No one here is an immunologist. — Isaac
Some of us know more than some others about immunology, or climate, but when we speak we are not always listened to. And for this reason, there are no obvious reason for any competent poster to engage you on the matter of immunology here. For that to happen, you'd have to pay any serious attention first. — Olivier5
I for one haven't occupied the TPF bandwidths with countless arguments about immunology. — Olivier5
I've already explained it to you. Bis repetitas: 1) variants are a big factor. This thing keeps mutating and one may develop an immunity for one variant one has been exposed to but not to another; this is why we are not all immune to the flue as that bug too constantly mutates. 2) the article was based on blood samples taken from 50 individuals, 40 of whom had had covid. Results from blood analysis show that: " 95% of the people [38 people out of 40 if my math is correct] had at least 3 out of 5 immune-system components that could recognize SARS-CoV-2 up to 8 months after infection." It says nothing about their actual in vivo immune response, and extrapolating from 38 people to billions would be a bit iffy and so they don't do it either. 3) the finding is limited to this 8 month period and says nothing about what happens later. — Olivier5
each member can come to his or her conclusion and we can all decide to take our medical advice from our medical doctor, or from Fauci, or from Trump, or from you or anyone else here for that matter. I know who I trust and who I don't. — Olivier5
Should we engage in the “hard work” of thoroughly debunking each and every claim made by these people?
— Xtrix
No. As I've said dozens of times before. They don't meet the normal minimum standard of being experts in the appropriate field without discoverable conflicts of interest or histories of bias. — Isaac
What are the reasons that these individuals are saying such things?”
— Xtrix
And you'd have insight into this how? — Isaac
Apart from my views, what do you know about me that could possibly provide you with any data at all about my reasons? — Isaac
Hence the ridicule of your notion. You're saying that on no other grounds than that they disagree with you, you can somehow determine a person's motives. Do you seriously not see how utterly absurd and frankly messianic that sounds? — Isaac
Xtrix You can find stuff here: https://www.gapminder.org/
This guy you've probably heard of: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDytm8jnpk — I like sushi
Given this, do we just ignore them? Isn't it wrong to assume because others are ridiculous that this INDIVIDUAL making claims is also ridiculous? — Xtrix
ask yourself the question: exactly what "insight" do you have for determining someone's "conflicts of interests or histories of bias"? — Xtrix
I don't think it's much of a stretch to say those who are pushing against mandates or who are "questioning" government or "critical" of vaccines are doing so largely because this issue has become politicized. Why? Because it's clear it has been politicized, for one thing -- plenty of data about that. Secondly, because vaccine mandates have been around for decades. — Xtrix
When something like vaccines and mandatory vaccination -- or any other phenomenon that's been around for decades -- suddenly becomes "controversial," we have to start asking "Why now?" — Xtrix
If you can't see that in this case, or feel it's an exception, or believe it's truly just good faith "skepticism," and not manufactured or motivated by political ideology, then perhaps we have to agree to disagree. — Xtrix
If a 'climate scientist' is being paid by the oil industry, that's a reason to disregard his conclusions. If a holocaust denier consistently views ambiguous evidence in favour of the Nazis and against the Jews. that's a reason to disregard his conclusions. If a creationist geology professor is a life long fundamentalist Christian, that's a reason to disregard his theories about the age of the earth. They may not be affected by these conflicts and biases. I might be wrong to dismiss them. But I have good reason to. — Isaac
You're saying first that anyone whose theory is that vaccination should be restricted must hold that theory because of some bias or conflict of interest, then you go looking for what that might be. — Isaac
You're not first finding some bias or conflict of interest and then saying "well, we might want to take whatever they say with a pinch of salt", you're assuming there must be a bias, just because they're saying something you think is implausible. — Isaac
The problem I'm highlighting here is that if you establish nefarious motive from the argument's conclusion only, then you're just dogmatically dismissing anything you don't find plausible. — Isaac
Why do you think politicisation only affects one side of the disagreement? — Isaac
When something like vaccines and mandatory vaccination -- or any other phenomenon that's been around for decades -- suddenly becomes "controversial," we have to start asking "Why now?"
— Xtrix
Because it's a new technology, a different economic climate, a different political climate and the pharmaceutical companies have more than a tenfold increase in lobbying power since childhood vaccinations were first mooted. — Isaac
I need a substantially stronger reason to dismiss expert opinion than that. — Isaac
So, now what? Do the right thing (like help stomping the pathogen down)? — jorndoe
(There are scores of mad/ideological anti-vaxxeries out there, spreading and lapping up dis/mal/misinformation/bullshit; probably best to distance from those.) — jorndoe
If someone gives a theory about vaccinations -- who is a layman -- during a time when the issue has been highly politicized, and vaccine mandates have been around for years, and who would otherwise just trust the opinions of medical experts...yeah, at that point I think we have good reason to simply say "This is coming from a place of x, not from an unbiased assessment of evidence." — Xtrix
No, I'm doing exactly the first part. I'm saying we should take you with a pinch of salt -- despite the fact that you could be the rare exception. — Xtrix
If all you're arguing for is a nuanced and careful approach to vaccines -- fine, we agree. — Xtrix
So we'd be wrong to attribute any "nefarious motive" to the conclusion that the earth is 6,000 years old and the Grand Canyon was created by Noah's flood? — Xtrix
It's really not new technology. — Xtrix
mRNA vaccines are a new type of vaccine to protect against infectious diseases. — https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/different-vaccines/mrna.html
even if it were, this excuse can be used at any time. The polio vaccine was "new" technology, too, after all. — Xtrix
Expert opinion is that vaccines are safe, effective, and slow the spread of the virus. — Xtrix
The only solution to our ecological woes will be to transition to a non-growth, even a shrinking, economy.
— Janus
I asked how this is viable. The reply was not given (avoided). — I like sushi
I asked how this is viable. The reply was not given (avoided). — I like sushi
When it comes to economics and resources the key factor regarding the ecology is to provide as many people as possible with cheap energy so they can more easily get out of poverty. The point being that burning more coal and gas in the short term is actually the best way to protect the ecology of the planet. — I like sushi
No we don't. Mandating vaccines is not nuanced. Not even every medical expert agrees with it. — Isaac
The claim that we didn't ought to mandate vaccines or that not everyone needs vaccinating is not remotely grand, it's quite an ordinary position, even if an unpopular one. — Isaac
It's really not new technology.
— Xtrix
mRNA vaccines are a new type of vaccine to protect against infectious diseases.
— https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/different-vaccines/mrna.html — Isaac
Expert opinion is that vaccines are safe, effective, and slow the spread of the virus.
— Xtrix
Yep. And we've already agreed on that. — Isaac
The question here is whether that fact is sufficient justification for mandates, whether it's sufficient justification for administering vaccines to low risk groups, whether it's sufficient justification for focussing on vaccination to the exclusion of other health policies... — Isaac
But Republicans have grown increasingly hostile to the notion of mandatory vaccines — despite vaccine mandates existing in the background in parts of the United States since the 19th century — and have parlayed the fight against COVID-19 into a political battle, with vaccine mandates as the latest frontier in the great American defense of freedom and liberty.
If you're really getting your climate change information from Lomborg, you might as well go to Prager University. — Xtrix
Burning more coal and gas is indeed the most likely near future scenario. Transition to green technologies cannot be achieved overnight. — Janus
Elon Musk knows that solar and wind power are not particularly useful in their current or near-future states. — I like sushi
the point we now find ourselves, where one's conclusions are all that matter, not the diligence with which one has arrived at them — Isaac
Then why is he promoting battery-powered cars? If batteries are charged using fossil fuel derived energy they would be, due to efficiency losses at every stage, less green that fossil-fuel powered cars.
Also, nuclear energy is arguable undesirable as it is dangerous on account of the more enriched uranium you have the more potential there is for more nuclear weapons, and waste disposal is an
unsolved issue.
Also decline in reproduction rates due to increased prosperity will arguably be too little too late, even if the prediction panned out, which it may not In different cultures, places and circumstances. — Janus
What we should be doing is scrapping all privately owned cars that are not needed for practical purposes (trades, transport, agriculture etc), using public transport and electric powered bicycles, turning all the lights out at night, and adopting any measure we can, fuck the inconvenience, to reduce fossil fuel use; but I won't hold my breath expecting it to happen. — Janus
We may be lucky enough that there will be some super viable technological breakthrough in either cheap energy production or carbon sequestration, but we would be fools to depend on it. — Janus
You seem to have bought into the fantasy of scientism, but you're by no means unique in that. I don't share your optimism, but then I also think that, if there is to be any solution, it will have to come from science, because very few will be willing to downscale their lifestyles. — Janus
Do we not have an epistemic responsibility in life? If our actions have ripple effects, and our actions are largely an outgrowth of our beliefs, then isn't it irresponsible to believe in things that lead to harmful actions? Shouldn't we be more careful about what we believe in? — Xtrix
There were too many holdouts, for mostly irrational reasons, and so now it's time for mandates. Seems reasonable to me. — Xtrix
To the first question, I think the jury is in: yes, it is sufficient to mandate safe, effective vaccines during a pandemic, that protect others, slow the spread, and get our lives and economy back on track after 9 months of refusal from a significant portion of the population.
Low risk groups -- yes, I'm also low risk. It's not about *me*. Whether you're low risk or not, you can still contract and spread the virus.
I think there should be other health policies as well — Xtrix
Take it up with the medical establishment and present them your theories. — Xtrix
Vaccines, their safety and efficacy -- as well as vaccine mandates -- have all been well established and around for decades. There does indeed require "grand evidence" to justify the sudden wave of resistance. — Xtrix
Medical and ethical opinion is divided on the introduction of immunisation policies that involve some degree of coercion (such as fines)...The effectiveness of mandatory vaccination policies is not clear, partly because attitudes to immunisation vary between countries and there can be several factors contributing to declining or poor immunisation coverage. — UK Vaccine Policy Briefing
getting rid of non-medical exemptions altogether and making mandatory vaccination truly compulsory risks substantial public backlash and could be counterproductive to the ultimate objective of reaching and sustaining high rates of immunisation coverage and disease control. — https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(15)00156-5/fulltext
Under this analysis, mandating COVID-19 vaccination for HCP would not be ethically permissible insofar as the less coercive measure of providing proper PPE and other protections to HCP has not been fulfilled. — Ethical Issues in Mandatory COVID-19 Vaccination of Healthcare Personnel - BMJ Global
From same source: "Researchers have been studying and working with mRNA vaccines for decades." — Xtrix
Of possible interest...
https://www.statnews.com/2020/11/10/the-story-of-mrna-how-a-once-dismissed-idea-became-a-leading-technology-in-the-covid-vaccine-race/
The problem, she knew, was that synthetic RNA was notoriously vulnerable to the body’s natural defenses, meaning it would likely be destroyed before reaching its target cells. And, worse, the resulting biological havoc might stir up an immune response that could make the therapy a health risk for some patients.
behind the scenes the company’s scientists were running into a familiar problem. In animal studies, the ideal dose of their leading mRNA therapy was triggering dangerous immune reactions — the kind for which Karikó had improvised a major workaround under some conditions — but a lower dose had proved too weak to show any benefits.
mRNA is a tricky technology. Several major pharmaceutical companies have tried and abandoned the idea, struggling to get mRNA into cells without triggering nasty side effects.
The indefinite delay on the Crigler-Najjar project signals persistent and troubling safety concerns for any mRNA treatment that needs to be delivered in multiple doses — https://www.statnews.com/2017/01/10/moderna-trouble-mrna/
The technology is so old because no one could get it to work without triggering nasty immune responses. The exact type of response some experts are concerned about now, particularly with multiple booster doses. — Isaac
So why mention "newness" if you agree they're safe and effective? — Xtrix
Too little too late? We're not all going to die out. We are a species that is highly adjustable and at every point in our history the doom and gloom has not turned out to be such a problem when innovation helps staves off the doomsday scenarios repeatedly forecast. — I like sushi
To the first question, I think the jury is in: yes, it is sufficient to mandate safe, effective vaccines during a pandemic, that protect others, slow the spread, and get our lives and economy back on track after 9 months of refusal from a significant portion of the population. — Xtrix
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.