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
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
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
The entire UK government and a large number of medical ethicists disagree, who again I cited and again you completely ignored. — Isaac
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
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
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
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
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
Let me get more to the matter at hand and hopefully start anew: — Xtrix
they "check out" when you look at the decision more closely, follow the logic, listen to the experts, and check their evidence — Xtrix
What exactly is your objection to it, fundamentally? — Xtrix
Should a state never be allowed to mandate anything? Should a state be allowed to create laws and to enforce those laws? — Xtrix
What makes a law "just" or legitimate? — Xtrix
What is the purpose of a state or a government, in your view? — Xtrix
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
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
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
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
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
You have to argue with me, not some fantasy version of me. — Isaac
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
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 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
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
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
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
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
True. But this can be claimed about nearly any dialogue whatsoever, no? — Xtrix
I believe every word of it, and suspected something like that -- although I had assumed more the sciences than English. — Xtrix
I'm more than willing. — Xtrix
With this issue, it's similar to claims about a stolen election. Do you make the same argument there, as well? — Xtrix
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
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
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
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
when you say reasonable alternatives exist, what are you referring to? — Xtrix
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
when referring to examples of pharmaceutical companies hiding safety information, etc., are you referring specifically to COVID vaccines or other products? — Xtrix
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 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
But please link to the BMJ too. — Xtrix
I believe you have agreed with this, which is why the rest is a bit puzzling to me. — Xtrix
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
...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
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
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.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
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
To say that there are knee-jerk reactions on twitter or in the press about certain opinions published by scientists — Olivier5
Indeed, it's rhetoric. But it is a type of rhetoric that undermines public trust in science. — Olivier5
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.