Vaccine effectiveness and Herd Immunity

[R Cameron]

What exactly is it that everyone sees? How am supposed to know what the deal is if nobody wants to tell me?

HappyMan already did a fine job telling you: Post #106

 

[Hawk256]

HappyMan already did a fine job telling you: Post #106

So you don't like my opinion? Post 106 sounds more like a personal attack than a commentary on the topic and not very clear one at that but to each his own. I guess it's easier to attack someone than attack the argument.

 

[R Cameron]

@Hawk256 Have you even clearly stated your opinion? You seem to just be posting questions that everyone else has answered dismissively and moved on from. Yes, we are all fine with a few thousand vaccine deaths* to save a few million Covid deaths. No one has an appetite to discuss it any further, especially with your 'discussion' tactics of citing irrelevant data and absurd hypotheticals.


*actual number likely far fewer than thousands

 

[Hawk256]

@Hawk256 Have you even clearly stated your opinion? You seem to just be posting questions that everyone else has answered dismissively and moved on from. Yes, we are all fine with a few thousand vaccine deaths* to save a few million Covid deaths. No one has an appetite to discuss it any further, especially with your 'discussion' tactics of citing irrelevant data and absurd hypotheticals.


*actual number likely far fewer than thousands

Yes, I have clearly stated my opinion. Read the thread and you can see it multiple times. I only respond to people that respond to me. If you don't like the question don't answer. Good, you are fine with a few thousand deaths ( I never said you were wrong) Like I said I only respond to people that respond to me, if you don't want to discuss it then don't. As far as I know, no one has forced you to read my posts or respond to them. It's fine that you don't want to entertain other ideas or ask yourself a few hypothetical questions to learn more about yourself or possibly others. No one is forcing you to do that either.

 

[HappyMan]

Yes, I have clearly stated my opinion. Read the thread and you can see it multiple times. I only respond to people that respond to me. If you don't like the question don't answer. Good, you are fine with a few thousand deaths ( I never said you were wrong) Like I said I only respond to people that respond to me, if you don't want to discuss it then don't. As far as I know, no one has forced you to read my posts or respond to them. It's fine that you don't want to entertain other ideas or ask yourself a few hypothetical questions to learn more about yourself or possibly others. No one is forcing you to do that either.

Everyone who has responded to you did take the 30 seconds necessary to run through your hypotheticals and entertain your ideas. Your questions have been answered, repeatedly.

Look at how much effort people in this thread put into explaining why you are trying to use VAERS incorrectly. There are probably 15-20 good paragraphs on that topic. Your response was to continue suggesting we use it and mild disappointment that we won't play along. The amount of effort that they put into the conversation was a lot more than what you did. That is frustrating for the writers, I imagine, to go through that effort and have you dismiss it. I know it is frustrating to read. It just feels like you are trying to waste our time.

Ask some different questions, man.

 

[William King]

Just asking questions (also known as JAQing off) is a way of attempting to make wild accusations acceptable (and hopefully not legally actionable) by framing them as questions rather than statements. It shifts the burden of proof to one's opponent; rather than laboriously having to prove that all politicians are reptoid scum, one can pull out one single odd piece of evidence and force the opponent to explain why the evidence is wrong.

The tactic is closely related to loaded questions or leading questions (which are usually employed when using it), Gish Gallops (when asking a huge number of rapid-fire questions without regard for the answers) and Argumentum ad nauseam (when asking the same question over and over in an attempt to overwhelm refutations).

It should be noted that accusing one's opponent of "just asking questions" is a common derailment tactic and a way of poisoning the well. Asking questions in and of itself is not invalid.

The subjective nature of this charge, and its consequent ripeness for abuse, means that deploying it can be a very inflammatory move. One side may put forward the accusation that the other side is cynically "just asking questions" and believe that they are acting in good faith, and the other side may equally strongly believe that they were asking genuine questions in good faith and the first person is the one acting in bad faith.

Just asking questions

Just asking questions (also known as JAQing off, or as emojis: "🤔🤔🤔"[1]) is a way of attempting to make wild accusations acceptable (and hopefully not legally actionable) by framing them as questions rather than statements. It shifts the burden of proof to one's opponent; rather than laboriously...

rationalwiki.org

 

[Hawk256]

Ask some different questions, man.

I asked the question one time and responded to the multiple people who responded to me. I also accepted the fact that the VAERS was unacceptable and I don't remember arguing against that. I'm sorry that you feel like I am not putting in enough effort or wasting your time. No body has to read my posts or respond. That is up to you. Also, I have never made an attack on someone even remotely personal although it has been done to me numerous times (not only in this thread but others as well). I have no agenda and I assure you that I act in good faith regardless of others opinion. Not every one will agree with your opinion, right or wrong. No need to be nasty about it just because someone isn't falling in line with you.

 

[HappyMan]

I asked the question one time and responded to the multiple people who responded to me. I also accepted the fact that the VAERS was unacceptable and I don't remember arguing against that. I'm sorry that you feel like I am not putting in enough effort or wasting your time. No body has to read my posts or respond. That is up to you. Also, I have never made an attack on someone even remotely personal although it has been done to me numerous times (not only in this thread but others as well). I have no agenda and I assure you that I act in good faith regardless of others opinion. Not every one will agree with your opinion, right or wrong. No need to be nasty about it just because someone isn't falling in line with you.

If we get back to the main topic, what do you actually have to say about vaccines, their adverse reactions, and the necessity of vaccinating every person who does not a have a contraindicated condition?

I think quite a few of us take the vaccine topic very seriously (I know that I do). Vaccine hesitancy is causing deaths daily in the US. So, when I think that someone is putting out bad information on this forum regarding vaccines, I feel compelled to respond.

Ideally, when you have a disagreement with someone regarding an objective matter, you present the evidence and weigh it and are able to reach a conclusion based on that evidence. This is an objective matter. Vaccine efficacy and thier place as the most effective method of saving lives are proven. We don't need to come up with some subjective form of compromise or agree to disagree when the cost of vaccine hesitancy is counted in lives.

I get my "opinions" from the highest level medical professionals I can find. Suggesting that anyone should do otherwise is... I don't how to finish that sentence without attacking you.

 

[Hawk256]

If we get back to the main topic, what do you actually have to say about vaccines, their adverse reactions, and the necessity of vaccinating every person who does not a have a contraindicated condition?

I think quite a few of us take the vaccine topic very seriously (I know that I do). Vaccine hesitancy is causing deaths daily in the US. So, when I think that someone is putting out bad information on this forum regarding vaccines, I feel compelled to respond.

Ideally, when you have a disagreement with someone regarding an objective matter, you present the evidence and weigh it and are able to reach a conclusion based on that evidence. This is an objective matter. Vaccine efficacy and thier place as the most effective method of saving lives are proven. We don't need to come up with some subjective form of compromise or agree to disagree when the cost of vaccine hesitancy is counted in lives.

I get my "opinions" from the highest level medical professionals I can find. Suggesting that anyone should do otherwise is... I don't how to finish that sentence without attacking you.

I have said this before but it may be buried in the thread by now. I feel that vaccines are generally safe based on the information we have. Maybe some more than others. The Sinovac being made the old way gives it benefits in my opinion. We don't know the long term effects if there are any and we really can't definitively say one way or another at this point. Vaccines have side effects some mild, some dangerous and some deadly and getting the vaccine doesn't always guarantee that you won't get infected. If you want the vaccine then bay all means take it. If you don't want the vaccine then that should be your right. You shouldn't be bullied, coerced or shamed into doing something you don't want to do. I have been vaccinated by Sinovac even though I have an immunodisorder and refused the AZ for what it's worth. What do we with the ones that refuse the vaccine altogether? Should they be vaccinated against their will? Are those questions OK to ask?

 

[HappyMan]

I have said this before but it may be buried in the thread by now. I feel that vaccines are generally safe based on the information we have. Maybe some more than others. The Sinovac being made the old way gives it benefits in my opinion. We don't know the long term effects if there are any and we really can't definitively say one way or another at this point. Vaccines have side effects some mild, some dangerous and some deadly and getting the vaccine doesn't always guarantee that you won't get infected. If you want the vaccine then bay all means take it. If you don't want the vaccine then that should be your right. You shouldn't be bullied, coerced or shamed into doing something you don't want to do. I have been vaccinated by Sinovac even though I have an immunodisorder and refused the AZ for what it's worth. What do we with the ones that refuse the vaccine altogether? Should they be vaccinated against their will? Are those questions OK to ask?

I'd posit that bullying, coercing, and shaming people into doing what is best for society as a whole is a pretty large portion of what the government does. Taxes, traffic laws, just about any sort of regulation on industry, even the little laws that prevent me from visiting a church stark naked are all examples of some sort of government coercion (ideally) for the sake of society.

There are limits to how much I'll tolerate the gov's fat little fingers in my personal pies, but protecting me from my neighbors' willful negligence (and them from mine) seems like fair game to me. The fact is that the vaccines reduce infection rates, which means that my neighbor being vaccinated reduces the chances that he will become infected and then cause me to suffer a breakthrough case. It's no more of a stretch to say that his unwillingness to get vaccinated endangers others than it is to say that his driving above the speed limit endangers others.

There is doubtless an edge case, where you have a whole community of anti-vaxxers living together and only endangering themselves, and that is fine with me, if they want to isolate themselves so that they pose no danger to the rest of us. But, if they want to come to the same public areas as the rest of us, who are willing to accept the (vanishingly small) risk of having the vaccine, then they should understand that it isn't okay to freeload off of our (vanishingly small) risk while also endangering us.

For me, the closest analog is taxes. I'd be interested to see if those who protest most loudly against being "bullied" into taking the vaccine are the same people who think the government is abusing its power by expecting citizens to pay for the services they enjoy.

 

[William King]

If you don't want the vaccine then that should be your right

Where does this right exist? Is it the same right about not wearing a mask? Or the same right about avoiding quarantine?

 

[dafluff]

I guess we know where you stand on the Trolley Problem then. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem

The trolley problem's dilemma is not whether you choose to kill fewer people or not. The dilemma is whether you choose to interfere and change who dies, even if it is fewer. This is not the case at all in vaccination campaigns, because we have no idea who, if any, is going to die from the vaccine, and whether or not they would have died of Covid otherwise.

A more analogous "thought experiment" would be a situation where 5 million people are going to die. However, there is a button, and if you press it, only 5,000 will die. There is no clever name for this experiment, because it is completely boring, and the correct answer is to press the button every time.

 

[dafluff]

The trolley problem's dilemma is not whether you choose to kill fewer people or not. The dilemma is whether you choose to interfere and change who dies, even if it is fewer. This is not the case at all in vaccination campaigns, because we have no idea who, if any, is going to die from the vaccine, and whether or not they would have died of Covid otherwise.

A more analogous "thought experiment" would be a situation where 5 million people are going to die. However, there is a button, and if you press it, only 5,000 will die. There is no clever name for this experiment, because it is completely boring, and the correct answer is to press the button every time.

Also, I did not include the probability that those susceptible to blood clots (which is a very rare occurrence with the AZ vaccine) are much more likely to die of Covid, which routinely causes blood clots. In this case, the analogy becomes: 5 million people are going to die, but if you press the button, 4,995,000 will be saved. Now the answer is even more straightforward.

 

[Hawk256]

The trolley problem's dilemma is not whether you choose to kill fewer people or not. The dilemma is whether you choose to interfere and change who dies, even if it is fewer. This is not the case at all in vaccination campaigns, because we have no idea who, if any, is going to die from the vaccine, and whether or not they would have died of Covid otherwise.

A more analogous "thought experiment" would be a situation where 5 million people are going to die. However, there is a button, and if you press it, only 5,000 will die. There is no clever name for this experiment, because it is completely boring, and the correct answer is to press the button every time.

I understand the thought experiment well. Wikipedia disagrees with you though. They have a COVID 19 section specifically addressing how the trolley problem relates to the COVID vaccine. Maybe you should submit your thought experiment there if you think yours is superior.

 

[Hawk256]

Where does this right exist? Is it the same right about not wearing a mask? Or the same right about avoiding quarantine?

Wearing a mask or being in quarantine doesn't have the possibility to cause a higher probability of health problems or death.

 

[Hawk256]

For me, the closest analog is taxes. I'd be interested to see if those who protest most loudly against being "bullied" into taking the vaccine are the same people who think the government is abusing its power by expecting citizens to pay for the services they enjoy.

Like I stated in the other reply. Paying taxes does not increase the possibility of health problems or death. And actually no one forces you to pay taxes, you have the option of running and hiding or going to jail.

 

[ChrisTex]

I feel like the principal in Billy Madison near the end of the movie when there is debate when reading what Hawk has wrote.

 

[William King]

Wearing a mask or being in quarantine doesn't have the possibility to cause a higher probability of health problems or death.

Replies without answering the point.

Tells me everything I need to know about your intentions.

Have fun because I'm not biting anymore.

 

[dafluff]

I understand the thought experiment well. Wikipedia disagrees with you though. They have a COVID 19 section specifically addressing how the trolley problem relates to the COVID vaccine. Maybe you should submit your thought experiment there if you think yours is superior.

If you think a thought experiment on simply whether you should kill more or fewer people is thought-provoking, then I guess you shouldn't be surprised by the responses people have to you on this forum.

Also, if you read the Wikipedia article you cited, and go to the citation for the Covid section, you will find the paper on bioethics.net where you'll find this:

While the “Trolley Problem” might make for an interesting discussion at an ethics seminar on utilitarianism, it bears little resemblance to decision making in a clinical setting.

It goes on to flesh the argument, which you should probably read. Or not, since you have consistently been ignoring pretty much all evidence to bloviate about some other crap you think is clever.

 

[Hawk256]

Replies without answering the point.

Tells me everything I need to know about your intentions.

Have fun because I'm not biting anymore.

How does that not answer your point? Don't know much else to tell you. What are my intentions?