two-wrongs-make-a-right fallacy. :meh: — jorndoe

Dont two wrongs make it right?

What jurisdictions? — Cheshire

Fully mandated vaccination in Indonesia, and Turkmenistan; public sector workers in Canada, Fiji and Saudi Arabia and much of the US; large gatherings in the UK, and most of Europe; restrictions on travel in most countries. Mandates are in no way restricted to hospitals and nursing homes.

https://www.reuters.com/world/countries-make-covid-19-vaccines-mandatory-2021-07-13/

An alternative to wry incredulity is just to look stuff up.

I'm seeing some accusations of hypocrisy (double standards) here, while at the same time committing a two-wrongs-make-a-right fallacy. — jorndoe

Not at all. Resources are limited. Where there are two wrongs you focus on the biggest.

An alternative to wry incredulity is just to look stuff up. — Isaac

An alternative to your response would be to address the entire sentence. What color is your "Covid Passport" for internal travel within your borders? I don't have such a document and I doubt you do either. But, you ignore that and PRETEND I asked only about mandates. Let me know if any honest observations strike you.

What jurisdictions? Nursing homes and hospitals? — Cheshire

All internal and international travel for EU citizens; it's not possible to enter a EU country without a valid covid passport. Then, depending on the EU country: access to public transportation, schools, bars, restaurants, cinemas, any gatherings of more than 50 people, sports facilities, hair salons, cosmetic salons, access to some medical facilities.
These are just the most notable ones, but there are more, and, as promised by the governments, even more to come.

I could go on, but the the failures of reason/logic go on and on, and I tire. — James Riley

In the end, irony will be the winner!!!!!!

In the end, irony will be the winner!!!!!! — baker

No, just a troll that will out-last reason/logic. You know, like you.

An alternative to your response would be to address the entire sentence. What color is your "Covid Passport" for internal travel within your borders? I don't have such a document and I doubt you do either. — Cheshire

https://www.bbc.com/news/explainers-55718553

Will live in insane cheaty competitive profit driven society so one has reasons to be skeptical about everything.

Posted in another thread, but I think it's worth a read here as well.

For those truly interested, and not simply trying to dig in and defend an ignorant position, here's an excellent summary by Dr. Suppinger:

As a doctor, I have recently been asking my patients whether they have gotten a COVID-19 vaccine or made a plan to do so. Initially, some expressed reluctance or just wanted to “wait and see.” This is understandable, given the unprecedented speed with which the vaccines were developed. While I was happy to get my shot as soon as I could, I understood why some others felt uncomfortable getting it right away. Now that almost 150 million Americans have received at least one dose of a vaccine, some are feeling a little more confident about getting it, too.

But the negative responses from patients have shifted somewhat in recent weeks. A number of those who haven’t been vaccinated are saying that they have no intention of doing so — ever. One common reason is that they just don’t perceive much of a threat. As case counts continue to decline, some younger patients think their risk of severe disease or death is so low that it’s just not worth it. Conversely, some elderly patients tell me that they just don’t get out and about very much, so they don’t think it’s likely they will be exposed.

It’s frustrating to realize that the elusive herd immunity we all thought would hasten a return to our pre-COVID lives may never be achieved, by our own collective choice. On the other hand, I am relatively healthy and have been vaccinated, so my chances of survival if I contract COVID are excellent. Why should I care if some people don’t want to get vaccinated? Here’s three reasons why I do care:

1. People who are elderly or immunocompromised may not have as robust an immune response to vaccination as a young, healthy person in a clinic trial. Getting more of the population vaccinated adds a layer of protection for those most vulnerable. And while some elderly people may not go out much, almost no one lives in complete isolation; small family gatherings over the holidays likely fueled the winter surge. In other words, if you won’t get vaccinated to protect yourself, consider doing it to protect your grandmother.

2. While FDA authorization for children ages 12-15 is beginning, children under age 12 cannot get vaccinated yet. The risk of severe COVID symptoms in children is low, but it’s not zero. The virus has also been linked to a potentially serious condition in children called Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in Children (MIS-C). Until children can get vaccinated themselves, the best way to protect them is to vaccinate adults around them.

3. Viral replication is suppressed by mass immunization, which may slow down the emergence of additional viral variants over time. While no vaccine is perfect, so far, symptomatic disease has been very uncommon in those who are vaccinated. However, it is not clear how well the vaccines will perform against all of the SARS-CoV-2 variants, so suppressing viral replication and preventing new ones from emerging helps to protect us all.

It’s important to remember that getting vaccinated is not just about protecting yourself; it’s also about protecting those around you. In the long run, we will all benefit from herd immunity. The question that remains is whether we can actually get there.

http://www.williamsonherald.com/opinion/commentary-why-should-i-care-if-others-get-vaccinated/article_96e737c2-b369-11eb-90ce-c79d7571ff9a.html

I typically receive the annual influenza vaccination every fall, but for the last few years I’ve specifically asked for a placebo

... to which I receive a serious look by the injection administer, who's clearly not amused.

Trial announced for 'first-of-its-kind' vaccine to prevent breast cancer (Oct 27, 2021)

Genuine medical progress, a great scientific achievement, if it pans out.

What will the anti-vaxxers say, though?

Anti-vaccination sentiment (as it relates to COVID19) is tied to suspicions about the origins of the disease and the profitability of vaccines, as well as fears about it's safety. — frank

Would you please explain to me how concerns about the origins of a disease and about the profitability of the corresponding vaccines should function as justifications in a deliberation about whether to receive one of those vaccines?

Suppose someone is selling gas masks proven safe and effective in protecting against mysterious and deadly clouds of gas recently found creeping around the planet; and the government is purchasing the masks and distributing them for free. What sane person would refuse to use those masks on the grounds that the manufacturers of the mask profit from the sales and that this suggests a potential conflict of interest for the manufacturers; and on the grounds that someone may have intentionally produced and released the mysterious deadly gas?

What on Earth could possibly lead a human being to refuse to wear the mask on such grounds?

So far as I can see, the most important difference between that hypothetical deliberation and the real deliberation about whether to receive COVID vaccines, is that most people who refuse the COVID vaccine would thereby increase the risk for everyone in the world, while most people who refuse the gas mask would mainly increase the risk only for themselves and for whatever unfortunate dependents they may have.

To be clear: I'm not suggesting it's foolish to question and to investigate the origin of COVID-19 and the profits some have made in its wake, including through vaccine production and distribution. I'm suggesting that the answers to those questions shouldn't have any bearing on a reasonable person's deliberation about whether to take the vaccine.

Wherever it came from, and whoever might profit from it, the virus is already here. If it's relatively contagious; if it has relatively high rates of highly negative outcomes for the infected; if many people at high risk for those negative outcomes would prefer not to suffer them; if a high rate of transmission is likely to accelerate the evolution of more contagious, more destructive, and less manageable strains of the virus; if there are egregious long-term socioeconomic consequences of letting the virus run rampant for longer periods of time… What else do you need to know, besides that the vaccines are safe and effective?

Is there any reasonable doubt that some of the vaccines produced so far have met strict standards of safety and efficacy?

Moreover, how many of the people still holding out from (mostly imaginary) concerns about safety take the same cautious stance in weighing all the other choices they make? Are they strict and well-informed about diet and exercise? Do they abuse alcohol? Do they smoke cigarettes? Do they know what pesticides have been sprayed on their marijuana, or how much fentanyl is in their cocaine? Do they consume any products manufactured by pharmaceutical companies? Do they consume unregulated dietary supplements? Have they checked the safety of their homes and cars and home goods -- their car seats and dashboards, carpets and floors, cabinets and finishes, couches and headboards, dishware and cookware, sanitary and cleaning products, electronic and digital devices? Have they tested the water they drink? Do they get tested for allergies before they try new foods? Do they go swimming? Do they use condoms? Do they drive cars? Do they cross streets? Do they own guns?

I suspect it's a rather small fraction of the community of COVID vaccine-refusers who take such a thoroughly cautious approach to mitigating risk in all their consumer and lifestyle choices. The rest of them, with few exceptions, have been riled up and confused by the echo chambers into making a choice that's inconsistent with their own principles, and thus irrational as well as inhumane.

I presume the fraction of risk-mitigation extremists is probably too small to make a difference to our collective success at COVID mitigation. Still it may be worth pointing out that in some cases their choice would be irrational and inhumane. It's irrational if they don't adjust their life circumstances, for instance by strict social distancing, to make the risk of their experiencing negative outcomes from COVID smaller than the risk of their experiencing negative outcomes from vaccine. And it's arguably inhumane as well as irrational, if the total risk they would take on by receiving the vaccine is significantly less than the total risk they would add to the rest of the world by their refusal.

Would you please explain to me how concerns about the origins of a disease and about the profitability of the corresponding vaccines should function as justifications in a deliberation about whether to receive one of those vaccines? — Cabbage Farmer

I'm not sure how that works.

I was talking to a sick woman (who later died of covid19). She told me she was going to be vaccinated, but that they still needed to find out what caused it.

IOW, the two issues were bound together for her. The vaccination portion was resolved for her since she was ill.

I know people say it's Facebook, talk radio, and Fox news, but I'm not sure it's that simple.

I'm tempted to say it's an exercise of power. For some reason they don't understand that they're only hurting themselves and their loved ones.

And it's arguably inhumane as well as irrational, if the total risk they would take on by receiving the vaccine is significantly less than the total risk they would add to the rest of the world by their refusal. — Cabbage Farmer

Yes. Some do actually hold out (against vaccination) even after their bodies have been ravaged by the disease. Some archetype on the scene, maybe. Jung said to ask yourself what myth you're in. We can try to understand that about others.

I'm tempted to say it's an exercise of power. For some reason they don't understand that they're only hurting themselves and their loved ones. — frank

There's a theme that the vocal pro-vaccers don't seem to understand, and which is also strongly tabooed in our society. I've brought up this theme several times in these discussions, with little, and mostly no reply. The theme is: Is life worth living?

There are some people who flat out have a death wish, but who don't commit suicide. Such people welcome dangerous situations in which they could die.

Then there are those who wish death upon others and who less or more actively act in accordance with that desire.

Then there are those who are bored of life, or sick of life. They don't actively want to die, but they don't want to live either. These are the resignated types who don't seek death, but who don't mind if it comes.

Then there are those who believe that if their "time has come", then "that's it", and they will die. People who have accepted the inevitability of (their own) death.

It's not clear what percentage of the population is in these categories or how consistently, but they exist.
These people are not likely to get vaccinated or seek much other medical treatment.


These above categories and topics are not something society at large would want to openly talk about, and the people in them themselves aren't likely to be open about their motivations with just anyone. They just seem like regular anti-vaccers or the vaccination-hesitant.

To change them (and to get them vaccinated or follow other epidemiological measures), one would need to convince them that life is worth living -- more: that _every_ life is worth living.

But nobody is really interested in that, right?

Some of the people in the above categories are the detritus of capitalism and liberalism. Capitalists and liberals certainly don't clean up after themselves.

Yes. Some do actually hold out (against vaccination) even after their bodies have been ravaged by the disease.

You keep forgetting the issue of social trust. Capitalism and liberalism encourage the destruction of social trust. It usually takes social trust to agree to a medical treatment, even more so after one has been negatively affected by what other people did.

Some archetype on the scene, maybe. Jung said to ask yourself what myth you're in. We can try to understand that about others.

This is offensive.

And it's arguably inhumane as well as irrational, if the total risk they would take on by receiving the vaccine is significantly less than the total risk they would add to the rest of the world by their refusal. — Cabbage Farmer

A consideration like this is only relevant if a person sees themselves as a worthy member of society, and if society sees one as a worthy member.

You can't convince outsiders and outcasts with such arguments, especially not if you yourself have cast them out.


The vocal pro-vaccers don't seem to understand that they cannot simultaneously push for a liberal agenda as well as a socialist agenda, as the two are mutually exclusive.

There now arises a new danger. The non-vaxed are shunt from places where everyone is vaxed. So the vaccination didn't work at all? At least, so it feels. Even when vaccinated, the values live in fear. And of course, fear is good. For money making (more vaccins to be sold, the third world still not having enough of them, while here people are injected a third shot) and in politics. It's fear that makes values yearn for laws to make vaccines obliged. Unnecessary, almost manic fear for viral intrusion, used by the manufactors of that indirect anti-viral stuff to make sales go up. Big money rules again. Imagine: a vaccinated man asked me to keep distance!

What about the notion that the vaccine is a tool for extracting money from the population? How suspicious are you? — frank

In us and them perspective, essence to the problem is we are being present with 2 possible bad outcomes, lesser and grater one:
1. Take a vaccine with the possibility of side effects.
2. Running the risk of infection.

Running the risk of side effects is low and less dangerous compared to infection chance, possibility of death is also lower by taking the vaccine.

Therefore it is prudent to take the vaccine.

Extracting money from the population, even if that's indeed the motive of COVID, it doesn't change our choices, so taking the vaccine is still valid.

Running the risk of side effects is low and less dangerous compared to infection chance, possibility of death is also lower by taking the vaccine. — SpaceDweller

Based on what statistics?

Based on what statistics? — baker

Canada for example:

A total of 57,813,302 vaccine doses have been administered in Canada as of October 22, 2021. Adverse events (side effects) have been reported by 20,818 people. That’s about 4 people out of every 10,000 people vaccinated who have reported 1 or more adverse events.

https://health-infobase.canada.ca/covid-19/vaccine-safety/summary.html

Side effects expressed in percentage are therefore 0,0004

According to WHO there are 28,881 cumulative death cases in Canada, with 27,792,564 persons being fully vaccinated:
https://covid19.who.int/

Unfortunately there is no data of how many out of 28,881 cumulative death cases were fully vaccinated persons but what ever math you do it's extremely unlikely that 0,0004 would be the result of death cases of vaccinated persons caused by infection.

For example, assuming ALL of these death cases were vaccinated persons you get the result of 0,001 percent of deaths of vaccinated people, which is higher than 0,0004.
28,881 / 27,792,564 = 0,001

In other words, running the risk of side effects is much lower than running the risk of infection.
Both can result with death outcome but that's irrelevant to decide between 2 risks because for that comparison we have:
20,818 people with side effects and
28,881 death cases (with unknown number of vaccinated persons)

You brought up good points.

Extracting money from the population, even if that's indeed the motive of COVID, it doesn't change our choices, so taking the vaccine is still valid. — SpaceDweller

Yep.

The system for reporting side effects of vaccination varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. In some countries, there is an official webpage on which they can be reported -- but only a doctor can enter the data. Whether doctors actually enter the data is questionable, as they are already overburdened with the regular administrative tasks. There is anecdotal evidence suggesting that doctors often don't report side effects of covid vaccination.

So it's impossible to properly calculate the risks of vaccination.

How can one possibly know how long the vaccination offers reasonable protection? The pharmaceutical companies will offer certainly a highly biased timespan. In favor of a higher production of the vaccine. So-called Independent institutions of knowledge have no clue yet.

A consideration like this is only relevant if a person sees themselves as a worthy member of society, and if society sees one as a worthy member. — baker

I'm not sure what you mean. If a person is willing and able to discuss "reasons" for choices and actions, and to accommodate moral considerations in such conversations, then distinctions between rational and irrational choices, and between moral and immoral choices, seem quite relevant.

You can't convince outsiders and outcasts with such arguments, especially not if you yourself have cast them out. — baker

I haven't cast anyone out. If someone is strongly disposed to flee from people who disagree with them in conversation, I might not try very hard to stop them. Depends on the circumstances.

What would such a timid creature be doing in a place like this? Lurking, perhaps. Boo!

The vocal pro-vaccers don't seem to understand that they cannot simultaneously push for a liberal agenda as well as a socialist agenda, as the two are mutually exclusive. — baker

I'm not sure what this means either. I agree, however, that the urgency of present circumstances makes a strong case in favor of democratic socialism as an alternative to complacent liberal incrementalism. As if the suffering and exploitation of generations of oppressed and marginalized people for centuries to come were not sufficient to jog the liberals from their self-satisfied delusion.

Time's up.

A consideration like this is only relevant if a person sees themselves as a worthy member of society, and if society sees one as a worthy member.
— baker
I'm not sure what you mean. — Cabbage Farmer

Disenfranchized people and those on the verge of disenfranchizement are less likely to cooperate with the government's agenda and with society at large.

You can't convince outsiders and outcasts with such arguments, especially not if you yourself have cast them out.
— baker
I haven't cast anyone out. If someone is strongly disposed to flee from people who disagree with them in conversation, I might not try very hard to stop them. Depends on the circumstances.

I'm talking about people who are disenfranchized by the government or by society at large, and people who are on the verge of such disenfranchizement.

I'm not sure what this means either. I agree, however, that the urgency of present circumstances makes a strong case in favor of democratic socialism as an alternative to complacent liberal incrementalism. As if the suffering and exploitation of generations of oppressed and marginalized people for centuries to come were not sufficient to jog the liberals from their self-satisfied delusion.

We're now beginning to pay the price of centuries of suffering and exploitation of generations of oppressed and marginalized people by capitalism and liberalism.

Time's up.

So you think it makes perfect sense to expect the disenfranchized to play along as if all was well??

It's simply unwise not to get vaccinated, at least once it becomes almost inevitable that you will be exposed to the virus.

Not doing so threatens the health of yourself and others who have made the same choice. It doesn't threaten - not in any serious way - the health of the vaccinated. Look up the odds of dying if you are vaccinated - they're very small.

It is ludicrous to cite the tiny minority who can't get vaccinated - that's like arguing that peanuts should be banned because a tiny minority have a deadly allergy to them.

What about the fact that unvaccinated people will clog up the hospitals? Well, the site of the injustice there - if injustice there be (and there isn't) - lies with the hospitals and their admission procedures, not with those who have decided not to get vaccinated. Take it up with the hospitals. Argue that hospitals should discriminate, based not just on medical need, but how the need was acquired. Don't pass the buck and place the blame on the unvaccinated. That's like blaming immigrants for immigration policy.

Not doing so threatens the health of yourself and others who have made the same choice. It doesn't threaten - not in any serious way - the health of the vaccinated. — Bartricks

It still threatens the health of the vaccinated, and increases the likelihood of variants.

We've been over this again and again, for months. The fact that these lines keep getting repeated is simply a matter of willful ignorance at this point.

The odds of dying from COVID are very small in either case overall, but much more likely for the unvaccinated.

It is ludicrous to cite the tiny minority who can't get vaccinated - that's like arguing that peanuts should be banned because a tiny minority have a deadly allergy to them. — Bartricks

It's nothing like that at all.

What about the fact that unvaccinated people will clog up the hospitals? Well, the site of the injustice there - if injustice there be (and there isn't) - lies with the hospitals and their admission procedures, not with those who have decided not to get vaccinated. — Bartricks

No, it lies with the unvaccinated, who are choosing not to take a safe and effective vaccine for no rational reason whatsoever, but rather because this issue has become politicized.

It still threatens the health of the vaccinated, and increases the likelihood of variants. — Xtrix

What are the odds of you dying from covid if you are vaccinated? (They're miniscule)

The reason for the lockdowns is nothing to do with protecting the vaccinated. It is to stop hospitals from being overwhelmed. Which is not a good reason to make people get vaccinated, for the reasons I explained.

The reason for the lockdowns is nothing to do with protecting the vaccinated. It is to stop hospitals from being overwhelmed. Which is not a good reason to make people get vaccinated, for the reasons I explained. — Bartricks

It's not solely for either reason.