Having taken a closer look, the first study (the link does actually work) was published in EClinicalMedicine. I looked them up and it’s a journal published by The Lancet.

The tenth study (which you didn’t get as far as) was published in the British Medical Journal.

You asked for studies and there they are. Are they all perfect and true to reality? I don’t know. Are yours?

see if you agree — Srap Tasmaner

Would it surprise you if I didn't?

I presented an argument that your distrust of pharmaceutical companies is a reason for no one to get vaccinated, and is inconsistent with a belief that some people should. You tried to manage this inconsistency in your first response by resenting the fact that some people should trust vaccine vendors. — Srap Tasmaner

Here's where it goes wrong, and hopefully in a simple way. I was trying to argue that distrust of pharmaceuticals is a reason for as few people as possible to get vaccinated. In other words, to counter the (otherwise reasonable) all-in-it-together argument which might have everyone taking the vaccine to show solidarity with the group who actually need to.

I don't see why distrust of the pharmaceuticals need be an all or nothing factor, it's just one of many to weigh. In common with any sort of distrust, we don't just abandon all relations. I don't fully trust my fellow pub patrons, I wouldn't tell them all my pin number. I might though, ask one to look after my drink while I pop out and trust him not to poison it. Trust is not a binomial thing.

So were faced with an awful situation. There's this crisis where millions are dying and one crucial part of the solution is a vaccine. But the only people who can make vaccines are these awful, criminal profiteers (I'm exaggerating only a bit). What do we do? If we say we can't trust the awful, criminal profiteers and tell them where they can stick their vaccine, a lot of people will die whilst we all become immune naturally. But does rejecting that option mean we have to march it in on a litter to fanfare, ticker-tape parades and cheering crowds, one for everyone...have one for the baby... No, I don't think so. I think we can, as I said, begrudgingly accept that we have little choice for those who really need it, but that's as far as we'll go and as soon as this thing's over...

I don't trust the pharmaceutical industry (with good reason, it's not a random dislike), but they're currently the only source of medicine. Sometimes we need medicine. It seems obvious (to me) that in such a situation we take the medicine (what choice do we have?) but only at utmost need, as little as possible and without fanfare.

Yea, yea,yeah. You should get vaccinated. It's a mean virus.

I was trying to argue that distrust of pharmaceuticals is a reason for as few people as possible to get vaccinated. — Isaac

But you have to link up distrust with "as few people as possible" in some specific way. Is it because the vaccine might actually be poison and you want as few people as possible to be poisoned? Is it because the seller is making money per dose, and you want them to make as little money as possible?

So that's a new thing, but let's not forget the overall shape of the argument: you've already claimed that the right thing to do is vaccinate people who need (defined in the usual way) the vaccine, and not vaccinate people who don't need it. That about covers it, right? The rest is empirical details about who actually needs it.

What difference could other thoughts about pharmaceutical companies make here? There's no room for "You need the vaccine, but ..." and no need for "You don't need the vaccine, plus ..."

Bonus. Maybe even a bit of health gain in some cases. (y)

• Air pollution and COVID-19 (Dec 2020)

• How Covid gave the world a lesson in tackling air pollution (Apr 22, 2021)

But you have to link up distrust with "as few people as possible" in some specific way. Is it because the vaccine might actually be poison and you want as few people as possible to be poisoned? Is it because the seller is making money per dose, and you want them to make as little money as possible? — Srap Tasmaner

Both. The chance of harm from the vaccine and the fact the money made out of this response is all going to these companies who then have a massive incentive (and and even bigger capability) to push even more for such solutions next time. I mean, am I really having to actually explain why we might want to avoid giving taxpayer's money, and massive public acclaim, to criminal enterprises with very strong influence over government policy?

What difference could other thoughts about pharmaceutical companies make here? There's no room for "You need the vaccine, but ..." and no need for "You don't need the vaccine, plus ..." — Srap Tasmaner

It's here...

to counter the (otherwise reasonable) all-in-it-together argument which might have everyone taking the vaccine to show solidarity with the group who actually need to. — Isaac

to show solidarity with the group who actually need to. — Isaac

The prevailing sentiment of our generation - shameful at best.

Three weeks ago President Biden announced plans to require Covid-19 vaccinations — or, in some cases, weekly testing as an alternative — for most U.S. workers. There were immediate predictions that the move would backfire, that it would only stiffen vaccine resistance. Indeed, some surveys suggested that as many as half of unvaccinated workers would quit their jobs rather than take their shots.

But such threats are proving mostly empty. Many state and local governments and a significant number of private employers have already imposed vaccine mandates — and these mandates have been very successful. Compliance has been high, and only a relative handful of workers have quit or had to be fired.

To understand why vaccine mandates seem to work so well, we need to think about the real nature of vaccine resistance. Most of the people refusing to take their shots don’t really believe that the vaccines contain tracking microchips or that they have severe side effects.

Instead, everything we’ve seen suggests that many vaccine resisters are like the people who in the past raged about seatbelt laws and bans on phosphates in detergents, or more recently refused to wear masks. That is, they’re people who balk at being asked to accept what they imagine to be a cost or inconvenience on behalf of the public good. (In reality, getting vaccinated is very much something you should do on purely selfish grounds, but as I’ll explain in a minute, that information may not be getting through.) And as I’ve noticed in the past, political rage about public health rules seems, if anything, to be inversely related to how onerous these rules really are.

- Paul Krugman

I moved this over from the "A Gentleman: to be or not to be, and when" thread because I don't think it belongs there.

True. But those that are vaccinated are supposed to be protected? — Apollodorus

The primary reason why vaccination is required in the schools is to prevent the spread to other children and teachers. Epidemics of measles, mumps, diphtheria, whooping cough, etc. have almost disappeared.

And I don't see why China should get away with it when that is where the problem originated. — Apollodorus

I don't know what "get away with it" means in this context. What do you suggest we do?

Krugman’s argument is a stupid one. The fact that governments have in the past regulated this or that activity isn’t an argument that they should keep on doing so, that they should force companies to mandate vaccines, that they should violate someone’s bodily autonomy and their right to make one’s own medical decisions, and so on. No, this is nothing like complaining about seatbelts, but it’s no surprise people keep bringing it up. False analogies and appeals to tradition are the few arguments they have left.

Absent any coherent argument they have state coercion, the last resort of the weak. Of course many people will comply when the government threatens to end their livelihood. Cruelty and coercion may be successful, sure, but achieving success through these means only serves to illustrate how their other efforts until then were utter failures.

As someone who’s taking the vaccine already, what exactly are you driving at here? — Xtrix

That the enthusiasm of the vocal pro-vaccers is unfounded.
That the hatred and contempt that the vocal pro-vaccers show for everyone who doesn't share their enthusiasm is unjustified.

That the lowering of the standards of communication as is evident in the vaccination debate is unacceptable and dangerous.

I don't know what "get away with it" means in this context. What do you suggest we do? — T Clark

Take them to court, impose sanctions, anything is better than nothing. Otherwise the regime will think that it is untouchable and this can only make matters worse IMO.

143 strokes out of 10 million shots for the Pfizer vaccine, last I checked. Which is much better than the strokes caused by COVID infection — and still extremely rare any way you slice it. — Xtrix

Part of the problem is insisting on looking at the matter from the perspective of large numbers, large populations, and then expecting that individual people will be convinced and soothed by this.

If you are the one who gets the stroke after the vaccine, it does not matter to you if so many millions didn't get one. It's still you who is now paralyzed.

Part of the problem is insisting on looking at the matter from the perspective of large numbers, large populations, and then expecting that individual people will be convinced and soothed by this.

If you are the one who gets the stroke after the vaccine, it does not matter to you if so many millions didn't get one. It's still you who is now paralyzed. — baker

I wonder how useful this observation is. Isn't understanding and managing the odds how life is negotiated for the most part? All of life is a risk. Simple daily activities like crossing a road or eating seafood can kill you if you have bad luck. If you're the one with the bad luck, you can be understandably dismayed but isn't this the price of being a fragile corporeal creature in an incoherent and dangerous world?

Exactly!

I wonder how useful this observation is. Isn't understanding and managing the odds how life is negotiated for the most part? — Tom Storm

Not at all. It is doubtful that even professional statisticians think of their life choices in terms of odds.

All of life is a risk. Simple daily activities like crossing a road or eating seafood can kill you if you have bad luck.

Do you ever reflect on risk before crossing the road or eating seafood? I'm pretty sure you don't.

If you're the one with the bad luck, you can be understandably dismayed but isn't this the price of being a fragile corporeal creature in an incoherent and dangerous world?

Was it really "bad luck"?

To believe in luck, good or bad, is to believe that things in this universe don't happen in accordance with laws, regularities, but that the world is chaotic and that such are also our minds and activities. This has pernicious ramifications for one's outlook on life and for the way one acts.

If the world is really incoherent and dangerous as you say, then there is no reason to believe that anything (whether vaccines or levers) can make any difference. Except maybe magic.

We have science, and we believe in science, precisely to avoid relying on luck.

Take them to court, impose sanctions, anything is better than nothing. Otherwise the regime will think that it is untouchable and this can only make matters worse IMO. — Apollodorus

I doubt that would be effective, but sure. I have no objection. I'll go along with that if you'll go along with mandatory vaccination.

Do you ever reflect on risk before crossing the road or eating seafood? I'm pretty sure you don't. — baker

You don't have to reflect on risk when you get vaccinated either.

Do you ever reflect on risk before crossing the road or eating seafood? I'm pretty sure you don't. — baker

I sure do and when I get in a car.

I'm obviously using luck in the conversational sense. But whatever you wish to call it. Life is risk and you may be dead by morning...

If the world is really incoherent and dangerous as you say, then there is no reason to believe that anything (whether vaccines or levers) can make any difference. Except maybe magic. — baker

I actually didn't spell out precisely how dangerous or incoherent, did I? Is this merely some grotesque exaggeration to avoid a point? I can't tell.

An example - a friend died of lung cancer at 40. She didn't smoke. My grandfather smoked 2 packets a day for 70 years and never got sick. He died in his sleep at 96. Human experience in a nutshell. This is why I use words like luck or incoherent. Feel free to suggest an improved nomenclature, but you can't avoid the point.

But from this example I do not conclude there is no merit in taking precautions in life because, all quirky anomalies aside, most people who smoke 2 packs a day die from it.

I have no objection. I'll go along with that if you'll go along with mandatory vaccination. — T Clark

Unfortunately, I can't go along with mandatory vaccination as that sounds too much like an infringement of human rights. It would be inconsistent to condone here what I condemn in China.

Besides, if you have no objection, then you don't need to make your approval conditional on my going along with mandatory vaccination.

So, it would be easier if you unconditionally agreed. :smile:

You don't have to reflect on risk when you get vaccinated either. — Janus

Then why are those who want people to get vaccinated feeding us that line???

Why are high government officials, epidemiologists, public advertisements, and so on telling us that the risk of something going wrong is low, and that therefore, we should get vaccinated?

I sure do and when I get in a car. — Tom Storm

Really?? So then what -- do you get anxious? If you do, what do you tell yourself to calm down and compose yourself?

I'm obviously using luck in the conversational sense.

This is a philosophy forum. More precision is fully warranted.

Life is risk

I don't believe that.
I don't believe that life is a gamble in any way.

and you may be dead by morning...

Of course. But this still doesn't make it a gamble. There is cause and effect. Given that some causes are currently not known, some phenomena might indeed seem random, without causes and conditions. But this seeming doesn't make them so.

An example - a friend died of lung cancer at 40. She didn't smoke. My grandfather smoked 2 packets a day for 70 years and never got sick. He died in his sleep at 96. Human experience in a nutshell. This is why I use words like luck or incoherent. Feel free to suggest an improved nomenclature, but you can't avoid the point.

The point being?

Unfortunately, I can't go along with mandatory vaccination as that sounds too much like an infringement of human rights. It would be inconsistent to condone here what I condemn in China. — Apollodorus

Is it an infringement of human rights to require vaccination of children against childhood diseases before they can go to school? If not, your argument falls apart.

Besides, if you have no objection, then you don't need to make your approval conditional on my going along with mandatory vaccination. — Apollodorus

I think trying to go after China is a wasted effort intended only to make people feel like they're doing something to address the issue when it's actually meaningless. It's a human tendency to try to beat someone up when something goes wrong. But if that will make people feel better, ok. Again, it will make me feel better if people get vaccinated. Tit for tat.

Krugman’s argument is a stupid one. The fact that governments have in the past regulated this or that activity isn’t an argument that they should keep on doing so, that they should force companies to mandate vaccines, that they should violate someone’s bodily autonomy and their right to make one’s own medical decisions, and so on. — NOS4A2

Speaking of stupid arguments.

No one is forcing companies to mandate vaccines. Ask United Airlines and Tyson. Many of these companies had this policy in place before Biden's announcement. So that's your first straw man.

Second: no one is physically forcing vaccinations. You have a right to bodily autonomy, and have a right to reject the vaccine if you don't want it. You have a right to smoke and, in my view, should have the right to do drugs and commit suicide. Those all have ripple effects on the community as well, but in principle I take it as a given.

Vaccine mandates give you an ultimatum, just as smoking bans do: if you want to smoke, or be unvaccinated, that's fine -- just don't do it here. If you don't agree with that, you're "free" to work elsewhere -- which is, after all, what conservatives have been saying for years. If you don't like the amount of power that businesses have -- welcome to the club. Too bad you've worked so hard over the years destroying unions.

False analogies and appeals to tradition are the few arguments they have left. — NOS4A2

And straw men are all Trumpists like you have have left.

Absent any coherent argument they have state coercion, the last resort of the weak. — NOS4A2

Last I checked, United Airlines isn't the "state."

Of course many people will comply when the government threatens to end their livelihood. Cruelty and coercion may be successful, sure, but achieving success through these means only serves to illustrate how their other efforts until then were utter failures.

"Other efforts" being rationality and overwhelming medical recommendations. You're right -- when that fails, after months of attempts, there's little recourse but what these companies and now, far too late, the federal government is doing. Should have been done long ago.

People are getting strokes from the covid vaccines, they are dying from the covid vaccines.

What do you have to offer to the survivors and their close ones? — baker

What about those killed by the virus ☣ and those saved by the vaccine?
Did you take those into account?
One could argue that withholding an effective vaccine would be a crime.

^{Recommended Vaccinations for birth through 6 years | Recommended Vaccines by Age (US CDC)}

As mentioned (several times in this thread alone), fatalities from the vaccine itself are very rare. Blood clotting and allergies continue to be monitored. Other vaccines (medication at large) aren't magic cures either; we've known this stuff for ages. But, of course, all fatalities are tragic.

If you're to have a get-together with the virus, then (suffering or) dying from the virus is markedly more likely than from the vaccine, ... Then there are the social/communal aspects. We learn from the evidence/science, regardless of how it's put.

Really?? So then what -- do you get anxious? If you do, what do you tell yourself to calm down and compose yourself? — baker

I'm often mindful of my mortality. The only time I get anxious is when I am in a vehicle that is going too fast. Generally I ask the driver to slow down.

Life is risk
I don't believe that.
I don't believe that life is a gamble in any way. — baker

That is interesting. We have different views. Alert the media...

The point being? — baker

I told you. To me this (and many other examples) point to the innate lottery inherent in being alive (which you don't agree is a thing).

This is a philosophy forum. More precision is fully warranted. — baker

Not necessarily. We have conversations containing some philosophical ideas using basic English words and idioms with some specialized terms. We ask for clarifications when something is unclear - as you did.

And you still have nothing to offer to those damaged by the vaccines and their close ones.

All you can offer is the standard rhethoric of risk, luck, and large populations. This is shallow.

I'm often mindful of my mortality. — Tom Storm

What does that look like? Can you elaborate?

As someone who’s taking the vaccine already, what exactly are you driving at here?
— Xtrix
That the enthusiasm of the vocal pro-vaccers is unfounded.
That the hatred and contempt that the vocal pro-vaccers show for everyone who doesn't share their enthusiasm is unjustified. — baker

"Enthusiasm"? I'd say more frustration. Hatred and contempt, maybe -- but that, to me, isn't entirely incomprehensible either when people are refusing the vaccine, prolonging a pandemic, and infecting and killing others for no rational reason whatsoever, despite many much more sober and factual attempts at educating them by medical experts.

143 strokes out of 10 million shots for the Pfizer vaccine, last I checked. Which is much better than the strokes caused by COVID infection — and still extremely rare any way you slice it.
— Xtrix

Part of the problem is insisting on looking at the matter from the perspective of large numbers, large populations, and then expecting that individual people will be convinced and soothed by this.

If you are the one who gets the stroke after the vaccine, it does not matter to you if so many millions didn't get one. It's still you who is now paralyzed. — baker

Yes, I do insist on looking at this by the numbers and by probability -- the same way we look at anything we do when we're concerned or afraid. The same way we weigh the risk of flying in an airplane or taking Tylenol. 143 strokes out of 10 million should be persuasive to anyone who's rational that this is not a highly risky action.

Yes, for those rare cases where this happens, I feel for those people. I also feel for people who die in plane crashes, rollercoaster accidents, shark attacks, and liver disease from Tylenol.

If you're arguing this isn't persuasive, I don't know how else one can explain it. It's simply extremely unlikely that anything happens to you when you get vaccinated. That's mathematics.

Do you ever reflect on risk before crossing the road or eating seafood? I'm pretty sure you don't.
— baker

You don't have to reflect on risk when you get vaccinated either. — Janus

Then why are those who want people to get vaccinated feeding us that line???

Why are high government officials, epidemiologists, public advertisements, and so on telling us that the risk of something going wrong is low, and that therefore, we should get vaccinated? — baker

Because people are irrationally worried, and refusing the vaccine based on this irrational fear. At that point, these numbers can be very helpful. It can be very helpful to explain that the odds of dying or being harmed in some way by x is extremely low.

If people weren't afraid -- as they aren't usually afraid of driving or flying in an airplane or taking tylenol -- then you're right, there's no reason to discuss odds and that's not part of our daily lives. We don't walk around making calculations like this. But when we do stop and think, for whatever reason, then the proper thing to do in that moment is to understand the risk involved.

And the data show that the risks are incredibly low, and that vaccines are safe. How else are we to talk to those who continue to refuse?

Why are high government officials, epidemiologists, public advertisements, and so on telling us that the risk of something going wrong is low, and that therefore, we should get vaccinated? — baker

Because those opposed to the vaccine are spreading misinformation suggesting that the risk is high?