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

If you strike out every single other reference to any data with equal or lesser statistical rigour. Are you prepared to do that? I'd hazard a guess this thread would end up looking like I'm talking to myself most of the time.

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. — Isaac

So this is just about niceness? Fine, I'm judgy and mean. I would have conceded that before we began and saved ourselves time.

My point is that while you have a libertarian sort of right to make bad decisions, it's a bad decision to make bad decisions, even if you have the right to do it.

And what is the uncontrolled variable you hypothesize that exists within the vaccinated community that has resulted in this deceptive data? — Hanover

It's not about an uncontrolled variable in one cohort (although it could be, they haven't checked), it's that the Odds Ratio which applies to the population as a whole is almost certainly not going to apply to any given cohort within it. A vaccine if you you're elderly and ill is going to massively help your chances. One if you're young and healthy might make no difference at all, all you're seeing in that figure is the average effect.

As a lay person, I won’t pretend to engage the merits of anything said by the 30 experts you reference. Instead, I will stipulate to some facts about them:

1. They exist;
2. They are experts;
3. They say what you say they say;
4. What they say conflicts with what we are being told by other experts and the policy makers who rely upon those other experts.

For simplicities sake, let’s refer to the experts as “your experts” and “my experts.”

The next logical step would be to ask my experts how they respond to what your experts have said.

My recommendation for you, as the next logical step in your apparent desire to dive into this alleged scientific argument, would be to do just that. What have my experts had to say about what your experts have to say?

I have no desire to take that dive. But if you are really interested in the issue, you simply cannot rely solely upon your experts as I am doing with mine. If there is a conflict within their community, there are protocols for sussing out the issue.

We all know the history of science, and how some scientists were marginalized, ostracized, left out of journals and ignored. Communities have cliques and one not playing ball in their community, well, their opinions can be buried for scientific, or simple personality reasons. But, having been made aware of the past problems, where it turns out the outsider was actually right all along, the professions have developed ways of making sure that outside views are dealt with. It’s called “peer review.”

In a case such as this, my guys could not simply ignore your guys. Nor could your guys simply ignore my guys. Surely, in your research, you have found “the nut.” The nut is the fundamental disagreement where the views of the respective parties have been refined and set forth and the “white paper” on the nut has been written for folks like you, me and the policy makers.

“John says X, Bob says Y. Here is the statement of the case by each, the response thereto, and then the rebuttal to the response of each to the other.”

That is where I would go if I were you. I would be upset with my policy makers, Fauci, et al, if I found out they had not already been there. It’s happened before. Policy makers ignore the science and proceed in a different direction. If you find that is the case, I’d love to hear it.

One thing that has me comfortable with my guys is that the policy makers, while making policy, are actually putting my-guy scientists out there in front of the camera and alleging that they, the policy makers, are relying upon them. Compare: Republican policy makers often do all the talking and don’t put their experts out front. You’d think, if they had any experts that say “Don’t distance” or “don’t mask” or “don’t vax” then we’d have them out front. If not where else than on Faux News? Protocols simply won’t allow for alleged MSM conspiracies to bury the science in support of Republican policy.

Anyway, I’m satisfied with my guys. You, however, as a seeker of truth on the matter, might consider looking for it. What do my guys say about your guys? Then, what do your guys say about what my guys say about your guys. If you chase that down to the end, like we do in legal research, you will find the nut. There may be disagreement there, but you’ll find the nut.

We need people like you to do that for us. Good luck. Hopefully, if there is any there there, you can play a part in forcing your guys to do a better job than they are doing.

As for me, I'm just going to take a risk and take a shot. I haven't understood how that might hurt anyone other than myself or those who have joined me in the risk.

Further this affiant sayeth naught.

So this is just about niceness? — Hanover

Not 'niceness' no.

it's a bad decision to make bad decisions, even if you have the right to do it. — Hanover

It's not a bad decision. It's a different decision. A bad decision is one which can be shown to fail, or one which can be shown to be irrational. Neither charge has been carried. I've made my decision using perfectly coherent arguments from data provided by experts in their field (more than one). Decisions of this sort are alternatives in a complex situation, not 'bad'.

If you strike out every single other reference to any data with equal or lesser statistical rigour. Are you prepared to do that? I'd hazard a guess this thread would end up looking like I'm talking to myself most of the time. — Isaac

Now we're arguing fairness. I thought we were talking about whether invalid data should be considered, but now you're saying you get to argue bullshit because you think you're opponents are arguing bullshit. At least with the Facebook data, everyone is in agreement it's bullshit (as opposed to other data where there is dispute over the legitimacy), so in this instance, you now agree it should be disregarded? Or, do you reserve the right to openly, knowingly, and intentionally argue from data you know to be invalid?

do you reserve the right to openly, knowingly, and intentionally argue from data you know to be invalid? — Hanover

I'm not arguing from it. None of my supporting arguments rely on it. I'm just saying that there's bigger fish to fry if poorly evidenced opinion is an issue for you.

I'm not arguing from it. None of my supporting arguments rely on it. I'm just saying that there's bigger fish to fry if poorly evidenced opinion is an issue for you. — Isaac

I must have been in a different discussion group. My recollection was that you were arguing your decision not to vaccinate was supported by a study that showed a correlation between PhDs and vaccine hesitancy, and which you further opined that those PhDs consisted of epidemiologists and other PhDs (statisticians and economists) with specific knowledge on the subject of data manipulation. That was a counter argument to a poster who suggested the vaccine hesitant PhDs were likely physicists.

Do you make any distinction at all as to what is good for you or bad? If you do, why?

I don't know you. You have 5K+ posts and my general impression is that you're a smart guy. But in this you're a weasel. Why?

Even given the worst of the conspiracy fantasies, that Covid was deliberately created for the purpose of selling vaccines, making some "them" rich; still, there's Covid and there are vaccines. What exactly, then, is your problem?

I must have been in a different discussion group. My recollection was that you were arguing your decision not to vaccinate was supported by a study that showed a correlation between PhDs — Hanover

It would help if you quoted the part of my post you think says that. It's certainly not what I intended to say, I've provided several dozen articles from respected medical journals to support my argument, I don't need a pre-print Gallup poll.

you further opined that those PhDs consisted of epidemiologists and other PhDs (statisticians and economists) with specific knowledge on the subject of data manipulation. That was a counter argument to a poster who suggested the vaccine hesitant PhDs were likely physicists. — Hanover

That's my personal experience, yes. I did make that clear. As I said, strike such idle speculation from the record if you prefer, but the speculation to which it was a response was no less idle.

What exactly, then, is your problem? — tim wood

I'm not starting all over again simply to act as your whipping post. I've laid out my argument in these 200 some pages. If you've an interest simply read back through them.

I have already done as you suggest, I'm not an idiot. I have a PhD and, until a few years ago held a professorship at one of the 'better' (ahem!) UK universities. I know how to research. If you think a little to-ing and fro-ing between disputing parties results in anything other than the further entrenchment of those conflicting positions then you, evidently, do not. There's a reason you have a jury, right?

There's a reason you have a jury, right? — Isaac

There is. The public sits on it. I sit on it. The policy makers sit on it. You *should* sit on it. But you sound like a party, or an advocate; not a finder of fact or a ruler of law searching for truth.

Where is the White Paper? Where is the nut? All I've seen from you is the "to-ing and fro-ing between disputing parties". Those are the weeds we don't want or need to get into. That, and your above crowing about your PhD and professorship and other irrelevant BS that is the equivalent of an appeal to authority that you accuse me of. We, the jury are not looking for your creds. We've already stipulated to your guy's creds. You aren't an epidemiologist or virologist, etc. You don't have those creds. Neither do we. If you are a researcher, where is the nut, the white paper we're looking for? Where is what my guys say about your guys? Keep researching and get back to us. Or haven't your research skills found it?

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

"They found 23.9 percent of the people who said they hold Ph.D. degrees expressed hesitancy, the highest rate among the various levels of education.

But some of their work appears to be misrepresented online, missing the overall point that hesitancy dropped.

“There are people that can kind of take a data point and twist it around to mean something that it doesn’t mean, and that’s unfortunate,” King said.

A sensitivity analysis found some people answered in the extreme ends of some demographic categories to throw off some of the numbers. King said it appeared to be a “concerted effort” that “did make the hesitancy prevalence in the Ph.D. group look higher than it really is.”

For example, they observed higher hesitancy rates than expected in the oldest age group — 75 and over — as well as the top end in terms of education level.

“We found that people basically used it to write in political … statements,” King said. “So they weren’t genuine responses. They didn’t really complete the survey in good faith.”

There were some other issues.

The study hasn’t been peer-reviewed yet.

People taking the survey were on the honor system, with no way to make sure people who claimed to have Ph.D. degrees actually have them.

And the Ph.D. group does not include medical doctors or nurses.

“So it’s not representative of the medical profession,” King said."

It really something. I have seen the whole spectrum of philosophy come by here. What a virus can do...

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. — Isaac

Well, in a rationing situation, volunteering to go without is generally considered praiseworthy, within limits. You've got that part covered.

But say I have a group of twenty men and I need six volunteers for a dangerous mission. Do you expect praise for throwing up your hand and volunteering to be one of the 14 who stay behind? Your math is fine, but it's no use saying, some of us will stay and some of us will go to, we're each doing our part. They're not equivalent.

So I could just say here that, sure, your abstaining advances one goal but not the other, and leave it at that.

But even the goals are not on the same footing. Conserving vaccine is only a useful sub-goal insofar as it helps advance the goal of getting the human race, and each community within it, to herd immunity. If we work too hard at conserving vaccine, we work counter to our goal of actually administering vaccinations. There is no parity here.

There is hunger in the world. Do you help the hungry by refusing food they would love to get their hands on? What would they think of your refusal?

Another question: leaving aside the ickiness with boosters for a moment, if every county in the United States was over 70%, how many doses would public health officials feel they need to stockpile, rather than letting them get sent elsewhere? What if slow uptake here is one of the reasons we're not sending more abroad?

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

To stay at 70%, we'll have to give boosters.

I need six volunteers for a dangerous mission. Do you expect praise for throwing up your hand and volunteering to be one of the 14 who stay behind? — Srap Tasmaner

Well no. But it's not a dangerous mission is it? Getting the vaccine gives you (as we've just been emphatically told) 29.2 times less chance of getting sick. How's that the 'dangerous mission ' element of this analogy. If you believe the CDC etc, I'm the one doing the dangerous bit.

There is hunger in the world. Do you help the hungry by refusing food they would love to get their hands on? What would they think of your refusal? — Srap Tasmaner

Virtue ethics. Consequentualism isn't the only game in town. I don't eat excess because it's wrong, not because I actually think my saved food will get to the starving. Do you really think our excess can be excused by citing admin problems?

Interesting, thanks. I'd love to see the analysis done to reach those conclusions. Maybe the EU will let me see the paper someday.

The data came off Facebook with no verification. That's enough to ignore it.

The data came off Facebook with no verification. That's enough to ignore it. — frank

Indeed. So one wonders what possessed them to conduct, gather, analyse and write up the data if they knew all along it was just going to be a load of lies. Had it shown only a preponderance of uneducated Trumpers having such notions would we be questioning it?

Seems either a political stunt gone wrong, a very stupid bit of research, or an OK (if not perfect) methodology (given the vast sample size) which is being hurriedly discredited because it gave the 'wrong' answer.

Seems either a political stunt gone wrong, a very stupid bit of research, or an OK (if not perfect) methodology (given the vast sample size) which is being hurriedly discredited because it gave the 'wrong' answer. — Isaac

It's very stupid research.

Meanwhile, someone in Alabama is charging people $250 for vaccination and people are refraining because they can't afford it.


It's free.

My guess is that only at PhD level do you start realising what can be done by 'managing' your statistics, — Isaac

That seems pretty unlikely. Undergrads should be aware of the malleability of stats. I doubt you need a PhD for this; nor would a PhD in English Lit lead to a deep understanding of inference from statistics.

It's a curious anomaly. Given that those with PhD's make up about 1% of the population yet those who did not finish high school make up about 10%, the numbers still suggest a correlation between hesitancy and lack of education. Does the data show how many claimed to have a doctorate? Did the researchers check they were reporting the truth?

The only reasonable conclusion is that a further study might be interesting.

That seems pretty unlikely. Undergrads should be aware if the malleability of stats. I doubt you need a PhD for this; nor would a PhD in English Lit lead to a deep understanding of inference from statistics. — Banno

Undergrads are, in my experience, sorely unaware of the limits of their stats, but you're spot on about the non-scientific PhDs, I didn't think of those, probably not to do with stats then, but as @franks earlier citation showed, the research seems flawed anyway, so the question is moot. The more interesting question is why such an obviously flawed piece of research got as far as pre-print without anyone mentioning the issues. What were they expecting?

But it's not a dangerous mission is it? — Isaac

Good lord, Isaac, that's not the point. I need six guys to move some furniture; you volunteer to be one of the guys who doesn't. The point is that counting doing nothing as "each of us doing their part" is sophistry.

I don't eat excess because it's wring, not because I actually think my saved food will get to the starving. — Isaac

No one is asking you to gorge yourself on the vaccine, just to get the minimum.

but as franks earlier citation showed, the research seems flawed anyway, so the question is moot — Isaac

Notice that Banjo did exactly what you suggested. He didn't know it was flawed. He threw it out because he didn't like it.

I need six guys to move some furniture; you volunteer to be one of the guys who doesn't. The point is that counting doing nothing as "each of us doing their part" is sophistry. — Srap Tasmaner

It's not hard work to get a vaccine and it's entirely beneficial to those getting it, so I really can't see how even moving furniture works. You're still painting getting the vaccine as if it were harder or more dangerous or in some other way 'more' than not getting it. Apart from a ten minute diversion to one's day, it nothing, it's no 'sacrifice' is it?

No one is asking you to gorge yourself on the vaccine, just to get the minimum. — Srap Tasmaner

Most countries in the world currently have barely enough to reach 10%. The WHO, and both Europe's and the UK's vaccine advisors have advised that restraint will be necessary to ensure equitable distribution. This is not a controversial position in that respect. The head of the WHO called it 'grotesque'.

Notice that Banjo did exactly what you suggested. He didn't know it was flawed. He threw it out because he didn't like it. — frank

Yes, well...

The paper only suggests more research, which is appropriate. It was others who took the data too far.

The paper only suggests more research, which is appropriate. It was others who took the data too far. — Banno

That's a fair assessment, and, if I was going to do something along those lines I don't think it would be an absolutely terrible preliminary approach. The subsequent juggling of hot potatoes at even the suggestion of intelligent people being vaccine hesitant should not, however, be a necessary step. But these are the days we're in...