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.

Eh? — Isaac

Your inference regarding my statement was absurd. Which is understandable when maintaining an untenable position. But, to say I'm suggesting

So you think that 30% of the population are likely to be injured from taking the vaccine? — Isaac

is almost child like, so my complaint concerns the quality of the evasion. Eh?

So you think that 30% of the population are likely to be injured from taking the vaccine? — Isaac

I'd expect better obfuscation from a tenured poster. I've rested my case.

The consensus may be an excuse. They can't find another excuse? — Cheshire

Strange how the supply of evidence vacillates between being a marker of one's sanity to being entirely optional depending on which side of the debate one is on. — Isaac

↪Banno As soon as there's an approved (in the US or any other developed nation for that matter) vaccine, I'll get the stick. — 180 Proof

↪coolazice Well, you got me, I hadn't realized that those countries (fully approved?) the Pfizer vaccine. Still the overwhelming majority, including my country the US, haven't and that's reason enough for me to continue to hold off from vaccinating. — 180 Proof

Your response didn't make sense. You stated the population wouldn't feel the side effects; ignoring the population includes a majority that also takes a vaccine. Your analysis doesn't get past your own desire not to feel the discomfort of an immune system response. Neither did I, but I did it anyway. Didn't feel a thing.

But why? The population will not feel any side effects of the vaccination, but the individual will, therefore it is an individual decision. — Book273

So, about 70% of the population should either take the vaccine or be certain of their acquired immunity. — Isaac

Agreed.

The issue isn't really with how many though so much as who. — Isaac

People not likely to be injured from a vaccine is how I would make a determination. In order to allow for the 30% that either can't take it or don't respond to it. But you suggest otherwise,

Some people are massively more at risk from the disease than others and some people are massively more at risk of spreading it than others. — Isaac

The elderly and the unvaccinated.

If we simply assume that there is a moral obligation not to put your community at too great a risk by your lifestyle choices, then you should take the vaccine... — Isaac

Agreed.

....if you feel (after listening to expert opinion) that doing so would be necessary to absolve that social responsibility. — Isaac

Add a rationalization.

That's simply not going to be the case for everyone. — Isaac

And all of a sudden; the directive toward 70% from your stated sources no longer applies?

It is either 70% or it is each person based on their personal interests. Because data suggest it isn't both.

How many people should take the vaccine. In your opinion?

I'm not buying into that. It's a mess. It's not physics, and it's not philosophy. It's nearest parallel is theology.

This is what happens when engineers try to do metaphysics. — Banno

Is this the product of determining the standards for utterance? The posters account is in English and follows a consistent theme. Faking bewilderment to prove a point and creating it to sell one seems dubious.

Ok, so, can we agree that information is "an idea that can be conveyed that may or may not be subject to error"? aka flat out wrong? — Outlander

Yes. A lot of what we know is what people tell us and some of it isn't correct.

basically a flat out lie is information, though wrong, remains equal with an absolute accurate account? alongside a deeply held belief of something that just so happens to be wrong? — Outlander

Equal in the sense of a subjective experience. Absolute accurate account should correspond to some state of affairs if it's indeed absolutely accurate. We don't place the same value on both types for obvious reasons. But, if information is an unknown error, then it is experienced like information that is accurate by definition.

I think there may be a speculative sense of information that directs space and matter apart from our observations of it. But, generally people talk about information as in the sense of human knowledge.

Yes, from my perspective, it seems your implying being subject to error implies everything is an error. Which is absurd. How could we be wrong about everything? Just because we can make a mistake does not imply Santa Claus. Who clearly exists and shepherds us to the land of the dead.

But does it have to be imagined? Perhaps the person who describes the bottle in the room as blue did in fact see a blue bottle in the room that was subsequently replaced with the green bottle the first man saw? — Outlander

So, the assumption of 1 bottle is an error.

Perhaps he has some odd eye condition or whatever that made him simply see it as blue. — Outlander

Then, an explanation of an eye condition was needed to account for the difference.

But it was, everything, even assuming they were complete lies, were equally information until investigated. — Outlander

Yes, information is subject to error when it is human knowledge.

So does that mean information not personally confirmed are but clues? Lies? Possibilities? Relative? — Outlander

I don't see how the confusion persists. I'm not trying to evade any example but they seem consistent with my account. Did I miss a chance to be confused?

Without getting into QM, etc. I think you are agreeing that the integrated laws of nature do that. — Pop

I just know the speed of light is a measure of resistance, so something going faster isn't resisted. Yeah, everything is aware and we're like a node. So, show it beautiful things.

To me it's whatever informs the spin of an entangled particle when another is observed. It travels faster than light so it isn't going through our space.

There's a bottle that is, by all widely accepted views green, that happens to sit in a room you've yet to enter. One man informs you the bottle in the room is green. Another tells you it is blue. And still another tells you there is no bottle whatsoever. Are these not all bits of information? When you enter the room and confirm whether said bottle is green, blue, or even existent for that matter, does that change? Why? — Outlander

Some of it's information about the other room and some is imagined. One or more is inaccurate. When I enter the room I make my own assessment and compare notes. The part that doesn't change probably isn't imaginary.

Notice the similarity between information and god?
Are you are inventing a new theology? — Banno

Arguably correcting one.

General methodology question. I get the point is to arrive at a new frame of reference that supports some set of conclusions. Wouldn't this guarantee the near impossibility that some one reads it and realizes that its in error; supposing the mental backflip is always mandatory. If I always made sure people saw the world exactly as I did, before telling them what I think no one would ever be in disagreement. But, this just creates an illusion of truth brought on by manufactured consensus.

Only if the resultant group exceeds the inverse of the proportion required for herd immunity. If not, it really doesn't matter at all. If they adopt other strategies to minimize transmission it also doesn't matter one jot. If I'm healthy, live alone, remain masked in my occasional public visits, sanitise my hands regularly and remain a few feet apart from anyone I meet, explain to me how I'm going to have a higher probability of passing on a virus than if I did none of those things but took a vaccine at 70% symptomatic effectiveness... and yes, I will expect you to cite sources, not just make it up. — Isaac

You recognized the populations need and then described an individual strategy. It proves my point better than I could.

But why? The population will not feel any side effects of the vaccination, but the individual will, therefore it is an individual decision. — Book273

The above replaces the term 'me' with the term population and continues on as if that changes the perspective. It proves my point; that hesitation is a miscalculation that results from point of view.

The "better for the population long term" argument should also support non-intervention for anyone that is suicidal as less individuals would mean more resources for others, less environmental damage, more job availability, etc. And yet, we are not advocating suicide, despite being able to spin the positive effects for society. — Book273

If I produced this paragraph I would question what else I was willing to rationalize. It's not a compelling argument. We aren't discussing suicide.

The general consensus is that they would. — Isaac

The consensus may be an excuse. They can't find another excuse? There is a mutli-billion dollar industry built on products that aren't FDA approved for medical treatment. But, are consumed without hesistation.

Yes. Basically the whole of the point I've been making recently. That a policy is a good public health initiative is not the same as it being necessary or even appropriate for every individual. — Isaac

Rather, I was acknowledging the intuitive rationality behind hesitation. If I perceive a vaccine risk higher than my perceived virus threat then the decision is do not take. If every decision is made from this subjective view then no one takes a vaccine that might have worked. It's a rational strategy for an individual to optimize that is detrimental to a group outcome. "every individual" is a bit of an empty term in a medical context beyond we all need air.

Consider the harm of vaccinated 1 too few versus 1 too many. Over-shooting is the reasonable target.

What's even in the logic for highlighting doubt in efficacy. I'll suppose your correct and percent of preventive protection is lower than reported. The counter balance is higher uptake. Not taking a poorly working vaccine would make an unfavorable situation worse. I don't see how the speculation improves an anti-vax position.

It's not like people are suddenly going to rush out and get it upon finalized approval. It's not rocket surgery to imagine the effect of with holding a vaccine could be worse in some cases. If everyone gets a virus before a vaccine can be approved then what was the point of the approval process. It's a simple risk/reward analysis, but it has to be made from the point of view of a population. Looking at it on an individual level is misleading.

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

I am suspicious of the logic one has to employee to come to this conclusion. A vaccine is the opposite of a money maker; because it is a preventive. It's like claiming dental floss is a trick by the dental cabal. There is no logical connection. A single/double dose per person versus a bottle of pills sold every month for a lifetime. It's not rocket surgery. It eats up there production capacity to produce drugs that aren't price negotiated with the government. They had to use a wartime production act in order to get more made.

The ones profiting are the ones profiting off the fiction. People eat up controversy and so the internet profiteers keep cooking it.

I feel similarly. It is the primal stuff, as a co-element of any stuff. But it is so hard to pin down. If you have a simple definition I would be interested to hear it? — Pop

The simplest is what we call data. The origin of data is information. It's what differentiates something from empty space upon experience. I think people are a type of animal that have the capacity to reflect this "thing" and it takes the form of a metaphysical object that itself can be manipulated. We can record or imagine data.

Your real power is in your ability to adapt to the change. — hope

Leaves room to correct some mistakes. I can't imagine what it would be like if my first impression governed every experience completely.

Reality is eternally changing and if you were not also you would be soon dead. — hope

Technically correct, but skating on out of scope. If you ceased to travel with the planet through space it would probably crush you. Speculating to be fair.

How limiting is it if it's constantly changing?

I was going to say our differences of opinion imply something is subject to a degree of interpretation. I think that's what you are saying except with only one person involved.

It's something. We've done well to infer here and there. How else would we know there is a limitation.

then its not immoral — hope

The subjective experience is of "not immoral".

if your alone on an island everything is a-moral — hope

The

and objective simultaneously — hope

is immoral but permissible. We are allowed to do some immoral things; which is how people screw up in the moment.

if youre alone on an island there is no morality — hope

Thoughtfully disagree, you can still harm anything you value, it's just permissible to harm your own things.

its nothing but fairness between people — hope

Yes, this is the innate understanding of morality and ethics. It's how the court knows you are sane.

everything is subjective relative and objective simultaneously — hope

Yep. As far as I can tell participatory realism is the way to go.

Clearly it's the currently unassailable missing dimension which directs the stuff of existence; of which we can certainly discuss; if we choose to.

:rofl:
Should have it sorted by Monday morning.

This does not make us unable to talk about the rest, just that the discussion doesn't meet his standards. — Antony Nickles

Precisely what I needed to understand. Thanks.

Sometimes philosophy is about changing your mind, not about knowledge, but, thinking in an entirely different way--that's hard to tell someone to do, or get there by just saying things that are right. — Antony Nickles

I think this is the source of dissonance at least in my experience. I'll gladly adopt a new frame of reference to kick around an idea. But, if I'm listening for the idea and just getting my bearings crossed...complaints aside. It makes sense now, appreciated.

↪Cheshire Talk to yourself anyway you like, but not to me like that.
Noted. In fairness if I was claiming to possess important insight that defies summary I'd be laughed out of the room. It appears as if some one thought they could be vague enough they would overcome the unattended baggage sold with a lexicon, but instead of realizing this wasn't the case; it was concluded that things can't be communicated.

It shows how to systematically derive all possible truths from elementary propositions. — Banno

The Kant ball(thing in itself) was called into question.
Found to meet criteria laid out in the Tractatus for things that can't be discussed.
The things that can't be discussed are derived from an abandoned system of simple truths.

Probably the grossest over simplification to date. But, I was trying to get at the timeline.

Of course this derivation from simples is later ejected in Philosophical Investigations. — Banno

So, originally it failed to be a possible truth.