The result would be that a woman is forced to give birth against her will, or perhaps worse, attempt to terminate the pregnancy herself.

I honestly can't see how this can be acceptable, whether she is deemed irrational or not. — Tzeentch

Yes, I agree, I was only trying to outline what might be considered, but it's outside my area of expertise. An extreme case I can think of could be where a married couple decided to have a child and a few weeks in, the woman has a clearly psychotic episode and wants an abortion. I can see the courts, in that case, denying her that right, for the sake of both the father and her non-psychotic interests. But in such a case it would only be a stay, I can't imagine a court ever mandating to full term.

Would you deny a woman who is deemed irrational beyond a reasonable doubt her right to have an abortion? — Tzeentch

It depends on the circumstances. I'm not involved in such cases directly, but I'd imagine the rights of the father and the woman's previously expressed wishes would possibly come into it. Most consideration with court mandates is harm to others and the court does not consider a foetus an 'other', so without the interests of a legally considered other party I expect psychosis would make little difference to her request.

It made a passable moral example, but in the real world probably not so similar to vaccination.

The moral obligation comes from the fact that a) it's irrational to not get vaccinated and b) not being vaccinated increases the risk of harm to others. — Michael

So an irrational action must carry zero risk, but a rational action can carry a non-zero risk, morally. Is that your position?

Therefore "other people need the vaccine more" isn't a valid reason for refusing the vaccine, and so is an irrational reason. — Michael

You've not answered the case with food waste. Are you denying any non-consequentialist moral position?

The vaccine is safe and effective; its risks are less than the risks of COVID. — Michael

The vaccine was safe and effective when tested. That it continues to be so through production to the actual vaccine I'm having administered requires my trust in the pharmaceutical industry (not to mention believing the tests in the first place requires trust). We're not talking about matters of fact here, my vaccination is an event in the future, there are no matters of fact about it yet. It's a matter of trust. Are you claiming it's actually irrational not to trust the pharmaceutical industry? What would be your argument for that?

It's irrational to refuse the vaccine and being unvaccinated puts others at risk. Therefore you ought be vilified. — Michael

Finally, as mentioned at the top of this post, you've introduced this idea that irrational choices have to reduce risks to a greater extent than rational ones, even when the rational ones are nothing more than idle preference (bacon). Have you any argument to support this?

if they tell me that their foetus is the spawn of Satan and must be aborted I'm going to judge that their reason for having an abortion is irrational. — Michael

Agreed.

A ways back in this thread, I related a discussion with colleagues about prescribing carbamazepine to reduce aggression. We cannot simply do so on the grounds that it's more likely than not to reduce harm caused by the aggressive outbursts. The normal moral right to one's bodily autonomy means that it has to be shown beyond reasonable doubt before any mandatory psychiatric medicine is prescribed. The same is true with abortion (though it's not my field). It's insufficient to simply say that a woman's reasons are probably not rational, they must be shown beyond reasonable doubt to be irrational before a court can intervene.

Your example here provides maybe reasons which are beyond reasonable doubt irrational. Can you do that for the reason I gave above?

(incidentally, I agree with you about abortion, it merely serves here as a bodily autonomy argument)

Also...

If she is in the midst of a psychotic break and believes that the foetus is the spawn of Satan then I think there are reasons to prevent any rash decision that she may regret after treatment. — Michael

... are not your standards are they? As the question asked (related to vaccine hesitancy) was "...if the reasons for a woman to have an abortion are irrational by your standards, should she not be allowed to have?" A woman being in the midst of a psychotic break is not something a layman would typically judge. The issue @Tzeentch is raising related to covid is that lay people are typically judging the reasons of others. Citing a diagnosable mental health issue as an exception doesn't answer the question at all.

That risk is still greater than any risks from getting the vaccine, and so being vaccinated is better than being unvaccinated. — Michael

Irrelevant. We are not, in any other walk of life obliged to reduce our risks until they are as low as it is possible to make them. In all other walks of life the obligation is only to reduce your risk to an acceptable level. My risk of needing hospital treatment from covid infection is below the level we already find acceptable for many other lifestyle choices. Stopping eating bacon is a lower risk than eating bacon (even though it might cause you some sadness), yet there's no moral obligation to do so simply because the risk is lower than the alternative.

You not getting vaccinated doesn't mean that your vaccine gets to go to a diabetic slum dweller in India. It just means that your vaccine goes to waste. — Michael

That others who ought to act in a chain of events aren't doing their bit does not remove a moral obligation to do my bit. I free up the supply. If others are too lazy, greedy or stupid to do with that what's needed, then that's not something I have any control over. Not doing my bit doesn't help, it just encourages the situation to persist. In lowering the demand in my country I'm opening the possibility for redistribution, that's all I can do. If I don't buy extra food it doesn't go to the starving either, it goes in the bin, so should we no longer care about food waste?

So you're saying that you believe the vaccine is more dangerous than COVID? That's just flat-out false. — Michael

I didn't make any claim of fact, so it can't be false. I said I don't trust them. It's my preference. I asked you to justify how it's less acceptable than "I like the taste of bacon" as a reason.

My reasons for not getting the vaccine are: it's unnecessary for my age/health group the risk is lower than many other acceptable risks, there is limited supply and my vaccine would be better off given to a diabetic slum dweller in India than to me, I don't trust my health to a private profiteering corporation with more lobbying power than the arms industry.

In what way are those less acceptable than - I like the taste of bacon.

Assume that the effects on the health care system of people eating bacon is the same as the effects on the health care system of people not getting vaccinated against COVID. Given that the reason(s) for eating bacon are acceptable we don't vilify those who eat bacon, and given that the reason(s) for not getting vaccinated against COVID are unacceptable we vilify those who don't get vaccinated against COVID. — Michael

Yes, agreed. But the reasons we, as a society, currently find acceptable are not in question. I'm arguing about the data, not society's capricious preferences.

Oh, and...

People who drink excess alcohol are vilified. — Michael

... is bullshit. Try posting you went on a bender last night here on this forum, then post that you've no intention of getting the vaccine. Get back to me when you receive the same sort of response to both and I'll reconsider this line of argument.

Let me give an example.

Hospital admission rates for heart disease are something in the region of 200/100,000, depending on which country you're in. The CDC has determined that 80% of heart disease hospitalisations could be prevent by a combination of dietary changes and exercise (both of which I've adopted). The hospitalisation rate just for my age group from covid is somewhere between 1 and 70 per 100,000 depending on where in the spread of the pandemic we were. We know that having none of the relevant comorbidities reduces my risk to at least one tenth of that, so already vaccination to prevent a 7 in 100,000 risk of hospitalisation is a whole order of magnitude below dietary changes and exercise to prevent a 160 in 100,000 risk from heart disease.

Edit - I should add that I'm quite old. The comparison for young people is astronomically smaller. Virtually everything they do carries a greater risk of hospitalisation than avoiding vaccination does.

In cases like eating bacon or skiing they're not vilified (except by some vegetarians in the case of eating bacon) because we understand the reason(s) why people choose to do them, and deem them acceptable reasons. But this isn't the case for not getting a vaccine. Unless you have allergies or other underlying health conditions that make vaccinations more dangerous than COVID, there are no acceptable reasons to not have the vaccine. Even among those who have a low risk of death or serious illness from COVID, the risk of death or serious illness from the vaccine is even lower, so it's irrational to not get vaccinated, hence it being an unacceptable decision (given the effects having COVID may/can have on transmissibility and hospitalisation). — Michael

That's true. I don't see what that's got to do with the case I'm arguing. I'm not suggesting that society finds the risks from lack of vaccination to be acceptable, or the risks form eating bacon unacceptable. I'm quite clear on what society thinks of the matter. None of this changes the cold hard fact that the risks (for certain cohorts) are comparable.

I don't think there's any way of knowing if one's own natural immune system works better than or as well as the vaccine, so the studied average is the only evidence we can use to make the decision. Young and healthy people can, and have, caught COVID and been symptomatic, so one can't use one's age and lifestyle as evidence. — Michael

The evidence is overwhelming that comorbidities are strongly correlated with the need for hospital treatment. Over 90% of hospital admissions for covid have comorbidities which are easily identifiable. Things like being obese (OR of about 10), having diabetes (OR of about 6), having high blood pressure (OR of about 2), ...and so on. The evidence is not even in question here - hospitalisation with covid is overwhelmingly the result of comorbidity.

Here's the proportions with age for example https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsif.2020.0982

Here with obesity https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32788355/, and another https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32857454/

And it's not just about transmissibility. The increased hospitalisations of the unvaccinated increases the burden on the health care system, taking up ICU beds and doctors' time. — Michael

Again, true of the average, which is why I've said many times that I think vaccination is good public health policy. It's not true of all cohorts. My chances of needing a hospital bed, even if I get infected, are absolutely tiny. Way smaller than my chances of needing a hospital bed from a dozen other lifestyle choices not so vilified - like eating bacon, or drinking excess alcohol, or skiing, or...

Getting a vaccine is hardly a burden — Michael

If you're happy with the risks as presented to you, then no. If you don't trust those presenting the risks to you then yes, it is a burden.

refusing one is seen as a pointlessly selfish societal harm. — Michael

Indeed, and for many, it would be. But for others, the risk of them either transmitting or needing hospital treatment for the disease is way smaller than the risk from many other lifestyle choices not so vilified.

But if you pick a ball with the intention to pick a yellow one and truly pick it you have to look into the container. — Prishon

Yep. It was just an example of the difference between random selection and biased selection. In this case the bias is you looking and preferring yellow, I could have had the bias being someone putting all the yellow balls to the top before you picked.

One thing to consider is that the symptomatic are probably more likely to spread the disease than the asymptomatic simply because they cough a lot more, so if the vaccination reduces the chances of symptomatic COVID then the vaccination reduces transmissibility, irrespective of whether or not it reduces viral load. — Michael

The vaccine reduces symptomatic Covid by reducing viral load. The question is whether it does so to a greater degree than a healthy immune system's own antibody production when taking the viral particles of the airway into account. We've only evidence that it does so on average (ignoring known cohort variation in immune response to SARs-cov-2 infection)

The natural immune system produces an Ig response in the airway mucosa too, the vaccine doesn't because it's injected into the blood (although, as I said, there's some disagreement on this, last I checked). There's been some talk of a nasal vaccine that would produce the Ig response in the nasal mucosa - that would really lessen transmission, but nothing in production yet, as far as I know.

You can be predisposed but how can that influnce your picking of a ball? Im predisposed every time to win the lottery but never won it. — Prishon

Yes. The lottery is an example of something which is random. As I said

my chances of picking a yellow ball are 20% assuming I pick randomly. — Isaac

--

Perhaps get a shot then. — Cheshire

Why would I do that based on the prevalence? Did you not understand my explanation of the difference between risk and prevalence? Would you like me to walk you through it?

The prevalence of head injury for helmet-wearing motorcycle riders is many times lower than the prevalence for non-helmeted riders. So should I wear a helmet, even when not riding a bike? There's an independent risk factor involved (riding a bike), if I know my grouping (non bike-rider) I can know my risk is not the average.

Same with covid. There are known risk factors which I know I don't have, so the average chance (prevalence) is definitely not my chance (risk).

You cited a paywall. — Cheshire

Not my problem, I'm happy to retract any pay-walled citations, it doesn't affect the argument, there aren't enough vaccine shots for the world to be vaccinated, it's not a controversial claim. A good overall view is here https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00727-3



That study shows that unvaccinated infected are 29 times more prevalent than vaccinated infected. It would only translate to one's 'chances' if it were random. We already know it isn't. I suggest you learn some statistics before trying to use them in an argument.

Here's a primer - If the prevalence of yellow balls in a container is 20% and red 80%, my chances of picking a yellow ball are 20% assuming I pick randomly. If, however, I'm predisposed to pick yellows, my chances of picking yellow are greater than 20% even though the prevalence of yellows remains unchanged.

Well, according to you, I'm doing you a favor and freeing up the vax for overseas. — James Riley

Did I speak too quickly for you?

Can't prove a negative. — James Riley

Well then don't use one as support for an argument.

That's my plan. Calling out your BS so everyone who thinks you're the bees knees can see it. Trying to get you to change your plan, take a seat and quit killing people. — James Riley

The plan I was referring to was how to get the whole world vaccinated. Even if everyone was 100% in favour of vaccination the problem we're facing now would be untouched. It's about distribution of vaccines, not willingness to take them.

What is 'psuedo' about the scientists I've cited, are you suggesting the BMJ is a 'pseudo' scientific journal, is the World Health Organisation a 'psuedo' health organisation? — Isaac


I didn't say they were, I said you are. — James Riley

That's why I cite my sources. These aren't my arguments, they are the arguments of experts in their field.

I already taught you about the professions and how they work. — James Riley

So you are an expert now? You know all about how the academic world works yes? What level of academic qualification do you have? How many years have you spent in the field?

Find that number on paper. — Cheshire

I cited the US vaccination rates. The supply rates are changing all the time, but the figure I got was from https://www.ft.com/content/a832d5d7-4a7f-42cc-850d-8757f19c3b6b.

Now your turn - your 29x citation please.

I'm 70% right by your math. — Cheshire

As usual, I haven't the faintest idea what you're on about. I asked you to check the source of your claim. In what bizarre, Twitter-corrupted world is that a strange request meriting such an eccentric response?

it's 29x greater chance of harm from an infection without a vaccine. — Cheshire

No it isn't. Check your statistics (or learn some).

If I am failing in my efforts to gin up U.S. demand then you would champion my driving them away. — James Riley

There's more than one demographic in receipt of your rhetoric.

A goal that we would have met long ago, but for the likes of you and Faux News and Tucker Carlson, et al? We'd be at 80% months ago, but for the dummies who think they know better than the CDC and Fauci, et al. — James Riley

Any evidence for that, or just more of your storytelling?

Well, if you really want to help, you'll quit undermining efforts to get people to distance, mask and vax ... — James Riley

I asked what your plan was, not mine.

your pseudo-scientific questioning of people who you couldn't even carry the corn in their shit. — James Riley

I've asked before for you to back up these accusations, but you've failed to do so. What is 'psuedo' about the scientists I've cited, are you suggesting the BMJ is a 'pseudo' scientific journal, is the World Health Organisation a 'psuedo' health organisation? Is this your new go-to, anyone who doesn't support your naive John Wayne inspired version of the solution is 'pseudo'-whatever?. If you can't provide any evidence you shouldn't be making such strong statements.

There were providers standing around with their thumbs up their ass because there was little demand. — James Riley

Evidence?

We won't really know unless recording changes.

This data does not report cause of death, and as such represents all deaths in people with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19, not just those caused by COVID-19. — UK Government reporting on SARS-Cov-2 related deaths

I think we need to start moving away from just reporting infections, just reporting positive cases admitted to hospital, to actually start reporting the number of people who are ill because of Covid, those positives that are symptomatic. We need to be moving towards reporting hospital admissions that are admitted because of Covid, not because they just happen to be positive and they’re being admitted for something else, Otherwise as the infection becomes endemic we are going to be frightening ourselves with very high numbers that actually don’t translate into disease burden — Prof Paul Hunter, University of East Anglia speaking at the the UK All Party Commission

No, no. Just nice to get a take from someone who's looked at some research. — Srap Tasmaner

No problem.

I've only dug into the culture war part of it, which ... <sigh>. — Srap Tasmaner

Yeah, amazing isn't it? I actually came out of retirement to take up a consultancy just because of all this. I couldn't miss it. A phenomena (vaccine hesitancy) shared equally by both the uneducated and the PhD educated, but violently shunned by those in between... I don't think anything like this has ever occurred before, it's fascinating.

I've long been interested in the way the pharmaceutical industry has somehow become a poster boy for the left since way before the pandemic. One of the most profitable industries in the world, the largest lobbying budget the world has ever seen, sales practices bordering on psychopathic... ripe targets for right wing support you'd have thought (like arms, oil, and tobacco), but no. it's the left for whom they can do no wrong, the left who'll work tirelessly to dismiss any suggestion they might be doing anything underhand... A real oddity.

And then this shitstorm happened. Now the plan is to inject the whole world with a (possibly endless) round of a privately developed, commercial product for a profit-making corporation and there's not a peep from the usual suspects about maybe having a look at whether that's entirely sensible. And, no, not because it might contain Chinese nano-bots, or 5G receiving mercury... just because private, profit-making industries have a track record at looking after the welfare of the population about as good as Pol Pot's

But thinking about how people are responding (and more importantly, going to respond in future) to these sorts of events... Social media has changed the playing field entirely, this place is just a microcosm. The polemicising effects are well document already, but the degree to which it actually creates narratives so fast, which then become the constructed reality... We've never lived in a world in which global social narratives can be created real-time in response to events as they unfold, but divorced from any real-world anchors, where governments can actually devise responses based on the narrative that's only just emerged. Interesting - fucking terrifying, but interesting.

LOL! First you say I'm:

'encouraging' . . . everyone to get it creates a demand — Isaac


Then you say I'm making them:

even less likely . . . because all you've done is entrenched their paranoia — Isaac


Which is it? — James Riley

Both. Encouraging is an intentional activity, it doesn't imply success. Like I'm 'encouraging' you to actually think...

Uh, no. We aren't happily approaching our target. — James Riley

https://usafacts.org/visualizations/covid-vaccine-tracker-states/

61% and still rising. In what way is a figure over 60 and still rising not approaching 70? How far past 60 would a still rising number have to be before you'd consider it to be approaching 70? Are you using some idiosyncratic number line?

That's why we have variants. — James Riley

No, it categorically isn't. But then the actual facts have never bothered you have they?

https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/covid-19/variants-concern

None one the variants of concern come from the US, none of the variants of interest come from the US. A single named monitored variant might possibly...

The answer isn't to coddle the Faux-News-hesitant, and hope they come along while we vax up the rest of the world. The answer is to vax up the whole fucking world, including us. We are already on the losing side of this while others clamor for the vax. Seems the foreigners (many who want the vax) are ready to play ball. Get them the vax. But little good that will do if all the imbeciles in America are listening to you and we create new variants and render the vax useless. — James Riley

So no actual argument then, just spittle-flecked invective. How, exactly, do you plan to 'vax up the whole fucking world'? What method do you advocate which doesn't include reducing current vaccine demand in the US? Does it involve waiving you gun around and shouting 'yet hah' by any chance?

Yes, there's a lot of complexities; much of the viral load is in the airway mucosa and the vaccine doesn't seem to reach there (although there's disagreement about that), sick people stay in bed, whereas vaccinated carriers move around (as you rightly point out - a particular flaw in the PHE study which excluded Pillar I reports, the very sick), the problem is massively exacerbated by the vaccine being advertised (falsely) as a way out of restrictions, then there's the problem of decreasing effectiveness over time (if people are unaware of this, they may confuse covid with flu and not isolate)... A ton of, mostly behavioural stuff, muddies the otherwise only slightly murky water of scientific theory - that's why there's so much consultancy work around at the moment for psychology academics. Pandemic's been an earner for me. Forget China, I'd look to the BPS or APA for the real instigators!

There's only been a handful of studies on this in the world (to my knowledge), and absolutely no cohort studies - comparing different groups of unvaccinated rather than only as a single cohort. No studies have examined transmission in high vulnerability groups, no studies have compared vaccination to various non-pharmaceutical measures to check which is most effective - all this, obviously, is only what I've been told, there may be stuff out there I've missed.

vaccines should also reduce the time it takes your body to clear the virus right? And that surely reduces the number of people you transmit to, for most people. — Srap Tasmaner

Yes, I don't think there's any doubt that the broad theory works, for most people. The devil will be in the details.

I can link any sources you want tomorrow, it's late here now and I'm on my phone.

And I encourage everyone else to get vaxed. — James Riley

And therein lies the problem. Not everyone needs to get vaccinated and you 'encouraging' (quite vociferously, you'll grant) everyone to get it creates a demand in rich countries which the pharmaceuticals are only too happy to meet, at the expense of the people who actually do need it (the vulnerable, the city dwellers, the obese etc.) in the developing world.

Making people feel like idiot scum for not being vaccinated when you're happily approaching your 70% target already doesn't help (using up 85%of your vaccine stock in doing so). Not only does it create unhelpful demand, but it makes the hesitant even less likely (when stocks finally reach high enough levels for everyone) because all you've done is entrenched their paranoia - "the vaccine is 'harmless', well that's a lie from the outset, what are these people tryin' a hide? Why are they so mad for me to get it?"

If it gives some immunity to the people you mention, does it not provide some immunity to other people? Or does it only provide some immunity to those you mention? Is there something about the people you mention that allows them to get some immunity, but others not? — James Riley

It'll give immunity to almost anyone, but some people already have some immunity, others can acquire immunity using their own antibodies without suffering too much harm. Others will not get sufficient immunity, the vaccine is not 100% effective.

Cool. What do they work for? — James Riley

They work by having a high chance of reducing the severity and duration of the disease to below that experienced by most adults, especially those who are overweight or have comorbid conditions. This then reduces the burden on healthcare services. They might also reduce the extent to which an average person can transmit the virus, although that is less clear. Also, if around 70% of people in a population are immune, the virus may not be sufficiently able to find a new host before it is eliminated from the one it's in (herd immunity). The vaccine works by giving some immunity to those which don't have sufficient acquired immunity or who may come to harm acquiring it.

First, tell me if they work. Then I will ask you what they work for. Then we can discuss whether morons like me are holding up the supply, or morons like you are dissuading people from using them. — James Riley

Cool, I've never taken part in a scripted argument before, sounds intriguing.

Me: They work, yes.

(Exits pursued by bear) --am I allowed my own stage direction?

Why? Do they work? — James Riley

Work at what? Like asking 'do cars work?' They get you from A to B, in general. Fine if you're at A and your dinner's at B. Useless otherwise.

There's still the bulk of the population to vaccinate in the developing world. There's only one thing preventing that - vaccine supply.

And what's holding up vaccine supply? The pharmaceutical company's profiteering and morons like you whipping up such a frenzy that all the rich white folk want their double dose plus boosters regardless of their actual risk.

I'm not here much anymore. — Srap Tasmaner

Yes, noted your absence - quality of conversation deteriorated.

Looked in and couldn't quite figure out what axe you were grinding. — Srap Tasmaner

...and so you asked. Lamentably a novelty these days.

Using this forum is not an effective way of broadcasting your opinions — Srap Tasmaner

Indeed. It is, however, an excellent means of gathering opinions, or more specifically arguments. A godsend for a curator like me.

How would you talk to these folks? — Srap Tasmaner

Can I ask, in return, at whom do you think the pro-vaccine invective here is aimed? With the largest proportion of vaccine hesitancy among the PhD educated, do you think the collection of guesswork, swearing and press clippings here are going to be persuasive in their turn to that demographic?

Is this what you're on about? Persuasion? — Srap Tasmaner

Do you mean on this whole thread or just in response to @jorndoe? I've written such a lot on this thread, it's hard to keep track of who I've spoken to and who I've not, nor who's read what of the stuff I've written previously.

There is a sliver of the population that is well-educated and has made an informed judgment of the risks; are you interested in convincing them they have overlooked a piece of evidence or made an error in reasoning? Or perhaps in agreeing that their choice is reasonable given their circumstances? — Srap Tasmaner

The latter perhaps more so here.

How would you talk to these folks? — Srap Tasmaner

I don't think I would. They need a preacher or a TV celebrity to do it. Point is probably no-one needs to. We don't need 100% vaccination and there's other countries need the vaccines far more urgently. It's absolutely clear. The developing world has lower than 10% take up, the idea that people (as those I'm disputing with here) are 'fighting the good fight' trying to combat vaccine hesitancy is absurd (hence the accusation of pious flag-waiving). It's pointless and obviously so. Anyone remotely concerned about the progress of the pandemic would immediately direct all their vitriol and twittering at the pharmaceutical companies and governments who are preventing the fair distribution of vaccines, not the idiots who think it hooks them up to China's 5G. But the latter are easier targets.

This is a debating platform, not a blog. If you don't intend to answer any of the issues put to you then there's little point posting.

You assume both to have the same physiology. The raised heartbeat may be same in both cases. But thats about all... — Prishon

I try not to 'assume' when it comes to matters about which some facts can be established.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5390700

What do you mean by this? — Prishon

And for @schopenhauer1, in case further explanation is useful.

When we have an experience, like a surprise party, it causes physiological sensations (retinal and audio stimulation, raised heart rate, digestive changes etc) our brain tries to guess the causes using predictive models based on previous experiences (sometimes from years ago, sometimes from milliseconds ago). So increased heart rate at a surprise party might go "oh, my heart's beating faster, why might that be? I'm at a surprise party, I like those, I expect it's 'excitement'". In other situations the exact same physiological response might be interpreted as 'anxiety' because the circumstances are such that this is what you've learned to call it there.

There's no objective thing 'excitement', or 'anxiety'. They're both socially constructed models of physiological signals.

when they recalled it many years later, it was like a 10.. That would be OB. — schopenhauer1

Just to clarify before this progresses too much further, what you're describing is not Optimism Bias (as in the psychological phenomena). Optimism bias is about expectations, not recollections.

As I've already explained (to the wall it seems), there is no such thing as experience which is not constructed, it simply does not exist. You are comparing two falsely distinguished entities. The experience at the time and the recollection of it later are both constructed in the same way by the same regions of the brain, one has no primacy over the other in any ontological sense.

Don't tell people it's harmless. That's not how you build trust. Tell them the truth. — frank

Yes. But people already know this, don't they? It's not as if it's some new-found complex aspect of human social behaviour.

There's no interest in persuasion here at all, nothing but pious flag-waiving - if people seriously wanted to convince others to vaccinate, they might want to consider carefully presenting the scientific evidence on risk, or addressing the moral arguments on responsibility, rather than chanting like a bunch of football hooligans.

Nah, it ain't. Comment ↑ suggests lack of proportional sense. :eyes: We already know some stuff. — jorndoe

What has knowing 'some stuff' got to do with a claim that the vaccine is harmless and the virus not? Your own citation outlines the very uncertainty I referenced. Your defensiveness betrays your lack of confidence. I wrote a post claiming there's disagreement and you respond by showing that arguments in favour of one side exist. How is that supposed to contradict the proposition that there's disagreement? Obviously, in a disagreement there's going to be two sides, so presenting one of them doesn't tell us anything.

They were conspiracy theorists thinking in terms of mind control or whatever ridiculous nonsense. Now they're dead. :death: RIP. — jorndoe

So still not going to tell me how this differed from motorsports? Both risky, both lead to deaths. Why are motorcyclists entitled to take risks but conspiracy theorists not?

Already spoke to risks. There's no magic :sparkle: spell. Everyone already knows, including WHO.

I call bullshit :point: — jorndoe

Bullshit on what? I gave a direct quote from the associate director of the World Health Organisation which contradicts your article's claim that "mask mandates for vaccinated people are mostly about protecting the unvaccinated". What exactly is bullshit about that?