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? — Tzeentch

Can I have what you're smoking?

It’s natural to feel that way, but everyone has to be treated equally, I think. — Wayfarer

Of course, I was just venting.

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, — Isaac

That’s not the “actual position,” except in your imagination.

Degree of consensus, like degree of experimental confirmation, like the degree of corroborating evidence, etc, I would suspect is indeed correlated with reliability.

But so far as I know, this hasn’t been systematically studied. Looking at historical and current cases where consensus is high — like climate change — it’s fairly obvious there’s a correlation. Which is why laymen should trust consensus, and which was the ACTUAL position of this thread.

What threat are the unvaccinated to the vaccinated? — Harry Hindu

These free wheelers consume resources which could be put to better use.

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? — Harry Hindu

Did you stop for a second and think: “Maybe others — many others — have asked this question?”

Apparently not. If you did, you’d find answers on an interesting bit of technology called the Internet. Odd that you would miss that.

But feel free to go on thinking that experts have missed these questions somehow, and continue to push for vaccinations anyway.

If it was so easy to find the answers, then why not provide them here for everyone's benefit? It seems that you're more interested in playing political games than having a discussion.

Here's a question no one has asked:

If Covid-19 naturally mutated from a non-lethal virus to a lethal virus, then what is to prevent the regular annual flu from mutating into something more dangerous? Why aren't the annual flu shots being mandated if this is the case, and we should never stop wearing masks for the fear of some virus naturally mutating into something more lethal?

If Covid-19 was manufactured in a lab, then that brings a whole host of other implications that we should consider and be fearful of. One implication is that we should be more angry at the scientists manufacturing lethal viruses and unleashing the on the world, than being angry at those that are unvaccinated, which the internet shows most blacks haven't yet been vaccinated thanks to the Left's scare tactics last year when Trump was president. So are you being racist by bashing the un-vaxxed?

So, in the Left's haste to deny that the virus was man-made, they are implying that non-lethal viruses can mutate into lethal versions naturally and that we will never stop wearing masks or mandating vaccines for viruses that have the potential to mutate.

We don't know if vaccinated people transmit at a lower rate, per the internet.

Oh "the Left" is the problem now... For fuck sake, do you guys ever try to make sense?

:o cynical, that r/HermanCainAward thing

These individual stories do not produce conversions. These aren’t situations where anti-vaxxers learn their lesson, get vaccinated, and save themselves. — Lili Loofbourow

What this massive record of human suffering really illustrates (in all its startling, repetitive sameness) is how seamlessly anti-vax communities reconcile themselves to the deaths their convictions will perpetuate. — Lili Loofbourow

Chilled though I’ve been by how this subreddit can rejoice at a death, I’m somehow no less chilled by how easily the bereaved normalize their losses. A 35-year-old man with three young children and a free vaccine available should not be dead! There is astonishingly little recognition of this. — Lili Loofbourow

The incorrigibility is as striking as the cynicism, though.
Some of those folk are both entrenched and have their "warriors" (as we've observed).

schadenfreude — Lili Loofbourow

Apparently, this is now called "vaxenfreude".

If it was so easy to find the answers, then why not provide them here for everyone's benefit? — Harry Hindu

Because it’s been covered by numerous people numerous times. I’m not doing it again simply because you refuse to take 15 minutes and read.

Here's a question no one has asked: — Harry Hindu

It has. Anti-vaxxers (like you) raise these questions constantly. The very fact you think they’ve “never been raised” is laughable.

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. — Isaac

Where the variance in degree of support within the cohort of experts is not well correlated with a theory's predictive power, then the lack of variance may be well correlated with a theory's predictive power. Regardless, I just don't think you have the chops to make sense of any variance or the lack thereof; nor do you have the ability to discern whether any variance rises to the level of a distinction with a relevant difference. We leave that to the experts. You should be so humble.

Do you really read anything before responding?

I didn’t bring up whether the vaccinated can spread the virus at a lower rate or not in the post you’re responding to.

Please try reading carefully before responding with non-sequitors. You’re not the objective referee you’re pretending to be.

We don't know if vaccinated people transmit at a lower rate, per the internet. — frank

The capital of Massachusetts isn’t Albany, it’s Boston.

The capital of Massachusetts isn’t Albany, it’s Boston. — Xtrix

Thanks.

You’re not the objective referee you’re pretending to be. — Xtrix

Not trying to be a referee.

, please don't quit on my account. (Wide disagreement among subject matter experts? Consensus means little to nothing?)

, sure, I suppose the "personal freedom" thing can make a point of sorts. It's just that SARS-CoV-2 doesn't care about anyone's freedom. The virus replicates propagates mutates unchecked in whatever fertile grounds, leaving victims in its wake, and that's a social thing with consequences as well as personal.

our compassionate societies make sure that even the most antisocial distrustful lying cretins are cared for... — Olivier5

Very true, it's truly pathetic. I wish our pinko, bleeding-heart society would throw all the cretins into a furnace, beginning with the fat and the ugly

Or at least, let natural selection run its course.

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? — Harry Hindu

Are you familiar with the notion of 'more or less' as opposed to 'all or nothing'?

That would indeed be ridiculous if the vaccine were only 10% effective. (Although I suppose it would still be a little better than nothing). Are you convinced that is an accurate assessment of its efficacy? — Janus

There is a huge demand for the Janssen vaccine now in Slovenia, given that a covid passport is needed for pretty much everything, and the Janssen vaccine is the quickest way to get it (it's just one dose and the passport is valid immediately after vaccination).
So this vaccine is now under the spotlight.

It was the head of a major vaccination center here who said Janssen's effectiveness was so low. He said he wouldn't get vaccinated with it, but would choose one with a better effectiveness.

I don't know whom or what to believe.

Look at what the EU covid vaccination document says -- see the part in English on the left side:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/27/O%C4%8Dkovac%C3%AD_certifik%C3%A1t_-_vzor.jpg

"The scientific evidence on COVID-19 vaccination, testing and recovery continues to evolve, also in view of new variants of concern of the virus."

In legal terms, this is a waiver of liability, if not even more than that.

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?
— Harry Hindu

Are you familiar with the notion of 'more or less' as opposed to 'all or nothing'? — Janus

The issue is whether the limited effectiveness of the vaccines warrants the hatred and the contempt that the vocal pro-vaccers are directing at anyone who isn't all that enthusiastic about the vaccines.

It's just that SARS-CoV-2 doesn't care about anyone's freedom. The virus replicates propagates mutates unchecked in whatever fertile grounds, leaving victims in its wake, and that's a social thing with consequences as well as personal. — jorndoe

Here's the thing: Why don't the vocal pro-vaccers (who claim to be taken hostage by the unvaccinated) put their money where their mouth is and limit health care (and other things) for the unvaccinated?

If the vocal pro-vaccers believe they are so right, so superior to the unvaccinated, then what on earth is stopping them from passing laws in accordance with that?

So the question is: how many times does the consensus of experts need to be proven true before we simply (as laypeople) trust them? — Xtrix

Irrelevant. What is relevant is what happens on the ground level.

Ie. in terms of medicine, what is relevant is how actual doctors and other medical personnel actually interact with actual patients. This is the level at which trust is build, or destroyed.

When people quite consistently have the experience that what those "high up" (ie. the scientists in fancy medical journal and news features) say is one thing, and what their doctor tells them is another one, this erodes trust in the entire medical system.

When people quite consistently hear on the news about great medical advances (that could potentially help wih their medical problem), but then on the ground level see that those medical technologies are not available to them or prohibitively expensive, this erodes trust in the entire medical system.

To say nothing of doctors who don't listen, who amputate the wrong leg (and aren't held accountable), clumsy nurses, waiting lines so long -- years long -- that by the time one's scheduled time for a knee surgery comes, it's too late to save the knee, and so on. One can stomach some of this, but there is a limit to it. At some point, one loses trust in the entire medical system.

The question is: should the population (laypeople) trust the CDC and the WHO? Yes, they should. Should we trust scientists? Yes, we should. — Xtrix

Irrelevant.

I live in a region with one of the lowest vaccination rates in the country, and the national television gives considerable attention to this region (apparently in an effort to increase the vaccination rate).

Just the other day, the head of the local health clinics said on national television that some doctors in those health clinics advised people not to get vaccinated. (Note: We have a public health care system and all those doctors are licensed by the state to practice medicine.)

The vaccination rate for medical personnel is around 70%.

The government did not make it mandatory for medical personnel to get vaccinated (but made it mandatory for the military and the police, and some other government institutions).


Given this, what are ordinary people supposed to do?

What does it help if the national health institute says one thing, but the government does something else?
What does it help if the national health institute says one thing, but on the ground level, even medical personnel is skeptical about vaccination?

I just meant that science doesn't really offer soapboxes to preach from. People make science into a church to back their misanthropy or what have you. — frank

Absolutely. Righteous indignation is so addictive.

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. — Olivier5

As long as the discussion is limited to philosophy forums, there should be no problem.

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

But look at Israel. Sky high vaccination rates achieved early on, yet the vast majority of covid patients requring hospital care are fully vaccinated. This trend is observable in other countries too: the percentage of the fully vaccinated hospitalized is growing.

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.

Pressure? It's flat out hatred, contempt.

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. — Olivier5

Croatia has one of the lowest vaccination rates in the EU, around 50%. There is a public debate as to why this is so and what can be done.

Some Croatian social scientists say that the reason why many people don't get vaccinated is because they don't trust the government. More importantly, that they are justified in this distrust, given that the government has a track history of letting many people down (ie. the institutions aren't doing their work, the legal system panders to the rich and powerful), and that it has been doing this for the past 30 years.

They also say that the solution isn't in trying to change people's beliefs (it's too late for this by now, and it takes too long), but that by now, only practical measures (read: coercion) can make a difference.

No one is arguing perfection. — Xtrix

Given your righteous indignation, given your contempt, your hatred: only perfection justifies and warrants those.

If you want to be justified hate people for not thinking and acting the way you think they should, then you better be perfect.

Assuming, for the sake of argument, that the virus and the stupid people won; what now? Just sit back and let nature take it's course? To the extent that is not what we do, but we take some alternative track, what's to say that a bunch of stupid (albeit possibly different) people don't just rise up against that track and it's protocols, rendering it/them impotent like they did on this go-around? Let's say all the stupid people in this thread had their way; what would they have done, and what would they do now?

Seems to me the stupid people and the virus have won. So, does winning make the stupid people smart and the smart people stupid? How does this work? Or does it even matter? I'm beginning to think I don't have a dog in this fight. Like the American vet returning from a lost cause, I know I stepped up and did my part, even if it turns out that I shouldn't have. Hey St. Peter, will that count for shit? I guess we leave the stupid people to their righteous indignation. Oh well, carry on.

I am trying NOT TO UNDERMINE trust. — Olivier5

Oh, but you are undermining trust: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/599142



QUESTION: Are the vocal pro-vaccers willing to sacrifice their hatred and contempt against the unvaccinated in exchange for better vaccination rates?

So the question is: how many times does the consensus of experts need to be proven true before we simply (as laypeople) trust them?
— Xtrix
Irrelevant. What is relevant is what happens on the ground level.

Ie. in terms of medicine, what is relevant is how actual doctors and other medical personnel actually interact with actual patients. This is the level at which trust is build, or destroyed. — baker

We weren't talking about what happens on the ground between doctors and patients, so this is irrelevant.

Irrelevant. — baker

Only for those like you who wish to change the topic.