I'm not changing any argument. — James Riley

The argument you made was...

They are utterly worthless as to be deserving of nothing but to be kicked to the street because that was their choice. So, when it turns out they were wrong, they want to come, on bended knee, to the very system they failed to trust, because they did some penny anti BS research in search of conformation bias, and then found it? Tough. — James Riley

Since you've now admitted that it being their choice is irrelevant we can assume you've relented.

Some people won't vax because they don't trust the gubmn't. Those same people say the vax is not FDA approved. The FDA is part of the gubmn't. So they should have the courtesy of not making that argument. — James Riley

So?

Some people won't vax because the vax is not FDA approved. However, they go to the hospital and are treated by several different drugs that are not FDA approved. Should not the Doctors refuse giving such drugs to people who don't want them? — James Riley

Yes.

Some people don't trust doctors. Yet they go to doctors when they get sick. — James Riley

Sounds daft to me.

Not sure what any of these examples have to do with me.

The point here is this, in answer to your argument: — James Riley

What argument is that? I haven't given any argument regarding the people you mentioned above. You've given three reasons why people might not take a vaccine and then assumed that's a counter-argument to anyone not taking the vaccine. Was three your limit? Did you have trouble thinking of more?

Here's another distinction: Tobacco, fast food and what not, all have corporations selling their product to people who want to buy it. No one, to my knowledge, wants covid and no one is selling covid on the market. — James Riley

What the fuck has marketing got to do with reasonable risk?

when society decides to assume a risk (end prohibition, for example) because people demand it, then that is a conscious decision to assume risk. Society has not decided to assume the risk of Covid. — James Riley

So you're saying we're morally obliged to take only the risks that have been approved by society? Harsh, but consistent at least. Bullshit though.

I already explained to that I (and most definitely you) are not capable of understanding what is in those papers or journals. But we are capable of seeing who says distance/mask/vax and who says don't. — James Riley

"Distance/mask/vax" are policies. No scientific paper could ever produce a policy, they produce OR values, or plausible mechanisms, depending on the objective. Policies are something politicians decide, based on their values and objectives.

I have not seen you quote a single name. — James Riley

I've given more than thirty citations in this thread alone, probably more in the other Coronavirus thread. I'd be very surprised if anyone here has cited more papers than I have on this subject.

If any of those articles are saying "don't distance, don't mask and don't vax," then their respective professions are complete failures in taking down charletons like Fauci. — James Riley

That's why I asked you 'exactly' what you think Fauci is saying.

Are you saying the medical profession is allowing Fauci to endanger people's health? — James Riley

Yes. That is the opinion of experts, including the official opinion of the World Health Organisation.

Show me where the names you cite are jockying to advise government, be in Fauci's position, and he should be in the street. — James Riley

Why would they have to be wanting Fauci's job, what's that got to do with anything?

the vaccine is harmless, the virus ain't — jorndoe

What a ridiculous thing to say. There's not a scientists in the world you could get to back up that statement. There's just been a massive disagreement about whether the risk/benefit is even positive for the under 25s, most still disagree it is for the under 12s.

The father and son could have lived on to be stupid another day, but chose (the "rush" of) drowning in their own blood. (Worth it? Not according to their family.) — jorndoe

No, they chose to try and do without prophylactic medicine. I asked you why that was any different to motorsports. I'm sure the families of any who die from anything are distraught, life contains risks, some of which we deliberately choose to take. Deciding that some people are sub-humanly stupid for choosing one particular risk is ridiculous.

The deniers are fertile ground for the virus to "live on", spread mutate kill — jorndoe

Your article conflicts with WHO advice

People cannot feel safe just because they had two doses, they still need to protect themselves. — Mariângela Batista Galvão Simão, WHO assistant director general

...it's almost as if scientists are not one mono-vocal legion...surely there couldn't be some complexity and disagreement could there?

Placing myself at risk is one thing. Placing others at risk is another. — James Riley

Yep. Nothing whatsoever to do with the argument you were attempting though, which was that someone who took a risk to their health that they had been previously warned about by some institution should not then seek help from that institution.

If you want to change that argument to "someone who puts other in a position some institution considers a risk, ought not seek aid from that institution if they get ill", then you'd need some new argument as to why. But let's say, for the sake of argument you have such an argument. The same would apply to fast food outlets, gun shops, tobacconists, car rental firms, ski resorts, diving schools...

Let me try again by telling you exactly what I just got done telling you: I know exactly what the experts are saying: Distance, Mask, Vax. — James Riley

That is about as far from 'exactly' as it can get. Three words. There's been over two hundred papers on the subject in the main journals alone, and you think three words sums up 'exactly' what they're all saying? Seriously?

You, Isaac, are not qualified to challenge Doctor Fauci on the merits of any discussion related to Covid. Likewise all the people that you listen to. — James Riley

The people I've quoted in this thread are all as or more qualified than Dr Fauci, every single one. If you disagree, pick one of my citations and point out the error.

If and when a smart person who knows as much as him denounces his recommendations, you can bet we will hear about it. — James Riley

We have heard about it. The articles I've cited are published in peer reviewed journals, the main one being the BMJ (but only because I happen to get a copy, other journals publish similar articles), one of the world's leading medical journals.

Yes, I agree it certainly doesn't seem clear for people in that age group. — Janus

And yet with potential vaccine passports and restrictions on travel and social venues linked to vaccination status, plus the clear media representation of the unvaccinated as little more than scum, it seems unlikely that this already criminally underrepresented group are going to have any true freedom to make a decision in their own best interests.

Fortunately the risks both ways are quite small, but any further erosion of the rights of children over their own bodies would, I think, be kicking the already beaten.

Some people like riding fast bikes, some people like being free of prophylactic medication. Have you some argument as to why one is a reasonable preference and the other not?

someone, anyone, is more likely to be more infectious if vaccinated than if they are not vaccinated, and less likely to be hospitalized if vaccinated than if not. I don't know the answer to that specific question even though I think the answer to the general question seems pretty clear. — Janus

I agree for adults (to the 'general' question), but the evidence is not anywhere near so clear for children. There's been strong disagreement among the scientific community as to whether the risk/benefit is in favour of vaccinating the under 17s.

Not from Prishon, no. — Banno

It was not Prishon to whom you limited your judgement.

I was only saying that it seems plausible to think the vaccinated in general would be less infectious than the unvaccinated in general. — Janus

Indeed. Only, 'in general' doesn't apply to the moral argument. An individual need not consider their own actions as if they knew nothing of their circumstances.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/motorsport/48297727

Yeah, same with motorsports...

You might not be aware that my comments were on a novel thread created by Prishon, which caught my attention and to which I posted prior to it's being merged here. — Banno

I wasn't aware of that, no. But as you were aware, it may have behoved you to make a more reasonable assessment of the general tenor of vaccine-hesitant posts before judging the entire position... If you've posted to this (new) thread before then presumably you'll have been aware of reasonable, cited, arguments derived from experts in their field?

Yes, the result is interesting. Have you an explanation? — Banno

Yes, but I don't think that's relevant, I'd be just speculating.

The point is already made - you scanning a few posts is clearly sufficient for you to draw the conclusion that recalcitrants are not "clever, well-informed, articulate folk" yet a massive, peer-reviewed, study conducted by experts on the matter apparently is insufficient as yet to draw any substantive conclusions...

The simple fact is that your 'what we've learned' has been demonstrably shown wrong, to at least the same standard of evidence used to draw the first conclusion, if not substantially better.

And?

...until then we just assume whatever explanation suits our narrative?

...what are we learning 'bout the recalcitrants, folks?

What clever, well-informed, articulate folk they be. — Banno

The majority of vaccine hesitancy is among those educated to PhD level.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.20.21260795v1.full-text

Until this latest freakshow turned up there was a well informed, properly cited and intelligent debate which drew zero response from you.

I think you stretched that factor all out of shape. I brought it up just to show that many cultures have allowed citizens to suffer hunger. On what principle do we say they're wrong? — frank

The principles I just laid out. Either reward is related to work or it isn't. If it is, then we'd not have a problem because the gap between rich and poor would be impossible (no one can work a billion times harder than another), if it's not, then why shouldn't the lazy get rewards (benefits), we've no grounds to deny them because reward is unrelated to work.

It's not super apparent to me why it should work this way. Can't people litigate to receive compensation when they're victimized? — frank

For a start, litigation is controlled by law which is in turn controlled by the state, so their ability to do so is already a state response. Secondly, litigation has a cost barrier so it's not an available recourse to everyone - the state would, in effect, be providing recourse to the wealthy but not the poor.

Can't a govt agency like OSHA guarantee their safety? — frank

From all health harms? It could, I suppose, but it'd have to have laws against bad diet, lack of recreational facilities, taxation and investment in aspects of the food and drug industries, negotiations at world summits and trade deals... It'd quite the remit if it were to cover every way a government policy might harm the health of it's populace. Likewise with litigation really. Which industry/car owner would one sue for one's lung problems resulting from urban air pollution?

Those people you reference don't exist. — James Riley

What an unusual claim. Carrying on though...

when it turns out they were wrong, they want to come, on bended knee, to the very system they failed to trust — James Riley

So do you not do anything the medical system has told you is a risk? Never smoke, drink, eat red meat, exercise too little, get stressed, skip the veggies, engage in sports, ski, drive, breathe city air, travel...

what kind of society raises people who think they can listen to a charlatan and somehow know better? — James Riley

You've just got finished telling us you don't know what the experts are actually saying, nor do you know what the dissenters are actually saying. You said you trusted the institutions of your government. So this has nothing to do with charlatanism - you're not in a position to judge that. This has to do with choices about who to trust, that's the only thing you personally have any knowledge about. You trust the institutions of your government and what you perceive to be the consensus of scientists. Others don't. That's all you can judge on, because that's all you're qualified to know about the situation.

Those who chose differently, yes, I would expect them to kick me to the street. After all, that is the kind of people they are.
But I would NEVER, not in a million years, go to them for treatment. — James Riley

As above - do you never engage in any activity the healthcare system has told you is a risk to your health?

I wasn't suggesting that unvaccinated people should be accused, much less convicted, of actually infecting people, so I'm not seeing your analogy here. — Janus

Oh I wasn't suggesting you did, I'm sorry if I wasn't clear enough. It was related to you point about it being more likely than not the the vaccinated have lower transmission rates. I only brought it up because I thought you might be interested in, or have an opinion on, the related ethical dilemma.

Is it not the case that people may be confined if they are judged to be mentally by professionals ill in a way and to a degree that makes it seem likely to the psychologist(s) that makes the judgement and commit them to an institution that they will be a danger to themselves or others? — Janus

Yes, but only if that can be shown beyond reasonable doubt. That was the point, it's not usually sufficient that it be only more likely than not that medication will prevent harm.

Neither affect the viral load outside the bloodstream, in the nasal mucosa, for example, which, as I cited earlier, carries a significant proportion of the transmitted virus particles. — Isaac


Do you have references for this claim? — Janus

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33320052/

The information I have been able to find on the issue of viral load suggests that the more infected you are the more virus you will be shedding. — Janus

Same here.

the vaccinated will be on average significantly less infected and hence less infectious — Janus

Less infected and infectious than whom? Less infected and infectious than the unvaccinated in general? Yes. Less infected and infectious than a healthy young adult? What reason have we to assume that? Both the vaccinated and the healthy immune system are doing the same job - quickly clearing the virus. We'd need to see that the vaccine cleared it more quickly, on average, over the time between doses/boosters. No such study has been done, to my knowledge.

OK, but you haven't addressed the point as to why one should not adopt all the strategies that work, because together they will be even more efficacious than any single strategy. You are offering other strategies as alternatives to vaccination, why should they not be adjuncts? — Janus

Because one is usually held to have satisfied one's moral duty at a reasonable point. It's not normal to expect one to do absolutely everything in one's power to protect others from harm. Think about your actions which put others at risk of harm - driving, sports, consumer choices, polluting activities... is it not generally held sufficient that you take steps to reduce the harm these cause, rather than expend every effort until such harms are eliminated? We have to have a concept of reasonable risk, otherwise society would grind to a halt.

Are you saying that there might some day be a true answer to the question as to whether vaccination reduces viral transmission, but that there is no fact of the matter today because we are not able to determine it? — Janus

No, I'm saying that the proposition "vaccination reduces viral transmission" is already constructed, it's a human social construction - the terms, the grammar, the logical structure... If we apply the word 'truth' to such constructions (and it seems we do) then it is already overdetermined, the proposition itself is already constructed of theories. What we'll one day find is something we're (mostly) happy to apply the word 'true' to.

I'm following those who I trust to have followed the evidence. — James Riley

Good. I wouldn't have any reason to want you to do otherwise. But here (again), we're not discussing how you reached your decision since no-one has raised the least concern about it. We're discussing your seething hatred of those who didn't use your method for deciding, those who, perhaps, did not trust those institutions, who instead, did read the journals, found enough evidence there to support an alternative position. I'm asking you about your ground for thinking those people so utterly worthless as to be deserving of nothing but to be kicked to the street to die.

As I asked you before, if your decision, your chosen method of dealing with your lack of expertise, leads to injury, do you expect to be kicked to the street by those who chose differently?

The details are these, read my words (watch my lips): Distance, mask, vax. — James Riley

In what scientific peer-reviewed journal is the conclusion that everyone ought to distance, mask, vax reached? What methodology would such an experiment even employ?

If you want more, go to school, get an advanced degree in the area and engage your peers. — James Riley

I already have. It's your position I'm interested in here, not theirs.

I judge because you are not just (possibly) hurting yourself, but you are (possibly) hurting others. And the weight of the professional opinion is on my side. — James Riley

But you've now three times failed to provide the details of what that 'weight of professional opinion' actually says on the matter. So how do you know it's on your side?

Risk yourself. And, at the very least, if you do get sick, for crying out loud, don't go to the fucking doctor. — James Riley

So if you get sick as a result of any of your choices, do you avoid going to the doctor?

I am aware of the science says take the vaccine. There may very well be some scientists who disagree. But my doctor took it and he advises me to take it and all the dissent I see is on Faux News with no peers. — James Riley

That's not the issue here. Your decision to take the vaccine is not in question. Your response to those who decided otherwise is.

Why would you judge others on the basis of your own unqualified and self-admittedly incomplete assessment of the dissenting scientific opinion? If you don't know (and admit you don't know), then on what grounds the vitriolic judgement?

That's my point. I don' know. — James Riley

But you said...

Had you some good science behind you, then you would not take it to the public. You'd take it to your peers. There would be legitimate, peer-reviewed dissent. — James Riley

...How do you know there is no such dissent if you don't even what the view is there'd be dissent against?

There would be legitimate, peer-reviewed dissent. — James Riley

Dissent to what? What exactly is the view you think the peer-reviewed science supports?

To the actual question, which I realise I didn't address...poor health is, as we've discussed, difficult to discern the cause of, but without doubt it is at least contributed to by the consequences of government policy (anything from investing in a factory to taxing sports equipment) so it seems only fair that same institution pay for the health impact of those consequences.

The problem, as ever, is distinguishing the extent to which the massively obese smoker is responsible for their own diabetes from the extent to which poverty, fast food, recreational facilities, and advertising are.

Sorry to say that the broad (and boring) answer is still some balance exactly of the sort we already do. The question for policy, I think, is the extent to which the government's responsibility should be exercised by investing in prevention rather than cures. But that question is adequately answered by capitalism. Cures are more profitable.

Is it moral to refuse to participate in a mass social delusion, if said delusion can have at least short-term good effects for society at large and for the individual as well? — baker

I think so, yes. I don't think much morality has ever been based on short-term gains, I mean, Epicureanism suffices for that. Morality, typically, has been about encouraging people to do that for which the immediate benefits are not readily apparent. Seems a bit redundant if the gains are all obvious.

Indeed. Morally reprehensible, but such are the downsides of democracy which we accept for lack of better alternative.

He who does not work, neither shall he eat — frank

The problem here is a definition of 'work'. Is getting out of bed sufficient? It's certainly some work. To supply benefits in any way to those who 'work', you have to relate work to reward, but work is not related to reward - the super rich don't work (by any reasonable measure) 10 billion times harder than the poor. Reward is (in our society) related only to your ability to secure that reward by any legal means. One of those means might be to lobby governments, protest, vote..etc until one has a government which pays for one's every need without one even having to get out of bed. All legal, so on what grounds could we deny the reward gained from doing so (or from one's ancestors having done so - as with inherited wealth)?

Another issue which cropped up in a discussion I had with colleagues yesterday regarding the possibility of mandatory vaccines, slightly related to the issue you raised here.

In mandated court psychological treatment, there has to be a clear benefit to the public interest. The defendant's mental health issue doesn't have to be proven beyond reasonable doubt, it's sufficient that they have such a condition on the balance of probabilities alone - but the benefit to society (ie that they actually committed the crime we're trying to stop them from doing again) does have to be shown beyond reasonable doubt.

We could not, for example force people to take carbamazepine on just a balance of probabilities that their aggression would otherwise be harmful to society.

So, is it sufficient to show that a person is more likely than not to harm others by avoiding vaccination, or do we require it to be shown beyond reasonable doubt. If not, are we going wrong in assuming such a high threshold of proof for other court mandated medicines such as psychological drugs? Would we be happy to have every impulsive aggressive forced to take carbamazepine on the balance of probabilities that it will reduce the harm they'd otherwise probably cause?

When there is a social stampede, it is one's moral obligation to run with it, even if one sees that the stampede is heading toward a cliff ... — baker

An unusual position...

I can see how that applies to philosophy, but do you think it applies to science? I mean would there not be "one true answer" to the question:'does vaccination reduce viral transmission?' even if we might not presently know just what that answer is? — Janus

Rather off topic, but as far as I can see, 'truth' is a human term which can only be understood of propositions already conceptualised (and so constructed). If there's one external state of affairs which cause our perceptions (which I believe there is), it's not this to which we refer when we use the word 'truth', it propositions constructed internally.

The data here overdetermines the theory (the same data fails to falsify more than one theory), so... more than one 'truth'. Some things, of course, are false, and maybe one day 'does vaccination reduce viral transmission?' will be something to which a false answer might be possible, but I don't think that's today.

if vaccines are say 70% effective at preventing infection then you would have only 3 chances in 10 or about 30% the chance of being infected than a vaccinated person does. — Janus

Vaccines don't prevent you from being infected, nor from carrying the virus, they help you to clear the virus and so limit the chances of needing hospital care. The theorised reduction in transmission is because the viral load should be lower (on average) in the vaccinated because of this speedier clearance. Neither affect the viral load outside the bloodstream, in the nasal mucosa, for example, which, as I cited earlier, carries a significant proportion of the transmitted virus particles.

The point is, that as the current evidence stands there no reason to assume vaccination reduces viral load to any greater degree than a healthy immune system does (only the average immune system of the study's cohort), and there's no reason (no medical mechanism even) to assume it has any effect on the most transmissible viral load in the nasal mucosa. Hence the ambiguity about transmission.

The studies that are needed would be cohort studies against health groups already known to respond differently to the virus (the young, the fit...). To my knowledge, these have not been done. Certainly the PHE study the CDC are using for their transmissibility claims doesn't, as the authors themselves admit - (not that this makes the CDC wrong, they never claimed it reduces transmission in all cases).

As has been a theme here, it's a very good public policy bet that mass vaccination will reduce transmission. This doesn't translate into a moral claim that one ought to get vaccinated because an individual has other options which (as current evidence stands) are equally efficacious given known factors of their personal circumstances.

So, in order to maintain your position you have to argue the prefix -anti (in this novel case) does not imply opposition, but merely the capability for balanced inquiry. — Cheshire

No. My 'position' has nothing to do with the term 'anti-vaccine', it just happens to have arisen in a thread of that title (threads are like that sometimes) and then you asked me about the term. Gods! Who's arguing for arguing's sake now?

I can doubt a vaccine, am I an antivaxxer? — Cheshire

As I said. It's a term I've heard applied in those cases, yes. I think the thread would have been a lot shorter and considerably less interesting if it had only asked "are anti-vaxxers right?", meaning only those lunatic conspiracy theorists. "No, obviously". Next thread... "Do flat earthers have point...?" Is that seriously what you thought we were discussing?

What defines the set? — Cheshire

Language users I suppose. I've heard some of the academics I've cited called anti-vaxxers. If you want to talk only about some particular homogeneous group then the conversation might be different, but that's not the terms in which I first engaged.

No, the hypocrisy is in doing the very thing you criticize. — frank

I didn't criticise it. You and I have surely crossed swords sufficiently often for you to know that I hold a view of belief that is completely opposed to any 'one true answer' philosophy.

Double post

Do you see why you appear hypocritical here? — frank

We're all somewhat guilty of seeking data to support pet theories, yes. The difference here is that I'm not trying to tell you that your strategy is wrong. It's well supported. If you think vaccination reduces transmission in all cases you'd be quite justified in thinking that. I don't agree, and am also quite justified in doing so. The evidence is sufficiently imprecise to support a difference of opinion. The hypocrisy is in thinking I'm the only one susceptible to it. Remember ,we're not discussing public policy here, where it's sometimes necessary to pick an option despite uncertain science. We're talking about moral justification, the threshold here being only for sufficient justification

Antivaccination as it's understood would not consider vaccination a good public policy. — Cheshire

I don't think anti-vaccination as a sentiment is that homogeneous.

Are you disagreeing with my claim about what the studies covered? You know how science works right? If you want to test for something you must measure that thing, it's no good testing something else on the same topic and then fudging your conclusions to cover. The limitations of the PHE study are listed by the study authors, they're not 'spitballs', and CDC policy refers directly to the PHE study.

So what ought I conclude and why?

I presume you think I should read a study which demonstrates a moderate reduction in transmissibility between vaccination and non-vaccination and conclude, in spite of the the limitations cited by the study's own authors, that this means vaccines always reduce transmission when compared to absolutely anything. What I can't for the life of me understand is why you would want me to do that.

Are we trying to find out what actually is the case, or are we just looking for the least crumb of data to support the current policy?

Based on this analysis what should everyone do? — Cheshire

One of the strategies which evidence shows absolves both those duties. There needn't be a single answer.

Are the resources available to make a risk/benefit analysis on an individual basis prior to being over taken by the pandemic- read defeating our own purpose in creating a vaccine? — Cheshire

No, but we can do so by broad cohort. It's a normal part of the safety and efficacy checking. People (by which I mean experts in the field) disagree as to the results. I don't see what the urgency has to do with it. Urgency only advocates that we do something, quick. It doesn't alone advocate any particular thing.

You're more likely to be a vector if you don't get vaccinated, so there's that. Don't ask for citation. You should have already read the findings on that. — frank

I don't believe that's the case. There's been less than a handful of studies on transmission, none, to my knowledge, have compared vaccination to other hygiene measures, only to non-vaccination with undifferentiated other actions. One, the PHE study, had a proxy differentiation by age group, but lacked pillar I data so couldn't give a full picture. I think the evidence is quite compelling that vaccination lowers transmission on average and so is a good public policy, but we're questioning moral duty here, not public policy. The two are different and operate under different assumptions.

Edit - unless you think there's a moral obligation to follow public policy? I'd be interested to hear that argument if so.

The thread. What's the take away? — Cheshire

Gosh. It's been quite long...

The question seemed to be about whether anti-vaccination sentiment was right. Anti-vaccination sentiment is not homogeneous. As has been cited, the most prevalent education level who are anti-(this)vaccine are PhD educated. Do you imagine there's been an outbreak of professors suddenly believing in lizardmen, or is it more likely that there's some technical merit to the opposition?

So, the simple answer to the thread is - some of it is, and some of it isn't. It's not a plot by Bill Gates, it's not got Chinese nano-bots in it, it's not going to kill more than it saves... But also it's not a panacea, the risk/benefit assessment is not positive for everyone, distribution is complex, and the economics of using profit-making private enterprises interferes with policy...

The question of moral obligation arose. I think the only possible moral imperatives that could be relevant are reducing the extent to which one is a burden on one's healthcare system, and reducing the risk of transferring the virus to another. The former, as I've shown, can be achieved with greater efficacy by making healthier lifestyle choices. The latter can be achieved with about equal efficacy (as far as we currently know) by taking non-pharmaceutical hygiene measures. So, since a person has options as to how they might meet their moral obligations other than by vaccination, I don't see any moral imperative to get vaccinated. I do see a moral imperative to do something to absolve both those duties, but it's not yet demonstrated that that something has to be vaccination.