do you think there is so much resistance? — Tzeentch

Because of my familiarity with Americans, particularly Trump supporting Republicans and their ilk.

but you show not the slightest ability to understand others either. — Tzeentch

There are a few people who are vax-hesitant with good cause. Take some blacks, for instance. The U.S. has used them, unknowingly, for experiments to benefit white people. There are probably a few others who are peers of, and even experts themselves. But I don't pretend to engage them. I'm not one of them. I'm mainly just poking a stick in the eye of those who's motives I find suspect because they are not experts and seem to advice against expert counsel on matters of public health in a pandemic.

It makes all this yelling from a moral pedestal is very unconvincing. — Tzeentch

Oh, no doubt! Take me and TPF for example: nothing could better demonstrate my inability to teach than my participation here. If I were a teacher, then you'd think I'd make more headway. LOL! So why am I here, pretending to be a teacher? Good question. Maybe folks should ask why non-scientific peer experts are here pretending to pontificate on the vax? It's my understanding that one should pursue knowledge by asking questions. Not by pretending to understand shit they don't understand. But I would never advise anyone to ask questions of a charlatan on the internet spewing advice that contradicts what the real experts say. You'd have to be a fool to ask me how to teach. Watch this:

I am to teaching as Isaac is to infectious disease, immunology, and physician science.

I suppose I could read a few papers from UNC, find a teacher who's opinion confirms my bias, and then come back and claim an understanding, but I don't think I'd have the cred.

I tried to teach you that I don't comply with every single state recommendation because the state itself has created exceptions — James Riley

I don't know why you're still banging on about exceptions. The state has provided an exception to it's recommendation on vaccination too, I don't have to get vaccinated. You think, in that case, that those taking the government up on its exception are murdering pieces of shit. I'm wondering if you feel that way about yourself when you choose to take the government up on one of its exceptions to their environmental recommendations.

Individuals are morally obligated to get vaccinated — Srap Tasmaner

Oh come on! Moral obligation? Maybe its best for the community if the major part dies first!

I don't know why you're still banging on about exceptions. — Isaac

I'm not banging on about exceptions. You asked if I did anything that risked others and I said I did, within the scope of recommendations. They recommend you don't pollute the air. But they allow you to drive and smoke and drink. There are limitations, however.

The state has provided an exception to it's recommendation on vaccination too, I don't have to get vaccinated. — Isaac

Wrong. The recommendation is to get the Vax. While there are exceptions, those are limited to certain medical conditions which you are not hanging your hat on. You are talking about the need for vax overseas or other nuanced arguments that are over your head and/or not supported by government recommendations. The recommendation is that you get a vax. The fact that it is merely a recommendation and not a mandate does no make the recommendation an exception. You just think you're special. That's because you're selfish, inconsiderate and disrespectful. But we've been over that.

You think, in that case, that those taking the government up on its exception are murdering pieces of shit. — Isaac

No. Those who have an exemption are not murdering POS. Those who don't have an exemption and refuse are, or could be the cause of the death of others. So yeah, murdering POS. They are lucky that the general situation is such that it can't be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that any single POS was the one who pulled the trigger. Though, hogging up hospital beds resulting in the death of another comes pretty close.

'm wondering if you feel that way about yourself when you choose to take the government up on one of its exceptions to their environmental recommendations. — Isaac

Good question. Asked and answered. But I'll answer yet again: I do feel bad that my driving a car inures to the detriment of those with asthma and other conditions, not to mention the impact it has on the Earth. But I also remember what I taught you before: Some problems can only be solved if a gun is placed in the mouth of every recalcitrant POS and they are forced to play along. If I try to go it alone, it actually ends up working against my goal. Of course, maybe the markets can solve it. Like all the horseshit, all over city streets, went away when the car took over. But then we get air pollution. If the markets would solve that, please do. But if they don't, government may well have to step in. And I will support it when it does, just like I vax when they asked me to. And joined the service, and refrain from drinking and driving, or blowing smoke in peoples faces, etc.

They recommend you don't pollute the air. But they allow you to drive and smoke and drink. — James Riley

Is the same as...

They recommend you get vaccinated by they allow you to not.

Is the same as... — Isaac

No. The exemptions from the recommendations are specified. You're just saying that because it's a recommendation it must be an exception. That's illogical.

OK, then we're back to the insane claim. If you're using 'alllows' to mean only the exemptions they actually specify within the recommendations (and not just anything that isn't mandated by law) then there's no way on earth you stick to all the government's environmental recommendations only veering from them in cases of specifically allowed exceptions.

there's no way on earth you stick to all the government's environmental recommendations only veering from them in cases of specifically allowed exceptions. — Isaac

I usually don't do this, but give me an example. We've talked about air pollution. I already defeated you on that. Give me another.

Oh, wait, I found it! You are right:

"All Americans should get the Covid Vaccine with the following exceptions:
1. Those who's doctor advises they should not get the vaccine for a medical reason;
2. Those who don't feel like it;
3. Those who are selfish;
4. Those who are inconsiderate;
5. Those who are disrespectful;
6. Those who think Fauci is wrong;
7. Those who are smarter than the CDC;
8. Those who are "special";
9. Those who don't trust gubm't;
10. Those who are afraid of needles;
11. Those who are afraid of free gubmn't medical vaccines;
13. Those who wear MAGA hats;
14. Children;
15. Adults who act like children;
16. Any fucking reason you can pull out of your ass;
17. Your name is Isaac on the internet;
18. Never mind, government hereby withdraws the recommendation;
19. Party hardy, Garth.

Uh huh. It's been a hoot, but I think were done.

:up:

Would Kant Have Worn a Face Mask?
A short piece that goes beyond the obvious to ask if asking you to wear a mask is an act of tyranny:

...those who say mandating mask-wearing is ‘tyranny’ are confused about what it means to be a capable human. It means being able to reason about how we should act towards others.

you can say I am indifferent to suffering resulting from an infectious disease, I can say that you're indifferent to the effects of totalitarianism on children — NOS4A2

Of the 40,000 people who have died in Florida, there's bound to be a fair number of children who have lost parents. That'll hurt them a lot more than being made to stay at home during an epidemic.

asking you to wear a mask is an act of tyranny — Banno

It's just complete rubbish. It's a practical step to avoid the spread of infectious diseases. It's a shame the spread of moron ideology is not as easy to prevent.

.those who say mandating mask-wearing is ‘tyranny’ are confused about what it means to be a capable human. It means being able to reason about how we should act towards others.

:100:

:100: — Wayfarer

Broadly, yes. I fully support the goal of getting 70% of the population vaccinated (I'd prefer to check natural immunity further first, but it's not a big deal). I think whipping up moral hysteria, exaggerating threats, underplaying risks (such as with children), and allowing rampant profiteering all the way, is so much the wrong way to do it that I think it's possibly more harmful than the end goal. — Isaac

I've emphasized the word I take to indicate uncertainty, and I endorse your uncertainty. None of us can be certain.

But, as you might expect from me, here's the problem: getting kinda vaccinated, or vaccinated to a degree that matches your subjective confidence, is not an option , any more than kinda placing a bet.

The whole point of betting is choosing (i.e., acting) under uncertainty: you behave as if your confidence in the outcome you bet on is 100%. The bet of the man who believes with all his heart pays out the same as the bet of the man who closed his eyes and pointed.

You have chosen, and your choice matches a confidence level of 0 in the vaccine and the goals of getting vaccinated. Those of us who have gotten vaccinated may not have, and I'd guess mostly do not have, a certainty of 1 that getting vaccinated is the right thing to do, but we behave as if we have perfect certainty. That's how betting works, that's how acting under uncertainty works, and that's how honoring the social contract works. If you want your community, through exposure and through vaccination, to reach herd immunity, but you have not been exposed and refuse to get vaccinated, you are not doing your part while expecting others to do theirs. That's just the tragedy of the commons and you should know better.

:100:

This is debated here?

Not even Descartes would have doubted to take the vaccine. :snicker:

I do recognize that control measures are a restriction of civil liberties. No question. But the alternatives are worse, if it means loosing your life or suffering long-term effects to your health or that of your loved ones. The fundamental tenet of liberal democracy is valuing life and liberty - seems to me a lot of the blather about how control measures are 'totalitarianism' puts individual liberty above health and life.

Case in point.

This week, 227 virus deaths were being reported each day in Florida, on average, as of Tuesday, a record for the state and by far the most in the United States right now.
....

Even as cases continue to surge, with more than 17,200 people hospitalized with the virus across Florida, Gov. Ron DeSantis, a Republican, has held firm on banning vaccine and mask mandates.

As you sow.....

What a strongly felt, not to say overratedly obeying and embracing attitude I feel here towards just a piece of Coronavirus DNA to be shot in the blood by a needle. Fuck that vaccine! The pharmaceutical companies rub their hands. The millionairs profiting from it that is. "Ha, very nice! Pandemic! Let a few million die first and then sell the vaccine to the richest countries. About the poor counties we dont care!" First letting millions die because of a virus they manufactured. And then let the poor population die. MF's!!!

It would have been the best if everybody was forbidden to take it. With the force of the gun!

t would have been the best if everybody was forbidden to take it. — Prishon

I trust Darwinian selection will winnow you out before too long....let's hope you don't take too many others with you....

I trust Darwinian selection will winnow you out before too long....let's hope you don't take too many others with you.... — Wayfarer

could you maybe get a little more bitter about the whole thing?

Not bitter at all. More annoyed. Just making an observation and stating a case. Timely occasion for my favourite quote from an American politician - 'Everyone has a right to their own opinions, but not to their own facts' - Daniel Patrick Moynihan.

More annoyed. — Wayfarer

I see. It's just that when you say things like 'I trust you'll die soon' it makes you sound more bitter than annoyed.

It's just that when you say things like 'I trust you'll die soon' — frank

Didn't say that. I made an admittedly sardonic appeal to 'the principle of natural selection'. The fly in the ointment being that refusing vaccination can also affect other people; you can get the virus, have no symptoms, but then transmit it to someone else who might die from it.