If every vaccine required each citizen to undertake and interpret a research project they wouldn't be very effective. Do you research the blueprints of every building before walking in? No. Go take a vaccine and come back arguing this position and I'll listen.

You're at about 50% and rising still. You'll be fine. You can stop wringing your soft first-world hands about it. — Isaac

The chance to be "fine" evaporated a long time ago. There are 600K dead. As a former machinist I take offense to your characterization of "soft first-world hands".

It's funny how important it seems to be that everyone gets vaccinated in whatever country you're in. Apparently, completely healthy people are either selfish, or scared, or deluded, for not getting a vaccine in one country regardless of the rest of the world. The myopia is shocking. — Isaac

It isn't funny. It is the entire basis for the argument I've made; which you choose to ignore. What part of 'group project' is unclear. The myopia is what preserves your position in your own mind. You in the first quote pretend my circumstances are yours; then extrapolate from yours onto mine. What is a polite word for asinine?

Firstly the confusion between medical advice as to the safety of the vaccine and ethical decisions as to what risk it is fair to take (for what gain). — Isaac

The medical advice was vaccinate a minimum of 70% of the population for the population to gain protection from the virus. The ethical matter is whether excluding yourself from the 70% is fair to the others in the population making the same choice. Is another's safety less valuable than yours without any known reason for qualification other than your willingness to doubt it? No authorities approval will predict a single outcome perfectly.

Secondly, this new idea which has emerged that one must believe whatever the consensus, or majority or official, scientific opinion is, not simply that one ought to have their beliefs suitably supported by scientific opinion. — Isaac

No it is an old idea; that when a group is asked to function together for a common end then a consensus is the best it can rely on.

It is a case where being wrong negatively effects others; made worse by distribution to others that might have otherwise decided correctly. There aren't resources available to soothe every possible apprehension one chooses to imagine. You've ignored the difference in population arguments 3 times by now; if hasn't been addressed at this reading. I consider my view valid and dismissed.

Interesting. How is it that you know this? — Isaac

Empirical observations from local nurses.

What you believe is irrelevant. why would your guess as to the reasons of others have any bearing on the matter? — Isaac

Human nature is fairly consistent when it comes to avoiding discomfort. I demonstrated this on this thread when 180 reversed his position.

The people who believe that have already taken the vaccine. We're talking here about the people who don't believe that - what should they do? Are you suggesting that other people should act, not on what they believe is right, but on on you believe is right? How would you feel if it were the other way round? — Isaac

I would probably be annoyed. But, if harm to my community was the issue I would listen.

Your position remains tied to your population. But, your argument generalizes to others. What good is localized data for speaking to an international matter? I agree, in your particular case, the decision is largely moot. Others have already shouldered the necessary risk to arrive at projected herd immunity requirements. It is a specific context from which to argue. It is not the case elsewhere is the point. Who these other people you think you speak for are; confuses the matter. Their communities have not arrived at herd immunity and their decisions carry more impact to those around them. Some things aren't best left to taste or preference. If I could take a vaccine for someone else I would, but I can't.

My county reissued a mask mandate to the public during this discussion. Is yours having emergency meetings? It's like arguing against taking shelter because there's no tornado near my house. It doesn't translate to places with tornados.

Edited to taste.

You had me up to the conclusion. Perhaps there is no perfect source of knowledge; which so happens to include logic. It doesn't mean logic is an unreliable tool, because that would require logic.

So Logical Nihilism has me returning to what I had taken as pretty much settled; that scientific progress does not result from a more or less algorithmic method - induction, falsification and so one - but is instead the result of certain sorts of liberal social interaction - of moral and aesthetic choice. — Banno

Seems to be your work. I wasn't going to suppose being worthy of certiorari.

Again, we are already quite sure. Therefore you should just get the vaccine now, even though we haven't got the extra bit of sureness from the FDA yet.
Is that basically what you were trying to say Fooloso? — Yohan

No, sometimes scientific rigor is out paced by pragmatic urgency. In fact, they may be taking more time knowing it doesn't limit access.

So you have a good, well-supported view that the safety of the vaccine is, currently, near sufficient for BLA approval, and so little will be gained on meeting that threshold. — Isaac

I don't know what the BLA is or what it's approval entails. I do know fringe media outlets are profiteering off selling the conspiracy excitement of confirmation bias. I know vaccine hesitancy is a catalyst for unnecessary death and suffering that is happening in real time.

I have a good, well-supported view that the safety of the vaccine is, not currently, near sufficient for BLA approval, and so much could be gained on meeting that threshold. — Isaac

The vaccine you aren't taking now will be the vaccine I wager you won't take then. I thought about not enduring an immune system response. It sounded unpleasant. I believe this is the reason people want to have a reason not to take it.

What we used to do is maintain a difference of opinion without assuming our opponents were lunatics, sociopaths or liars. That seems too much to ask these days. — Isaac

According to your population data the choice to take it seems more like a matter of community solidarity. My population needs uptake to increase in order to curb an uptrend in suffering. If your community already has upwards of 90%, then whether you personally take it is disproportionally immaterial to vaccine hesitancy happening in other places. You are in a rare position to have only yourself to worry about for the most part. It is a unique experience. So, I would expect your position is being wrongly ascribed the negative responsibility for damage that exist elsewhere.

Speculating, I would suppose you are waiting for reductions of uncertainty concerning the last 5% which simply comes with time.
— Cheshire

We can all speculate, that's the point of each individual being left to decide for themselves (on proper scientific advice, of course). — Isaac

By the same logic we can all doubt. Proving the capacity for inquiry doesn't speak to the state of affairs. Because I was speculating I selected the number that errored against my position. The assumption of a .05 Alpha isn't exactly what I would call grabbing numbers out of the sky.

I think this only holds if you can somehow quantify each of the safety levels (unless I've misunderstood what you mean by 'marginal', I took it to mean 'small'). The EUA threshold is one level of safety, the BLA approval is another, higher, level. To know that the difference between the two is 'marginal' we'd need some way of quantifying each. I don't think such a way exists, which is why - going right back to the beginning of this whole shambles of an argument - which was... — Isaac

The rate of increase in marginal safety between approved/unapproved for public disbursement seems fairly exponential; increases following that I assume approach a limit on a logistical curve. Increases along a logistical curve are increasingly less significant. Speculating, I would suppose you are waiting for reductions of uncertainty concerning the last 5% which simply comes with time. In 10,000 years you can be certain the safety of the vaccine can not be reasonably increased. How long do you suppose your "behavioral vaccine" will remain uncompromised? The safety of a vaccine should be considered relative to the threat of serious infection?

This still implies that information is definitive, but as what? As an (unobservable) action or as evidence or potential of such? The reality is that we rely on piecing together or constructing evidence of or potential information far more than we observe an actual interaction first-hand. I think that what isn’t a speculative sense of information would be almost entirely constructed from it as a prediction. — Possibility

There is the common sense of information and then there is a sense of information that is speculated about on the forum. Ergo, speculative sense of information in this context.

It's deduced from the argument structure. Safety in regards to the threshold for public disbursement was met; safety beyond this threshold is literally increased incrementally following further results, studies, aggregate data expositions, etc. If argued in principle, then the principle defines the matter as a marginal increase. And thanks.

I'm not disagreeing with the proposition that the vaccine has been shown to be safe and effective. I'm disagreeing with the proposition that the FDA work does not relate to safety and efficacy. — Isaac

You are arguing for marginal safety on principle. That's like proving that time passes.

God and heaven exists outside of this universe, so they say. — Down The Rabbit Hole

Nah, God is usually just the executive function being confused by the inner dialectic for an external master. Really, it sits and passively facilitates communication. Notice, how everyone is always in agreement with what they think God wants them to do? There might also be some emergent mind of the universe, but that experience is pretty distinct. Either case. Inside the world.

Bit inductive. How much good can you really do during a 100 billion year heat death followed by hawking radiation. By the exact same logic infinite/long infinity = 0 meaning God doesn't exist according to your system. I mean technically .000...001

So you would advise that we specify what kind of information we're talking about? What modifiers should we use? — frank

Information and the speculative sense of information.

The first person history of being you. People present with multiple identities and the difference is an unshared history.

Glad you are not at the FAA. Vertigo is a thing.

He's been life long guide. I wouldn't be on a philosophy website without Popper. Insists on things making sense; it's refreshing.

Conjectures and Refutations by Karl Popper Audiobook Free
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PcDyPH8nTJ4

Karl Popper's attempt to make philosophy useful by clearing up some old debates in a non-dogmatic framework. Read by Elyse Hargreaves with permission from the Popper library.

Once again, you are conflating safety and efficacy with FDA approval. — Fooloso4

While in the UK.

Since transmission after vaccination still exists, vaccination to end transmission is not a thing, so should not be considered into the discussion. — Book273

Like I said; honest. Yes, if you exclude virus transmission of the highly transmissible virus. Then, the analysis maintains.

That's our other matter of dispute. — Isaac

Yes, turns out we were discussing different populations relative to you.

I don't have the luxury of imagining a 90% uptake. I guess you win the vaccine lottery, by residing in a place with a social duty of care. We have idiots on TV in the hospital trying to tell the other idiots to get the vaccine. We are out of ideas.

Oversubscribes the set. — Isaac

What qualifies as 'over' mathematically; fails to pragmatically. We are agreeing though...it does.

We've yet to agree on what those factors are. — Isaac

The good doctor just said 70%; seemed like a reasonable source. People that breath air?

So, what is the correct figure derived from the same number? Undecidable if deemed unpleasant? Simply have to measure the behavior patterns of the entire population against your own. Sounds reasonable.

Well, yes. That's exactly what I've been asking you to do. — Isaac

There's a 70% chance you ought take it, based on your citation concerning the number of people who should take it. I know you know that; I read your summary of a Nature article that I can't make heads or tails of; you're smarter, but it won't make you right.

Depends on the factors determining that 70% — Isaac

The factor is being a member of the population without medically specified exception. Self-interest doesn't qualify. Want me to run the numbers? Or is this pathological?

Why is it your special? You can behave in a way that simulates a vaccine?

At least @Book273 is honest.

I think I can simplify the matter.

If 70% ought take it, then what is the expected value that you should also take it?

I'm sorry all of your words have the incorrect senses.

No. It doesn't require research to know that fewer than 30% of the population are injured by vaccines. It doesn't make it any clearer why you decided to use the inverse figure to populate your 70% who should take the vaccine. — Isaac

Perhaps not. Doesn't support your repeated claim of having made a reasonable inference.

I don't think obfuscation is at fault here. You claimed to know that the uptake of the vaccine will be less than the required 70% on the basis of the fact that the pandemic is lasting longer than you thought it would. The claim's quite clear, it's just a really odd thing to claim. — Isaac

It is; and seems deliberate apart from this near pivot. Well, there is a thing called a rate of infection that trends. Maybe, make an inference from that information.

Why would how long you expected it to last give you a figure for the uptake of the vaccine? I'm not seeing the connection. — Isaac

I acknowledge a proper level of obfuscation has been achieved. Good job?

It's considerably less than 30%. — Isaac

It doesn't require research.

You could just explain how you think the inference is wrong. — Isaac

General knowledge that vaccines that harm 30% are not released to the public. Common knowledge. Rational thought. It is an unreasonable inference; you may be confused as to my meaning. But, given the context and reasonable intake of reality; this inference can not be arrived upon.

Why? How quickly are you expecting the pandemic to end in your null hypothesis? — Isaac

Looking like a lot longer than I expected.

..therefore, the decision to immunize or not should be from an individual perspective, not from the society perspective. — Book273

Alright. We won't arrive at an agreement as long as we disagree with this point. I'm satisfied with that much.

Leaving the 30% to be made up of people likely to be injured from the vaccine... or else you've left off a criteria. — Isaac

Please repeat this unreasonable comment again.

Not if 70% of people see fit to take it. Then there's no 'or'. The two sets are not mutually exclusive... unless you have some data demonstrating them to be — Isaac

The pandemic that doesn't seem to be ending due to lack of uptake of gd preventive tool demonstrates they may be mutually exclusive.

What data? You haven't cited a single source for anything you've said yet. — Isaac

I cited your source of 70% uptake. It is 70% need to take it or choose as each individual sees fit. Data suggest 70% is the better guide post.