I know enough to know your weak.
As are your clichéd retorts.

No, you know nothing about me, but I know something about you, assuming you're not a liar; you box without a head guard, and I know that is a very stupid thing to do; brain damage from boxing is well-documented.

I glean plenty from your posts.
Well documented!!!
Many boxers are fine in retirement.
And with Intelligence,heart and physical skills one is safe in boxing.
You are a prude.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion and to make decisions regarding their own body, but it is a bit disheartening how easily people (on a "philosophy" forum, no less) have fallen for an us vs. them narrative hook, line and sinker. Unable to see nuance, unable to consider that other views are possible. Every dissenting opinion must be caricatured and treated with hostility.

The behavior of the useful fools of history, who are completely possessed by a narrative which tells them what they want to hear and feeds their feelings of moral superiority.

I used to wonder how people could stand idly by while the Nazis rose to power in Germany, but I've come to realize that people did not stand idly by, but happily participated. The narrative provided them with the approval of their own conscience and as history has taught us, the sky (or should I say, the deepest, darkest pit) is the limit with such people.

The "intellectual" parts of society are not as immune as they think. In fact, their arrogance may make them more susceptible to being told what they want to hear.

The "intellectual" parts of society are not as immune as they think. In fact, their arrogance may make them more susceptible to being told what they want to hear. — Tzeentch

Some of them are moderators...

Many boxers are fine in retirement. — Ambrosia

You need to read more carefully. Did I say that all boxers, or even most, end up with brain damage? What I suggested was that it is a risk that comes with receiving repeated blows to the head; a risk that would be somewhat mitigated by wearing a head guard.

I used to wonder how people could stand idly by while the Nazis rose to power in Germany, but I've come to realize that people did not stand idly by, but happily participated. — Tzeentch

Can you cite some texts or studies that support that conclusion?

If you knew about boxing,sometimes headguards make it harder to move your head out of the way.
Armchair quarterback.
And you are backtracking on your original implication,which is disingenuous.
A brave person's "risk" is different to a weak person.
Who are you to tell me what's risky?

Can you cite some texts or studies that support that conclusion? — Janus

Have a look at the 1932 election results.

And you are backtracking on your original implication,which is disingenuous. — Ambrosia

What was my original implication, according to you?

You know full well what it was. Read your own post.
Well documented that you are backtracking.

I don't agree with every part of your post,but a lot of it is spot on.
Amazing how so called philosophers are so partisan and dogmatic.

Indeed. The key variable being how IBM-like any theory is. IBM were the 'right' choice from the first moment they produced their first reliable, capable machine. But they weren't the most popular choice (even among experts) at that moment. Expert opinion took a while to catch up with the way reality actually was. At first, most experts would eschew the newcomer in favour of the tried and tested old-timer (probably triplicate accounting pads in this case). They'd have been wrong.

New theories take time to become established, so in the meantime proportion of expert opinion will be a poor predictor of a theory's success. All (sufficiently detailed) theories about how to handle COVID are new theories, they have to be since the detailed circumstances are unprecedented. So proportion of expert opinion is a poor predictor of any theory's success.

Also, I didn't spot this last time, but worth commenting on...

instead of what experts actually do, learn from each other's mistakes — Srap Tasmaner

I think this is a common misconception which is causing a lot of issues confusing long-standing expert opinion with expert opinion on contemporary issues. We don't learn from each other's mistakes. Or at least if we do it takes ages. It's simply not a significant factor in any contemporary issue. The data is too thin on the ground and underdetermines the theories by even more than usual. The overwhelming majority of theories are perfectly well supported by the data. No one's necessarily made a mistake and no one's necessarily missed anything. It's simply that the data set is too small or low quality to determine between competing theories. So experts fall down on which theories they prefer, find more intuitively compelling, find less risky to throw their weight behind... etc.

Worth repeating for those genuinely curious — and interested in the facts (upon which we base our ethical decisions). — Xtrix

In some countries, a high-risk population that is reluctant to get vaccinated are young medical nurses, for fear that they will become infertile.

Now, at first glance, and esp. when seen from a male perspective, this seems an unwarranted fear.

But if I were in their shoes, my line of reasoning and concerns would be such: Taking hormonal contraceptives increases the risk of something going wrong when taking the vaccine. So in order to reduce those risks, stop taking hormonal contraceptives. But then it is almost certain that an unwanted pregnancy will occur (since men cannot be relied upon to use condoms or to wait), and this will need to be solved with an abortion. An abortion increases the risk of infertility. If a woman isn't able to have children this can result in the man abandoning her or otherwise reduce his affections for her.

So what are those young women supposed to do?

Statistically, it's probably safer to take their chances with covid than with a man.

, when you dismiss majority evidence with a handwave, then what difference do facts make to you? When you reject or ignore reasoning, then what difference does argument make to you? Nothing much, and with that you terminate dialogue, rather than discuss. :shrug:

You dismiss the history of medicine,human nature,politics and eugenics et Al.
Pot,kettle black.

It’s important to remember that getting vaccinated is not just about protecting yourself; it’s also about protecting those around you. In the long run, we will all benefit from herd immunity. The question that remains is whether we can actually get there.

http://www.williamsonherald.com/opinion/commentary-why-should-i-care-if-others-get-vaccinated/article_96e737c2-b369-11eb-90ce-c79d7571ff9a.html — Xtrix

But Americans don't want to be a herd, do they?

A part -- perhaps a major part -- of the problem with low vaccination rates is that the US has a private health care system. People are taught, from early on, that each person's health is their own problem, their own responsibility. This is further strenghtened by the American belief in personal freedom and in refusing to live in a "nanny state". It's un-American to think "we're all in this together". (American nationalism seems to come down to "We, the Americans, are better than other people".)

This mentality cannot be overcome with education or with telling people the facts about covid (or climate change, etc.). This is a much more fundamental problem.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion and to make decisions regarding their own body — Tzeentch

Vaccination is not only about one's own body, as has been repeated multiple times. Similar arguments about "freedom" were you used about smoking laws, which were equally absurd, unless of course one rejects the medical facts (in that case, about the link to cancer and effects of second-hand smoke).

If people don't want to be vaccinated, that is indeed their right. If people want to smoke, that is indeed their right. But have the decency to stay away from public places.

In some countries, a high-risk population that is reluctant to get vaccinated are young medical nurses, for fear that they will become infertile.

Now, at first glance, and esp. when seen from a male perspective, this seems an unwarranted fear. — baker

I sympathize with anyone who has concerns. It turns out this is completely untrue. When shown that this is untrue, the result shouldn't be to dig in further, but to get vaccinated. When this doesn't happen, despite overwhelming evidence, then it becomes clear that the conclusion to not take a vaccine was foregone and that the evidence never mattered.

It's un-American to think "we're all in this together". — baker

This mentality cannot be overcome with education — baker

There's no reason to think it can't. This "mentality" didn't come out of nowhere. It's the result of a change in thinking spurred on by the educational and information systems, by elite colleges and universities and by corporate media. It took a while to settle in, but it can be reversed -- and in fact is being reversed.

I sympathize with anyone who has concerns. It turns out this is completely untrue. — Xtrix

Did you read the rest of what I said?

Taking hormonal contraceptives increases the risk of something going wrong when taking the vaccine. — baker

I haven't seen any evidence of this.

If it's true, then women who are taking hormonal contraceptives have to weigh what those chances are. The hospitals mandating vaccines should make a similar assessment in deciding whether to allow exceptions.

I haven't seen any evidence of this. — Xtrix

It's part of how Astrazeneca got a bad reputation. I've heard it on the national news, and I'm sure they can fact-check better than I can.

If it's true, then women who are taking hormonal contraceptives have to weigh what those chances are. — Xtrix

Aww. And completely excuse the men. Because, hey, boys will be boys, right.

It's part of how Astrazeneca got a bad reputation. I've heard it on the national news, and I'm sure they can fact-check better than I can. — baker

I think that had to do with blood clots, and was shown to be mistaken.

Aww. And completely excuse the men. Because, hey, boys will be boys, right. — baker

Excuse the men for what?

So experts fall down on which theories they prefer, find more intuitively compelling, find less risky to throw their weight behind... etc. — Isaac

It's hard to disagree with a statement that ends with "etc." and I won't try. But I do disagree with the suggestion, which you constantly walk right up to, that there's nothing more to find but personal preferences for personal reasons, that not only is it all stories, it's all *just* stories.

I remember an argument I got into with a guy on Fangraphs (a sabermetrics site): guy had a model that predicted the strikeout rate of pitchers and was highlighting pitchers he believed had been lucky so far that season (and were thus overvalued by fantasy players). I suggested that another explanation might be something that was not in his model and that was hard to measure, like sequencing or deception. His response floored me: it couldn't be that because if there were such an effect it would show up in the data. That's the wrong answer. Something is in the data; the question is whether it's stochastic and how we could know. (Hence the obsession on Fangraphs with sample size.)

I'm getting to the point. There are statistical methods you know better than I that can give you an idea how much of the variation in opinion can be explained by your social roles and stories model. I assume that value is something less than 1. My question is, how do you know that what's left definitely isn't reasoning?

It's part of how Astrazeneca got a bad reputation. I've heard it on the national news, and I'm sure they can fact-check better than I can. — baker

I think that had to do with blood clots, and was shown to be mistaken. — Xtrix

There are a few serious side effects, most notoriously the blood clots that in "Some cases were life-threatening or had a fatal outcome", according to the UK Government.

Source: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/regulatory-approval-of-covid-19-vaccine-astrazeneca/information-for-uk-recipients-on-covid-19-vaccine-astrazeneca

There are a few serious side effects, most notoriously the blood clots that in "Some cases were life-threatening or had a fatal outcome", according to the UK Government. — Down The Rabbit Hole

You're right -- my last statement wasn't clear, but I was referring more to the issue of birth control and blood clots which was raised by Baker.

I haven't seen anything about contraceptives increasing the risk of vaccines. Maybe @baker can give us a link or two.

Have you seen our chief medical officer responding to Nicki Minaj's impotence claims? It's a must watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkc6pHWHTn0

I was surprised by the ratio of thumbs down, and amount of anti-vax comments left on the video though.

If it was a trending item, there seems to be a coordinated effort to "dislike" almost anything from mainstream news that trends. You see it in every news video that pops up on YouTube. It's almost always right-wing, as far as I can see. If it's Trump speaking or something they consider positive, the ratios change. I'm not sure if bots are being employed, but I imagine they are.

I noticed this a while ago. It's pathetic.

Anyway -- funny video, and he's exactly right.

All (sufficiently detailed) theories about how to handle COVID are new theories, — Isaac

No, they aren't new. And they're not theories.

Have a look at the 1932 election results. — Tzeentch

I'd say the electors could have had no idea what was coming at that time.