I do remember the things you say to me, the way you talk about my personality, intelligence, and so on.

You should not take it as an accusation, it's more a warning, in the sense that your mind is not totally gone yet I think. You can still pull it together if you try. It's also a way to flag to other posters that there might be some mental toxicity involved there, in case they haven't noticed already. — Olivier5

And you think this is the appropriate tone to use in conversations here?

You should not take it as an accusation, it's more a warning, in the sense that your mind is not totally gone yet I think. You can still pull it together if you try. It's also a way to flag to other posters that there might be some mental toxicity involved there, in case they haven't noticed already. — Olivier5

OK, then you should hold back on the (whatever you're talking about above) unless you can back it up with more than just idle speculation. For God's sake, since when did it become OK to start publicly speculating about the mental health of random people you've never met just because they disagree with you? Is this really what we've come to? It's just sickening.

I am not speculating. Your obsession about pharma is evidently clouding your judgement and making you agitated and irrational. Don't blame the messenger. Calm down, relax and enjoy life. Everything's gona be alright.

And you think this is the appropriate tone to use in conversations here? — baker

Enlighten me. What tone is appropriate to use in conversations here? Respectful? Diplomatic? Analytic?

You argued that it was justified because they'd had a history of vaccine mandates and were only now kicking up a fuss, thus proving they were politicised. The relevant fact there is whether your opponents have had a history of vaccine mandates and are only now kicking up a fuss. Not you. — Isaac

Right, which is exactly what's happening. I can't speak for the UK, but similar anti-vax misinformation has spread and taken hold there as well I'm sure. Here in the US, it is one factor of several I can see. The others are the ones I mentioned, including politicization by the Trump administration and right-wing media, which is now profiting off of manipulating their audience and followers.

This is all pretty irrelevant, and getting boring. The main point is this: mandates are legitimate. They "check out" when you look at the decision more closely, follow the logic, listen to the experts, and check their evidence -- at least it does for me. It's very convincing to me, and so far from what you've written, I'm simply not persuaded otherwise. I have problems not with your conclusion only, which you accuse me of, but your assumptions, your logic, the references you've cited, and your interpretation of the evidence. I think you're making several mistakes.

I've offered analogies to help flush out where I think you're making errors. I think the comparison to creationists is a good one -- not because I think you're being almost completely irrational the way they are, but because it's an example we can both agree on, and which my hope was would allow you to see some mistakes I thought you were making. That has failed - fine. Let me get more to the matter at hand and hopefully start anew:

Mandates are - generally speaking - legitimate. I have given reasons for this conclusion. What exactly is your objection to it, fundamentally? Should a state never be allowed to mandate anything? Should a state be allowed to create laws and to enforce those laws? What makes a law "just" or legitimate? What is the purpose of a state or a government, in your view?

I don't see how we can go on talking and keep it somewhat interesting unless these questions are first addressed.

The entire UK government and a large number of medical ethicists disagree, who again I cited and again you completely ignored. — Isaac

I didn't completely ignore, but I didn't spend a lot of time on. Why? Because I'm not as privy to what's happening in the UK, which is why I restricted my discussion to the United States, where I live. This isn't simply nationalism, it just happens that to be the leading world power and an example to many other countries. Maybe the population is brighter in Britain and Denmark, in terms of education, and thus don't need to create a mandate or laws about vaccinations -- I have no idea. I assume there is far less holdout and hesitance in both countries.

It's your suggestion that disagreement is so outrageous that only the politically motivated would pretend to hold such views. It's egotistical on a monumental scale to hold that your personal opinion is so right that dissent can only be seen as a Machiavellian political move. — Isaac

I said politicization is one factor involved in this resistance, yes. In my view that's a major one. But there are others: the media, social media, the systematically eroded trust in institutions and establishments of almost any kind, including medicine and science, etc. There is also genuine fear about something new or seemingly uncertain or risky. It's true I think most of the response and resistance is motivated by political ideology and affiliation, and thus also news consumption. But notice I also pointed to evidence of this: the level of resistance is correlated with "redder" counties (those that went increasingly strongly for Donald Trump). Do you assume that's an accident or coincidence? I don't.

When in fact there isn't much we disagree on. I can think of really just one thing we disagree on: and that is the vehemence with which scientific claims should be held and the ethical status that should be ascribed to them.
— baker

We agree on that too, if you deigned to read what I said instead of rushing into accusations.
— Xtrix

No, we disagree on this matter. I never push for scientific claims the way you do. — baker

(1) I think rationality, logic, and mathematics -- which is especially embodied in natural philosophy (science) -- should indeed be vehemently held and defended, yes.

(2) That does not mean I subscribe to scientism or dogmatism -- which I am vehemently against.

You're associating my (1) vehemence, filtered through my unique communication style (which I realize you find distasteful), as following into (2). That's a mistake. Which is why I've asked you to see passed what you find distasteful and still hear the argument I'm making. I realize it's hard -- it's equally hard for me to communicate any better, but I still try.

[If, however, I am completely wrong about this, then that leaves one alternative, which I give you the benefit of the doubt about, which is that you do not in fact share my belief in (1). If that's the case, then what is worth vehemently defending? What's worth fighting for? What's worth even getting nasty or, perhaps, violent about, if we have to? Anything at all? If so, why would you exclude science from this list? Or is it simply all a matter of never being rude or distasteful or aggressive?]

I should not have to repeat myself over and over again, for every poster in every thread. I should not have to defend myself against wrongful accusations. I should not have to disclose sensitive medical information about myself in public forums. I should not have to accomodate other posters' uncharitable reading. — baker

I don't like "repeating myself over and over" either, but not everyone can follow every message on every topic on this forum -- least of all me.

Otherwise, apart from disclosing sensitive medical information -- which I never asked you to do, I think defending your position is a prerequisite for being here. If you don't even want to do that, then why interject at all? Why comment? Why reply? I'm pretty sure it wasn't me who started any conversation between us, so the choice was yours. If you don't like my style or my threads or my writings or my ideas, fine -- then unless you're willing to "defend" your often condescending, pithy remarks, why do it?

Seems all you've offered me, in the end, is that you think I'm too forceful, too overconfident, and too mean. If that's all, fine -- then I beg your pardon, and please move on.

You could have asked that question to Wayfarer who called it "unbearably sinister". — Olivier5

It is! Nothing said here alters my view in the slightest. The development and launch of the COVID-19 vaccines is a triumph of science and public medicine.

mandates are legitimate. They "check out" when you look at the decision more closely, follow the logic, listen to the experts, and check their evidence -- at least it does for me. It's very convincing to me, and so far from what you've written, I'm simply not persuaded otherwise. I have problems not with your conclusion only, which you accuse me of, but your assumptions, your logic, the references you've cited, and your interpretation of the evidence. I think you're making several mistakes. — Xtrix

Right. But this isn't about what you personally find convincing. I'm quite happy for you to hold the views you hold. I think you're wrong, but your views have clearly been informed by expert opinion, they meet the threshold I expect of reasonable people. The issue here is your dismissal of views which conflict with your own using these completely unnecessary and unhelpful accusations of political bias, weak-mindedness, ideology etc. If you have genuine issues with my "assumptions... logic... references ...and ...interpretation of the evidence" then argue those points. There should be no additional need for any of this weak speculation about the underlying motives of people you've never met and know barely anything about. If I've made mistakes in the areas above, then pointing out those mistakes is sufficient counter-argument.

I've offered analogies to help flush out where I think you're making errors. I think the comparison to creationists is a good one -- not because I think you're being almost completely irrational the way they are, but because it's an example we can both agree on, and which my hope was would allow you to see some mistakes I thought you were making. — Xtrix

Your analogies with creationists were about bias and motives. You said I'd made mistakes in "assumptions... logic... references ...and ...interpretation of the evidence". These should not require analogies. They can simply be written as they are. But I'll note again here - the presentation of counter evidence, counter logic, counter assumptions, and counter references does not prove you're right and I'm wrong. It proves your position is also well referenced, logically sound and rests on reasonable assumptions. The matter of choosing between them is not resolved simply by you pointing out that it is possible to rationally arrive at your position.

Let me get more to the matter at hand and hopefully start anew: — Xtrix

I'm happy to listen to what you have, but I can't (won't) argue against a position I don't hold, nor follow the script for some drama you want to play out against an imaginary enemy. You have to argue with me, not some fantasy version of me. I'm not a MAGA cap-wearing American, I'm not a Facebook junkie hooked on Mercola feeds, I'm not a middle-class suburbanite more concerned about the opinion of my yoga class than of experts in the field... I'm a semi-retired English professor of Psychology, I've twenty years experience in research (specialising in the structure of belief), I now consult for a risk analyst firm a large part of which is (of course) dealing with the long term fallout from covid. I don't read the news, I don't have any social media accounts, I don't have a television. I get my news from the journals I subscribe to (BMJ and Lancet, in health matters) plus a few blogs from experts I trust and colleagues at work (all experts in their field). If you don't believe any of that because it doesn't fit with your stereotype of someone with my views then we'll just stop there.

If not we can continue, but I expect an evidence-based discussion, I'm not interested in taking a poll of your opinions. "You're wrong" is an insufficient response, as is a repeat of the claim originally made. You saying something is never evidence of it's veracity in any circumstances here. If you say...

they "check out" when you look at the decision more closely, follow the logic, listen to the experts, and check their evidence — Xtrix

I expect to see the names of those experts, quotes from them, links to the studies constituting the evidence and, if you're claiming they're in the vast majority, some evidence of numbers. It's inadequate for you to simply say it's the case.

Again, If you're not interested in meeting this standard, we can just end the conversation here, that's fine with me.

Your questions...

What exactly is your objection to it, fundamentally? — Xtrix

Twofold. Firstly it's an unnecessary risk. The risk in this case is; the known side effects of the vaccine in those groups for whom the benefit is also very small (young, healthy people), the unknown long term side effects in other groups and, more importantly at this stage, the potential for the manufacturers to make mistakes/shortcuts in their manufacturing or testing procedures. It's unnecssary because reasonable alternatives exist.

As evidence of the risk/benefit balance to young healthy people I've cited the UK JCVI adjudication to that effect. As evidence that experts do consider the long-term risks to be an issue, I've cited a professor of epidemiology who sits on Germany's vaccine advisory board saying exactly that. As an example of the risk pharmaceutical companies present I cited the recent whistle-blowing at the GLaxoSmithKline factory in PuertoRico, I've also cited several examples of other pharmaceutical companies hiding safety information, lying about result and marketing medicines despite their unsuitability. If you'd like me to repeat this evidence, just ask.

Secondly, impositions on people's bodily autonomy cannot be taken lightly, they need substantial reasons and there is insufficient need when alternatives are available.

I've cited medical ethicists explaining this position (about alternatives needing to be exhausted) and how they feel this hasn't yet been done. As evidence that alternatives still exist, I've previously cited an article from the BMJ expanding on the view that natural immunity should be an alternative to vaccination. Regular testing is also a possible solution which I've cited experts on.

I'm not repeating any of my citations now because I'm not playing into the narrative that I'm only now scrabbling about for evidence. I've cited all this previously, I've consistently supported my position with relevant evidence from experts in the appropriate field. But I'll repeat it if you need it repeated.

Should a state never be allowed to mandate anything? Should a state be allowed to create laws and to enforce those laws? — Xtrix

Obviously a state can mandate and make laws. They need to be proportionate to the risk and lack alternative solutions. As detailed above. I don't believe that's the case with mandatory vaccination. That belief is not only based on, but is also shared by relevant experts in the field. That, by my definition, makes it a reasonable belief to hold. I also think that believing mandates are necessary is a reasonable position to hold because that position too is well supported by relevant experts in the field.

What makes a law "just" or legitimate? — Xtrix

That it affects all people fairly, that it is aimed at a state of affairs which we could imagine a rational person from any position in society wanting to achieve.

What is the purpose of a state or a government, in your view? — Xtrix

Quite a big question don't you think? As concisely as I can (with the obvious concomitant overlooking of nuance), government, for me, should be in the business of influencing the factors which govern our economic and social interactions in order to bring about a state of affairs that any rational person from any part of that society would want brought about via means which allow for as much autonomy of the members of that society as possible.

I also pointed to evidence of this: the level of resistance is correlated with "redder" counties (those that went increasingly strongly for Donald Trump). Do you assume that's an accident or coincidence? I don't. — Xtrix

No, it is the result of the politicisation of the issue. Politicisation affects both sides. Vaccine 'enthusiasm' is associated with the 'bluer' states. So does that prove that people are only enthusiastic about vaccines because of their political ideology? Any time you point to a correlation between ideas and political affiliation, you point to exactly the opposite association of the counter-idea with the counter-politics. That leaves us with no ideas deriving from anything other than political ideology. We can either leave it there, or we could assume that the overall picture hides a more interesting minority who can support their ideas in greater depth, but if we're making this assumption, then there's no reason to consider it a feature of one side only. I've no interest at all in Mercola, Trump or any other media darling and their views. I've also no interest in the self-avowed warrior-of-truth who thinks they can wield 'scientific consensus' as flag to signal their noble lack of bias. It's just as naive (even if considerably less harmful).

Thx, good to see I'm not alone. :-)

Nothing said here alters my view in the slightest. The development and launch of the COVID-19 vaccines is a triumph of science and public medicine — Wayfarer

Nothing said here is intended to alter that view.

Is it normal for you to consider "I'm not convinced by the arguments" sufficient ground to label those making them "unbearably sinister"? Do you determine all views you're not personally convinced of to be malignant? If not, then you being personally unconvinced is not really reasonable justification for such rhetoric, is it?

It seems a common theme here. You're the third person who's used this slanderous language to describe those who disagree with you and then, when pushed for justification, fall back on something utterly inadequate like "I'm not convinced by the argument", or "I just get the feeling..."

If this is the standard of public discourse you think is acceptable, then I suggest Twitter rather than a serious philosophical forum.

Some elementary schools have a weekly dental hygiene thing.
The kids are tested for having brushed their teeth in the morning and get points accordingly.
Periodically, some reward is given to those having gotten a good score.
Simple reward-oriented system.

I suppose, open capitalist societies with relevant legislation sort of auto-reward and punish companies that manage to stick to :up: and avoid :down:.
Capitalism itself knows no ethics, though.
Maybe the punishment part has to be up'd to be proportionally effective, in some cases anyway.

:up:
Ongoing science/medicine has given us marvels, only to be thrown out by some kooky thinking. :roll:

I like your thinking. The UK education system has given us some true geniuses, therefore I must be a true genius (being a product of the UK education system).

Oh but hang on...the UK education system has given us some absolute idiots too...

...gosh, it's almost as if shallow clichés aren't sufficient for making real world judgements in complex situations.

Right. But this isn't about what you personally find convincing. I'm quite happy for you to hold the views you hold. I think you're wrong, but your views have clearly been informed by expert opinion, they meet the threshold I expect of reasonable people. The issue here is your dismissal of views which conflict with your own using these completely unnecessary and unhelpful accusations of political bias, weak-mindedness, ideology etc. If you have genuine issues with my "assumptions... logic... references ...and ...interpretation of the evidence" then argue those points. There should be no additional need for any of this weak speculation about the underlying motives of people you've never met and know barely anything about. If I've made mistakes in the areas above, then pointing out those mistakes is sufficient counter-argument. — Isaac

I think you underestimate the degree to which I've looked carefully at your arguments and supporting evidence/data/citations -- but I engage with many people on here, especially on this topic over the last two months. This is exactly what I find unconvincing -- and not only from you, but from several others on this forum and other online venues as well -- and which has led to my claims about explanations for what I see as flawed arguments: politicization, misinformation, etc.

I see parallels here with creationists and others -- which isn't meant as an insult, but meant from the point of view of the data no longer really mattering, and which accounts for a distorted view/interpretation of evidence. If this doesn't apply to you, fine -- I admit I could be completely wrong about it, and as I said before much of this is speculation.

On the other hand, I also have given data about this topic which I find convincing -- at least regarding politicization and the influence of social media. I don't consider that "weak speculation."

Your analogies with creationists were about bias and motives. You said I'd made mistakes in "assumptions... logic... references ...and ...interpretation of the evidence". These should not require analogies. — Isaac

Well "assumptions and logic" would be included here. The analogy wasn't strictly about bias and motives, really, but about why people end up saying the things they do and interpreting the evidence the way they do. I do indeed feel it's relevant. It may be, on the other hand, that you're truly just curious about this issue, aren't convinced by the data, and so on...but from some of the things you've said so far I don't think that's as probable. But that's my opinion, and I mention it because I'd feel dishonest about even having this conversation if I didn't. That doesn't mean I consider your argument as identical with creationists -- but that there are some principles of belief formation and logical fallacies that strike me as similar.

But I'll note again here - the presentation of counter evidence, counter logic, counter assumptions, and counter references does not prove you're right and I'm wrong. It proves your position is also well referenced, logically sound and rests on reasonable assumptions. The matter of choosing between them is not resolved simply by you pointing out that it is possible to rationally arrive at your position. — Isaac

True. But this can be claimed about nearly any dialogue whatsoever, no?

You have to argue with me, not some fantasy version of me. — Isaac

Fair enough.

I'm not a MAGA cap-wearing American, I'm not a Facebook junkie hooked on Mercola feeds, I'm not a middle-class suburbanite more concerned about the opinion of my yoga class than of experts in the field... I'm a semi-retired English professor of Psychology, I've twenty years experience in research (specialising in the structure of belief), I now consult for a risk analyst firm a large part of which is (of course) dealing with the long term fallout from covid. I don't read the news, I don't have any social media accounts, I don't have a television. I get my news from the journals I subscribe to (BMJ and Lancet, in health matters) plus a few blogs from experts I trust and colleagues at work (all experts in their field). If you don't believe any of that because it doesn't fit with your stereotype of someone with my views then we'll just stop there. — Isaac

I believe every word of it, and suspected something like that -- although I had assumed more the sciences than English.

I don't ever recall characterizing you in the above ways. I have made allusions to the anti-vax movement, which I suspect (although, again, may be completely wrong in your individual case) does indeed have something to do with your conclusions, but that's really not relevant, nor should you care -- provided I'm still willing to engage in evidence you present -- which I believe I have, more often than not, and at least more than you've implied.

they "check out" when you look at the decision more closely, follow the logic, listen to the experts, and check their evidence
— Xtrix

I expect to see the names of those experts, quotes from them, links to the studies constituting the evidence and, if you're claiming they're in the vast majority, some evidence of numbers. It's inadequate for you to simply say it's the case. — Isaac

I'm more than willing.

I also pointed to evidence of this: the level of resistance is correlated with "redder" counties (those that went increasingly strongly for Donald Trump). Do you assume that's an accident or coincidence? I don't.
— Xtrix

No, it is the result of the politicisation of the issue. Politicisation affects both sides. Vaccine 'enthusiasm' is associated with the 'bluer' states. So does that prove that people are only enthusiastic about vaccines because of their political ideology? — Isaac

But still politicized, nonetheless. This "two sides" thing works to a degree, but remember I'm not playing that game. I'm giving a reason for why this is controversial. Like the creation/evolution "debate," it's no wonder we find more creationists within a highly predictable subset (evangelical Christians). Does this mean the people who believe in evolution are "enthusiasts"? I wouldn't say so, although sometimes that's true.

With this issue, it's similar to claims about a stolen election. Do you make the same argument there, as well? Yes, it's been politicized -- and some of the other side (the ones arguing the election was fair and open), largely in reaction, may be overly "enthusiastic," but this ignores a lot of information. The fact that the enthusiasts may simply be energized by their own information bubbles doesn't negate the fact that they happen to align with scientific and medical consensus, or evolutionary biology, or election data/audits/experts. It just means they're also caught up in the politicized fight/controversy. The reason it's even a fight to begin with, however, is worth remember. The election claim stems from the poltiical right -- and hence the "controversy." The vaccination claims stem from the political right -- and hence the controversy (and opposite reaction).

I think you're pulling a kind of "both-sides-ism."

Now with this less interesting stuff hopefully out of the way, I'll respond more substantively in the next reply.

Mandates are - generally speaking - legitimate. I have given reasons for this conclusion. What exactly is your objection to it, fundamentally? — Xtrix

Twofold. Firstly it's an unnecessary risk. The risk in this case is; the known side effects of the vaccine in those groups for whom the benefit is also very small (young, healthy people), the unknown long term side effects in other groups and, more importantly at this stage, the potential for the manufacturers to make mistakes/shortcuts in their manufacturing or testing procedures. It's unnecssary because reasonable alternatives exist.

As evidence of the risk/benefit balance to young healthy people I've cited the UK JCVI adjudication to that effect. As evidence that experts do consider the long-term risks to be an issue, I've cited a professor of epidemiology who sits on Germany's vaccine advisory board saying exactly that. As an example of the risk pharmaceutical companies present I cited the recent whistle-blowing at the GLaxoSmithKline factory in PuertoRico, I've also cited several examples of other pharmaceutical companies hiding safety information, lying about result and marketing medicines despite their unsuitability. If you'd like me to repeat this evidence, just ask. — Isaac

(It's often said of me that my writing is sometimes like that of a lawyer, which isn't meant as a compliment. So if this is how the following appears to you as well, I beg your pardon, but it helps me organize my thoughts and I find helps the conversation as well.)

Here your first claim is essentially one about the following risks:

(1) Known side effects.
(2) Unknown long term side effects.
(3) Potential mistakes in manufacturing of the vaccines and their testing.

I would indeed like you to link the supporting evidence for these three you mentioned, so I can take a look (or a second look).

Three questions and then some comments:

First: when you say reasonable alternatives exist, what are you referring to?

Second: when taking into account the benefits, are you including the benefits to others as well, or just to the individual (for example, the "young/healthy" individual)? I find this is often overlooked or minimized, and I think that's a mistake.

Third: when referring to examples of pharmaceutical companies hiding safety information, etc., are you referring specifically to COVID vaccines or other products? If other products, I don't doubt there is plenty of information, and I'm familiar with a few of them myself.

-

You agree that vaccines are safe, effective, and slow the spread of the virus. So in my view, in order to demonstrate "unnecessary risk" there would either have to be (a) almost no benefit whatever to taking the vaccine, or (b) significantly more severe side effects/risks than I've seen so far.

When I say "safe," however, I'm referring not only to death from the vaccine, but severe side effects as well. From what I've read, they're exceedingly rare. You say you agree with this, so that potentially rules out (b). Which leaves us, if I'm correct so far, with (a).

But even if (a) is demonstrated in the sense that there is no benefit of protection from the virus, or that none is needed anyway because one is young and healthy, I don't think this accounts for the often overlooked factor I mentioned above: that of "externalized" effects; namely, the effects on others. This would constitute a huge benefit -- not to oneself, but to those around you.

(A digression: This is a common mistake, and one I myself made for years in terms of getting a flu shot. "I'm young and healthy," I figured, "so I don't want to go into a hospital and get stuck by a needle -- it's a hassle -- and besides, they don't even protect against every strain." I figured I would just take my chances with getting the flu -- put my immune system to work. Besides, I'd heard things about mercury in the vaccines, and about how the flu vaccine gives you the flu (and had heard lots of stories from family about getting sick with flu after getting the flu shot). But leaving the last few claims aside, I was overlooking why doctors were recommending it to me and others every year, and why it was given out for free: the other people you're around. Your grandmother, the elderly people in your neighborhood who you come in contact with, the people you work with, the immunocompromised, etc. I never thought of it like this until it was pointed out to me by a physician. So I don't necessarily fault people for overlooking this factor.)

I say all of this in anticipation. I would expect your evidence to demonstrate either (a) or (b).

Lastly, although I will carefully look at what you're presenting, I do want to remind you of something I think we've discussed before about scientific/medical consensus. You mention a German professor of epidemiology, for example. While he's obviously credentialed, and I have no reason to believe he's a quack of any kind, I still feel that even if his argument is a good one, that he represents a minority view. Do you agree? If so, my question to you is: why highlight the minority view -- or, better: why is his view more convincing than the majority's/consensus? Assuming it's split down the middle, and there's good evidence on either side -- which is plausible -- do you have any insight into why you would gravitate towards this interpretation more than the other?

I've cited medical ethicists explaining this position (about alternatives needing to be exhausted) and how they feel this hasn't yet been done. As evidence that alternatives still exist, I've previously cited an article from the BMJ expanding on the view that natural immunity should be an alternative to vaccination. Regular testing is also a possible solution which I've cited experts on. — Isaac

I wrote some of the above before reading this part.

You're saying the alternative you mentioned above is natural immunity. Fair enough.

That's not an insane position, and I don't think there's definitive evidence about it yet. I have heard "both sides" to this, and both seem reasonable. It gets into the weeds.

But this gets back to risk/benefit. If someone already has COVID, that's one thing. We can discuss that, and whether they should be exempted from a vaccine or not.

But what of the millions who have no yet had COVID? Do we want a situation like the one in Brazil? (If you're unfamiliar, I can cite sources.) Restricted even to the young and healthy, this gets back to (a) and (b) above. Is it truly less risky to get the virus than to get the vaccine? Again, perhaps if you exclude externalities. But I'm also suspecting you may not agree, after all, with the notion that the vaccines help slow the spread of the virus -- a point which is crucial in this case.

But please link to the BMJ too.

Obviously a state can mandate and make laws. They need to be proportionate to the risk and lack alternative solutions. As detailed above. I don't believe that's the case with mandatory vaccination. That belief is not only based on, but is also shared by relevant experts in the field. That, by my definition, makes it a reasonable belief to hold. I also think that believing mandates are necessary is a reasonable position to hold because that position too is well supported by relevant experts in the field. — Isaac

Well a lot hinges on two things then: (1) alternative solutions (natural immunity) and (2) risks.

As you know, from what I have gathered is that the risks of negative health outcomes are exceedingly low (which is what I mean when I say the vaccines are "safe"). I believe you have agreed with this, which is why the rest is a bit puzzling to me.

I don't see how natural immunity is an alternative solution to this very low-risk/safe option. Natural immunity could reasonably exempt someone from having to take the vaccine, yes, but that's a separate matter -- which if this is all your restricting your argument about mandates to, I'm willing to have that conversation.

But in discussing those who have not gotten COVID (and who are, say, young and healthy) the question is: do we go with the vaccine or go with an alternative solution? The alternative solution, in this case, is natural immunity -- which one must contract COVID in order to obtain.

This assumes (1) that getting COVID is less risky for the individual than taking the vaccine, and (2) that there aren't external factors to consider, including the spread. What would have to be demonstrated is that risks from the vaccines are greater than the risks of getting COVID, and that the vaccine has no effect on transmissibility.

That's a tall order, in my view. But again, I'm willing to take a look if that's indeed your position.

The analogy wasn't strictly about bias and motives, really, but about why people end up saying the things they do and interpreting the evidence the way they do. — Xtrix

Is that not covered under 'motive'. I'm still a little confused as to the distinction you're trying to make here. If I were to believe that the last right-wing government were responsible for the economic crisis, that would be something I might believe because of bias (I'm left-wing), but it's also plausible (many economists think so) so my bias isn't really relevant unless I dismiss a source ("Oh he's a conservative so his evidence doesn't count"). If, however, I was a UFO enthusiast and as such believed that the economic crisis was caused by the interference of aliens, then my bias would matter. No economist is saying that, I'd be stepping outside of reasonable conversation and shouldn't expect to be taken seriously.

True. But this can be claimed about nearly any dialogue whatsoever, no? — Xtrix

Yes. And this is crucially important. If you take only one thing away from my response, I'd prefer it was this. When I present an argument here I'm not doing so with the intention that it convinces you. Any argument I present is of the form "It is reasonable to believe...", not of the form "You ought to believe...". It's a significantly weaker claim and it means the above quote is not problematic for us. The debate we're having (the one I'm having, anyway) is about whether my beliefs meet the threshold required of reasonableness. It is not about how convincing they are. I'll come back to this as it answers another of your questions later on.

I believe every word of it, and suspected something like that -- although I had assumed more the sciences than English. — Xtrix

Just to clarify (not that it matters, but I don't want to cause confusion later) I'm a professor of Psychology, not English. English is my nationality (put in so you know whose rules and regulations I'm talking about). Of course whether Psychology is one of the sciences is a matter of much debate!

I'm more than willing. — Xtrix

That would be good, but we'll save it for if it's needed.

With this issue, it's similar to claims about a stolen election. Do you make the same argument there, as well? — Xtrix

No, because I don't accept your premise. Recall the caveat about your say so being insufficient? I don't want to get mired in stuff we've left behind, but this is why I brought up the stuff about creationist geology professors. I have a standard for inclusion in reasonable academic discussion and if you don't share that standard, then, again, we just can't have such a discussion. That standard is that - evidence should come from suitably qualified experts in the appropriate field who have no discoverable conflict of interest or pre-existing bias directly favouring one result. I realise there's some ambiguity there over 'discoverable' (after how much effort?) and 'directly' (we can create all sorts of super-detailed ideologies), but I don't think these ambiguities are a problem in most cases. Climate denying scientists are paid by the oil industry who benefit directly from underplaying the crisis - clear cut case of conflict of interest. Analysts saying that the election was stolen are all Trump employees or staunch supporters, everyone else is saying it wasn't (including other republicans). Clear cut case of conflict of interest.

The scientists arguing against what I'm going to term vaccine-enthusiasm (the idea that every person without medical exemption ought to have a full vaccine+booster round) have no such obvious, discoverable conflicts of interest. They have no financial incentive, they don't gain any political advantage, they are not paid to say what they say, they have, mostly, spoken vociferously in favour of vaccinations in other cases, so don't have any historical bias. In short they are not even an ambiguous case, as far as my standards are concerned. All the other examples you've given are clear cut cases of conflict of interest (usually money), or pre-existing bias (usually religion). Neither exist for the experts I'm citing so the analogy fails.

even if his argument is a good one, that he represents a minority view. Do you agree? If so, my question to you is: why highlight the minority view -- or, better: why is his view more convincing than the majority's/consensus? Assuming it's split down the middle, and there's good evidence on either side -- which is plausible -- do you have any insight into why you would gravitate towards this interpretation more than the other? — Xtrix

I'm going to answer this question first as it will colour the responses to the others I goes back to what i said earlier about my arguments being in the form of "It is reasonable to believe...", not of the form "You ought to believe...". It doesn't matter if he's in a minority. He's an expert in an appropriate field who has no discoverable conflict of interest (I've checked), and has no pre-existing bias (he's worked to advance vaccine take-up in the past). That makes reliance on his testimony sufficient. To be convincing to others, I'd need more. But that's not the aim here.

So to your actual question about why. I answered this in the Coronavirus thread (again, I mention this just t avoid the post hoc justification narrative). It's twofold. Firstly, in matters relating to the pharmaceutical industry majorities are often not indicative of true scientific consensus. Recall...

85% of vaccine clinical trials are sponsored by vaccine manufacturers and non-industry trials are over four times more likely to report negative or mixed findings than industry-sponsored trials — Manzoli L, Flacco ME, D’Addario M, et al. Non-publication and delayed publication of randomized trials on vaccines: survey. BMJ2014

...and...

industry-sponsored economic evaluation of vaccination scored worse in methodological appropriateness than a comparable non-industry evaluation — Beutels P. Potential conflicts of interest in vaccine economics research: a commentary with a case study of pneumococcal conjugate vaccination. Vaccine2004

...and further...

a principal investigator of HPV vaccine trials for Merck and GlaxoSmithKline agreed that “It seemed very odd to be mandating something for which 95 percent of infections never amount to anything” Further, a recent review showed that design problems in the HPV vaccine trials, most of which were led by academics but sponsored by industry, made it difficult to evaluate the extent to which the vaccine prevented cervical cancer — as above

I have what I believe to be good reason to be suspicious of the weight of opinion in favour of a pharmaceutical product. There is a well documented history of influence of the pharmaceutical industry over academics in the field of medical sciences. Whilst I don't believe this would ever be enough to create some kind of 'conspiracy of silence', it is definitely enough to treat any apparent consensus with suspicion.

Secondly, I have a personal bias against artificiality. I eat organic food, I use cleaning products from plant sources etc. It's a personal preference. Again, related to my "It is reasonable to believe..." type of argument, it doesn't matter that this is nothing more than a personal preference. If it's reasonable to hold it, in the light of evidence from suitably qualified experts in the appropriate field who have no discoverable conflict of interest or pre-existing bias directly favouring one result then it's acceptable. It's not the main point I want to discuss though because I think the point about the untrustworthiness of the pharmaceutical industry is both sufficient and more relevant to a public forum. I mention it for the sake of honesty only.

Your other questions...

when you say reasonable alternatives exist, what are you referring to? — Xtrix

Natural immunity (testing for), full hygiene precautions (masks, distancing, hand-washing), regular testing (coupled with a willingness to isolate in the case of a positive test), and natural existing immune systems (for those who are healthier than average - only to be combined with the previous two).

when taking into account the benefits, are you including the benefits to others as well, or just to the individual (for example, the "young/healthy" individual)? — Xtrix

Yes. In fact, for me I only include benefits to other because I have no cause to be concerned about my own health. We're talking here about the strength of evidence for reducing transmission, and the benefits (in terms of taking up hospital beds) in those who are already healthy.

when referring to examples of pharmaceutical companies hiding safety information, etc., are you referring specifically to COVID vaccines or other products? — Xtrix

Both. There's more evidence of hiding safety information in other products (obviously, it takes time to find these things out), but there's evidence with the Covid vaccines too, for example...

Pfizer’s 92-page report didn’t mention the 3410 “suspected covid-19” cases. Nor did its publication in the New England Journal of Medicine. Nor did any of the reports on Moderna’s vaccine. The only source that appears to have reported it is FDA’s review of Pfizer’s vaccine. — Pfizer’s 92-page report didn’t mention the 3410 “suspected covid-19” cases. Nor did its publication in the New England Journal of Medicine. Nor did any of the reports on Moderna’s vaccine. The only source that appears to have reported it is FDA’s review of Pfizer’s vaccine.

Data from the biodistribution studies submitted by Moderna and Pfizer suggests that the vaccines distribute widely in the body, including to the liver, brain, heart, lung, adrenals, ovaries, and testes, among many other tissues. However these were not studies of the currently authorized products: Pfizer’s BNT162b2, Moderna’s mRNA-1273, or Janssen’s Ad26.COV2.S.34–36 Instead of presenting novel biodistribution studies of the COVID-19 vaccine formulations, sponsors presented substitute studies to FDA for an EUA during the pandemic. 34–36

All attention has focused on the dramatic efficacy results: Pfizer reported 170 PCR confirmed covid-19 cases, split 8 to 162 between vaccine and placebo groups. But these numbers were dwarfed by a category of disease called “suspected covid-19”—those with symptomatic covid-19 that were not PCR confirmed. According to FDA’s report on Pfizer’s vaccine, there were “3410 total cases of suspected, but unconfirmed covid-19 in the overall study population, 1594 occurred in the vaccine group vs. 1816 in the placebo group.”
With 20 times more suspected than confirmed cases, this category of disease cannot be ignored simply because there was no positive PCR test result. Indeed this makes it all the more urgent to understand. A rough estimate of vaccine efficacy against developing covid-19 symptoms, with or without a positive PCR test result, would be a relative risk reduction of 19%

I say all of this in anticipation. I would expect your evidence to demonstrate either (a) or (b). — Xtrix

For (a) and (b) - most articles combine the two...

https://medium.com/@wpegden/weighing-myocarditis-cases-acip-failed-to-balance-the-harms-vs-benefits-of-2nd-doses-d7d6b3df7cfb

I believe the ACIP failed to model the risk benefits properly, and such a view is supported by suitably qualified experts in the appropriate field who have no discoverable conflict of interest or pre-existing bias directly favouring one result.

For adults, the benefits of COVID-19 vaccination are enormous, while for children, they are relatively minor. Rare side effects from adult COVID-19 vaccination are unlikely to lead to future vaccine hesitancy whose public health impact could be comparable to the benefits of the adult COVID-19 vaccination program itself. But accelerated mass child vaccination under EUA — perhaps even spurred by school mandates and “vaccine passports” — presents a different balance of risks and benefits. Rare adverse events really could prove to be the most durable public health legacy of an EUA for child COVID-19 vaccines. — https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2021/05/07/covid-vaccines-for-children-should-not-get-emergency-use-authorization/

Given all these considerations, the assertion that vaccinating children against SARS-CoV-2 will protect adults remains hypothetical.  Even if we were to assume this protection does exist, the number of children that would need to be vaccinated to protect just one adult from a bout of severe covid-19—considering the low transmission rates, the high proportion of children already being post-covid, and most adults being vaccinated or post-covid—would be extraordinarily high. Moreover, this number would likely compare unfavourably to the number of children that would be harmed, including for rare serious events. — https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2021/07/13/covid-19-vaccines-for-children-hypothetical-benefits-to-adults-do-not-outweigh-risks-to-children/

what of the millions who have no yet had COVID? — Xtrix

As I said above, alternatives are not limited to acquired immunity.

But please link to the BMJ too. — Xtrix

Sure - https://www.bmj.com/content/374/bmj.n2101

I believe you have agreed with this, which is why the rest is a bit puzzling to me. — Xtrix

See - the debate about children; the debate about long-term risks ("practically nothing is known about any long-term adverse effects..." - Professor Ruediger von Kries, of Germany's advisory vaccine committee), and the debate about trusting the pharmaceutical industry going forward (the GlaxoSmithKline contamination scandal)

The alternative solution, in this case, is natural immunity -- which one must contract COVID in order to obtain.

This assumes (1) that getting COVID is less risky for the individual than taking the vaccine — Xtrix

Not necessarily. I don't see any ethical obligation for people to always take the least risk option, it's not how we normally conduct a mixed society. We normally allow people to take all sorts of low risks for their personal preference. What matters is not the balance, but whether any resulting imbalance is sufficiently high to outweigh personal preference.

...and (2) that there aren't external factors to consider, including the spread. — Xtrix

Professor Paul Hunter, from the University of East Anglia, who said it was 'absolutely inevitable' new variants that can escape the protection of the vaccine will emerge in the future.
Prof Pollard told the APPG that herd immunity is 'not a possibility' with the current Delta variant.
He referred to the idea as 'mythical' and warned that a vaccine programme should not be built around the idea of achieving it.
He predicted that the next thing may be 'a variant which is perhaps even better at transmitting in vaccinated populations', adding that that was 'even more of a reason not to be making a vaccine programme around herd immunity'.

With kids, they’re not going to stop transmission, they won’t stop escape variants, nothing is. It is about the risk to the child themselves. 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. — Dr Ruchi Sinha - All-Party Parliamentary Group on Coronavirus

This last quote indicates that full vaccine roll-out may even lengthen the spread rather than hinder it.

Also, on the subject of bias, there's an interesting piece by Vinay Prasad in Medpage on this, form the 'other side'

The first crux of the public communication failure is to ask why, when we hear of a novel adverse event, is the reaction of so many experts to downplay or trivialize the risk? Why construct minimizing memes when you have not even gathered all the relevant facts? ...Either one must embrace all vaccines for all indications for all ages, or one can be lumped with the other extreme. They favor universal child vaccination of SARS-CoV-2 via an EUA, even before they have the data for that claim. They were quick to embrace vaccination for pregnant woman prior to appropriate trials establishing safety. Suppressing critical thinking to extol vaccines is also wrong
...science means being able to say that mRNA vaccines are terrific; their benefit to Americans in massive. The J&J vaccine also has an important role, but that role is uncertain in women under 65, and for that subgroup the EUA may still be rescinded. A true scientist navigates these troubled waters and does not take reflexive extremes. Sadly, there are few scientists left. — https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/covid19vaccine/92413

Sadly, there are few scientists left.

This kind of talk being a clear red flag for wackos, I looked Mr Prasad up. His blog is poorly written, full of platitudes, and, yeah, paranoid.

How Democracy Ends
COVID19 policy shows a (potential) path to the end of America
Vinay Prasad, Oct 2

Progressivism is Dead
COVID19 killed it
Vinay Prasad, Sep 29

And he is not unbiased at all. He seems to be transitioning to the extreme right.

I looked Mr Prasad up. His blog is poorly written, full of platitudes, and, yeah, paranoid. — Olivier5

Yes, I think we've already quite well established that anyone you disagree with is 'paranoid'.

Sure, progressivism is dead 'cause COVID killed it. Democracy too... Give me a break. All he is saying is: Prasad's capacity for nuance and reasonable discourse is dead, COVID killed it.

In any case, he does not conform to your standard of "suitably qualified experts in the appropriate field who have no discoverable conflict of interest or pre-existing bias". He's an oncologist and writes about this from a political perspective, one oddly close to the "Fauci is Mengele" MAGA perspective.

Check the people you spread the word of, before you spread their word.

,

Same true of Stephen Baral, associate professor in epidemiology at Johns Hopkins University then https://www.newstatesman.com/uncategorized/2020/10/why-scientists-fear-toxic-covid-19-debate

Also Raj Bhopal, emeritus professor of public health and Alasdair Munro, senior clinical research fellow in paediatric infectious diseases https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n742

Jerome R Hoffman, Professor of Medicine Emeritus, UCLA School of Medicine and Iona Heath Past President, UK Royal College of General Practitioners Jerome R Hoffman is Professor of Medicine Emeritus, UCLA School of Medicine https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2021/03/22/an-open-plea-for-dignity-and-respect-in-science/

Or as we've established...anyone who disagrees with you.

Even a polemist such as yourself should keep a sense of proportion. To say that there are knee-jerk reactions on twitter or in the press about certain opinions published by scientists, is quite different from saying: "sadly, there are few scientists left".

Even a polemist such as yourself should keep a sense of proportion. To say that there are knee-jerk reactions on twitter or in the press about certain opinions published by scientists, is quite different from saying: "sadly, there are few scientists left". — Olivier5

It's rhetoric, moron. Like

Yes. In fact spreading manufactured doubt in such a time is criminal. It kills people, and I dare say our good friend Isaac here is close to murder.

Of course it makes for more interesting conversations. I guess Russian roulette is more interesting than casino roulette too. Spices up the game... — Olivier5

...or do you actually intend to report me to the police for attempted murder?

Indeed, it's rhetoric. But it is a type of rhetoric that undermines public trust in science.

To say that there are knee-jerk reactions on twitter or in the press about certain opinions published by scientists — Olivier5

Oh and the articles I presented are not about knee-jerk reactions on twitter and the press. They are about actual scientific debate... but you'd have to have actually read them to find that out, and that seems too much to ask here.

Indeed, it's rhetoric. But it is a type of rhetoric that undermines public trust in science. — Olivier5

Or one which seeks to shore it up by calling out practices which undermine it. Depending on your perspective. You know...perspective...the thing people used to be allowed to have differences in without being labelled murderers or mentally ill.