Yes, and you can do it without taking your shot too, making the taking of your shot entirely inconsequential to the project. — Isaac

If it is totally inconsequential to the problem at hand, why did you bring up "holding the government into account"?

To what extent did a lack of trust figure in their complicity, do you think? — Isaac

The fact of the mater is that trust of the average citizens in one another, in one's neighbours, is close to zero in the DRC. This sentiment may be well-founded in their case but it still creates a lot of problems.

That such a sentiment be justified in Congo doesn't make it justified where I live, where reasonable levels of trust in one's neighbours, as well as in public institutions still exist, and for good reason, and where this trust is an asset.

Now you have to show what mechanisms exist to make it impossible (or less likely) that a majority on any one question could be the result of any of these other factors, of which conflict of interest is just one. — Isaac

It’s always possible. It’s possible that Noah’s flood is responsible for all the world’s fossils too. So what?

Then it is a contortion to say that they have no other information. How can they use "a number of reasons" yet also have "no other information"? — Isaac

Number of emotional reasons, as I made clear. Knowing nothing else but betting odds, I know people who cheer for the underdogs. Why? Because they have information Vegas doesn’t? No—because they like rooting for underdogs.

I’d say the WHO, the CDC, the AMA, etc, represent a majority of experts. This is all most laypeople know. So is it right to trust the CDC?
— Xtrix

No. — Isaac

Well that answer is clearly and demonstrably wrong in this case. Likewise for other cases of “both sides.” So the question is: how many times does the consensus of experts need to be proven true before we simply (as laypeople) trust them? We can do deep dives into these issues if we want, as we can with quantum mechanics, but it’s best to just take their word for it. That’s the correct choice.

Those laypeople who go with a minority view are almost always doing so for emotional reasons, as is the case with anti-vaxxers.

So you're saying that when there's two competing theories, there is always overwhelming evidence in favour of one? — Isaac

No.

Yes, but you've given no evidence at all that the theories supported by the majority of scientists have a greater quantity of these properties than theories supported only by a minority. — Isaac

I did. The case of the theory of evolution was an example. Ask yourself why the consensus is so high. It’s because there’s overwhelming evidence to support it. Hence, very high acceptance and confirmation.

That’s not true in every case, but nearly without exception when you reach higher levels of consensus,

Those laypeople who go with a minority view are almost always doing so for emotional reasons, as is the case with anti-vaxxers. — Xtrix

:100:

If it is totally inconsequential to the problem at hand, why did you bring up "holding the government into account"? — Olivier5

You said you were trying not to undermine trust in your government by taking the vaccine, I was pointing out that holding the government to account is the usual method of not undermining trust, rather than the taking of prophylactic medicines.

That such a sentiment be justified in Congo doesn't make it justified where I live — Olivier5

No. It being justified makes it justified where you live.

France, right?

Is the French government immune to lobbying? Has it made decisions on global warming that are truly in the best interests of the people rather than the short term interests of industry? Does it's tax policy reflect social goods or the influence of the very wealthy? Do it's arms sales favour global stability or the arms industry?

When the French government were found guilty of failing to take sufficient action on climate change earlier this year were the courts wrong?

What exactly is it about the structure, history and objectives of your government that gives you such confidence in it's magnanimity?

Well that answer is clearly and demonstrably wrong in this case. — Xtrix

I've been angry with the CDC since they screwed up the testing early on at the cost of helping the US lose control of the virus. The WHO likewise reliably gave out false information early on.

I trust webMD over either of those groups.

You said you were trying not to undermine trust in your government by taking the vaccine, I was pointing out that holding the government to account is the usual method of not undermining trust, rather than the taking of prophylactic medicines. — Isaac

Nothing to do with the government. It's the whole health sector we are talking about. And not during a pandemic. Sowing doubt for no good reason in situations of crisis is antisocial.

What exactly is it about the structure, history and objectives of your government that gives you such confidence in it's magnanimity? — Isaac

Technically I live in Italy, but it changes nothing to my argument. The Italian health sector and government did in fact better than in France in my assessment. I trust both countries' institutions, by and large, are well-meaning, if often inefficient.

Especially now. It's a national security crisis. Whatever their turpitudes, I trust that the government, the health professionals, the economic actors, e tutti quanti do not want to die. They don't want their parents to die, nor their children. They want to get out of this crisis.

I do want this as well. My neighbours, my colleagues, my friends, my family want this as well.

Vaccination gives us a tool to work to that end. Collectively.

So we speak to one another about the pros and cons. It's not entirely entirely certain and all proven, it's a new technology after all, but it seems to reduce both incidence and gravity. But we GET it. It's a necessary leap of faith. Yes there's some social pressure to get vaccinated, as there should be. It's a mater of survival.

The WHO likewise reliably gave out false information early on. — frank

I’m talking about vaccine recommendations. But what false information are you referring to? “Early on,” when circumstances were changing rapidly, it’s understandable mistakes were made. No one is arguing perfection.

The question is: should the population (laypeople) trust the CDC and the WHO? Yes, they should. Should we trust scientists? Yes, we should. Neither implies we should do so because science and medicine never make mistakes. My mechanic makes mistakes — I still trust him with my car.

Is it possible for everyone to be subject matter experts in it all...? Not really. I suppose we could quit having family doctors, engineers to engineer bridges, etc. Some measure of trust and cooperation is warranted and desirable, in tandem with responsibility and accountability.

Hospital to replace doctors with parents who have done their research (The Science Post; Jul 23, 2021)

(I sure as heck ain't gonna' take the advice of someone over in The Shoutbox over an established international panel of subject matter experts, and call it a day.)

Fair enough. It's not that I don't trust the CDC to have good intentions. They just haven't been leaders through any of this, which is unfortunate.

, yeah, some mistakes have been made (especially in retrospect). As long as we learn from them, including those having made the mistakes.

No one is arguing perfection. — Xtrix

:100: This is true. People who nit-pick fluctuations/change, and then use them as evidence that science or government should not be trusted, are unfamiliar and uncomfortable with how the scientific process works. They need perfection from their government (which is relying on science) to be 100% right 100% of the time. It's like some General said about terrorists: They only have to be right once; we have to be right every time. This is understandable when dealing with simple-minded anti-intellectuals whose motives are political and based on emotion and confirmation bias.

I'm reminded of the simpletons who pointed out that masks are not 100% as reason not to wear them. My response analogy was automobile emissions control technology: just because it does not capture all pollution does not mean we remove the technology from cars. Perfection is the enemy of progress.

I'm also reminded of Fauci initially saying masks were not needed, and then saying they are advisable. This was during a mask shortage for health care workers and essential workers, and shortly after the anti-social people had their run on toilet paper. On the one hand, Fauci always knew masks were helpful, but he also knew how anti-social and selfish the simpletons are. Had he lead with mask efficacy, but requested they be reserved for health care workers, he knew the selfish, inconsiderate, disrespectful people would not care. They would have taken all the masks and the doctors and nurses would have had none. So, the very people who pretend to demand openness, perfection, and truth from government and their experts are the same people who can't be trusted. It's not government that cannot be trusted; it's the stupid people.

Had Trump spun up the war-footing production from day one, this would not have been an issue.

But alas, I am near convinced that the stupid people have won and this fight is no longer worth having. Let the chips fall where they may and let Covid fix stupid. If a lot of smart people have to die along with them, I guess that is the way of the world. When the remaining smart people re-set, we'll just have to listen to the stupid people say "We told you these draconian measures were coming." :roll: It's like one wag said "Those complaining about the new mask mandates are responsible for the new mask mandates."

The WHO and the CDC have all been dealing with science, which is a learning process, and the politics of those who would hamstring them. I lay 100% of the blame on the latter. Digging at the former is a vindictive child's angle.

yeah, some mistakes have been made (especially in retrospect). As long as we learn from them, including those having made the mistakes. — jorndoe

Sure. And one of the mistakes we made was trusting the WHO. That's just a fact.

And one of the mistakes we made was trusting the WHO. That's just a fact. — frank

I did my own research and read the following article on the interwebs and it disagrees with you. There are opposing opinions in the world and therefor my confirmation bias tells me that you are wrong and WHO is right. That's how science works, right?

https://www.thinkglobalhealth.org/article/world-health-organization-and-pandemic-politics

It's a fact that the vaccines are effective for only 8 months. Pays cash!

People who nit-pick fluctuations/change, and then use them as evidence that science or government should not be trusted, are unfamiliar and uncomfortable with how the scientific process works. — James Riley

I think that’s the underlying problem here, yes.

did my own research and read the following article on the interwebs and it disagrees with you. There are opposing opinions in the world and therefor my confirmation bias tells me that you are wrong and WHO is right. That's how science works, right? — James Riley

wut

wut — frank

Just saying, WHO is right and you are wrong. At least according to my research. :lol:

Ok.

Love the science post link. That’s hilarious.

Well since you guys seem so much happier arguing against the entirely fictitious position that "we shouldn't trust experts" rather than saying anything substantive about the actual position that variance in degree of support within the cohort of experts is not well correlated with a theory's predictive power, I'll leave you to it.

I'll leave you to it. — Isaac

Get your shot.

From the other thread (thanks @Wayfarer):

The Unbelievable Grimness of HermanCainAward, the Subreddit That Catalogs Anti-Vaxxer COVID Deaths

Is it possible for everyone to be subject matter experts in it all...? — jorndoe

That story posted above links to other stories about people suing hospitals to force them to administer their ‘folk remedies’ to COVID patients. As if the hospitals have tons of time and lots of spare cash to swat away this pernicious abuse of the legal system.

I wish we could just let the terminal cretins live or die on their own term, triage them out of healthcare somehow. Save resources for the rest of us. But no can't do of course, our compassionate societies make sure that even the most antisocial distrustful lying cretins are cared for...

Anaximenes of Miletus, flat-earther, flat-mooner, flat-sunner. Can you beat that?

I wish we could just let the terminal cretins live or die on their own term, triage them out of healthcare somehow. Save resources for the rest of us. But no can't do of course, our compassionate societies make sure that even the most antisocial distrustful lying cretins are cared for... — Olivier5

Those people were forced to pay for other people's poor decisions their entire lives, and when they need the help you wish to deny them?

What a simple view.

Is it even worth it to engage with these people?

They're immune to facts and they will not change their minds no matter what happens, which is interesting psychologically. But should we engage for the sake of others who are rational yet "on the fence"?

I struggle with this.

[Edit: I added flat earthers to the original list.] — Xtrix

Why people believe what they do is much more complicated than one might imagine. There is a whole range of things that affect our beliefs (genetics, culture, family, friends, group dynamics, politics, intelligence, etc, etc), it's not always about evidence or reasons. In fact, much of the time it's not about evidence or facts. Moreover, if we think we're immune to these kinds of psychological factors (it's just a matter of degree), then we become part of the problem. You have to keep engaging with people, generally speaking, obviously there are some people who are more difficult to talk to than others, but most people will listen.

I'm currently attending a class at a church on faith and reason, and I'm not at all religious, but I do it to keep engaged. I was straight forward about what I believe with the class, but I was respectful. I challenged their beliefs, but I take my time and allow them to approach me, and I don't try to make them feel stupid. I'll have to admit, I'm more respectful in this class than I am in this forum. Some of the people in this forum are much more respectful when engaging with people in here than I am, but for the most part, I try, but with mixed results. Anyway, this class is going well so far, and they often ask me questions about their epistemological views, and I try to answer their questions gently and with humor. This is disarming, and it allows me to get my point across without trying to tell them that they're being irrational about this or that belief. I believe they enjoy having me there, it's a chance for them to hear other points of view. Now this doesn't always happen, there are some churches that wouldn't take kindly to someone challenging them, especially in this setting (Sunday school class). Years ago I was kicked out of someone's house for my disrespect of Cornelius Van Til, so I'm very familiar with how these situations can go sideways. In this class they always ask me questions, so basically I just wait for them to ask me, and then I simply share what I believe about the topic. Last Sunday I shared why I don't believe in the resurrection, and they listened intently.

The point is that we should stay engaged where possible, don't let it become us against them. Also, you may find that some of your own beliefs aren't as reasonable as you might think.

I wish we could just let the terminal cretins live or die on their own term, triage them out of healthcare somehow. — Olivier5

It’s natural to feel that way, but everyone has to be treated equally, I think. I think those who refuse vaccination without good reason should forego some of the privileges that it confers, but that can’t include healthcare.

What threat are the unvaccinated to the vaccinated? If there is still a threat even though you are vaccinated, then why get vaccinated at all? If I can still carry and spread the virus even though I'm vaccinated, then what purpose is there to get vaccinated?

We all know that the more someone tells you to do something, the more some people resist. They want to make their own decisions and not be coerced. Therefore, the govt. shouldn't be in the business of telling people how to live their lives, but instead should simply be providing objective information for individuals to make their own decisions concerning their own bodies. Whatever happened to "My body, my choice"?