Do I wish our population were more like Norways? Yes, I do. — Xtrix

Then why don't you do something in that direction?

See, this is why we can't have nice things.

Making life essentially impossible without an internal vaccine passport, is a use force. — boethius

And a legitimate one. But it by no means makes life "essentially impossible." Plenty of people have already quit their jobs because they're refusing to take a vaccine. Fine -- their choice.

If something makes life virtually unlivable, then it must be pretty serious -- like other laws. Driving laws make driving without a license, or drunk driving, "essentially impossible" to do these days. But they're legitimate laws notwithstanding the few who "don't agree/refuse" to abide by them. They're free to disagree -- but pay the consequences for it. We're in a pandemic, and this is a public health issue -- everyone is on the line here, not just you.

What happens if you don't have your papers? Fine or prison. What if you don't pay the fine? Prison. What if you don't voluntarily go to prison? Force. — boethius

Trying to equate vaccine passports to Nazi Germany, as you've continually tried to do, gives away the silliness of your position. As does using "medical procedure" instead of "getting the vaccine," etc. All fairly revealing.

For the record, no one is proposing fines or prison -- or "papers." You're deliberately misleading people, during a pandemic, by characterizing things this way.

but common pro-vaccine-mandate sentiments on the internet are: denying care to the vaccinated and making life impossible without your "papers". — boethius

I guess this is all that's left: straw men.

What a sad hill to die on.

my basic point in this threat is that vaccine issues are no where close to the shape or age of the earth — boethius

And repeated long-refuted claims.

You're quickly becoming a joke.

The world is made of rotting things.

Regarding transmission, I think people can take care of themselves. It’s always been so that the number of cases hasn’t reflected the amount of illness because they’ve included of all of the very mild and asymptomatic cases. The transmission of more severe cases is troubling, but how many people are inclined to go clubbing when they have, say, the flu? How likely is it that a mild case will transmit and become a severe case in a vaccinated person? How much risk should we be eliminating from our society? Driving a car is somewhat risky, we could ban them and eliminate that risk; for various reasons we don’t do this. Is even the elimination of the risk Covid-19 poses worth mandated medical treatments? Perhaps one day a medical treatment will be mandated that you wish to refuse—on that day would you regret that its precedent had been made?

We can always abstract things into irrelevance, cutting some corners/particulars here and there. We still have to deal with the current outbreak.. — jorndoe

By the way, ad verecundiam/populum isn't quite applicable here. The world (nature, evidence) is the authority here anyway, that's what subject matter experts point at.

I don't think I want to continue to line of thought any more.
I'm interested in questioning if the experts are worthy of trust.
Until I see that someone is actually open to questioning their chosen experts, why waste time if I'm gonna be replied to with platitudes, comparison to flat earthers and climate change deniars etc

The world is made of rotting things. — baker

And some growing/flourishing things?

.

The transmission of more severe cases is troubling, but how many people are inclined to go clubbing when they have, say, the flu? How likely is it that a mild case will transmit and become a severe case in a vaccinated person? — AJJ

I'm a little confused. My understanding is that you transmit the virus. Severe illness might mean you're shedding more virus, more likely to infect others, but also likely to stay home, not infecting anyone; but the asymptomatic can also transmit the virus. You don't transmit your illness and how sick you are has nothing to do with how sick someone you infect gets. Is that your understanding as well?

How much risk should we be eliminating from our society? — AJJ

Sure, it's always a question of costs and benefits. Cars are a lot safer than they were fifty years ago, or even twenty, and we still drive.

I'm not on board with any delusional plan to eliminate risk from life.

Regarding transmission, I think people can take care of themselves — AJJ

I'm not quite sure what you mean here.

Is even the elimination of the risk Covid-19 poses worth mandated medical treatments? — AJJ

The matter is primarily psychological and ideological.

This whole covid crisis has long since stopped being about the virus or health, but about people seeking ways to feel good and to feel safe. The emphasis being on _feeling_ good, _feeling_ safe, as opposed to actually _being_ such. The former is much easier to accomplish than the latter.

Issues of social psychology need to be taken into account. In times of crisis, people tend to give up critical thinking. It's not clear for how many people this applies, but some of those for whom it does apply are extremely vocal and influential. Resisting those people can result in short-term and long-term harm for the resisters.

There are also issues of the placebo effect, en masse: If enough people have enough faith in the covid vaccines, the covid vaccines can, in effect, be more safe and more effective than they would be without that faith.

Is it moral to refuse to participate in a mass social delusion, if said delusion can have at least short-term good effects for society at large and for the individual as well? — baker

We have to risk our health, or even actively sacrifice it on one thing or another: Whether it's polluted air, polluted food, work related injuries and diseases, socially praised poisons like alcohol, coffee, and nicotine, hormonal contraceptives, and the occasional experimental vaccine.

It would be unrealistic to think that living in the modern world could come without costs, risks, and sacrifices.

Cars are a lot safer than they were fifty years ago, or even twenty, and we still drive. — Srap Tasmaner

Cars may be safer, and the traffic infrastructure as well, but people are worse drivers.

Oh but look at them! As if the rubble isn't even there. You can bomb our bookshops, but we'll just watch our step as we browse.

and how sick you are has nothing to do with how sick someone you infect gets. Is that your understanding as well? — Srap Tasmaner

No, my understanding is this (https://theconversation.com/coronavirus-few-vaccines-prevent-infection-heres-why-thats-not-a-problem-152204):

Asymptomatically infected people typically produce virus at lower levels. Though there is not a perfect relationship, usually more virus equals more disease. Therefore, vaccinated people are less likely to transmit enough virus to cause severe disease.

I haven’t seen any reason why this doesn’t also apply to unvaccinated people with mild or asymptomatic cases.

Regarding transmission, I think people can take care of themselves
— AJJ

I'm not quite sure what you mean here. — Srap Tasmaner

I think the above understanding, plus staying home when very ill, plus people managing their own exposure to the risk would be a better approach than mandating vaccinations.

I agree with this.

There are still legal and insurance issues about the covid vaccines that undermine trust in the vaccines:

Of all the concerns the public has about vaccine safety, there is one that has us stumped for a straightforward answer: “If the vaccines are safe, why is the government protecting itself, health professionals and companies from vaccine compensation?” In fact, the UK government has passed regulations reducing legal protection for anyone injured by a COVID-19 vaccine approved for emergency use.
/.../
Generally, vaccine safety is excellent, which makes it even more incongruous that the government is not putting its money where its mouth is and providing a clear, generous and uncomplicated compensation scheme that would immediately quash any concerns the public has.

https://theconversation.com/uk-citizens-get-less-legal-protection-for-covid-jabs-than-other-vaccines-and-that-could-undermine-confidence-151455

I'm interested in questioning if the experts are worthy of trust. — Yohan

I guess some are more so, some less so, to varying degrees, ... Either way, it's worthwhile differentiating them, what they say, what they point at, the usual.

, I was just pinching your apparently universal statement.

This whole covid crisis has long since stopped being about the virus or health, but about people seeking ways to feel good and to feel safe. — baker

Beg to differ. Not everyone sticks their head in the sand. (Assuming I didn't misread your comment, which is entirely possible.)

That's interesting. It wasn't obvious to me that the Nature paper they cite says what they say it does, but I can't read the whole thing right now. And I'm not an epidemiologist.

I really wouldn't have expected that how much virus you're exposed to has some effect on how sick you get, but I suppose it makes sense, if your immune system has some time to respond without being overwhelmed. Again, not an epidemiologist.

That might change my thinking a bit. It's still a good reason to get vaccinated, but where I live has about half the vaccination rate of Sweden and people still refusing to wear masks...

Of course, the more radical left has not at all been surprised. We usually call it "late stage capitalism".

Here's some sample content: — boethius

Blaming the symptom, not the source of the disease, yes. Doing that fills a psychological need. In fact in general neoliberalism works with human nature as it finds it instead of trying to force something new.

Regarding transmission, I think people can take care of themselves. — AJJ

As hospitals are overrun in Idaho and Texas and ~3000 die every two days. Keep minimizing it -- you're doing great work.

Until I see that someone is actually open to questioning their chosen experts, why waste time if I'm gonna be replied to with platitudes, comparison to flat earthers and climate change deniars etc — Yohan

You were never serious about questioning the experts, nor are you an expert yourself. Any sophomoric question you have are out there for experts to answer, and they have -- and it's all over the internet. newspapers, the internet, and at your doctor's office.

The final summary at the end of the Discussion section seems plain enough; but there’s always the problem of being unable to evaluate these studies without the know-how. Still, the explanation intuitively makes sense and there must be some mechanism behind the reduced transmission.

As hospitals are overrun in Idaho and Texas and ~3000 die every two days. Keep minimizing it -- you're doing great work. — Xtrix

Where are you getting those figures from? The Worldometers website has 3 day averages of around 400 and 40 daily Covid deaths for Texas and Idaho respectively.

Perhaps 400 Covid deaths per day still seems like a lot, but Texas has a population of 29 million. England has a population of 56 million and around 1,600 people die per day of all causes. Given that most people who die from/with Covid are at the ends of their lives anyway you can expect natural deaths and Covid deaths to significantly overlap.

Oh, and you thought “to beg the question” in this context meant to *raise* a question, didn’t you?

You were never serious about questioning the experts, nor are you an expert yourself. — Xtrix

I was never serious about questioning which experts?
Of course I'm not an expert. Are you?

Any sophomoric question you have are out there for experts to answer, and they have -- and it's all over the internet. newspapers, the internet, and at your doctor's office. — Xtrix

Including answers to ethical questions on vaccine mandates? Which medical ethicists should I trust, because I am pretty sure its not 99% who think vaccines should be mandated? But anyway, I thought I'm not qualified to judge if their answers are compelling or not because I'm a layman?

I do wonder how the trade-off is made though, as children in school together represent an excellent way for diseases to spread from household to household, even colds, flu, and the like. — Srap Tasmaner

This is what is happening in some EU countries: A fully vaccinated teacher infects a class of children and coworkers. All must go to quarantene. Now what?

Given that most people who die from/with Covid are at the ends of their lives anyway you can expect natural deaths and Covid deaths to significantly overlap. — AJJ

And, of course, in some jurisdictions, for a death to be ruled a covid death, no covid test and no autopsy are required, just the assessment of a doctor.
So who knows how accurate the covid death numbers are.

Yeah, it’s a mess.

And you're not usually so obviously stupid. — tim wood

You are.

Everyone's. — tim wood

Explain.

You choose not to be vaccinated. If you get sick you take up resources that, if vaccinated, you may never have needed and that someone else might need. You are at increased risk of getting sick, and thereby a greater risk to your community than you would be. People you support are at increased risk of losing your support, likely making others provide that support. In brief, you are not part of any solution, but instead part of the problem. And FU for asking, because you know these arguments perfectly well and more besides. .