NO, no, no... the experts are just toeing the line because they're afraid of losing their jobs or their research grants — Janus
Apparently you are stupid, gullible, confirmation-biased or paranoid enough to think I was serious. — Janus
So I say I want to do something to your porch, and you're non-responsive. Not very clever or alert on your part. Or maybe you're clever enough to avoid an argument you cannot win. Saving you he trouble of trying to defend your indefensible claims. Any which-a-way around, you're not worth, or worthy of, engaging. — tim wood
The point was that on your argument, rights are based on wants. The one who wants has a right to have, and the duty of others is not to obstruct individual rights.
I hold to the traditional US definition, that rights are self-evident and inherent to the individual, they are also inalienable, meaning that no power in existence can contradict any right established in the constitution — urelMerkwurdichliebe
I think it is important to keep in mind that it was biomedical science that created this virus, and with Facci's support, continues to create new function gained viruses. It is also technology that is allowing there exponential destruction of our climate and the earth that gives us life. If you are looking for an ounce of sanity, you will not find it in the within the "science industry". — MondoR
We are dependent on community in far more than merely a "symbolic manner". A democratic state is the result of the choices of the community. The democratic notion of support for individual rights has to be balanced against the harms that individuals exercising their freedoms do to others and to the community as a whole. — Janus
You're indulging in all or nothing thinking if you believe that the state serves only corporate interests. The state may be more beholden to corporate interests than it should be; obviously the state is never perfect and where there are human beings there will inevitably be some degree of corruption.
Your second paragraph as I read it is alarmist nonsense; you can do better than indulging in that. The question is: if you see injustices and corruption in your community, in your state, and they really bother you, then what are you doing to try to help the situation? Whining about it and petulantly refusing to do a simple thing which carries little risk to yourself will only make the situation worse. So are you happy to become part of the problem?
o you're just deliberately being provocative, right?
— Xtrix
As opposed to the infantile title of this thread? — MondoR
Nothing ever is better than natural immunity. The innate intelligence of life. — MondoR
Those who prefer to get infected and take their chances with natural immunity are welcome to do so -- provided they don't infect others in the meantime. — Xtrix
In Israel, the most vaccinated country in the world, more vaccinated people became infected than vaccinated, — MondoR
But not in the US, or UK. In the US, infections, hospitalizations and deaths are overwhelmingly among the unvaccinated — Xtrix
But not in the US, or UK. In the US, infections, hospitalizations and deaths are overwhelmingly among the unvaccinated
— Xtrix
Yeah, humans are different in the U.S. and Israel. Gullibility of the brainwashed. — MondoR
My default assumption is that epidemiologists in general are in a better position than you are to make policy recommendations. — Joshs
The ability to Interpret research studies is only part of what is needed to make policy recommendations. — Joshs
I want to know what sorts of consensus there may or may not be be concerning such questions as the value of universal vaccination. Partly this is because I don’t have the time to read every study , and partly because I appreciate that there are other considerations besides the conclusiveness and validity of study results , considerations which can allow for reasonable recommendations even in the absence of definitive conclusions. — Joshs
Maybe you could point me in the direction of links to statements by epidemiologists who recommend against policies advocating or requiring vaccination of young people. — Joshs
Given uncertainty over risks I cannot foresee for now that there will be a recommendation for general vaccinations" in children, he said, adding that while the vaccine was shown to be effective, "practically nothing" was yet known over any long-term adverse effects in adolescents.
Vaccine escape is inevitable and I think that it adds to the argument not to have a blanket rollout of the vaccine to children aged 12-15 because I think that will minimise that. We should offer it to vulnerable children. But I don’t think that currently, the way it stands, that vaccine rollout to all of them is the way forward.
Decisions on which vaccines to purchase and which groups to target must be based on the highest quality analyses of vaccines in action, fully contextualised according to place and population and accounting for all relevant biases.
Well, no. The Constitution announces itself as the supreme law of the land (Article 6). The Declaration, while informing law, is itself no law at all. As to any "right" to refuse vaccination, I would hold your rights to end not at my nose, but within a defined distance of my nose. I think a pandemic puts you close enough to extinguish for the time that right even if not close at all. And nothing new here. Children, for example, have to be vaccinated to go to school, and they have to go to school.Nitpicking, eh? — Merkwurdichliebe
And the general welfare part is going to be hard to get around. — tim wood
As it should be.The bill of rights will also be hard to get around. — Merkwurdichliebe
Is there an argument here you're making? As to "correct" interpretation, I think his point was that "correct" is in part determined by surrounding realities, correct then not correct now.Even if those rights are conditional, they are still constitutional facts that cannot be ignored. As Souter said, the constitution has to be viewed as a whole to be interpreted.correctly.
Is there an argument here you're making? As to "correct" interpretation, I think his point was that "correct" is in part determined by surrounding realities, correct then not correct now. — tim wood
This is Wesley Pegden questioning the ACIP presentation - https://medium.com/@wpegden/weighing-myocarditis-cases-acip-failed-to-balance-the-harms-vs-benefits-of-2nd-doses-d7d6b3df7cfb — Isaac
policy recommendations are made by public health authorities. Epidemiologists advise them. As I said on the other thread, public policy is a tool to accomplish government objectives. It is not, as should not be treated as, a statement of scientific consensus. — Isaac
why 'consensus'? You're an academic right? We don't all patiently check everybody else's work for errors. Especially not over the sorts of timescales involved here. Consensus is far more determined by the popularity of key starting assumptions than by the result of some mass error-checking exercise.
I can definitely see the sense in trusting someone else to check through papers for you, we rarely have time to do so personally, but consensus adds little to nothing. — Isaac
700,000 fucking dead people in the US. Is that real enough for you?!Who is the final say on how reality is judged? — Merkwurdichliebe
Yes, that the constitution supports the right of the individual to choose for himself whether or not to accept or decline the vaccine. — Merkwurdichliebe
Consensus is far more determined by the popularity of key starting assumptions than by the result of some mass error-checking exercise. — Isaac
700,000 fucking dead people in the US. Is that real enough for you?! — tim wood
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.