Will you get vaccinated against COVID once it's available?

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

So if you're prescribed a drug with which you have no personal experience, you'll decide whether to take it based on your gut instinct?

For an attorney, you sure do have a reading comprehension problem. We've been through this, Peter. But you just want to be argumentative. Why would I be prescribed a drug?

I haven't been sick in 40+ years. I haven't taken a prescribed prescribed meditation in decades. Why would I be prescribed something?

[G1911]

.

[Peter_Spaeth]

G-man, I don't endorse this article at all but I think you would like it.

https://journals.plos.org/plosmedici...l.pmed.0020124

Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
John P. A. Ioannidis

He has a similar piece a decade or so later.

https://journals.plos.org/plosmedici...l.pmed.1002049

[Peter_Spaeth]

BTW, Dr. Ioannidis published early in the pandemic basically arguing the dangers were overstated. Here's a fascinating piece on him from my favorite science website.

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/wha...ohn-ioannidis/

[G1911]

.

[AustinMike]

I agree with quite a bit of what you wrote and I also disagree with quite a bit. The major issues are as follows:

Originally Posted by G1911

Another thing that I use to try and pull out what is and is not, or may be and may not be, true is to look at the order of events, and, if we must rely on experts, what was said by experts before it became a heavily politicized issue people lined up on. For example, in 2019 pretty much everyone agreed that surgical masks do not do much for flu-like diseases, Fauci, the CDC, numerous studies with controls, there was little debate here, they agreed. No new studies found the opposite, until after the public narrative flipped an immediate 180 in late March, 2020. There was no new discovery at this time, the government changed narratives and then studies were conducted (mostly without controls) that found the opposite of what they had before. New science to replace the old science happened after the narrative switch, not before.

First off, I agree - surgical masks and cloth masks do very little to help the wearer regarding viral transmission. That was the reasoning behind the original guidance of not having to wear masks. However, the mask guidance was not changed because people are now saying masks are a great way to protect the wearer. The mask guidance changed because wearing a mask can help reduce the distance the "breath" of a wearer will travel, thus reducing the risks to others from an infected person and reducing the spread of the infection. This is not new information. A couple of examples:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24229526/ Testing the efficacy of homemade masks: would they protect in an influenza pandemic? 2013 “Our findings suggest that a homemade mask should only be considered as a last resort to prevent droplet transmission from infected individuals, but it would be better than no protection.”

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22295066/ Facemasks, hand hygiene, and influenza among young adults: a randomized intervention trial, 2012 “Face masks and hand hygiene combined may reduce the rate of ILI and confirmed influenza in community settings. These non-pharmaceutical measures should be recommended in crowded settings at the start of an influenza pandemic.”

Originally Posted by G1911

My generation is told to fear Global Warming, for my fathers it was an Ice Age that was going to soon come and end the world as we know it.

According to this article, it wasn't scientists scaring people about a coming ice age, it was the media:

https://skepticalscience.com/ice-age...termediate.htm

Of the 68 peer-reviewed climate studies from 1965-1979, 10% predicted cooling, 28% had no stance, and 62% predicted warming. Six times as many studies predicted warming versus cooling.

Originally Posted by G1911

I have never in my life seen such censorship as there is of anything even questioning the narrative of Covid. It is in many ways brilliantly done censorship, often outsourced by the state to the private realm. It is big tech removing posts and banning people, jobs firing people who do not go agree, neighbors shunning their neighbors and informing the state that they may be, god forbid, socializing with friends like its 2019. When a reasonable theory (is agreeing with controlled studies in 2019 really such an absurd proposition? Is using the CDC's own figures and math to calculate my risk really an insane theory?) is so heavily assaulted, by the state and the elements of the private realm profiting from the narrative, I find it hard to see it as a reason to dismiss these thoughts.

Regarding censorship, when was the last time you saw an ad for cigarettes on TV? Do you consider that censorship? Do you think commercials for cigarettes should be allowed on TV? Regarding the censorship related to big tech and covid, I am not on Facebook, Twitter, etc., so I really don't know specifically what was targeted. All I know is what I've read. What I read said that covid misinformation was targeted. I personally think it was a good move to remove misinformation while the country was trying to limit the spread of a contagious virus. Specifically, what information was removed that you do not feel was misinformation and was something the public should know?

Originally Posted by G1911

I am saying that I do not know if it is harmful or not because no long term studies have been done, its death toll is calculated in the complete opposite way that Covid's is making statistical comparison essentially impossible, and as a result I don't want to take it right now because I have almost 0 statistical risk from what it purports to protect against anyways. My position is essentially that of the moderate, "I do not know, the evidence is too fragmentary and incomplete", which is now apparently one heck of a hot take when everything is politicized and the narrative socially unquestionable.

I fully understand your rationale behind not wanting to get the vaccine. But with that choice comes responsibility. You need to try to minimize the chances of you infecting someone else in case you get it and are asymptomatic, i.e., wear a mask.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Federal law, signed in 1970 by President Nixon, prohibits TV ads for cigarettes with nicotine. My guess is the cigarette companies didn't mind at all, it saved them tons of money they would have had to spend to keep pace with the competition.

[AustinMike]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Federal law, signed in 1970 by President Nixon, prohibits TV ads for cigarettes with nicotine. My guess is the cigarette companies didn't mind at all, it saved them tons of money they would have had to spend to keep pace with the competition.

1970?!? That long ago? I was thinking it was late '70s. What about in magazines? I can't say that I recall seeing cigarette ads in magazines in a while either. Were they banned as well or am I just not looking at the "right" magazines?

[Republicaninmass]

Hand hygiene, who would have thought? I mean in 1918 they didnt understand that, but here in modern times, I guess we needed a wake up call

[G1911]

.

[AustinMike]

Originally Posted by G1911

1 - I will just accept your version as if it is undoubtedly true. Still, what risk is there to vaccinated people? Everyone who wants a vaccine and has embraced the fear narrative, has one in the United States. The small chance their vaccine doesn't work (unless you believe it's a big chance, in which case it's a pretty pointless vaccine) x the small chance I am infected and contagious x the small chance that someone will suffer severe consequences = a real and present danger to you? Once again, recurring theme here, people are worrying about statistical possibilities that are absolutely tiny. How do you live life taking action against any risk of this tiny, tiny, tiny odds? There's limited value in repeating these circles, many in this thread are scared of very unlikely events (even using the statistics and figures from the pro-fear faction without any critical analysis but simply taking them at straight face value), I and others are not. You may do as you see fit, I get to do as I see fit. Ain't freedom beautiful?

The point of my initial response was to show that your claim, “New science to replace the old science happened after the narrative switch, not before,” is not correct. Period.

Yet, you deflect and make more false claims. “Embraced the fear narrative.” Really? You don’t think people are capable of getting the vaccine without embracing the fear narrative? “(M)any in this thread are scared of very unlikely events (even using the statistics and figures from the pro-fear faction without any critical analysis but simply taking them at straight face value)?” Again, those in favor of the vaccine are in favor because they’re “scared?” We came to our conclusion “without any critical analysis?” And you know this how, exactly? Is it your Aristotelian thinking that enables you to make these judgements?

But, tell you what. I’ll allow you to deflect and I’ll discuss why I got the vaccine. There are two reasons that come readily to mind.

Reason 1. My wife and my father. Even though I’m 67, I’m in good health with no health issues. I’m not concerned about myself. My wife is a couple of years older than me, has asthma and high blood pressure. I got the shots for her. My dad is 91. Is three years removed from bladder cancer. Has high blood pressure and had a stroke 1-1/2 years ago. I got the shots for him.

Reason 2. To help stop mutations. As the virus continues to spread, it continues to mutate. As it continues to mutate, it increases the chances of it becoming even more deadly and more resistant to the vaccine. You may call that “the fear narrative,” I call it a potential reality. The sooner we can stop it, the better.

Originally Posted by G1911

2- I'll again just assume you are 100% unconditionally correct, I don't feel like digging through the scholarship to find counter examples. Unless you are alleging that scientific consensus has never been wrong (a difficult position to take as it is constantly shifting), it makes absolutely no difference to what I am saying, it just removes the symmetry of a rhetorical example used.

The point of my initial response was to show that your claim that people were told to fear a coming ice age did not apply to the scientists. Period.

But again, you deflect and ponder if I’m alleging scientific consensus has never been wrong. How in the world could that possibly follow from what I wrote?

I agree with you regarding the potential use of fear mongering to sell a particular point. It has been done many times and will probably continue to be practiced because it is so successful. However, I don’t agree that Climate Change is one of them. I happen to believe that man’s actions are causing the climate to change. Instead, I would use some of the following as examples of fear mongering: (a) an invading migrant horde attacking us from the south, (b) buy all the guns you can now because elected officials are coming after your guns, (c) voting for X is voting for socialism. Those appear to be very popular “fear narratives,” especially during election cycles.

Originally Posted by G1911

3 - I don't 'consider' that censorship. It's not an opinion. The state telling a person or group what they cannot say, or that they cannot say it in certain settings is, definitionally, censorship. You seem to think censorship is a good thing. That's fine. I do not. I am against the censorship of speech. No if's, no and's, no but's. I don't support free speech only when I agree with the speaker. People say things that are factually incorrect or I think are stupid and even dangerous all the time. I do not think I, you, or the state should be able to remove the ability of others to agree or disagree, no matter what.

The point of my initial response was to provide an example counter to your claim, “I have never in my life seen such censorship as there is of anything even questioning the narrative of Covid.” Basically, we agree, it is censorship. Yet even though we’ve had 50 years of cigarette ads being censored from reaching the public via TV, you don’t think that’s as bad as a few months of censoring false information from some social sites? Interesting.

“You seem to think censorship is a good thing.” I do in some limited instances. It depends upon the circumstances, primarily if lives are in danger.

Originally Posted by G1911

I hate smoking. I think it's stupid. I think people who make their living selling cancer sticks to addicts (who are in the end 100% responsible for their addiction and actions) are scum. I watched my grandfather die slowly of smoking-induced lung cancer. I have never touched a cigarette in my life. I do collect T cards. But my thoughts are merely my thoughts, and I am not so vain or self-important as to think that my thoughts should be the only thoughts allowed in the public sphere. My natural-born right to speech is the same natural-born right to speech that an executive for a cigarette company has.

Wow, anyone who agrees with the decision to restrict false information from social media is “vain or self-important.”

Anyone who agrees with the decision that people should be censored from screaming “FIRE!!” in a darkened theater is “vain or self-important.”

Anyone who agrees that during wartime, certain information should be censored to keep it out of the enemy’s hands is “vain or self-important.”

Anyone who agrees that cigarettes should not be peddled to people, including kids, on TV is “vain or self-important.”

Originally Posted by G1911

One example for you is the censorship and banning by big tech of anyone who endorsed the theory that the virus escaped from a Chinese lab. Censorship that was ended within a day of Fauci changing his mind and saying it is quite possible, as the government now seems to be shifting to support of this theory the last couple weeks. Yesterdays dangerous misinformation, so dangerous it must be censored from the public sphere, is today's plausible and state-allowed, possibly endorsed, theory.

As I said earlier, I’m not on social media so I don’t know everything that was censored. I’ll accept your premise that people who only claimed the virus escaped from a Chinese lab were censored. I’ll also accept your premise that that particular censorship ended the day after Fauci changed his mind. I do not think that the claim that the virus escaped from a Chinese lab kept/is keeping people from getting the vaccine. Therefore, I don’t think that particular piece of information/misinformation (whatever it turns out to be) should have been censored.

Originally Posted by G1911

If you want the state and big corporations to censor whatever they consider misinformation, that view is your right. I think it is a terrible idea, a threat to freedom and the foundational values of the Republic, but I believe in free speech, no matter how much I disagree. The natural born right to say what you think protects even those who are against free speech itself. I'm sure that censorship of opposing ideas will only be used justly by the state and big tech, being the shining beacons of morality, fairness, and factual accuracy that they are.

Again, you’re making gross assumptions in order to conjure up a strawman argument. I never said I “want the state and big corporations to censor whatever they consider misinformation.” Taking one single example and generalizing it to an all-encompassing view is cheap and lazy. Your arguments against something I never said are a complete waste of time.

Originally Posted by G1911

4 - No. I will not wear a virtue signal because I am declining to be a test subject for an experimental vaccine. I do not have a duty to ignore my own thoughts and to replace them with yours. I do not have a duty to muzzle myself because you are scared of a statistically minuscule risk. I am not going to stay 6 feet away from my friends, wear a face shield or mask, or change my life in any way whatsoever over a tiny, tiny, tiny risk no greater than numerous risks all of us have ignored in our lives until now. This conversation was already had a couple weeks ago, and actually led to a pretty good open debate. My views are unchanged since then, I see limited possible value in doing it again with the exact same talking points on each side.

Even though you see limited possible value in continuing the discussion, I see none. Trying to have a discussion with someone who takes pride in attacking strawmen is not beneficial to anyone. But, before I take my vain, self-important, scared, non-critical thinking self and walk away from this discussion with you, let me leave you with this.

In your mind, you envision a better country, better than what we have now. And in that country kids wake up on Saturday mornings to watch cartoons filled with commercials from cigarette companies extolling the virtues of smoking – smoking makes you better looking, it makes you smarter, it makes you live longer, it makes you stronger, etc. Because to do otherwise, is “a threat to freedom and the foundational values of the Republic.”

Now if you’ll excuse me, I need to get these damn keys off my forehead.

[G1911]

.

[bnorth]

I got the 6 month booster shot today.