Right. Of course I’ve heard of the British Medical Journal but you could read that blog post not knowing that and be none the wiser at the end.

The proper distinction between crackpot and scientist is the extent to which one can justify one's claims with proper scientific rigour, not the extent to which one's peers currently agree. — Isaac

Of course. But the whole concept of objective fact is under challenge today, particularly in the USA.


//ps - although I should add, peer review and agreement has to be part of it doesn’t it? If nobody can replicate or agree with a particular scientists findings, then how can they stand?

Of course I’ve heard of the British Medical Journal but you could read that blog post not knowing that and be none the wiser at the end. — Wayfarer

Yes, they changed it a few years back, don't know why, now it's just BMJ. Sounds more like a music magazine, by hey ho, we've got to move with the times...

the whole concept of objective fact is under challenge today, particularly in the USA. — Wayfarer

Yes, I think people have failed to realise the effect this shift is having on actual science.

Anyone who considers themselves a scientist should be embarrassed by our collective failure to generate knowledge.... The CDC director calls this "following the science," but it is not. It is following the TV pundits. — Vinay Prasad - Associate Professor in the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics at the University of California

peer review and agreement has to be part of it doesn’t it? If nobody can replicate or agree with a particular scientists findings, then how can they stand? — Wayfarer

Absolutely, but in the examples I gave we're not talking about lack of peer review or replicability. We're talking about interpretation of data that comes from those studies (or less rigorous studies sometimes, we are in something of a hurry at the moment!). Agreement here is not a measure of rigour. There might well be one lone voice interpreting the data one way and the isolation of that voice would have no impact at all on the statistical rigour of the data it is interpreting.

We simply don't measure scientific interpretation by vote, never have done...until now, it seems.

I see your point, and it’s an important one.

Talking of Professor Prasad, I'm going to post a recent article of his here because it neatly sums up virtually every position that I've encountered on this thread. I'm quoting sections because I think Medpage might be paywalled to non-subscribers.

https://www.medpagetoday.com/opinion/vinay-prasad/94074

I've written on this topic elsewhere, but my point here is about the misuse of "both-sidesing."

Our society is more and more incapable of debating real issues. We are not only certain of our positions, we view the clash of ideas as a threat. More than any specific issue, I am worried about people who are so fragile they cannot bear to hear opinions that conflict with their own. Calling real debates both-sidesing is a cognitive distortion.

The bottom line is this: the idea that your motivations are pure but those who disagree with you are tainted is a cognitive distortion. Revisit it.

There are two principles worth articulating. One, in emergency circumstances, states and other actors can institute untested interventions in the face of novel threats. But two, if these interventions continue or repeat, year after year, at some point, it is incumbent on the entity or person asserting the intervention to prove that the net benefits outweigh the harms.

An anecdote without a sober and methodical appraisal of data can lead to erroneous thinking. Social media abuses anecdotes in all directions: on issues I agree with and vehemently disagree with. But in both cases, I often think that emotional appeal of anecdotes is unfair -- even if it furthers a cause I like. We must make our case solely on the merits of the argument or policy.

Recently, Andy Slavitt wrote that many experts believe it is now inevitable that everyone will someday acquire SARS-CoV-2, and this was labeled a dangerous view.

If you think vaccinated people should isolate to avoid spreading SARS-CoV-2, then any idea that suggests they will get the virus eventually runs counter to your narrative. A person may wonder: Why should I continue to deprive myself if getting the virus is inevitable? (Note: this does not apply to an unvaccinated person who has a high risk of severe outcomes or death that would markedly fall if they were vaccinated.) The idea is only dangerous if you already assume that vaccinated people staying home is a good thing.

If instead, you think that vaccinated people should take reasonable precautions, but have to try to get back to life as much as possible because -- as they say, time's a-wasting -- then the idea that they may someday acquire SARS-CoV-2 and thankfully not get as sick as they otherwise would (after all they have been vaccinated) is not that dangerous. It is just a statement of what many experts believe.

A dangerous idea is too often used to describe an idea that erodes support for your policy recommendation. But using it in this way is a cognitive distortion.

It is fascinating how we have created party platforms out of COVID policy, with partisan splits over lockdowns, school closures, masks, hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, and the origins of the virus.

Why can't there be a mixing and matching of our pandemic views? Lockdowns require far more study, and we have no idea under what circumstances they may work. School closure is the most disruptive policy choice and should only be considered when approaching health systems failure. Masking is reasonable in some settings, but we need to run randomized studies to know exactly at what ages and in what scenarios. Ivermectin is being tested in several large ongoing randomized trials, but probably doesn't work. That's nothing against it specifically, just a statement of fact that most drug trials are negative. And, yes, let's put it to bed: hydroxychloroquine doesn't work for COVID. Finally, I have no idea if lab leak did or did not happen, but I do know that censoring debate on the topic was awful.

Being able to hold views that sometimes dovetail with your peers and colleagues, but not always, is the hallmark of independent thinking and appraisal of evidence. Instead I worry that even the professional classes -- folks with doctorates -- have devolved into tribal creatures lusting for blood when they see a view that falls outside their preferred platform.

It's tiring to go online and read the repeated calls for someone to be fired for something they may have said. Amazingly, often it is the first time I am learning that this person even exists!

Everyone feel free to rip it to shreds, but do read the article if possible. Extra marks for a really vitriolic reply which uses all seven cognitive distortions.

Any reason why you've used the age-adjusted rates?

https://www.health.ny.gov/diseases/chronic/ageadj.htm

Yes, I know what age adjustment is, I was wondering why they'd adjusted (or more specifically what they've adjusted). I suspect it's adjusted for variation in vaccination rates, but without the data source, it's not clear. I thought you might have such information, since you posted the data.

I didn't think the point was all that subtle: you explicitly support your community's goal of reaching herd immunity; you just aren't willing to help -- at least not in the way you've been asked to.

Of course, I suppose you could help in other ways besides getting vaccinated; you mentioned somewhere that you've done some consulting work that's related...

We know what you've done not to help -- not gotten your jab and spent time here justifying that choice -- maybe you could tell us what you've done to help advance the goal you've said you support.

If your answer is that the data suggest we'll reach herd immunity, and SARS-CoV-2 will join the other coronaviruses as endemic, without you ever getting vaccinated, that's a textbook case of the tragedy of the commons: your choice is for lots of other people to do their bit and for you to free-ride.

I only finally got vaccinated recently -- no excuse for the delay, really, just that daily life is a little complicated and the days I planned for doing it kept falling through. But even though I've gone this long without getting sick or even knowing anyone who got sick, despite the fact that I work in retail, it never occurred to me to refuse or just not bother, anymore than I would consider refusing or just not bothering to vote.

Had the results not been age adjusted, then your proper objection would have been that they weren't age adjusted, not the opposite, as you're arguing here.

Google "Covid-19 associated hospitalizations among unvaccinated and fully vaccinated" and you can review page after page of the analyzed data, all with the statistical methodology you're looking for, as if the jury is still out on this question.

Maybe fight a good fight, like try to convince expectant mothers to maintain proper nutrition or something like that as opposed to whatever you're trying to do here.

you explicitly support your community's goal of reaching herd immunity; you just aren't willing to help -- at least not in the way you've been asked to. — Srap Tasmaner

Yes, that's about it. What I really wanted you to answer was why you thought that a selfish decision (tragedy of the commons reference). The reason I'm not willing to help in the way I've been asked is because I think the way I've been asked might well do more harm than the laudable goal it's aiming at. Harm to others, that is. How is avoiding harm to others selfish, or in any way related to the tragedy of the commons? My understanding of the tragedy is that in each person looking only to their own gain, they spoil things for everyone.

All my examples, issues and concerns have related to everyone, not to me. I've raised concerns about vaccinating children, about vaccine distribution to poor countries, about losing focus on community healthcare, about rising wealth inequality, about profiteering pharmaceuticals... None of which affect me directly in the slightest.

So I'm still not seeing how it applies. I'm not gaining anything at all from doing any of this. Gods, I've colleagues who won't speak to me. In what way, exactly, is my position supposed to be benefitting me?

maybe you could tell us what you've done to help advance the goal you've said you support. — Srap Tasmaner

I don't think that would be either relevant, nor appropriate. I could be a complete hypocrite and my argument's qualities remain undented. Detailing my consultancy work online is, in any case, completely out of the question.

If your answer is that the data suggest we'll reach herd immunity, and SARS-CoV-2 will join the other coronaviruses as endemic, without you ever getting vaccinated, that's a textbook case of the tragedy of the commons: your choice is for lots of other people to do their bit and for you to free-ride. — Srap Tasmaner

Again, you've not really made clear what kind of free-ride I'm getting out of this. I could simply not get vaccinated and lie about it, easy. What am I getting out of the approach I'm taking here which relates to the tragedy of the commons example?

Had the results not been age adjusted, then your proper objection would have been that they weren't age adjusted, not the opposite, as you're arguing here. — Hanover

No objections at all. I just asked since age adjustment is done for comparative purposes and involves at least one variable. The variable was not listed so the data incomplete.

If there's a complaint in there it's that I suspected that you posted data you didn't even understand the stats behind it but posted it because it showed a good looking line going up. The entire essence of the problem here in a nutshell.

I realise my anecdotal speculations will be of no interest to you (nor maybe anyone at this stage), but... @Banno asked if I had a theory as to why vaccine hesitancy was highest among the PhD educated (but other higher education levels showed the lowest). My guess is that only at PhD level do you start realising what can be done by 'managing' your statistics, it changes the way one looks at data supposedly proving some point or other. That or we're all grumpy selfish bastards who no longer care because we're going to die soon anyway.

I'm not gaining anything at all from doing any of this. — Isaac

Sorry, yes, there's been a misunderstanding. I'm not interested in what you gain by posting here, etc.

I'm also not making the case that you benefit by your community, local or global, reaching herd immunity; I think that's true but it would only be relevant here if that's why you support it as a goal, and even then, whatever.

The point is that herd immunity is a goal of yours, for whatever reason, whether you derive any benefit from it, whether you know you derive any benefit from it. It's a goal of yours; if something you want to happen happens, well, then you're getting what you want, and is the simplest possible way of judging success.

You have decided that to reach this goal, of yours, lots of other people should do something, just not you. Hence you are free-riding. Or you're going down with the ship, if the goal is not reached, whatever. The point is only that you have a goal you believe other people should take steps to reach.

I could be a complete hypocrite and my argument's qualities remain undented. — Isaac

Yes, of course. We can treat this all hypothetically. It's of no interest that you haven't gotten vaccinated. For all I know you have and this is all "for the sake of argument". I believe I understand the question you wanted to raise -- are individuals obligated to get vaccinated, and if so is that a specifically moral obligation? -- and while it does streamline the conversation for you to take the part of Vaccine Refuser, it's not actually relevant.

For comparison, you could defend conscientious objectors by saying something like: there are other ways to contribute to defeating the Nazis than shooting them -- running your neighborhood watch, collecting steel and rubber scraps, working in a hospital, and so on.

In this case, it's not perfectly clear what that might be. I suppose you could volunteer to drive the transportationally-challenged to a clinic -- hell, I suppose there are lots of things besides the obvious that you could do. (Oh yeah, and didn't mean to suggest you share details about your work -- but it should be clear now where something like that might slot in, as an alternative contribution.)

At any rate, that's the shape of my intended answer to your specific question: expecting others to take steps to reach a goal of yours while taking no steps yourself is not okay, and I don't think you'd have any trouble digging up studies to confirm that people generally frown upon free-riding. College sophomores everywhere agree.

On the other hand, are you under an obligation specifically to get vaccinated? This argument says no; you're only obligated to chip in somehow, not necessarily in the obvious way.

It's not obvious to me yet that the argument could be strengthened to require specifically that you get vaccinated, but it's not out of the question. I'll mull it over some more.

. My guess is that only at PhD level do you start realising what can be done by 'managing' your statistics, it changes the way one looks at data supposedly proving some point or other. That or we're all grumpy selfish bastards who no longer care because we're going to die soon anyway. — Isaac

The PhD hesitancy rate is curious, but it's still only about 25%, meaning it remains a minority position. That study doesn't identify which PhDs were represented, nor was there any confirmation of the PhD. it would be more concerning if medical based PhDs were highly represented among the skeptics, but we just don't have that information.

No objections at all. I just asked since age adjustment is done for comparative purposes and involves at least one variable. The variable was not listed so the data incomplete. — Isaac

Well, you've now been provided all the data you could possibly need to sort through.

It's not obvious to me yet that the argument could be strengthened to require specifically that you get vaccinated, but it's not out of the question. I'll mull it over some more. — Srap Tasmaner

Hmmmm.

Trouble is, you really do need some people, a lot as a matter of fact, specifically to get vaccinated. It wouldn't do for everyone to make alternative contributions -- say, everyone vocally encouraging everyone else to get the jab but no one doing it themselves. So that looks like we've only pushed the asymmetry back a step.

To make this clear: suppose you didn't want to get vaccinated because you thought the chances it's not safe were too high for your taste -- doesn't matter what, even 5% or something, just enough that it's not a risk you're comfortable taking. Would it be okay for you to encourage others to get vaccinated? That doesn't look quite right, does it? Encouraging others to take a risk you wouldn't, if you would benefit should they be successful -- that's not likely to find approval among college sophomores.


BONUS section!

Similarly, I don't want to support Big Pharma or Big Government but I want others to, also not cool.

it would be more concerning if medical based PhDs were highly represented among the skeptics, but we just don't have that information. — Hanover

Dimes to donuts it isn't epidemiologists. My money's on physicists, but really any hard science outside the actual field at issue. You know how those guys are.

My guess is that only at PhD level do you start realising what can be done by 'managing' your statistics, it changes the way one looks at data supposedly proving some point or other. That or we're all grumpy selfish bastards who no longer care because we're going to die soon anyway. — Isaac

Fact check in PhD hesitancy

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.

It’s the same with children in New York, who have had more deaths along with more stringent lockdowns. Compound the deaths of their parent with the negative effects of totalitarian, nanny-state lockdowns and you could hardly have it worse as a child.

Nonetheless, comparing a sparsely populated, island continent to a densely populated state is an odd choice, even if I assume political motivations.

And it just got stupider: https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/changing-america/enrichment/arts-culture/569152-bombshell-report-says-cyber-ninjas-leader-seriously%3famp

The point is that herd immunity is a goal of yours, for whatever reason, whether you derive any benefit from it, whether you know you derive any benefit from it. It's a goal of yours; if something you want to happen happens, well, then you're getting what you want — Srap Tasmaner

Yes, but I have other goals too. Remember this is a conflict between ends and means. Two goals (at least).

You have decided that to reach this goal, of yours, lots of other people should do something, just not you. Hence you are free-riding. Or you're going down with the ship, if the goal is not reached, whatever. — Srap Tasmaner

Not 'whatever' though. Not as far as my morality is concerned. Free-riding and 'going down with the ship' are not anywhere near morally equivalent positions. I don't think other people see it that way either. Compare "the captain was just free-riding the voyage and let his first officer do all the work", to "the captain went down with his ship".

expecting others to take steps to reach a goal of yours while taking no steps yourself is not okay, — Srap Tasmaner

Yes, but it's not quite like that. Expecting soldiers to fight, expecting nurses to heal...this is quite normal. We're all different so we need not all play the same part, especially if there are other factors at stake.

I'll simplify something I think is not far from the position (which is a bit more complex)...

We've two goals. 1. vaccinate 70%, and 2. minimize inequality in vaccine distribution.

To achieve both we want 70% of people to be vaccinated but no more. Any more would interfere with equitable distribution.

So who should be the 70%? Well, obviously everyone for whom the benefits clearly outweigh the risks. Who should be in the 30%? Anyone who's most likely to be able to reach and maintain immunity themselves. Soldiers and nurses...

This is a very simplified version to get the framework I'm working from across. Basically we're working towards more than one goal and not everyone has the 'get vaccinated' role to play.

Think that answers your bonus question too. We want two things (one of which is not support big pharma, in your example). How do we get both? Arrange it (as a community) such that we use the smallest amount of big pharma product required to achieve our other goal.

Well, you've now been provided all the data you could possibly need to sort through. — Hanover

Yes, thanks.

Link's not working for me (something about EU laws!) Can you summarise?

Dimes to donuts it isn't epidemiologists. — Srap Tasmaner

Actually most of the people I've cited opposed to the current policies are epidemiologists. Also my personal experience. It's primarily epidemiologists, statisticians, paediatrics, and the odd few economists. But that's primarily to do with who I'm hanging around with recently. Not much call for experimental physicists in my work! That would be some very long term risk planning!

You are 29.2 times more likely to be hospitalized if you contract Covid if you're not vaccinated. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7034e5.htm?s_cid=mm7034e5_x

This study came out tomorrow, August 27, 2021, so you know it's recent.

You are 29.2 times more likely to be hospitalized if you contract Covid if you're not vaccinated. — Hanover

No. The unvaccinated hospitalised are 29.2 times more prevalent than the vaccinated hospitalised. Your likelihood would only be the same as the prevalence if hospitalisation/vaccination combinations were random, and we already know they aren't. See what I mean about statistics?

Oh, and while we at misuse of stats, your chances if you're a healthy young adult are so small that multiplying them by 29.2 is irrelevant.

Actually most of the people I've cited opposed to the current policies are epidemiologists. Also my personal experience. It's primarily epidemiologists, statisticians, paediatrics, and the odd few economists. But that's primarily to do with who I'm hanging around with recently. Not much call for experimental physicists in my work! That would be some very long term risk planning! — Isaac

Have you considered you might have a problem with confirmation bias here, considering you call into question basic statistical methodologies when evaluating reports submitted by the scientific community, but you treat as gospel an opinion poll posted on Facebook where people responded to questions and then self-identified their level of education? That is, we have no idea whether people voted 2, 3, or 55 times and whether they were truthful when asserting their level of education.

And even should I accept your data as truthful, do you propose I shrug off the mountain of evidence being accumulated supporting the efficiency of the vaccine reducing the Covid symptoms just because 25% of the US PhDs express some hesitancy about its efficiency?

you treat as gospel an opinion poll posted on Facebook where people responded to questions and then self-identified their level of education? — Hanover

I haven't relied on that poll for evidence of anything on which my arguments hinge. I only brought it up in response to others making equally spurious, unsupported claims about the intelligence level of the vaccine hesitant. I would not rely on it.

No. The unvaccinated hospitalised are 29.2 times more prevalent than the vaccinated hospitalised. Your likelihood would only be the same as the prevalence if hospitalisation/vaccination combinations were random, and we already know they aren't. See what I mean about statistics? — Isaac

And what is the uncontrolled variable you hypothesize that exists within the vaccinated community that has resulted in this deceptive data? I'd think the vaccinated would consist of the most vulnerable to the disease. The vaccination rates tend very high among the elderly, in many states in the high 90%.

I haven't relied on that poll for evidence of anything on which my arguments hinge. I only brought it up in response to others making equally spurious, unsupported claims about the intelligence level of the vaccine hesitant. I would not rely on it. — Isaac

Lovely. I'll strike out all prior references to it now that you withdraw it.

And even should I accept your data as truthful, do you propose I shrug off the mountain of evidence being accumulated supporting the efficiency of the vaccine reducing the Covid symptoms just because 25% of the US PhDs express some hesitancy about its efficiency? — Hanover

No. I'm not asking you to do anything. I haven't once made any request of anyone here nor have I judged them in any way for their choices. In fact I think you've made the right choice given what you know.

I'm defending my choice against some pretty nasty judgements.