You are 29.2 times more likely to be hospitalized if you contract Covid if you're not vaccinated. — Hanover

No. The unvaccinated hospitalised are 29.2 times more prevalent than the vaccinated hospitalised. Your likelihood would only be the same as the prevalence if hospitalisation/vaccination combinations were random, and we already know they aren't. See what I mean about statistics?

Oh, and while we at misuse of stats, your chances if you're a healthy young adult are so small that multiplying them by 29.2 is irrelevant.

Your citations create the illusion of such a chorus — Cheshire

It's not an 'illusion' if they're all real is it. Are you claiming I've fabricated them?

Dimes to donuts it isn't epidemiologists. — Srap Tasmaner

Actually most of the people I've cited opposed to the current policies are epidemiologists. Also my personal experience. It's primarily epidemiologists, statisticians, paediatrics, and the odd few economists. But that's primarily to do with who I'm hanging around with recently. Not much call for experimental physicists in my work! That would be some very long term risk planning!

Link's not working for me (something about EU laws!) Can you summarise?

Well, you've now been provided all the data you could possibly need to sort through. — Hanover

Yes, thanks.

The point is that herd immunity is a goal of yours, for whatever reason, whether you derive any benefit from it, whether you know you derive any benefit from it. It's a goal of yours; if something you want to happen happens, well, then you're getting what you want — Srap Tasmaner

Yes, but I have other goals too. Remember this is a conflict between ends and means. Two goals (at least).

You have decided that to reach this goal, of yours, lots of other people should do something, just not you. Hence you are free-riding. Or you're going down with the ship, if the goal is not reached, whatever. — Srap Tasmaner

Not 'whatever' though. Not as far as my morality is concerned. Free-riding and 'going down with the ship' are not anywhere near morally equivalent positions. I don't think other people see it that way either. Compare "the captain was just free-riding the voyage and let his first officer do all the work", to "the captain went down with his ship".

expecting others to take steps to reach a goal of yours while taking no steps yourself is not okay, — Srap Tasmaner

Yes, but it's not quite like that. Expecting soldiers to fight, expecting nurses to heal...this is quite normal. We're all different so we need not all play the same part, especially if there are other factors at stake.

I'll simplify something I think is not far from the position (which is a bit more complex)...

We've two goals. 1. vaccinate 70%, and 2. minimize inequality in vaccine distribution.

To achieve both we want 70% of people to be vaccinated but no more. Any more would interfere with equitable distribution.

So who should be the 70%? Well, obviously everyone for whom the benefits clearly outweigh the risks. Who should be in the 30%? Anyone who's most likely to be able to reach and maintain immunity themselves. Soldiers and nurses...

This is a very simplified version to get the framework I'm working from across. Basically we're working towards more than one goal and not everyone has the 'get vaccinated' role to play.

Think that answers your bonus question too. We want two things (one of which is not support big pharma, in your example). How do we get both? Arrange it (as a community) such that we use the smallest amount of big pharma product required to achieve our other goal.

Had the results not been age adjusted, then your proper objection would have been that they weren't age adjusted, not the opposite, as you're arguing here. — Hanover

No objections at all. I just asked since age adjustment is done for comparative purposes and involves at least one variable. The variable was not listed so the data incomplete.

If there's a complaint in there it's that I suspected that you posted data you didn't even understand the stats behind it but posted it because it showed a good looking line going up. The entire essence of the problem here in a nutshell.

I realise my anecdotal speculations will be of no interest to you (nor maybe anyone at this stage), but... @Banno asked if I had a theory as to why vaccine hesitancy was highest among the PhD educated (but other higher education levels showed the lowest). My guess is that only at PhD level do you start realising what can be done by 'managing' your statistics, it changes the way one looks at data supposedly proving some point or other. That or we're all grumpy selfish bastards who no longer care because we're going to die soon anyway.

you explicitly support your community's goal of reaching herd immunity; you just aren't willing to help -- at least not in the way you've been asked to. — Srap Tasmaner

Yes, that's about it. What I really wanted you to answer was why you thought that a selfish decision (tragedy of the commons reference). The reason I'm not willing to help in the way I've been asked is because I think the way I've been asked might well do more harm than the laudable goal it's aiming at. Harm to others, that is. How is avoiding harm to others selfish, or in any way related to the tragedy of the commons? My understanding of the tragedy is that in each person looking only to their own gain, they spoil things for everyone.

All my examples, issues and concerns have related to everyone, not to me. I've raised concerns about vaccinating children, about vaccine distribution to poor countries, about losing focus on community healthcare, about rising wealth inequality, about profiteering pharmaceuticals... None of which affect me directly in the slightest.

So I'm still not seeing how it applies. I'm not gaining anything at all from doing any of this. Gods, I've colleagues who won't speak to me. In what way, exactly, is my position supposed to be benefitting me?

maybe you could tell us what you've done to help advance the goal you've said you support. — Srap Tasmaner

I don't think that would be either relevant, nor appropriate. I could be a complete hypocrite and my argument's qualities remain undented. Detailing my consultancy work online is, in any case, completely out of the question.

If your answer is that the data suggest we'll reach herd immunity, and SARS-CoV-2 will join the other coronaviruses as endemic, without you ever getting vaccinated, that's a textbook case of the tragedy of the commons: your choice is for lots of other people to do their bit and for you to free-ride. — Srap Tasmaner

Again, you've not really made clear what kind of free-ride I'm getting out of this. I could simply not get vaccinated and lie about it, easy. What am I getting out of the approach I'm taking here which relates to the tragedy of the commons example?

Yes, I know what age adjustment is, I was wondering why they'd adjusted (or more specifically what they've adjusted). I suspect it's adjusted for variation in vaccination rates, but without the data source, it's not clear. I thought you might have such information, since you posted the data.

Any reason why you've used the age-adjusted rates?

Talking of Professor Prasad, I'm going to post a recent article of his here because it neatly sums up virtually every position that I've encountered on this thread. I'm quoting sections because I think Medpage might be paywalled to non-subscribers.

https://www.medpagetoday.com/opinion/vinay-prasad/94074

I've written on this topic elsewhere, but my point here is about the misuse of "both-sidesing."

Our society is more and more incapable of debating real issues. We are not only certain of our positions, we view the clash of ideas as a threat. More than any specific issue, I am worried about people who are so fragile they cannot bear to hear opinions that conflict with their own. Calling real debates both-sidesing is a cognitive distortion.

The bottom line is this: the idea that your motivations are pure but those who disagree with you are tainted is a cognitive distortion. Revisit it.

There are two principles worth articulating. One, in emergency circumstances, states and other actors can institute untested interventions in the face of novel threats. But two, if these interventions continue or repeat, year after year, at some point, it is incumbent on the entity or person asserting the intervention to prove that the net benefits outweigh the harms.

An anecdote without a sober and methodical appraisal of data can lead to erroneous thinking. Social media abuses anecdotes in all directions: on issues I agree with and vehemently disagree with. But in both cases, I often think that emotional appeal of anecdotes is unfair -- even if it furthers a cause I like. We must make our case solely on the merits of the argument or policy.

Recently, Andy Slavitt wrote that many experts believe it is now inevitable that everyone will someday acquire SARS-CoV-2, and this was labeled a dangerous view.

If you think vaccinated people should isolate to avoid spreading SARS-CoV-2, then any idea that suggests they will get the virus eventually runs counter to your narrative. A person may wonder: Why should I continue to deprive myself if getting the virus is inevitable? (Note: this does not apply to an unvaccinated person who has a high risk of severe outcomes or death that would markedly fall if they were vaccinated.) The idea is only dangerous if you already assume that vaccinated people staying home is a good thing.

If instead, you think that vaccinated people should take reasonable precautions, but have to try to get back to life as much as possible because -- as they say, time's a-wasting -- then the idea that they may someday acquire SARS-CoV-2 and thankfully not get as sick as they otherwise would (after all they have been vaccinated) is not that dangerous. It is just a statement of what many experts believe.

A dangerous idea is too often used to describe an idea that erodes support for your policy recommendation. But using it in this way is a cognitive distortion.

It is fascinating how we have created party platforms out of COVID policy, with partisan splits over lockdowns, school closures, masks, hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, and the origins of the virus.

Why can't there be a mixing and matching of our pandemic views? Lockdowns require far more study, and we have no idea under what circumstances they may work. School closure is the most disruptive policy choice and should only be considered when approaching health systems failure. Masking is reasonable in some settings, but we need to run randomized studies to know exactly at what ages and in what scenarios. Ivermectin is being tested in several large ongoing randomized trials, but probably doesn't work. That's nothing against it specifically, just a statement of fact that most drug trials are negative. And, yes, let's put it to bed: hydroxychloroquine doesn't work for COVID. Finally, I have no idea if lab leak did or did not happen, but I do know that censoring debate on the topic was awful.

Being able to hold views that sometimes dovetail with your peers and colleagues, but not always, is the hallmark of independent thinking and appraisal of evidence. Instead I worry that even the professional classes -- folks with doctorates -- have devolved into tribal creatures lusting for blood when they see a view that falls outside their preferred platform.

It's tiring to go online and read the repeated calls for someone to be fired for something they may have said. Amazingly, often it is the first time I am learning that this person even exists!

Everyone feel free to rip it to shreds, but do read the article if possible. Extra marks for a really vitriolic reply which uses all seven cognitive distortions.

Of course I’ve heard of the British Medical Journal but you could read that blog post not knowing that and be none the wiser at the end. — Wayfarer

Yes, they changed it a few years back, don't know why, now it's just BMJ. Sounds more like a music magazine, by hey ho, we've got to move with the times...

the whole concept of objective fact is under challenge today, particularly in the USA. — Wayfarer

Yes, I think people have failed to realise the effect this shift is having on actual science.

Anyone who considers themselves a scientist should be embarrassed by our collective failure to generate knowledge.... The CDC director calls this "following the science," but it is not. It is following the TV pundits. — Vinay Prasad - Associate Professor in the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics at the University of California

peer review and agreement has to be part of it doesn’t it? If nobody can replicate or agree with a particular scientists findings, then how can they stand? — Wayfarer

Absolutely, but in the examples I gave we're not talking about lack of peer review or replicability. We're talking about interpretation of data that comes from those studies (or less rigorous studies sometimes, we are in something of a hurry at the moment!). Agreement here is not a measure of rigour. There might well be one lone voice interpreting the data one way and the isolation of that voice would have no impact at all on the statistical rigour of the data it is interpreting.

We simply don't measure scientific interpretation by vote, never have done...until now, it seems.

He's talking about a known entity - the numbers of people recorded on the database whose admission to hospital was for a cause unrelated to any covid symptoms. He's not predicting future studies, he's talking about current case recording techniques. The exact same issue occurred at the beginning of the pandemic when the Oxford Centre for Evidence Based Medicine had to tell the government to change the way it recorded deaths. The government finally agreed (though several reports use the older method).

It's not a trivial issue. There's still hundreds of very serious medical conditions which need to be monitored and the mismanagement of admission data confuses the picture to no benefit.

don't have any idea what BMJ stands for — Wayfarer

Oh. It doesn't stand for anything anymore. It used to stand for the British Medical Journal, now it's just 'BMJ'. It's one of the world's leading medical journals... or just a crackpot rag, depending, it would seem entirely on how critical articles within it are of the pharmaceutical industry...

This is something I've said before, but it's relevant here too. There's a shift in the culture here from the separation (of scientist from crackpot) being between those who can justify their position and those who can't, to one between those whose position is widely agreed with and those whose position is not.

What's happening with Doshi and Ioannidis, is part of this shift. In one article (cited here recently, in fact) Doshi is aligned with some crackpot doctor claiming the vaccine will kill us all - as if both of their claims were of the same ilk simply because both are not widely agreed on (despite the fact that Doshi's are well-sourced, researched and founded, whereas the doctor's are plucked out of thin air). We simply can't practice science at all under these conditions.

The proper distinction between crackpot and scientist is the extent to which one can justify one's claims with proper scientific rigour, not the extent to which one's peers currently agree.

the author is not overall critical of Ioaniddes — Wayfarer

The title is "What the heck happened to John Ioannidis?", not -"a response to some of John Ioannidis's claims". The tone is what I'm criticising here. Debate in science is healthy, necessary. Questioning the integrity ("what the heck happened to...") of those presenting alternative views is a failure to understand how science works.

I'm aware the two articles are the same, I was trying to give a flavour of the coverage, it's not a lone corner of the internet.

If you're interested, here's the same happening to Pete Doshi, the editor in chief of the BMJ and a respected professor of pharmaceutical health services in his own right.

https://respectfulinsolence.com/2021/05/21/why-is-peter-doshi-still-an-editor-at-the-bmj-rfk-jr-version/

https://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/peter-doshi-anti-vaccine-false-authority/

Apparently for an expert in the effectiveness of pharmaceutical interventions, questioning the effectiveness of a pharmaceutical intervention is a sacking offence now.

Sorry, a little more cantankerous than usual this morning (and 'usual' is not always up to standard either)

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/what-the-heck-happened-to-john-ioannidis/

https://respectfulinsolence.com/2021/04/05/wtf-happened-to-john-ioannidis/

Got any documentation on that? — Wayfarer

Nah, I just make this shit up, everyone knows that.

One irony is that, as you know, I'm a very staunch critic of 'scientism' and 'scientific materialism' on this forum, but when it comes to public policy I'm completely 'pro science'. I would never think of denigrating public health officials or the expert opinion of scientists when it comes to matters of health — Wayfarer

Yeah. like most woo merchants, one whiff of death and you'll prostitute yourself to anyone with a 'sciencey' sounding cure, grab a flag and join the parade. Once the mortal threat's gone, it's back to the woo.

It's an odd thing how many of those who cite things like the replication crisis to deride science (particularity my profession, in fact) are the same folk who treat questioning the medical establishment's claims as tantamount to tinfoil-hat wearing.

You know they've got about the same replicability ratio - medicine and psychology? That's what the famous Ioannidis article was about. Ioannidis was in the department of epidemiology at the time.

Of course Ioannidis has now been thrown under the same bus as anyone else questioning the prevailing science now, in our new era of scientico-religious fervour.

Just the sort of dogmatism you'd be all over in matters of cosmology, psychology, neuroscience, biology... literally anything except health, in fact.

The lack of a chorus of statistically trained analyst covering the anti-vaxx position — Cheshire

Do you need me to provide all of my 30 something citations again? Do you think enough time has gone by now that you can safely pretend I haven't fully cited every claim I've made with several experts in the field? And you accuse me of arguing tactically...

you are not doing your part while expecting others to do theirs. That's just the tragedy of the commons and you should know better. — Srap Tasmaner

I can't make any sense of this last in the light of your prior assessment.

If I've justified uncertainty about whether the harms of the means outweigh the goods of the ends, but must place my bet either pro or con (no half measures), how is it the placing one way neglects my social duty but the other doesn't. Both ways concern the harms to society, one from the means, the other from the ends.

Uh huh. It's been a hoot, but I think were done.

Notice the sign above the door to this particular room concerns anti-vaxxer as a position. — Cheshire

Yes, and? It is an ethical question nonetheless. The complaint raised against them is not a technical one, it's that they are unethically putting others at risk. The whole question of consent, duty, reasonable risk, freedom, obligation... it's entirely a matter of ethics.

if this is just entertainment it would be nice to know. — Cheshire

I don't see anything trivially entertaining about discussing ethics, no. I think it's very serious. There's some entertainment in poking the ants, but the subject matter is a serious one.

OK, then we're back to the insane claim. If you're using 'alllows' to mean only the exemptions they actually specify within the recommendations (and not just anything that isn't mandated by law) then there's no way on earth you stick to all the government's environmental recommendations only veering from them in cases of specifically allowed exceptions.

They recommend you don't pollute the air. But they allow you to drive and smoke and drink. — James Riley

Is the same as...

They recommend you get vaccinated by they allow you to not.

I tried to teach you that I don't comply with every single state recommendation because the state itself has created exceptions — James Riley

I don't know why you're still banging on about exceptions. The state has provided an exception to it's recommendation on vaccination too, I don't have to get vaccinated. You think, in that case, that those taking the government up on its exception are murdering pieces of shit. I'm wondering if you feel that way about yourself when you choose to take the government up on one of its exceptions to their environmental recommendations.

What position is this argument in support of? "We should have behaved differently in the past" is not a policy — Srap Tasmaner

It's in support of the focus of future efforts which are at at risk of being subsumed by the current Disney version of events. Some very, very serious mistakes were made, the more talk there is of anti-vaxxers being to blame, the less there is about these massive government and societal failings which made us so vulnerable. Space in public fora is finite, it matters what we fill it with.

I suppose we all more or less agree on that, right? — Srap Tasmaner

Look at the responses. Do you see much agreement with what I've been saying? You've read a handful of my posts and you've already got a near perfect summary so it's not that people haven't understood. Literally no-one has agreed.

Anyone who gets vaccinated contributes to their community reaching the threshold set by the relevant public health agency. — Srap Tasmaner

No they don't. If their community are above that threshold then people getting vaccinated no longer contribute to meeting it. See booster issues between the WHO and America.

leaving aside whether that moral obligation trumps other reasons an individual may have for not getting vaccinated. — Srap Tasmaner

No, it's the position relative to these other reasons I'm interested in.

That's reasonable. It's probably the right policy, I don't know. It's also not clear it connects to (M) up there. — Srap Tasmaner

It connects thus. If you create a social narrative where everyone vaccinated is good and everyone not vaccinated is bad you create a strong individual demand for vaccines, not a community based one. Add that to a profiteering enterprise which makes money from such a demand, and a democratic government system which must respond to such a demand and you undermine your project of equitable distribution. We're seeing exactly that with boosters in the US.

For an individual, getting vaccinated if you have the opportunity to do so unquestionably helps your community reach its goal, so the simplest thing to do, if you support that goal, is get vaccinated. — Srap Tasmaner

True. But there are vulnerable people who need the vaccine first. I've other issues, but on this matter alone it would be about doing things in the right order.

Because in between there's a step:

I support this goal, but not this way of reaching it.

which is not so unusual. — Srap Tasmaner

Broadly, yes. I fully support the goal of getting 70% of the population vaccinated (I'd prefer to check natural immunity further first, but it's not a big deal). I think whipping up moral hysteria, exaggerating threats, underplaying risks (such as with children), and allowing rampant profiteering all the way, is so much the wrong way to do it that I think it's possibly more harmful than the end goal.

just use your own typing skills and say what it is that I don't take as gospel. Here, let me give you an example: "James, society says X and you clearly don't do X." Then we can argue whether you are correct or not — James Riley

I'm just not prepared to do that. The point of the citations was to point out the clear insanity of the claim that you comply with every single state recommendation. I really wasn't expecting your craziness to stoop to doubling down on the claim. That's why I said before, if you're serious about defending the claim that you adhere without question to every single government recommendation then this conversation is over. I've nothing to say in the face of such brazen delusion.

I'm not! — James Riley

That's exactly what you're doing. You gave a pseudo-intellectual economic argument which you obviously don't understand as to why you needn't comply with a particular government recommendation. You're not an expert economist so why present the argument as if you understood it... smarter minds than you an' all... Just shut up and follow the recommendations.

I don't go around advising people to do, or not do things which experts say will place others at risk. — James Riley

You just did. Experts say cut down in gas use, you present some neolib, half-cocked pseudo-economics denying you ought to.

It's the need to convince yourself by convincing others or in this case arguing to no foreseeable end that your decision though detrimental when applied broadly is the best course of action. — Cheshire

Arguing philosophical positions, such as ethical ones, is what we do here. Did you not notice the sign above the door?

Society (and politicians) formulate health policy based on evidence and science. I do listen to people smarter than me. I also use my own experience in guiding my daily interactions with my fellow man. — James Riley

I just listed a whole load of policies which you clearly don't take their word as gospel. I do exactly the same with vaccination guidance, yet you think that's immoral, you've yet to explain why.

The problem is, I just increased the supply of gas, which lowers the price, which stimulates demand, which encourages people like you to drive more, defeating my goal. — James Riley

Defying government advice by using some half-baked idea about markets. Are you a fully qualified government employed economist? If not, then why are you making judgements contrary to those people smarter than you have made?

I won't fall into your "poor eating habits" vs vax straw man. It is irrelevant. Society will determine if and when you get treated like a POS and for what reasons — James Riley

So now 'society' is right no matter what their reasons? Your ethics are intriguing to say the least.

I play ball within those confines and use them for guidance in my consideration of others. I also understand that if I don't, those steps the state uses can, and most probably will be stepped up. Do you see the answer to your question yet? I do risk others within the confines of the law, and my own respect and consideration of others. — James Riley

Exactly. So all your moralising about people smarter than me was all bullshit. You don't listen unconditionally to the people smarter than you either. We could agree here, but then you say...

don't be surprised if people start treating you like a POS. — James Riley

So do you think all people, including yourself, who don't comply with state recommendations (not laws yet, just recommendations) should be treated like POS's

Here's some examples of state recommendations for your country.

Here are the EPA recommendations on recycling - comply with all of them?

Here's their green vehicle guide - got the full set there too?

Here's the guidance of chemical use - another full house I assume?

Here's energy use - you ought to get some sort of prize.

Environmental issues not deadly enough for you?

https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/climate-change-and-health

https://www.who.int/health-topics/environmental-health#tab=tab_1

I do — James Riley

Bullshit. Unless you're Greta fucking Thunberg, you do not comply with every single recommendation made to limit risk of harm to others. If you're just going to brazenly stand by that claim there's little point in continuing.

Let's try and example: While I don't smoke, I could. Society says I can. — James Riley

Society says I can avoid getting vaccinated, there's no law against it. It's just recommended that I do. It is recommended that you don't smoke.

I get to drive and pump poison into the air with my car. I breath it and so do asthmatics I don't even know. Now you might come along with your awesome intellect and try to dissect the science and prove how the state is all wrong on this or that. — James Riley

I don't need to, I can cite the state's recommendations on the matter of air pollution, car choice, driving choices, and all manner of other stuff you routinely do. We're talking about recommendations here, not laws.

So here's the short answer to your question: There are X number of things that society says are acceptable, and Y number of things they say are not. Society says avoiding the vax is not acceptable. — James Riley

That wasn't the question. The question was whether you avoid all things that people smarter than you recommend you avoid for the benefit other's well-being? I'm aware society thinks one of those things is getting vaccinated, I'm asking you about the others, do you feel the same way about all of them, do you comply with all of them?

Health and safety regimens at work?
Good dietary advice for children and dependants (if you have any)?
Advice on reducing your waste, pollutants and energy consumption?
Advice on product selection to avoid conflict minerals, modern slavery and other harmful practices?
I could go on... All recommendations by people smarter than you to prevent harm to others. do you comply with them all?

...of murder... — James Riley

Good job dialing down the rage.

Same apply to all avoiding these measures?

Or these https://www.gov.uk/government/news/healthy-eating-guidance-published-for-the-early-years-sector

Or https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng70/chapter/Recommendations

All recommendations by people smarter than you for behaviour to avoid potentially fatal risks to others.

They all murderers too?

Do you honestly think your life is so saintly I couldn't find a half dozen things you do which risk others and which people smarter than you have recommended to avoid?

You are free to avoid prophylactic medicine all you want: just keep your filthy fucking virus off my ass if you get it. How's that? — James Riley

I fully intend to. I mask, I socially distance, I wash my hands. I don't see what that's got to do with the question of public health policy. The question was why should your right to fast food trump my right to avoid prophylactics? If you do in fact revert to your previous answer I'd need some citation to support it, unless, of course, you're just some inept incompetent huckster peddling shit on the internet.

we have the freedom to put them on without having to worry about some other turd throwing his on too. — James Riley

So your freedom to eat junk food trumps my freedom to avoid prophylactic medicine as I choose? Why?

Excess mortality is excess mortality, whatever the mechanism between here and there. — Srap Tasmaner

I disagree (surprised?). The mechanism is where we direct our response and as such our analysis of things like cost-effectiveness and plausibility. At what cost 7 million boosters? At what cost a tax on sweet and fatty foods?

It matters a lot which of the contributory factors we try to eliminate. Could you really say that an efficient way of handling public health is to maintain a population with a very high level of completely preventable life threatening diseases and then have to commit to mass vaccinations of every novel virus to keep them alive? Or is it more efficient to invest in community healthcare, sporting facilities, restrict sales of unhealthy foods etc and next decade not have such a vulnerable population in the first place?

It's not just your taking-up-a-bed that counts, but the fact that you also risk causing others to need a bed — Srap Tasmaner

Indeed it would be if there were suitably compelling evidence that vaccination did indeed reduce transmission in two key ways;

1. Over and above other measures one might choose to take to achieve the same ends.

2. Do so to below a level which is already considered acceptable (passive smoking being a good example, the air pollution from driving another, many other forms if pollution and social harms from one's consumer choices...)

Without those two, I see no moral case. Yes a vaccine might reduce my chances of transmitting the virus, but why am I required to reduce my chances of harming others to as low as possible. I'm not so required in other areas like those listed above, only to below a reasonable threshold.

As I said in my response to you a few posts back, the evidence is just not there for making the case that n relying on non-pharmaceutical measures to reduce transmission creates an unacceptably high risk of transmission in any given cohort. It's nit even close to being there.

The key issue that confuses this is that evidence for the public policy case is not the same as evidence for the moral case. The former deals in prevalence, the latter risk (see my little primer above if necessary, i'm not going to teach you to suck eggs).

As a public policy, it may be more likely than not that mass vaccination will reduce transmission. I don't think the matter is clear cut, there's a lot of behavioural issues to factor in, plus the progress of variant, the duration of immunity... but overall I've no issue with taking that gamble as public policy. But that's not the same as a moral duty.

A good example is potatoes. Public policy was to not say that potatoes were a vegetable (of the 5 a day kind). The policy wasn't because it's true, it's because they considered that admitting as such would make most people think chips and crisps counted. I would not do that. Am I still somehow morally obliged to stick to public policy nonetheless, or can I safely count my potatoes (proper vegetables as they are). I'd say the latter. I an, in this case, not the average at whom the policy is aimed.

Likewise the j-shaped curve in the negative effects of alcohol consumption. Again not reflected in public policy. There are countless examples. Public policy is a blunt instrument.

The moment evidence is shown that a vaccine reduces my* chances of transmitting the virus to below the accepted thresholds of risk, I'll agree to a moral case.

* by 'my', I mean my general cohort of known factors (age, comorbidities, population density, diligence with hygiene, etc), I'm not asking for a personalised proof!


Until then, I don't see a case for why my preferences (which I take seriously, and are both social welfare based, not personal gain based) need be sacrificed to achieve a risk threshold which is not demanded of others exercising far more trivial preferences.

Emotion = giving a fuck. — unenlightened

Trouble is though...

https://youtu.be/kgAJntmfdGo

Emotional policy-making doesn't have any means of separating the immediacy of an image of a dying Granny from the dry, almost bureaucratic, listing of the next thousand child deaths in Africa.

Hence billions on boosters, and an unprecedented cut in foreign aid.