Whether or not they are as contagious once infected, they are infected at lesser rates. As continual testing of everyone is impractical, they therefore present less danger to the public than the unvaccinated. — hypericin

I have a small point and a large point to make. I'll start with the small. First, to recap. @Wayfarer posted:

Perhaps their freedom of movement may also be curtailed, though less so. Perhaps 'social distancing', the wearing of masks, and other hygeine measures, will henceforth remain as part of civil society. — Wayfarer

I pointed out that when the vaccinated acqire a breakththrough infection, they are just as infectious as the unvaxxed. Therefore their movement should be restricted too. And that's when you pointed out that they're infected at lesser rates.

This point is easily refuted. The fact that the average vaxxed person is statistically unlikely to infect you means nothing. After all, the average person is not a serial killer, but we endeavor to take serial killers out of society to protect the public. The argument that a random individual is unlikely to cause harm is no argument against separating that indvidual from society.

Likewise drunk drivers, which you mentioned.

The unvaccinated are making this choice to (in their mind) improve their well being, at the expense of the public well being. It is therefore rational public policy to restrict their freedom of movement, to both protect the public well being, and to discourage this selfish choice. — hypericin

In terms of protecting the public well being, you need to restrict the movement of the vaccinated as well, since they are just as contagious as the vaccinated, even if perhaps fewer in number.

So in the end, your point is purely punitive and unrelated to public health.

The situation is rather similar to driving. Everyone on the road presents some danger. But drunk drivers, as a result of their selfish decision to be drunk drivers, present a greater danger. Therefore their freedom of movement is restricted, to protect the public and to discourage drunk driving. — hypericin

But by your logic the contrary conclusion is forced on us. The average driver is statistically rare, even if all too common. Since contagious vaxxed people and drunk drivers alike are statistically rare, they should both be free to travel. After all, your likelihood of encountering either one is relatively low.

So your statistical argument is wrong, and all you have left is your feelings that the unvaxxed should be punished for their "selfishness," as you put it. How about people who don't get their flu shots? People who don't contribute enough to charity? Those with unpopular political opinions? If punishment is your only argument, you yourself wouldn't want to live in the world you wish for.

Now to the larger point. @Wayfarer suggests,"Perhaps their freedom of movement may also be curtailed ..."

Ok. Let's think that through. I can think of two extremes. One is what is done by the a grocery store near me. They have a sign out front that non-vaccinated people must wear masks. They don't check, and rely on the honor system. Then again I live in a relatively small, laid-back town with a relatively low infection rate.

The other alternative is full on police-enforced compliance. You're walking down the street, and the police may ask to see your papers. If you can't produce a vax card, you're arrested on the spot.

Those are the extremes. Perhaps you and @Wayfarer would like to say, specifically, how you think the restriction of free movement in the US (or your country, whatever it may be) should be implemented.

I well remember a few years back when the US state of Arizona wanted to implement a "show your papers" law to challenge brown-skinned people on their immigration status. Decent people across the country were rightfully outraged. Most people think of "show me your papers" as something said in a German accent in a late-night black and white movie from the 1940's. In the US, at least, we don't "show our papers" to the authorities without the police having probable cause or a damn good reason.

So perhaps you think this is a good reason, and that American citizens should be required to show their papers on demand. Can you see how this would quickly go south? Did you get your flu shot? Have any unapproved political opinions? Maybe you tweeted that "All lives matter," or that you believe in rationality and hard work. Those ideas are racist, according to the Smithsonian.

Can you look at history and give me an example of when "show your papers" ever came out well for a society and didn't quickly get abused?

How about when you're driving? Surely if freedom of movement is to be constrained, we need highway checkpoints. That's not so farfetched; there are already interior immigration checkpoints as far as 75 miles inside the US border, where travelers staying entirely within the US may be stopped, interrogated, and searched. Of course if they happen to find a joint or some other contraband, that's your bad luck. What, the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution forbids such an abomination? Sadly, courts have repeatedly allowed these interior checkpoints. It would be easy to set up a lot more of them to check people's vaccination status.

Do you think that's a good idea? Is that the country you want to live in?

Let me point out one more "inconvenient truth," as Al Gore once put it. Who in fact are the unvaxxed in the US? In the popular imagination they're white, MAGA hat-wearing deplorables with unapproved ideas.

In fact, the unvaxxed are blacks and Latinos. Don't believe me?

https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-covid-19/issue-brief/latest-data-on-covid-19-vaccinations-race-ethnicity/

https://thenewamerican.com/leftists-vaccine-passports-are-racist-under-the-lefts-own-thinking/

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/31/nyregion/nyc-covid-vaccine-race.html

So what are you going to do? Start pulling over or checkpointing black drivers, accosting blacks and Latinos on the streets and demanding their papers, refusing access to great numbers of blacks and Latinos to restaurants and movie theaters? Can't wait to see how that works out.

We have a real-life datapoint coming up. In New York City, restaurants and other indoor venues will soon require proof of vaccination for entry.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/03/nyregion/nyc-vaccine-mandate.html

But it turns out that only a fraction, one third or so, of NYC blacks are vaccinated.

The policy takes effect this Monday, August 16, and enforcement begins in September. It will be administered by the health department and not the police. So can you imagine what it's going to be like when two thirds of the black people in New York City are banned from restaurants?

The WSJ has the summary. Most of the article is paywalled but the free part says plenty.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/bill-de-blasio-new-york-city-covid-vaccine-mandate-coercion-11628022693

The modern progressive speaks the language of high-minded purpose but always ends with coercion. Witness New York Mayor Bill de Blasio, the uber progressive, who announced Tuesday that New Yorkers will soon need proof of vaccination to do everything from dining out to working out at a gym. He’s proud that New York is the first U.S. city to impose such a mandate.

“It’s time for people to see vaccination as literally necessary to living a good and full and healthy life,” he said at his press conference. You gotta love Mr. de Blasio telling you what is necessary for a good and full life. According to the data, roughly 55% of the city’s residents are fully vaccinated, ranging from 46% in the Bronx to 67% for Manhattan.

His response is to exclude the unvaccinated from many of the functions of daily life. He doesn’t seem to care that this burden will fall heaviest on the city’s black population, which is only 31% fully vaccinated (versus 71% for Asian Americans, 42% for Hispanics and 46% for whites). — WSJ

@Wayfarer and @hypericin, is this what you want? 69% of black people in NYC excluded from public life? And if not, then what DO you mean when you talk about restricting people's movement?

Feedback appreciated. You disagree with my facts? My reasoning? Or are you you all in on "show me your papers" to every non-white face in New York City? You want to bring back stop-and-frisk but for vax cards instead of guns and knives?? And if you did implement nationwide walking and driving checkpoints, how long do you think it would be before the inevitable scope expansion and mission creep set in? Check for your vax card, check your wants and warrants. Behind on your child support? Carrying any unapproved contraband? Tweet any unapproved thoughts recently?

You serious? Anyone thinking this thing through? Or do you all want to live under the Chinese social credit system and can't wait till it's implemented here? I'm afraid that's exactly what some people want.

I don't follow you. Why, if it's on average 90% efficacious would it be less likely in all categories? If, on average drunk people are more likely to have a car accident, does that mean drunk people are more likely to have a car accident even among those who don't drive? Averages don't apply to all groups unless the criteria are random, which, with susceptibility to hospitalisation with covid-19, we know they're not. — Isaac

Your car accident analogy doesn't work. If the virus is circulating through the community then everyone has an equal chance, statistically speaking, of coming into contact with it. The point is, if you get vaccinated and you are exposed to the virus, your chances of infection are reduced, your chances of symptomatic infection are reduced, your chances of hospitalization are reduced and your chances of death are reduced.

I see no reason why this would not apply to the unhealthy, smokers, the obese, alcoholics, drug addicts, the healthy, athletes, fitness fanatics, and so on. Unless you isolate yourself completely you cannot ensure that you will not come not contact with the virus; if you do come into contact with it your chances of a good outcome are increased greatly if the experts are to be believed..

If your chances of infection, symptomatic infection, hospitalization and death are reduced, then chances are you will, if infected, carry less viral load and thus be less infectious. So, on average, vaccination will reduce transmission.

All of this is assuming that what we are being told by the medical authorities, which is, or at least should be, assuming good will, the dominant expert consensus, is true. If we reject that then what do we have to guide us?

Perhaps you and Wayfarer would like to say, specifically, how you think the restriction of free movement in the US (or your country, whatever it may be) should be implemented. — fishfry

I acknowledge that all forms of lockdown and restriction of movement are an infringement on civll liberties, but in light of the severity of this illness, I believe that imposing a lockdown is a lesser of two evils. I mean, giving up some freedom of movement and even income, is generally preferable to getting a life-threatening illness, in my opinion.

Australia generally has succeeded in controlling the infection, although the Delta variant outbreak that started in Sydney June 16 has well and truly escaped the net. There is a lot of commentary that the mistake the NSW Govt made was in not locking down faster and harder - there was a super-spreader event on June 26th that transmitted the virus from Sydney’s East to the vast Western Suburbs, which is when it really began to escape, as there are many more large households and a high degree of geographic mobility. That’s where it remains - yesterday’s case numbers were 344, two deaths, and also cases appearing in regional centres.

As I think I said earlier, community attitudes to vaccination have dramatically shifted in the last month, due to the insidious nature of this variant, and the fact that there’s a lot of younger people in ICU, with two otherwise healthy and comparatively young people dying. I think everyone now realises that getting a severe case of COVID-19 is a life-changing event even if it doesn’t kill you. So vaccination rates have ticked up enormously, supply problems are being overcome, the Moderna vaccine has now been approved and the country is on track to be around 80-90% vaccinated by year’s end.

As to whether lockdowns have to be enforced, I still don’t see any other option. The laissez faire approach of some of the US GOP governors simply results in higher rates of infections and more deaths. Some US states with comparable populations to NSW are having thousands of cases and hundreds of deaths every day, which NSW might easily be matching, had not the lockdowns been enforced.

I think that's a fair assessment.

You disagree with my facts? My reasoning? Or are you you all in on "show me your papers" to every non-white face in New York City — fishfry

The Wall Street Journal is a Murdoch paper, is it not? More likely crying crocodile tears over the poor benighted black population to feed meat to their civil-libertarian right-wing audience than out of any genuine concern for the former. Murdoch media worldwide are probably alone responsible for tens hundreds of thousands of infections by spreading their anti-vaccination nonsense along with all the many other lies and propaganda they peddle around the world every day. I would never cite or refer to any articles published by any Murdoch outlet in support of any point whatever.

Feedback appreciated. You disagree with my facts? My reasoning? Or are you you all in on "show me your papers" to every non-white face in New York City? You want to bring back stop-and-frisk but for vax cards instead of guns and knives?? And if you did implement nationwide walking and driving checkpoints, how long do you think it would be before the inevitable scope expansion and mission creep set in? Check for your vax card, check your wants and warrants. Behind on your child support? Carrying any unapproved contraband? Tweet any unapproved thoughts recently? — fishfry

I haven't considered any government enforced denial of freedom of movement, so any disagreement I might raise isn't to that effect. My issue is with the pronouncement that the possibility of a vaccinated person spreading a virus and the possibility of an unvaccinated person spreading the virus are treated as equal. Or the first makes the latter not matter. It seems to me a strong argument could acknowledge that one is taking place regularly and the other is somewhere between rare and not impossible. You disagree above, but maybe I missed something.

What's good about anti-vaxxers is they give a clear signal to the medical & scientific establishment that people won't tolerate substandard work/products.
— TheMadFool

Rigorous industry standards have nothing to do with anti-vaxxers. Vaccines are only one class of regulated pharmaceutical products. — Fooloso4

What I meant was scientists/doctors developed vaccines, a heroic feat no doubt, but they didn't make the follow-up move which is to make vaccines better in the sense reduce the number and severity of their side-effects. Had they done that, anti-vaxxers would have never been able to do what they're doing right now - undermine decades of medical progress.

we don't have effective treatment modalities against viruses.
— TheMadFool

Shingrix and Gardasil are effective viral vaccines. But you are right, more work products need to be brought to market. — Fooloso4

I was referring to treatment (cures/medicine). Vaccines don't treat, they prevent. Bacterial infections can be treated (antibiotics) and prevented (vaccines) but viral ones have either no or only a few drugs available and that too of less than optimum efficacy.

What I meant was scientists/doctors developed vaccines, a heroic feat no doubt, but they didn't make the follow-up move which is to make vaccines better in the sense reduce the number and severity of their side-effects. Had they done that, anti-vaxxers would have never been able to do what they're doing right now - undermine decades of medical progress. — TheMadFool

You give baby aspirin to enough people and someone will choke to death. It is an unreasonable expectation on the part of the anti-vaxer that supports their position.

You give baby aspirin to enough people and someone will choke to death. It is an unreasonable expectation on the part of the anti-vaxer that supports their position. — Cheshire

Oral medication can be improved e.g. powder forms that'll prevent choking . A similar logic should apply to vaccines. The medical/pharmacological communities are asleep at the wheel.

Oral medication can be improved e.g. powder forms that'll prevent choking . A similar logic should apply to vaccines. The medical/pharmacological communities are asleep at the wheel. — TheMadFool

How many vaccinated people have told you to avoid it?

How many vaccinated people have told you to avoid it? — Cheshire

Zero! Your point?

Don't people generally warn each other of danger? Why is this the exception? Out of everyone taking it and yet not one person has told me; I regret it. Seems like people with first hand experience ought be reliable. At least occasionally.

Don't people generally warn each other of danger? Why is this the exception? Out of everyone taking it and yet not one person has told me; I regret it. — Cheshire

Now I see where you're coming from - you think vaccineas hould be accepted in spite of causing more common minor discomfort (minor side-effects, MiSE) and the rare death/disability (major side-effects MaSE). The benefits (disease immunity) , as has be shoved down our throats, outweigh the risks (MiSE/MaSE).

What I'm advocating for is people to adopt an approach similar to if not identical to the approach we have towards good/products sold to us by businesses big and small; after all we do have to buy vaccines. What's this approach? A demand for quality - improve or we won't make the purchase. This simple rule has companies spending billions in R&D with the express purpose of correcting imperfections in their products. In vaccine terms, imperfections are the risks (MiSE and MaSE) and had we been as quality-savvy with vaccines as we are with smartphones, TVs, and gadgets, we would've provided the impetus for vaccine manufacturers to make their vaccines better i.e. vaccines with fewer/no MiSE and MaSE should've been a reality by now.

That this didn't happen indicates that vaccine manufactures don't care about quality (less/no MiSE and MaSE) as much as they do about money - it's more profitable to sell vaccines as they are (with risks) because people are more worried about not dying than dipping into their savings.

With anti-vaxxers, the situation has hopefully changed for the better - a clear message has been sent to vaccine manufacturers that people won't tolerate a compromise on quality, they want vaccine manufacturers to adopt the exact same policy towards their customers as Samsung & Apple have towards their clients - extra emphasis on quality which for vaccines must include, among other positive features, a reduction or elimination of negatives (risks), another name for safety.

Now I see where you're coming from - you think vaccineas hould be accepted in spite of causing more common minor discomfort (minor side-effects, MiSE) and the rare death/disability (major side-effects MaSE). The benefits (disease immunity) , as has be shoved down our throats, outweigh the risks (MiSE/MaSE). — TheMadFool

Yes. Because of the time sensitive nature. Like, take all the time you want waiting on the japanese encephalitis vaccine to get a golden review; I'm not headed to Tokyo. If we wait to meet unreasonable standards then the benefits of a vaccine aren't realized. I think we shouldn't defeat our own purpose.

What I'm advocating for is people to adopt an approach similar to if not identical to the approach we have towards good/products sold to us by businesses big and small; after all we do have to buy vaccines. What's this approach? — TheMadFool

Our difference would be that I think a vaccine is a novel product category. And I don't think it is dangerous. I think we should adopt this argument in regards to the actual product quality. People shop on price too much.

That this didn't happen indicates that vaccine manufactures don't care about quality (less/no MiSE and MaSE) as much as they do about money - it's more profitable to sell vaccines as they are (with risks) because people are more worried about not dying than dipping into their savings. — TheMadFool

I'm not really following you here. I understand what you are saying though.

The problem is in thinking that a groups reaction correlates 1 for 1 with the actual quality. Perhaps people are idiots and not fit to judge the quality of a vaccine. But, suppose they don't know it and instead say whatever their little minds produce.

With anti-vaxxers, the situation has hopefully changed for the better - a clear message has been sent to vaccine manufacturers that people won't tolerate a compromise on quality, they want vaccine manufacturers to adopt the exact same policy towards their customers as Samsung & Apple have towards their clients - extra emphasis on quality which for vaccines must include, among other positive features, a reduction or elimination of negatives (risks), another name for safety. — TheMadFool

Anti-vaxxers as a group are idiots in regards to their expertise in a subject of choice. I don't call NASA commenting on rover designs for the same reason.

Granted, others fall outside this model and are 'rather' complicated in their rationalization of a phobia.

Yes. Because of the time sensitive nature. Like, take all the time you want waiting on the japanese encephalitis vaccine to get a golden review; I'm not headed to Tokyo. If we wait to meet unreasonable standards then the benefits of a vaccine aren't realized. I think we shouldn't defeat our own purpose. — Cheshire

I'm not implying that we should wait for the perfect vaccine, just like we don't wait for the perfect smartphone. What I do want to see with vaccines is something like what's happening with Apple smartphones: iPhone 4, 5, 6, 7,..., a tangible progression in the features of the vaccine as the years go by, including but not limited to improved safety (minimal or zero risk).

Our difference would be that I think a vaccine is a novel product category. And I don't think it is dangerous. I think we should adopt this argument in regards to the actual product quality. People shop on price too much. — Cheshire

I feel you shouldn't ignore risks like that. True, the risks are negligible, near-zero, but someone always wins the lottery and it might just be your "lucky" day when you get your jab if you know what I mean.

The problem is in thinking that a groups reaction correlates 1 for 1 with the actual quality. Perhaps people are idiots and not fit to judge the quality of a vaccine. But, suppose they don't know it and instead say whatever their little minds produce. — Cheshire

Anti-vaxxers are right on the money as far as I can tell.

Indeed, statisically speaking, given how extremely unlikely serious side effects to vaccines are, anti-vaxxers are loco.

However, anti-vaxxers have a hidden benefit that seems to have escaped our notice. What they do or should do is galvanize vaccine developers into paying attention to reducing the risks, minor & major. Until now, vaccine developers have gotten away with it in a manner of speaking by constantly harping on the positives of vaccination and how the negatives are so negligible. Anti-vaxxers are having none of that - their demand, unrealistic perhaps but definitely describes an ideal, is all or none i.e. zero side effects or no to any and all vaccinations. This should put vaccine developers into combat mode, get those cogs turning in their heads, and quite possibly, they can design perfect vaccines, side effects: NIL.

There was an antivax movement that lead to a measles outbreak on the island of Samoa that would serve as evidence if the casual implications aren't obvious enough for your tastes. As a follow up, try and guess how many covid cases they have today. — Cheshire

Why would evidence of the effectiveness of the measles vaccine have any bearing on the effectiveness of the covid-19 vaccines? We're not discussing the general point that vaccines work. We're discussing this one specific situation. Otherwise you could just generalise it to 'all medicines'.

It may be rendered more safe if the FDA makes recommendations for changes with regard to labelling, packaging, identification of groups for whom the vaccine has greater risk because of age or health conditions or other things, but without making changes approving it does not render it more safe. It simply confirms that it is safe and effective. — Fooloso4

Reducing uncertainty (confirming) is making it more safe (not to mention the possibility of all those other things you mentioned). Safety is entirely about uncertainty. If we knew for certain it would cause x side-effect in person y we just wouldn't give it to person y. It's unsafe to the exact extent that we don't know if it will cause x side-effect in person y. The FDA work reduces that uncertainty, thus increasing the safety.

Evidence of what? The motives of experts who advocate getting the vaccine? — Fooloso4

Yes. It's not the general motivation (concern for the health of the population) you're making the argument that their specific motivation is not the EUA but the evidence from millions of vaccine shots (despite me posting a direct quote from Marks to the contrary, but hey, evidence seems to be irrelevant on this thread, so...)

Why would you think that I know what is going on right now at the FDA? — Fooloso4

Because you said that despite their main work being about ensuring the safety and efficacy of medicines, their current work is not related to safety and efficacy. I'm asking how you know that unless you know what it is they're currently doing.

f the virus is circulating through the community then everyone has an equal chance, statistically speaking, of coming into contact with it. — Janus

Simply untrue. The more isolated have a lower chance, those practising more non-pharmaceutical interventions have a lower chance.

if you get vaccinated and you are exposed to the virus, your chances of infection are reduced, your chances of symptomatic infection are reduced, your chances of hospitalization are reduced and your chances of death are reduced. — Janus

Do you have any evidence for this? Or do you expect me to just argue against whatever you reckon?

I see no reason why this would not apply to the unhealthy, smokers, the obese, alcoholics, drug addicts, the healthy, athletes, fitness fanatics, and so on. — Janus

Unbelievable! How does one argue against such insanity? You're advocating injecting the entire population of the world with a chemical that had not even been invented a few years back on the basis of the fact that 'you don't see any reason not to...' Not on some evidence you've got immediately to hand.

And this despite the fact that I've presented evidence the contrary which I know for a fact you've read - evidence which shows a strong possibility that for the under 24 year old age group, hospitalisation might actually increase as a result of mass vaccination.

if you do come into contact with it your chances of a good outcome are increased greatly if the experts are to be believed.. — Janus

No, if your chosen experts are to be believed. I've presented evidence from experts who believe that vaccination does not significantly increase the chances of a good outcome. You've chosen to ignore them in favour of some vague notion that 'the experts' say it will without even having any evidence to that effect which you can cite.

If your chances of infection, symptomatic infection, hospitalization and death are reduced, then chances are you will, if infected, carry less viral load and thus be less infectious. — Janus

Again, simply not proven, and I've even posted a link to the evidence showing reduced transmission on average to show that it does not prove what you claim here.

So, on average, vaccination will reduce transmission. — Janus

No one is arguing against vaccination reducing transmission on average, that much has been quite well demonstrated.

All of this is assuming that what we are being told by the medical authorities, which is, or at least should be, assuming good will, the dominant expert consensus, is true. If we reject that then what do we have to guide us? — Janus

Other experts? Do we all have to have the same opinion nowadays? Has difference become such an anathema in our new polemic world that we all have to have exactly the same opinion or else we're lost at sea?

Honestly. I give up. It's pointless me troubling to make a fully cited case for a nuanced approach in a difficult to navigate circumstance, only to have it ignored in favour of polemic sound-bytes from the media. This is people's lives we're discussing here, actual real people who may or may not face a greater risk of being harmed by the intervention you're all advocating and you can't even be bothered to actually look up any evidence at all, let alone analyse it, before publicly condemning anyone who fails to toe the party line. It's a disgrace.

The only basis for my argument is majority consensus among the experts. You may be able to (I doubt it given your background is in psychology), but I cannot assess the plausibility of possible future negative outcomes of vaccination as outlined in the paper you linked from experts who differ from the dominant consensus, So why would I believe them as opposed to the official consensus? The actual negative outcomes remain statistically small if the official figures are to be believed.

If the number of experts dissenting from the official line were significant enough then of course that would be a different story.

So,

Simply untrue. The more isolated have a lower chance, those practising more non-pharmaceutical interventions have a lower chance. — Isaac

That's true. It was hastily written, but what I meant was that if the virus is everywhere through the community then if you get out at all there is a fair chance you will come into contact with it.

if you get vaccinated and you are exposed to the virus, your chances of infection are reduced, your chances of symptomatic infection are reduced, your chances of hospitalization are reduced and your chances of death are reduced. — Janus


Do you have any evidence for this? Or do you expect me to just argue against whatever you reckon? — Isaac

My only evidence is that this seems to be the official consensus. That said, if the vaccines stop the virus replicating then it seems to stand to reason that the vaccinated will, on average, carry a lower viral load than the unvaccinated, and thus shed less virus and be less infectious.

Unbelievable! How does one argue against such insanity? You're advocating injecting the entire population of the world with a chemical that had not even been invented a few years back on the basis of the fact that 'you don't see any reason not to...' Not on some evidence you've got immediately to hand. — Isaac

No, I'm advocating it because it seems to be the expert consensus motivating the official advice, and I don't have anything else to go by. Do you?

if you do come into contact with it your chances of a good outcome are increased greatly if the experts are to be believed.. — Janus


No, if your chosen experts are to be believed. I've presented evidence from experts who believe that vaccination does not significantly increase the chances of a good outcome. You've chosen to ignore them in favour of some vague notion that 'the experts' say it will without even having any evidence to that effect which you can cite. — Isaac

Again, they are not my chosen experts, but the majority expert consensus. Or are you denying this?

If we followed your argument and applied it to global warming we might discard the majority expert consensus, and follow the minority that deny it on account of the fact that doing anything about climate change will hurt the economy and might cause more suffering and death than global warming will.

and you can't even be bothered to actually look up any evidence at all, — Isaac

The only "evidence" I've seen is in the form of theoretically possible long term negative outcomes; ADE seems to be the main one; purely speculative stuff. This is opposed to the majority consensus which says there is no reason to believe the vaccines are not safe and effective for the vast majority of people and that there is no sign of ADE and it is believed to be highly unlikely. Of course this consensus might turn out to be wrong; there is always some risk, however small. But it is a matter of risk assessment, and frankly you are sounding somewhat hysterical.

Anyway its is also a matter of pragmatics. This vaccine rollout, in the absence of any future evidence of likely significant negative outcomes, will proceed, and if you are unvaccinated your activities may be severely curtailed and you will have to make a decision based on whether you are prepared to give up eating out, travel, sporting and musical events, cinema and so on, just so that you can protect yourself against what seems to be the very minor risk of a serious negative outcome from vaccination.

I have a good friend who thinks just like you, and I was thinking somewhat along those lines myself earlier, and I have been through all the arguments, but as I say I am not an expert, so I realized I have to follow some advice more or less blindly and I can't see any better candidate to follow than the official expert consensus. Good luck.

why would I believe them as opposed to the official consensus? — Janus

I don't have any interest in you believing them. You do you. What bothers me is that the fact that I don't is being used to paint me (and others of my opinion) as selfish, stupid, or uninformed. It's not me attaching any epithets to you. I think you're perfectly justified in believing the consensus of scientists. As you say, why wouldn't you.

what I meant was that if the virus is everywhere through the community then if you get out at all there is a fair chance you will come into contact with it. — Janus

Indeed. But then I don't see an argument for any moral imperative to not come into contact with the virus. The moral imperative is to not put too much strain on your community's health services and to limit your transmission of the virus to others who might be more vulnerable. The first can be satisfied by keeping healthy in general, the second by taking non-pharmaceutical distancing measures. I don't see a moral case for taking the vaccine.

if the vaccines stop the virus replicating then it seems to stand to reason that the vaccinated will, on average, carry a lower viral load than the unvaccinated, and thus shed less virus and be less infectious. — Janus

That's yet to be adequately demonstrated. Much of the viral load is carried in the nasal mucosa (https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2001737) and viruses there are unaffected by the adaptive immune system (https://www.cell.com/cell-host-microbe/fulltext/S1931-3128(21)00098-6). It's not clear how much less virus a vaccinated person will shed compared to an unvaccinated healthy individual - ie whether vaccines reduce viral load in transmissible areas faster or more effectively than a normal healthy immune system is, as yet, unknown.

No, I'm advocating it because it seems to be the expert consensus motivating the official advice, and I don't have anything else to go by. — Janus

The question isn't who we go by, it's why advocate anything at all. I think there's a serious misunderstanding among the public about what this 'consensus of experts' consists. With regards to, say, the issue of advocating vaccination of the under 25s, there's been (by my count) four studies in the world, two of which are contested. About 15 people in the entire world know what the evidence is first hand and not all of them even agree. The studies have been hurriedly put together...

There's no question we've seen a lot of rushed studies. People who are doing the minimum they can to get something published, it’s hard to go through the normal academic rigor that it takes to really vet something scientifically. — Stanley Perlman, a microbiologist who studies coronaviruses at the University of Iowa.

...why would we actually advocate anything at all on the basis of that kind of certainty - it's madness.

Again, they are not my chosen experts, but the majority expert consensus. Or are you denying this? — Janus

No, not at all. I'm denying the moral imperative to agree with the consensus, and I'm denying that consensus among a very small group arrived at over a very short period of time is sufficient ground to carry out a mass intervention on the whole human race. I mean, am I sounding mad here? A handful of people (literally a handful) in the space of a few weeks reach a narrow consensus that something is safe, in an environment we know for a fact to be heavily lobbied and funded by the industry providing that solution, and on that basis alone we advocate that it should be given to the entire human race - does that really sound sane?

If we followed your argument and applied it to global warming we might discard the majority expert consensus, and follow the minority that deny it on account of the fact that doing anything about climate change will hurt the economy and might cause more suffering and death than global warming will. — Janus

We might - but then we'd investigate further. What have the pro-warming scientists got to gain, who funds their research, how much time has been spent gathering data, how well established are the theories on which they're basing their data, what is to be lost if we take their advice...? Then we'd do the same for the anti-warming scientists... All this seems normal practice and has already been done with global warming. The issue I'm raising here is why it's not being done with vaccinations.

Of course this consensus might turn out to be wrong; there is always some risk, however small. But it is a matter of risk assessment — Janus

Exactly. And are the experts you cite here experts on risk assessment? No. They're experts on vaccination. Nothing about their expertise tells us what risk we should or should not take.

frankly you are sounding somewhat hysterical — Janus

Yes. A vaccine is about to be approved (and is already being encouraged) for children who often have no say in the matter, on the basis of a handful of experts hurriedly putting together a few contested studies to achieve a level of protection that they're not even sure will help. I'm absolutely hysterical.

This vaccine rollout, in the absence of any future evidence of likely significant negative outcomes, will proceed, and if you are unvaccinated your activities may be severely curtailed and you will have to make a decision based on whether you are prepared to give up eating out, travel, sporting and musical events, cinema and so on, just so that you can protect yourself against what seems to be the very minor risk of a serious negative outcome from vaccination. — Janus

It has nothing to do with protecting myself. I'm too old to suffer from any of the consequences at a significantly greater risk than the risk of Covid complications. For me I could take it or not, I think my risk profile would be barely any different either way. I'm cross about the moralising, and the treatment of children as lab rats.

---

I wasn't going to reply at all, but your response was carefully thought out and measured, despite disagreeing with me. Thanks

This point is easily refuted. The fact that the average vaxxed person is statistically unlikely to infect you means nothing. After all, the average person is not a serial killer, but we endeavor to take serial killers out of society to protect the public. The argument that a random individual is unlikely to cause harm is no argument against separating that indvidual from society. — fishfry

Wow I'm really not following this "logic". The argument that a random individual is unlikely to cause harm is generally an excellent argument against separating that individual from society. Infection, unvaxxed status, serial killerhood are all reasons for separation of that person from society.

Since contagious vaxxed people and drunk drivers alike are statistically rare, they should both be free to travel — fishfry

The vaccinated and infected are rare. If they are identified as such, they should be restricted.
Drunk drivers are rare. If they are identified, they should be restricted.

Perhaps you and Wayfarer would like to say, specifically, how you think the restriction of free movement in the US (or your country, whatever it may be) should be implemented. — fishfry

Vaccination should be a requirement for entry to high risk areas such as transportation, supermarket, bars, restaurants, movie theaters, etc.

The rest of your post is slippery slope hysteria and race baiting.

This doesn't address the larger harm the unvaccinated, and the scumbag public figures that encourage them, do to society. If everyone was vaccinated, and diligently performed basic social distancing and hygiene during local outbreaks, we might be done with the pandemic, at least in the US. Instead, hospitals and morgues are filling up again, and actual freedom, the freedom to enjoy life without risk of death or mutilation, has slipped away.

Really, from that perspective the restriction of freedom of movement is too mild. Vaccination should be mandatory, full stop.

Safety is entirely about uncertainty. — Isaac

Still looking for something to argue against. What I said was:

but without making changes approving it does not render it more safe. It simply confirms that it is safe and effective. — Fooloso4

It sometimes happens that a drug is approved and is later found to cause problems. Whether it is safe or not depends on the drug and people who take it. If the vaccine is approved on Tuesday it does not become safer than it was on Monday.

... you're making the argument that their specific motivation is not the EUA but the evidence from millions of vaccine shots (despite me posting a direct quote from Marks to the contrary, but hey, evidence seems to be irrelevant on this thread, so...) — Isaac

Why the perverse need to make claims and then trying to attribute them to me? What is your motivation? I am not talking about motivation at all. I am simply saying that the evidence from the millions of vaccine shots supports the safety and efficacy of the vaccine.

Because you said that despite their main work being about ensuring the safety and efficacy of medicines, their current work is not related to safety and efficacy. — Isaac

And yet again! I said no such thing. We have been through this already.

the vaccine is approved on Tuesday it does not become safer than it was on Monday. — Fooloso4

Safety is entirely about uncertainty. — Isaac

It is safer on Tuesday because by Tuesday we'll be less uncertain about it's effects than we were before Tuesday, because the FDA will have finished checking the safety data. Or are you saying that checking something has no impact on safety? That planes are just as safe going into the air without pre-flight checks as they are with them.

I am simply saying that the evidence from the millions of vaccine shots supports the safety and efficacy of the vaccine. — Fooloso4

In direct contradiction of the expert I cited explaining how those millions of shots do not provide the level of safety information the FDA require.

you said that despite their main work being about ensuring the safety and efficacy of medicines, their current work is not related to safety and efficacy. — Isaac


And yet again! I said no such thing. We have been through this already. — Fooloso4

You said...

At this point it is a matter of bureaucracy rather than safety or efficacy — Fooloso4

Again, I'm beginning to think you just don't know what 'rather than' means...

rather than
conj.
And not: "Gibson guitars—with their carved tops and necks that are fitted and glued to the body, rather than bolted on—are expensive to make"

.."rather than safety or efficacy" you said, ie 'and not safety and efficacy'. You've directly said that the matter the FDA are attending to now is not safety and efficacy.

The vaccinated and infected are rare. — hypericin

The vaccinated infected make up about 40% of all covid-related hospital admissions (source - https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/60-people-being-admitted-uk-hospitals-had-two-covid-jabs-adviser-2021-07-19/).

Assuming this reflects the proportions infected, that's a mighty odd definition of 'rare' you've got there. I've never heard 40% of all cases being referred to as 'rare'.

Unless you're wanting to say that a vaccinated person is more likely to need hospitalisation once infected than an unvaccinated one, to such a huge extent as to bring that 40% figure down to something any normal person would call 'rare'.

Why would evidence of the effectiveness of the measles vaccine have any bearing on the effectiveness of the covid-19 vaccines? We're not discussing the general point that vaccines work. We're discussing this one specific situation. Otherwise you could just generalise it to 'all medicines'. — Isaac

You requested* evidence for a causal relationship between vaccine hesitation and population harm. The case of a documented anti-vax movement resulting in an outbreak on an island seemed to match up for this particular request for evidence. The matter of effectiveness was not mentioned in my post.

Reference:
It is a case where being wrong negatively effects others; made worse by distribution to others that might have otherwise decided correctly.
— Cheshire

*
Evidence. Honestly, we can't have a proper discussion if you're just going to make shit up. I could just say "the vaccine is poisonous anyway so no one should take it". His does that constitute an argument. Cite your fucking sources! It's like arguing with children. — Isaac

Breakthrough is rare except with the delta variant and they're still collecting data about that.

Regarding the article you cited,

"a higher percentage of breakthroughs may simply reflect that fully vaccinated people are a bigger chunk of the population,"

NYT, may be behind paywall, sorry

It is safer on Tuesday because by Tuesday we'll be less uncertain about it's effects than we were before Tuesday, because the FDA will have finished checking the safety data. — Isaac

The degree of certainty of its safety does not make it more safe, it simply makes us more certain that it is safe. It does not miraculously change the composition of the vaccine or how it will affect someone.

In direct contradiction of the expert I cited explaining how those millions of shots do not provide the level of safety information the FDA require. — Isaac

Of course it doesn't! Again, you are arguing against claims that are of your own making. The millions of shots is evidence of safety and efficacy. That is not the same thing as saying this evidence alone is sufficient for the FDA to make its determination. Does this really need to be explained to you?

You said...

At this point it is a matter of bureaucracy rather than safety or efficacy — Isaac

We have been through this. The safety and efficacy have been well established. Even you admitted that:

No one is denying it's safe and effective. — Isaac

Safety and efficacy and FDA approval are not one and the same thing. If someone is concerned about safety and efficacy of the vaccine at this point RATHER THAN wait for FDA approval there is already sufficient evidence that it is safe and effective.

Taking things out of context can change the meaning. Rather than admit that you failed to understand what was said in context you obstinately ignore the context and double down. Why?

However, anti-vaxxers have a hidden benefit that seems to have escaped our notice. What they do or should do is galvanize vaccine developers into paying attention to reducing the risks, minor & major. Until now, vaccine developers have gotten away with it in a manner of speaking by constantly harping on the positives of vaccination and how the negatives are so negligible. — TheMadFool

The only benefit of anti-vaxxers is the default position as a self-selected control group with minimal loss to the aggregate IQ of society from remaining untreated.

You requested evidence for a causal relationship between vaccine hesitation and population harm. — Cheshire

Well then I wasn't clear enough. I wanted you to support your claim that...

It is a case where being wrong negatively effects others; made worse by distribution to others that might have otherwise decided correctly. — Cheshire

'It' being the take up of the covid vaccine. Evidence would therefore have to apply to the covid vaccine. As I've said multiple times, I'm a staunch supporter of most vaccination programs. I think they save millions of lives and in most cases anti-vax campaigners are dangerous. That doesn't mean I'm just going to blindly throw my support behind every vaccine going. So to support your claim you need evidence from this vaccine, because our disagreement is entirely and only about this vaccine.

Regarding the article you cited,

"a higher percentage of breakthroughs may simply reflect that fully vaccinated people are a bigger chunk of the population," — frank

Yeah. I think that's exactly why we're seeing the higher percentages.

The point was about restriction on movement. In that context it was claimed that the vaccinated infected are rare. They're not. They're about 40% of all infected, if the hospitalisation figures are even close to representative of infection. If breakthroughs are rare, yet comprise 40% of all hospitalisation, then we must conclude that unvaccinated infection is rare also, or we must argue that vaccinated people are more massively likely to be hospitalised post infection.

The degree of certainty of its safety does not make it more safe — Fooloso4

Ludicrous. I advise risk analysts. Safety is entirely measured in terms of certainty. If anyone is 100% certain of a negative effect it is mitigated. The remaining measure of safety is exactly the degree to which we are uncertain about the negative effect. We don't give drug to people where we know they will cause harm, we do so where we're uncertain if they will or not, a risk.

The millions of shots is evidence of safety and efficacy. That is not the same thing as saying this evidence alone is sufficient for the FDA to make its determination. Does this really need to be explained to you? — Fooloso4

It's not you explaining it to me. You suggested that it was evidence of the safety of the vaccine in the context of the FDAs work on safety...

Taking things out of context can change the meaning. — Fooloso4

Yeah right!

'It' being the take up of the covid vaccine. Evidence would therefore have to apply to the covid vaccine. As I've said multiple times, I'm a staunch supporter of most vaccination programs. I think they save millions of lives and in most cases anti-vax campaigners are dangerous. — Isaac

We agree in principle on the generalized dynamic, but you require proof the covid vaccine is not an extraordinary case.

That doesn't mean I'm just going to blindly throw my support behind every vaccine going. So to support your claim you need evidence from this vaccine, because our disagreement is entirely and only about this vaccine. — Isaac

I believe we have different definitions of what qualifies as blindly.

It is a demand for deductive evidence for the unknown outcome of a probabilistic trial awaiting inductive corroboration. It is a function of the amount of time that has passed; that makes the request impossible to meet. I don't know the outcomes of things that have not happened. If you take a Bayesian approach the number of currently healthy vaccinated people increasing at a steady rate should be reasonably compelling. The number of unhealthy unvaccinated people clogging hospitals in places should also be reasonably compelling.

I still find your position largely temporal. Prove to me what happens to me in the future. Can't be done. But, it has no bearing on the actual make up of this vaccine. You have conclusively proved it is a new vaccine.