I cant make the vaccinated ill... — Prishon

That's not true. The vaccines are not 100% effective against infection.

Hatred and contempt bind people closer together than love, indeed. — baker

I was talking about the empathy and compassion that can come form facing adversity together, not hatred and contempt.

But they don't. In fact, the whole idea of covid vaccination is that one can "go back to normal" once vaccinated. — baker

Well, that advice was stupid from the start since it has also always been acknowledged that the vaccines are only about 90% effective. From that it follows that there can be no guarantee that you are not infectious even if vaccinated. That advice is already changing due to the extreme infectiousness of the Delta variant.

As to your road rage example, I haven't said that everyone gets vaccinated on account of altruistic motives, so it's not clear to me what you think you are arguing against there.

You said earlier: "Nah. I doubt anyone in this whole thing really thinks of others. It's just politically correct to say one is doing it "for others". It makes for such good PR." and now you say

I wasn't generalizing human nature. I'm saying that the people who do as described above (from aggressive drivers to employers who have their employees work in unsafe conditions) often happen to be the same people who are enthusiastically in favor of the covid vaccine. — baker

Can you not see that you are contradicting yourself and that the first statement is a generalization about human nature?

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. 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?

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. — Isaac

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? If it is something to be determined as opposed to invented, then why would the fact of the matter not exist today, even though we might not be yet able to determine it?

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? 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. I agree that vaccines are not claim to be sterilizing, so they don't totally prevent infection, but it is the conjecture that the vaccinated will be on average significantly less infected and hence less infectious that seem to me, in the absence of counter-evidence, plausible.

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. — Isaac

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?

You think people change just like that, over night? Because of a pandemic? — baker

It's well known that when people face adversity together it can bring them together. In any case I was taking issue with your generalising human nature by implying that everyone is primarily motivated by self-interest, I wasn't making any claim about people's motivations suddenly changing.

And don't forget that the fully vaccinated are still spreading the disease. In fact, they are superspreaders, given the freedoms they have. — baker

That some vaccinated people, due to breakthrough infection, are spreading covid is undeniable. That they are superspreaders has not been established. That said I think even the vaccinated should be adhering to the normal protocols designed to minimise transmission as long as there is covid in the community.

I hold a view of belief that is completely opposed to any 'one true answer' philosophy. — Isaac

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? And does the answer not seem, on the face of it, more likely to be 'yes' than 'no'?

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. — Isaac

It seems reasonable to think that if someone vaccinated has a breakthrough infection, then they might carry a similar viral load to someone unvaccinated who was comparably ill. But 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. Then if the vaccine is 90% effective in preventing serious illness, you would have about 10% the change of being seriously ill and becoming equally infectious as a seriously ill unvaccinated individual.

I realize this has not been studied comprehensively but this seems plausible enough to my layman reasoning. The other point is that if vaccination makes you less likely to be a vector or a burden on the hospitals, and other strategies also make you less likely to be a vector and a burden on the hospitals then the wise thing to do would be to adopt all stategies, because taken together they will reduce your chances of being infectious and a burden even further.

Sure, but I'm not seeing why suppression of hate speech is not an abuse of power if the suppression of dangerous misinformation is.

Nah. I doubt anyone in this whole thing really thinks of others. It's just politically correct to say one is doing it "for others". It makes for such good PR. — baker

How did you come to be such an authority on the motivations of others?

On this issue I happen to agree. If Trump had moved to work with private companies to censor speech, liberals would have had cried and moaned like the little bitches they are. Yet somehow Biden, who is in every way as shit as Trump, in many way worse, does exactly this, suddenly it's OK. If these morons want a daddy who will tell them what they are allowed to access, they will get one. — StreetlightX

I assume from your posting history that you think hate speech should be banned; if that is right then why do you not apply the same principle to the kinds of baseless claims and disinformation that will likewise cause social and individual harm?

I've met more than a few people that take it for granted that population reduction is something that the super wealthy desire. It has a pleasant intuitive fit like too many people in the boat. Less people, better boat viability. But, to me the amount of disruption caused would be more of a threat than the population itself. They already have access to resources as if people weren't around through their wealth. Their wealth is only significant if it's in demand, so getting rid of people would devalue their assets. Essentially, changing the rules to a game you are already winning. — Cheshire

If all those who are vaxxed were going to die within a couple years, as is claimed to be likely by Dr Peter McCullough and others then it would seem reasonable to think that our whole economic infrastructures and societies would catastrophically collapse. Is it plausible that the financial elites could want this to happen, and plan it? I agree with you in thinking not, not unless they are far more stupid (and powerful) than we give them credit for.

:ok:

No. But desist from making many judgments to begin with.
Obviously, this wil make one unpopular in certain circles where having a lot of definitive opinions is required. But realistically, there are rather few things that one actually needs to have a definitive opinion about. — baker

I don't disagree: I try to avoid making judgements, and having opinions, about as many things as possible. Most of the time when I have an opinion it is the opinion that we are not warranted in having an opinion. But when it comes to a potentially life or death decision such as whether to be vaccinated or not in a pandemic, I think a judgement to form the basis for action is called for. And in such a situation one really has nothing better to go by than the current medical advice.

Because philosophers are known for being such a happy bunch! — baker

Are you claiming that they are known to be an unhappy bunch? Can you cite a list of examples that will make up the majority of philosophers? Or is that just a caricature based on a few notable malcontents?

England with a population of 54,000,000:

Beds occupied by Covid-19 patients currently stand at about 2,500 out of 115,000 beds — Isaac

US with a population of 331,000,000:

Covid occupancy in the US 1,800 out of 13,000 beds — Isaac

So England has almost 10 times as many hospital beds as the US with about one sixth the population? This would mean there is (roughly) 1 bed for every 556 people in England and 1 bed for every 25,460 people in the US. Surely this cannot be right?

But you surely can't be doing more replication of virus per capita, being a highly vaccinated society, than a poor country who has only 2 percent of its population vaccinated. Couple that with the lack of decent medical facilities in poorer countries and I think there's a good argument to sacrifice some of the vaccine stocks in the richer nations to go to the poorer.

I'm no expert but I believe the flu virus continues to mutate and as to the coronavirus I doubt that is predictable. My profile picture is a photoshopped image of the sun with a photoshopped blue spider on it.

Yes, it's just accidental. But that doesn't change the fact that the more infection is spreading the more chance there is of mutant strains arising (which may or not be more virulent of course)
.

Right, well found, I hadn't thought of that.

Why we have to donate? Didn’t say they do not want anything from Spain anymore? Aren’t we supposed to be the bad persons due to conquista?
Spain has not obligations towards Latin America — javi2541997

It.s not only selfish, it's shortsighted. If covid infections run rampant in poorer countries due to lack of vaccine supplies there will be greater chance of mutant strains arising, which then may then go on to spread to the "developed" nations.

Fair enough, but I was not questioning the statement that the NY Times claimed 80%.

Well it seems they may have their figures wrong, at least if they mean fully vaccinated:
https://ourworldindata.org/vaccination-israel-impact

In any case this may be of some interest given the current situation in Israel and the Israeli prime minister's claim that the Pfizer vaccine is only "38% effective" at stopping transmission. The article states that in the trials Pfizer was never tested for its efficacy at preventing transmission whereas AZ was. AZ may turn out to be the better choice after all.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/health/2021-02-05/covid-19-vaccines-do-they-prevent-coronavirus-transmission/13121348

I took issue with fishfry's blanket statement that the vaccines are less than 50% effective. It may turn out to be true of Pfizer, but it doesn't follow that it will apply to other vaccines.

But as I pointed out, your statistical logic is flat out wrong. The vaccines aren't even 50% effective. There are huge numbers of breakthrough cases, so many that the CDC won't even report them. And while the vaccines keep you from getting as sick as you would without them, you are just as contagious. — fishfry

Can you cite the studies or at least actual statistics that substantiate your claims here. You said Israel's population is 80 % vaccinated which is incorrect; it is around 60% fully vaccinated.

A tranistion acnnot be made to solar power quickly enough. It doesn't solve the energy for tranporation problem unless coupled with batteries. By some accounts there are enough known deposits of rare earth metals to produce enough batteries to replace all the internal combustion cars with EVs once. But the batteries don't last that long and the materials are not recyclable as far I am aware. Solar power being usable on the grid scale relies on so-called base load power which can be ramped up and down fast, and the only alternatives for that are gas and nuclear.

Please supply a link to support your claim that we already have a workable fusion reactor.

Yes but fission has its seemingly insurmountable downsides. Although I suppose waste disposal wouldn't be one of them out in space. :wink:

Maybe. Maybe not enough. Tell me where or how my speculations go wrong. — 180 Proof

Yes, if it does, then it will be carryed-out by via fleets of self-replicating Bracewell probes. And fusion-powered, O'Neill / McKendree cylinder, asteroid habitats throughout the solar system (rather than planetary or lunar colonies), some of which also might be deployed as interstellar 'generation ships'. — 180 Proof

Obviously, no one knows what the future will be. You seem to be much more confident that workable fusion will be achieved than I am. I don't deny it's possible. I just see it as being highly unlikely.

If it is achieved then I would say your vision may well be accurate. The elites will always serve themselves. If magically fusion was suddenly able to supply all the cheap energy we need to keep business as usual going on the manufacturing and administration side, that would not solve the problem of the energy needed for transportation. We would need some equally magical new battery technology for that which didn't rely on rare earth minerals.

And even if those problems were solved, and global warming was diminished because of there being no further need for burning fossil fuels, it still wouldn't solve the problems of over-population, soil depletion, collapse of wild habitats and fisheries, depletion of aquifers, species extinctions and so on.

So, as I said, fusion would likely be used to serve the elites, maybe enabling them to live permanently off-world as you suggest (although that seems a stretch) or else they might devise a way to drastically reduce the population. Would it be en ethcial solution (as in not actually killing people but rendering them sterile) as depicted in the British TV series Utopia ?

A lot of talk at the forum centers around issues related to the near future, immediate concerns such as climate change, the application of information technology, political instability, logistical challenges that society faces, but what about the distant future? Will humanity overcome our current phase of transition, graduating to a higher form of civilization, or fall victim to natural disasters and unrest so that we'll have to pick of the pieces and rebound from a major setback comparable to the ancient Greek or Medieval dark age in Europe? Will space travel happen and if so how will it unfold? Can the human population exercise enough self-regulation to sustain progress, and will we have to adopt a new or revised ethical framework to reach long-term technological and organizational goals? What kinds of events will culminate this tumultuous and uncertain era in history, will society stagnate, and where will we be in a hundred or a thousand years? — Enrique

I'll give you the optimistic version: I think we face rapidly increasing energy, food, water and general resource depletion exacerbated by global warming, relentless destruction of soils, habitats,fisheries and species extinction on a scale we haven't see yet. So I see a drastic reduction of population, and collapse of economies, and the whole infrastructure we have become accustomed to before the end of the century as being highly likely.

I don't believe we will achieve any higher form of civilization; I can't even imagine what such a thing would look like. (To my way of thinking the only human cultures that could qualify as "higher civilization" were hunter/ gatherer groups). On the energy issue the only hope for continuing prosperity such as we have enjoyed thanks to the cheap energy that is fossil fuels would be fusion, and I'm not optimistic about that ever becoming a workable reality.

Space travel won't ever happen beyond a few self-indulgent billionaires making spectacles of themselves wasting money and resources that could be put to far better use. If they put their money to those far better uses it would ensure their places in history as helpers of humankind, rather than as selfish wankers. but I don't see the elites changing their tune any time soon or ever.

I think you been reading too much science fiction, man!

Nicely encapsulated: I agree with what you say here.

From our perspective.

To truly imagine a universe with no observer, then you must imagine it from no point of view. Nothing within it is nearer or further, older or newer, closer or further away. Of course, if you realise what that means, then you will realise its impossibility.

That is exactly what we bring to the picture - a perspective, and perspective itself is fundamental. — Wayfarer

The old well-worn "view from nowhere", eh? It's still a view though, no? It just means not privileging any particular perspective. It just isn't true that "Nothing within it is nearer or further, older or newer, closer or further away." The cosmic microwave background is temporally prior to the present state of the cosmos from any possible point of view; you don't have to be located anywhere in particular in time for that to be the case.

Proxima Centauri is closer to Earth than it is to Deneb, no matter what your position in the Universe, so what you claim is simply not correct.

What I (and the majority of medical ethicists) am saying is that the treatment of dissenting views from qualified experts by ordinary citizens (via social media, even forums like this) is detrimental to the resolution of the pandemic. — Isaac

I agree, but given that the non-expert mob mentality will ensure that this is just what will happens, then it would be better to have open forum and debate on contentious issues confined within the fields of study and then the results made public when or if consensus within the community of experts is reached. Governments, if they are sensible enough to follow expert advice will always follow what is perceived by their own political advisers to be the best expert advice, that is what the expert consensus is understood to consist in at any given time. The public take is always uninformed, gratuitously sensationalized and politicized. .

If a sector of the populace rejects the official line in an emergency, this can only serve to undermine the strategies that have been adopted to address the crisis. I don't hold with morally condemning anyone who chooses not to be vaccinated; but they will have to live with the restrictions that will likely be placed on them, not by governments so much as businesses and industries.

In Australia the prime minister is already warning businesses that if they place such restrictions on the unvaccinated they may be subject to litigation. It's going to be interesting to see how this plays out, but I would hazard a guess that the majority of people support the unvaccinated being subject to such restrictions. .

It's not clear this is the case. Ideally, it should be the case, but I don't think it is, or only rarely. It seems that most people who believe experts and authorities in various fields don't even have a concept of "rigorously testing and demonstrating". Instead, their believing the experts and authorities is, essentially, a fallacious argumentum ab auctoritate. — baker

Sure many people simply believe what they read. The point was that people who think for themselves, and are honest enough to realize their own inadequate expertise to make experientially and intellectually informed judgements in specialized fields realize that the best place to put trust is on those whose expertise is demonstrable due to having been rigorously testing during their education and ongoing work in the field. Doesn't mean they are infallible, but expert consensus is the best we have.

You cannot "rigorously and without bias test the purported expertise" of scientists either. You don't have the resources, you don't have the data, you don't have the access, and they sure as hell aren't going to do it for you. — baker

I can't personally do it, obviously. But that is what the peer review system is for. The science community as a whole can be trusted on judgements that they have arrived at a broad consensus on. We can trust them, because within the community of expertise errors should be exposed, at least over time. We should trust the experts, simply because we have nothing else to go on when it comes to making judgements in fields where we have little or no expertise.

What's the alternative? Trust no one?

There's no guarantee that "thinking for yourself" will make you happy and successful either. — baker

Did I ever say it was? Did I say that we all ought to think for ourselves because that will make us happy and successful? All along I've acknowledged that some people don't have the capacity or the desire to think for themselves. They are probably happier and less troubled if they don't.

Such people should keep away from philosophy, because studying that would only lead them to question everything, that is would only lead them to think for themselves; which would make them unhappy if they don't want to do that. On the other hand if someone wants to question everything and think for themselves, they will be obviously happier if they do that, no?

You're taking for granted a measure of uncertainty and human incapacity for knowledge. You could be overstating the case, taking for granted that humans are necessarily thusly incapable. All in all, you are making definite claims about things you yourself admit to not having certainty of. — baker

I am saying that it could never be demonstrated that anyone could know anything absent empirical evidence or logical self-evidence. If someone thinks they directly and certainly know something without any such evidence, how could that ever be demonstrated to be the case, even to themselves? You say it doesn't need to be demonstrated, and of course someone who is 100% convinced that they have such knowledge it doesn't need to be demonstrated, meaning they don't feel in need of any demonstration. Are you saying it is possible that their purported knowledge could be infallible?

Even if it were possible for humans to have infallible knowledge of things without empirical evidence or logical self-evidence, I would still claim that they could not know that they know; they could only feel (possibly) 100% sure that they do, and conviction, no matter how strong can never be be a guarantee of truth.

In any case even if, for the sake of argument, it be granted that it is possible that someone could have infallible knowledge of the true nature of reality, what possible relevance could it have for the rest of us who could have no way of knowing that their knowledge is infallible?

If, instead of being honest about the safety, the public are told it's 100% safe and anyone suggesting otherwise is a lunatic, a large minority are just going to find that super suspicious. — Isaac

Except the public has never been told it's 100% safe. It has always been acknowledged that there are adverse reactions and a small number of deaths.There is an official consensus assessment of the efficacy and safety of the vaccines, based on case numbers for the former and reported adverse reactions and deaths for the latter, and anyone disagreeing with that must be using a different set of statistics or else indulging in speculation about theoretical possibilities.

So, there really is nothing to debate, is there?

I suspect that the first music made by early humans was improv. — Tom Storm

You know what? You just might be right! :up:

I was also thinking of the great composers, Bach Mozart, Beethoven, Chopin, Liszt who were reputed to be amazingly skilled extemporizers. I have read that many pieces had a supplementary "movement" between or within the scripted movements called a cadenza, where the solo performer would improvize on harmonic themes from the other movements.

But one of the books on my 'must get around to reading' list is Zen and the Art of Postmodern Philosophy, Carl Olsen. — Wayfarer

Sounds interesting; I might check that one out myself...but I already have too much to read.

The inventive harmonies in Jazz also have their roots in 19th century classical music and even earlier like late Beethoven, though, not in blues.

improvisation in music, — Wayfarer

Was around long, long before the 20th century, so not paradigmatic movement of the 20th C. Jazz maybe.

Relevant qualification, publication in a respected peer reviewed journal, and lack of obvious conflict of interest. Does that seem complicated to you, it seems quite obvious and simple to me - what am I missing? — Isaac

Depends on what you mean by "conflict of interest".

All the data so far seem show the vaccines to be safe and effective for the most part. Long term issues are merely theoretical possibilities, no one knows just what will happen, but the consensus is that there is no good reason to think there will be widespread long term issues with the vaccines. There would be no point at this stage to have a public debate about that anyway, just because there is no long term data. How do you think the public would react if public debates about the merely conjectured future safety of the vaccines were played out? There should be clear determinations, tabulations and accounts of the actual presently evidenced level of risk of injury and death from adverse effects of the vaccines versus presently evidenced risk of injury and death from the virus for the various demographics; I'll agree to that much.

If dissenting voices are to be suppressed, they should be suppressed on the basis of good science, not on the basis of their agreement with institutions, especially government ones. — Isaac

Certainly. How is what constitutes good science to be assessed by the layperson, though, if not by using the majority consensus as the yardstick in any field?

The majority consensus seems to be that the vaccines are for the most part safe and effective. It is understandable that governments and authorities operate on the assumption that, in an emergency situation, public debate with dissenters from this consensus, would only confuse the populace and lead to an increase in "vaccine hesitancy", which could only worsen the situation. Some small risk is acknowledged but people are being asked to accept that personal risk for the sake of the common good. Given the situation; given the damage extended lock-downs will inevitably do to economies, with the increased suffering, illness and death that would inevitably entail, it does not seem to be an unreasonable request..