And what army of what country is that? — tim wood

You're implying that those who won't accept the vaccine won't be able to quit military service? You may be right, but they may be dishonorably discharged instead, which could be thought to amount to the same thing/

Yes, I suppose degree of danger is a judgement call. In any case the pragmatic situation will be that those who refuse the vaccine will have to, whether we think it right or wrong, bear the consequences. That's life, I guess...

thank you! That wasn't too difficult was it? As it happens I cannot read it, so I googled and the first thing up was this
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01529-3

This from Nat'l Georaphic dated 2Sept21
"During the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, the “lab leak” theory gained little traction. Sure, U.S. President Donald Trump suggested SARS-CoV-2 originated in a laboratory in Wuhan, China—and called it “the China virus”—but he never presented evidence, and few in the scientific community took him seriously. In fact, early in the pandemic, a group of prominent researchers dismissed lab-origin notions as “conspiracy theories” in a letter in The Lancet. A report from a World Health Organization (WHO) “joint mission,” which sent a scientific team to China in January to explore possible origins with Chinese colleagues, described a lab accident as “extremely unlikely.”

"But this spring, views began to shift. Suddenly it seemed that the lab-leak hypothesis had been too blithely dismissed. In a widely read piece, fueled by a “smoking gun” quote from a Nobel laureate, a veteran science journalist accused scientists and the mainstream media of ignoring “substantial evidence” for the scenario. The head of WHO openly pushed back against the joint mission’s conclusion, and U.S. President Joe Biden ordered the intelligence community to reassess the lab-leak possibility. Eighteen scientists, including leaders in virology and evolutionary biology, signed a letter published in Science in May that called for a more balanced appraisal of the “laboratory incident” hypothesis.

"Yet behind the clamor, little had changed. No breakthrough studies have been published. The highly anticipated U.S. intelligence review, delivered to Biden on 24 August, reached no firm conclusions, but leaned toward the theory that the virus has a natural origin."
https://www.science.org/content/article/why-many-scientists-say-unlikely-sars-cov-2-originated-lab-leak

And there's this:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2021-06-27/did-covid-come-from-a-lab-scientist-at-wuhan-institute-speaks-out

And so forth. Science speaks, and it says, if I may paraphrase, "We don't know, and there is no evidence to support laboratory origin."

Are there creatures living on the back side of the moon that hide whenever some earth-probe goes by? Or better, are they invisible? Could be. Is global climate change a hoax? Could be. Did Joe Biden steal the election from Trump? Could be.

But "could be" actually does not mean anything substantive. You, for example, "could be" anyone. But the reality is that you're neither the PM of the Netherlands not his third cousin twice removed. The reality is that Covid, which "could be" anything, isn't. You, then, are committing one of the greatest fallacies: because I do not know, therefore I know, and it therefore must be that [insert favorite paranoid idea here].

There's a second problem. What does vaccination for a disease have to do with its origins? Someone decides to use you for target practice, are you going to stand your ground pending determining the manufacturer of the bullets?

There's an expression I commend to you for your reflection and thought: just because you're paranoid does not mean that they are not out to get you. But you need to add this: but even if they are out to get you, that does not mean you are not paranoid.

The question becomes who is going to rule? The crazies? Or those committed to reason. The problem with crazy is that everything is equally likely, and thus the content of crazy irrelevant, leaving only the intensity of the mania.

Evidence here is that you're a crazy. Thus what you say meaningless.

a harmless jab — Janus

No. It stopped being harmless the moment the patent holder of the vaccine officially published its side effects, ranging from mild to deblitating to fatal.

No drug is 'harmless' per se. I think it's actually safer than taking paracetamol last time I looked?

Like I mentioned previously there was, and is, a lot of politicking surrounding anything that has the attention of the public eye. The mess gets even more complex and messy when sensationalism is the bread and butter of many media outlets (private and publicly owned).

No drug is 'harmless' per se. — I like sushi

Then why call it "harmless"?

Also, what justifies the hatred and the contempt that the vocal pro-vaccers express for anyone who is in any way not enthusiastic about the vaccine?

Also, what justifies the hatred and the contempt that the vocal pro-vaccers express for anyone who is in any way not enthusiastic about the vaccine? — baker

So many lies in just one sentence. I count six. Maybe five or seven. And exhausting to unfold and unpack. But most briefly, what I take issue with is persistence in, insistence on, unreason. - the lie - and the usually accompanying denial of reality. It's a form of sickness. Near as i can tell, you've got it.

That's what you get for fighting strawmen of your own making. And insisting -- insisting -- on fighting strawmen of your own making.

That's what you get for fighting strawmen of your own making. And insisting -- insisting -- on fighting strawmen of your own making. — baker

Clarify, please? What strawmen? What strawmen of my making? And what did I get?

You and several others have been viciously criticizing me over stances I don't hold. And nothing seems to get through to you. Nothing.


I can't say I'm not in awe of your strategy, though. It's a typical right wing strategy, extremely effective.

Well, I take it you're against vaccination, and such arguments you adduce ill-informed and ungrounded on the one hand, and irrational on the other - and that you persist in and insist on them. In particular it seems you deny that an authority can reasonably impose duties on citizens when justified. Assuming of course the authority is itself reasonable and well-intentioned - and perhaps where you live that is not the case, and perhaps never has been.

Well, I take it you're against vaccination, and such arguments you adduce ill-informed and ungrounded on the one hand, and irrational on the other - and that you persist in and insist on them. In particular it seems you deny that an authority can reasonably impose duties on citizens when justified. Assuming of course the authority is itself reasonable and well-intentioned - and perhaps where you live that is not the case, and perhaps never has been. — tim wood

Why is it so hard for you to read what I say?? Why??

Do I really need to repeat myself over and over again?

Matters of public health should not be left to individual citizens to decide, simply because they are too complex for an ordinary citizen to have the proper grasp of them, and too important to be left to lay public discourse and individual decision.

The government should make a decision and make it mandatory for people to comply.
— baker

Infectuous diseases (esp. those with potentially fatal outcomes) are a matter of public health, and therefore, cannot be left to the individual to decide about. They should be regulated at least by laws, but preferrably, by the constitution.

The focus on personal choice is nothing but an attempt to shift the burden of responsibility on the individual person, releasing doctors, science, and the government from responsibility, all under the guise of "respecting the individual's right to choice".
— baker

I'm not against vaccination in general, nor against vaccination against covid in particular.

But I am against vaccinating people of unknown medical status with an experimental medication.

And I am against vaccinating people in epidemiologically unsafe conditions. At mass vaccination sites, but also in smaller vaccination settings, people often don't wear masks, or don't wear them properly, they don't social distance, disinfect. It's a perfect place to spread the virus. And this at a time that is critical for the people there: they can get infected precisely at the time when they should be most cautious and most safe. Ideally, a person should go into sufficiently long quarantene prior to vaccination and afterwards. Some will say that this is not realistic. But then we get the result: covid hospitals filling with vaccinated people. The trend is clear: as more and more people are getting vaccinated in unsafe conditions, more and more vaccinated people end up in hospitals.
— baker — baker

I take your points.

But then we get the result: covid hospitals filling with vaccinated people. The trend is clear: as more and more people are getting vaccinated in unsafe conditions, more and more vaccinated people end up in hospitals. — baker

But this is false. Hospitals are filling with people not vaccinated, to nearly 100 percent of patients being unvaccinated, as reported in the US.

But this is false. Hospitals are filling with people not vaccinated, to nearly 100 percent of patients being unvaccinated, as reported in the US. — tim wood

Not here. In Slovenia, as of yesterday, the percentage of people who are hospitalized for covid and who are fully vaccinated is around 30%. In Croatia, too, it's keeps growing; a couple of months back, it was about 3%, now it's 20 to 30%.

In Israel, the vast majority of those hospitalized for covid are fully vaccinated.

Some EU countries have been trying to scare people into getting vaccinated by making it a policy to publish the daily covid numbers (infected, hospitalized, dead) along with the percentage of the unvaccinated in those numbers.

Too bad that the percentage of the fully vaccinated who get infected, hospitalized, or who die keeps growing.

Just the other day on the Croatian news, the reporter said "Of today's 18 coronavirus deaths, as much as 13 were unvaccinated". No, adding that "as much as" doesn't make it more egregious, but it does make the other number more egregious. — baker

I take your points. — tim wood

You owe me an apology.

I’m talking about bullying/forcing people into taking the vaccine. If people cannot work when they want to that is bad. — I like sushi

People aren't allowed to smoke indoors either. I don't consider that a bad thing. It affects other people. Likewise -- if you decide not to be vaccinated, you're more likely to contact and spread the virus, and whether other people are vaccinated or not isn't the point. It's not the point with measles either.

You have a right to refuse a vaccine, you don't have a right to infect others.
— Xtrix

I think that’s a pretty poor argument anyway. If other people have taken the vaccine then the chances of the, getting infected and dying are very very small. If the chances are not very very small then those refusing to take it have an even better reason not to take it as it wouldn’t be effective. — I like sushi

This line of reasoning is completely wrong, as has been pointed out over and over.

The onus is not on those who are vaccinated -- the onus is on those who refuse to vaccinate themselves. Breakthrough cases happen, as is well known, and those who are not yet eligible are also left vulnerable -- that's all a given, but it ignores another feature: allowing the virus to spread among the unvaccinated will encourage more variants, perhaps to the point where one emerges that is resistant to the vaccine. That also has huge public health effects.

Companies have every right to say "Vaccinate or find work elsewhere." Another option is to be tested regularly. It's not about physical force, it's about conforming to the rules we've all agreed on in civilized society -- like smoking. If you want to smoke, fine -- just don't do it around me. If you want to refuse vaccination, fine -- then voluntarily quit your job or be tested regularly, and have the decency to stay away from large crowds.

All I’m trying to do here is a make what I thought was a reasonable and common sense argument against effectively forcing people to have injections they fear and/or don’t believe in. — I like sushi

We "effectively" force people to do all kinds of things at work, including when to eat and what to wear. But beside that obvious point, there's another one: vaccinations have been mandatory for many jobs and in schools for decades. So why is this so different? One reason: politicization. That's all. That's why it's even being talked about here, where people who know nothing about it feel they need to pick a "side." There are no sides, there's just the same common sense behavior we employ in everything else: we listen to doctors and other experts. We know the vaccines are safe and effective and slow the spread of the virus -- there's no reason not to take them, beyond an allergy.

People don't get to claim religious exemption, fear, or "belief" when it comes to a choice that affects others. If you want to put yourself at risk, that's fine -- you're free to do so. That freedom ends when you're around others, and the choice becomes whether you want to comply with the rules or not. If not, you're out. That seems perfectly reasonable to me.

Again, this isn't about merely 'opting out'. We're talking about people who 'opt out' being marginalised based on their own personal position. We're taking about people being coerced (if 'effectively forced' is to strong for you) to take medication they don't wish to take. — I like sushi

You've heard of vaccinations for schools, haven't you? Where was the outrage about this? Where is the outrage for flu shots among healthcare workers? Is it ONLY about medication? What about being asked to work long hours on a moment's notice or be sacked? Or being told when to use the bathroom?

Companies, and society, create rules and laws (respectively) based on many factors. This specific instance (mandates) is a clearly legitimate use of power, because the vaccines are safe and effective. Those who refuse are free to do so, but they're mistaken if they're refusing because they believe the vaccines are harmful somehow. It's no different than refusing becomes you believe COVID is a "Chinese hoax." It doesn't matter -- that's not a reasonable excuse. It wouldn't hold up in court, it doesn't hold up in any other area of life...that hasn't been politicized.

My case is that I don't see the current threat of Covid as justifying companies/governments to prevent people from working. — I like sushi

That's fine -- but the companies and the government do see it that way, and rightly. They're informed by medical experts (and medical ethicists), who guide these decisions. They've made a calculated move which wasn't arrived at lightly, and in fact has been avoided for months. Given that people were allowed the choice to get vaccinated on their own, and because a significant number of them chose not to there was a spike in cases and deaths, this was the alternative. It seems to be working quite well, in fact.

If you don't "see" why these decisions are being made, I'm sure it can be explained to you. The heart of the matter: vaccines are safe, effective, and slow the spread of the virus. That's all. That's been shown empirically. Over 6 billion doses have been given globally, and it's been about 10 months -- the jury is in. If that's not in dispute, then arguing about these mandates is absurd. If you are disputing it, you're essentially like the person in the 80s or 90s who was arguing against smoking bans in restaurants on the assumption that the link between second-hand smoke and cancer was "unproven" (which was argued by many).

No drug is 'harmless' per se.
— I like sushi

Then why call it "harmless"?

Also, what justifies the hatred and the contempt that the vocal pro-vaccers express for anyone who is in any way not enthusiastic about the vaccine? — baker

You mean the hatred and contempt towards you, which at this point I must say is completely justified, given that you shamelessly repeat the same lies after being corrected over and over again. It wasn't long ago you were talking up the potential harms of strokes, if I recall -- which upon reflection was something like 150 out of 10 million, according to one study. Which is 0.0015% -- which I'd say is so low as to be non-existent. But you insist on playing it up as if it were a significant threat, which is completely irresponsible, especially given the misinformation about the vaccines, which you're aware of.

You feel the need to nit-pick things like "harmless" and other such statements, knowing full well that the odds of being harmed by these vaccines are extremely low, apparently in the name of some crusade against the evil "pro-vaccers [sic]" who are "hateful and contemptuous."

Better than being a liar and enabler of misinformation and dangerous ignorance. Not to mention that you're exceedingly arrogant, condescending in tone, and almost always write with a self righteous and authoritarian air.

Why don't you give it a rest already.

Sorry if this comes a bit off left field, but related to the title of your thread, one problem with Climate Denialism or whatever one wants to call it, is that the conclusions reached are so dire and overwhelming, that it's just easier to shut off one's brain.

I mean, saying that we won't really have land to live in and that many of us will die miserably and that most intelligent life on Earth will perish, is some Biblical level shit. Doesn't mean it won't happen, but that from looking outside one's window know and seeing say a nice sunny day to looking at the same window in some short timespan and seeing dead birds on the floor and not being able to go out is just a massive leap.

It also doesn't help that "end of the world" scenarios pop up time and time again. But this time, the reasons are quite legitimate. So there's some cognitive resistance at play too.

I agree wholeheartedly. That's why "denial" is exactly the right word -- as humans we're good at denying or putting things out of our heads, like death -- or even the facts of our lives, like our daily actions (what we DO with our time). It's very difficult to look scary things in the face.

That's why it's good to also discuss all the positive and encouraging trends in the world today, despite a long way to go. There's lots of work being done right now, and lots of progress being made. It's not all doom and gloom. If these infrastructure bills pass in their current form, that's undeniably a good thing. Many colleges are divesting from fossil fuels. Many asset managers are doing so as well. The business community's largest lobbyists, the Business Roundtable and the US Chamber of Commerce, have changed their mission statements to "stakeholder capitalism" because of the pressure. The media, and even fossil fuel companies themselves, now acknowledge -- accurately -- the threat of climate change. We see, therefore, more greenwashing and more "delaying" tactics, but the baseline has still shifted -- this is still progress. The Republican party is starting to loosen a little with this, but not nearly enough. Younger Republicans seem to be far more interested in climate action than older ones.

So there's plenty being done, there's plenty to be hopeful for. Sitting in a corner and putting your head in the sand does nothing. But yes, that's what a lot of people do -- no doubt. I myself think about it a lot but often feel like I'm not doing nearly enough, nor do I know exactly what to do. Which is why it's important to join forces with others, exchange ideas, compare notes and strategies, be exposed to tactics you would have never thought of alone, etc.

No. It stopped being harmless the moment the patent holder of the vaccine officially published its side effects, ranging from mild to deblitating to fatal. — baker

Statistically speaking it is harmless to almost everyone. Common medications like ibuprofen, statins, PPIs, the contraceptive pill, etc, etc all harm some people. Some people are even allergic to the point of fatality to some foods that are harmless to most people.

Yes, the silver lining must be there, otherwise it would be a waste of time.

I don't know if this is pessimism or simple objectivity, but the scary thing is that even if we continue (or begin) to act on these things, odds do not look good at all. Granted, we'll have a shot only if we try. But prospects are not good.

Still, one must grab onto what one can or slip into insanity or something.

but the scary thing is that even if we continue (or begin) to act on these things, odds do not look good at all. — Manuel

The solutions are there, and ready -- it's a matter, ultimately, of political will. It'll cost roughly 2% of GDP a year. We've seen what governments are capable of doing thanks to the coronavirus, and we saw here in this country major coordinated changes that took place during WWII. There's plenty of money, plenty of financial incentive, plenty of rational incentive, and the technology and solutions are already available. That's the good news.

The bad news is that, as you mentioned, and as the IEA pointed out today, that we're not doing nearly enough despite some encouraging signs. So what is it going to take? Well, like any major beneficial change to society, it's going to be bottom-up, not top-down. The rich and powerful, the politicians and the corporate leaders, are going to have to be forced into doing the right thing -- because clearly they won't do it themselves, as they perceive it as a loss of power. But that's really just a mistake. We can have capitalism and action on climate change -- just not the form of capitalism predominant in the US today and for the last 40 years, which is extremely right-leaning (i.e., neoliberalism). If we simply move towards what other countries are doing, and towards what we had in the 50s and 60s (regimented capitalism -- New Deal era stuff), then that'd be a start.

So it's really a problem of the isolated, divided, apathetic, or otherwise hopeless (and heavily brainwashed) population. Unless we can break through the lies perpetuated by the algorithms of social media sites and the lies of the corporate media (conservative and liberal), educate ourselves and organize ourselves, then it's likely we're essentially doomed -- because the people steering the ship and driving the bus are taking us right off a cliff, knowingly, all in the name of profits and power.

Your analysis is accurate. You are preaching to the choir in my case, or close to it.

The work is far from easy and change won't come without struggle. The concern for me is mostly one of timeframe, not any of the other aspects which you correctly point out. This wouldn't be such a mental mess if we have, say, 30-40 years to build things slowly. We don't have that luxury anymore, the relevant companies involved hid it under the rug, as you know.

Not attempting to be defeatist, but one must at least be somewhat strategic here. It's fine to argue with people if one wants that, it's good to listen to other ideas even if you despise them. But changing minds on polar opposite people is less effective than getting those who are already on the fence on these issues.

After one manages to get most of the people on the fence to see and act on the problem, can we focus efforts on trying to get others to see what the issues are, assuming we ourselves don't get some things wrong, which we will inevitably do in cases as complex as these. But the large picture is clear enough, either change this system suitably, or our future will be hell on Earth, almost literally.

Granted, we'll have a shot only if we try. But prospects are not good. — Manuel

I used to think that. And I agree the prospects do not look that great. But the future is unknown, and the more positive the general attitude is towards dealing with an existential threat is, the better the outcome will be. And better remains better even if the outcome might be bad from our present standpoint. If everyone just gave up and said "we're fucked", then we would be truly fucked.

I used to think that. And I agree the prospects do not look that great. But the future is unknown, and the more positive the general attitude is towards dealing with an existential threat is, the better the outcome will be. And better remains better even if the outcome might be bad from our present standpoint. If everyone just gave up and said "we're fucked", then we would be truly fucked. — Janus

:lol:

Is a distressed laughter, not mocking.

Clearly, there's no real alternative. The future is unknown and we can only hope that efforts will make the world better. In fact, there are people working on this from many perspectives, decent people, but I don't think they understand the consequences fully. But it's probably best that they don't, cause that could lead to inaction or paralysis.

:up: Mostly, although I don't think anyone understands the consequences fully, because to do that would be to know the future.

Thanks for the reminder.

:cry:

*positive thinking*