Don't people generally warn each other of danger? Why is this the exception? Out of everyone taking it and yet not one person has told me; I regret it. Seems like people with first hand experience ought be reliable. At least occasionally.

Oral medication can be improved e.g. powder forms that'll prevent choking . A similar logic should apply to vaccines. The medical/pharmacological communities are asleep at the wheel. — TheMadFool

How many vaccinated people have told you to avoid it?

What I meant was scientists/doctors developed vaccines, a heroic feat no doubt, but they didn't make the follow-up move which is to make vaccines better in the sense reduce the number and severity of their side-effects. Had they done that, anti-vaxxers would have never been able to do what they're doing right now - undermine decades of medical progress. — TheMadFool

You give baby aspirin to enough people and someone will choke to death. It is an unreasonable expectation on the part of the anti-vaxer that supports their position.

Feedback appreciated. You disagree with my facts? My reasoning? Or are you you all in on "show me your papers" to every non-white face in New York City? You want to bring back stop-and-frisk but for vax cards instead of guns and knives?? And if you did implement nationwide walking and driving checkpoints, how long do you think it would be before the inevitable scope expansion and mission creep set in? Check for your vax card, check your wants and warrants. Behind on your child support? Carrying any unapproved contraband? Tweet any unapproved thoughts recently? — fishfry

I haven't considered any government enforced denial of freedom of movement, so any disagreement I might raise isn't to that effect. My issue is with the pronouncement that the possibility of a vaccinated person spreading a virus and the possibility of an unvaccinated person spreading the virus are treated as equal. Or the first makes the latter not matter. It seems to me a strong argument could acknowledge that one is taking place regularly and the other is somewhere between rare and not impossible. You disagree above, but maybe I missed something.

Are you unsure what 'rather than' means? — Isaac

You could replace every post you've made with a single one that simply says "I'd rather not". And I would respect that more; than the reaching, wandering, and misdirection by authoritarian demand. Why?

Evidence. Honestly, we can't have a proper discussion if you're just going to make shit up. I could just say "the vaccine is poisonous anyway so no one should take it". His does that constitute an argument. Cite your fucking sources! It's like arguing with children. — Isaac

There was an antivax movement that lead to a measles outbreak on the island of Samoa that would serve as evidence if the casual implications aren't obvious enough for your tastes. As a follow up, try and guess how many covid cases they have today.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/samoa/

Your argument is that everyone in America should get vaccinated even if they live rurally, are healthy, socially distance etc. Thus using up precious sticks, taking them away from those that really need them in other countries. — Isaac

Bit of a pivot. Let me think about it.

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.