But you didn't make any point at all. I wish you would. — magritte

Wasn't my point.

Lack of social distancing is the superspreader, and that's regardless of any variant of COVID or any other communicable disease.
College campuses are social gatherings, students are there to socialize, and it's this lack of social distancing aspect that the university is addressing. — magritte

A dangerous vaccine ingredient is the is the superspreader, and that's regardless of any variant of COVID or any other communicable disease.
College campuses are fully vaccinated, and it's this dangerous vaccine ingredient that the university should be addressing.

...or

...we could cite our sources and have a proper conversation.

The point is that a whole series of actions were taken, many imposed against the preferences of the students. Let's say your theory is true (it's certainly more likely than mine). It doesn't address the question at hand, which is whether all those other protections had an effect significant enough to justify their imposition. If, as you say, it's all down to social distancing anyway, then why were vaccines and masks mandated but social distancing not?

It’s clear to me that these kinds of restrictions created a false sense of security among the compliant. But if the omicron variant is involved, it’s not clear social distancing measures would have stopped anything.

The omicron variant has been identified in two coronavirus cases in a Hong Kong quarantine hotel where scientists believe the virus spread through the air in a hallway.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2021/11/24/hong-kong-valve-face-mask-covid/

Yeah.

Folk sometimes lock themselves into a loop of rationalisations in such a way that every criticism of their belief can be twisted into a justification for that belief.

Take care.

No, the main problem is that the vaccine is a poison making those who take it vulnerable to the new variant. — Isaac

I don't understand how an otherwise reasonable fellow can hold to this.

We know vaccination works. We know that flattening the curve of infection allows health systems to cope. We know that vaccination has slowed the spread of the virus, helping flatten that curve.

There is a moral imperative to protect people.

The forum is the worst possible place to have this discussion, since it forces folk into opposing camps. This is not a productive discussion.

Don't have any time this evening but wanted to clarify this was a rhetorical device not something I actually think. I thought it was more obvious than it clearly came out.

My point was that when we espouse pet theories without citations (even in support of anti-covid measures), we invite any such theories as the one I made up to the discussion.

It was a poorly thought out device and I shouldn't have risked it in this climate.

See the context...

...or

...we could cite our sources and have a proper conversation. — Isaac

Sorry for the confusion.

Cheers. Understandable.

I find myself trying to protect those around me at a time when booster vaccinations are available but in short supply, while the wider community is engaging in activities that can only lead to greater spread. The return to "normality" posses a very real threat to vulnerable folk. As I pointed out to @Tom Storm, open policies will result in the deaths of first nations folk, the homeless and other low social status folk, the sick, the disabled, the elderly and children. That is, it is a form of passive eugenics.

Avoiding those outcomes ought be a high priority, even above combating the greed of Pfizer and friends and the stupidity of governments.

:ok: Some of the communities I have been working with this year only have a 30% (approx) vaccination rate compared to 93% of the general population. They have a range of vulnerabilities including compromised immune systems, diabetes, premature aging. They are sitting ducks.

Nothing about you without you...

I find myself trying to protect those around me at a time when booster vaccinations are available but in short supply, while the wider community is engaging in activities that can only lead to greater spread. The return to "normality" posses a very real threat to vulnerable folk. As I pointed out to Tom Storm, open policies will result in the deaths of first nations folk, the homeless and other low social status folk, the sick, the disabled, the elderly and children. That is, it is a form of passive eugenics.

Avoiding those outcomes ought be a high priority, even above combating the greed of Pfizer and friends and the stupidity of governments. — Banno

I understand that, I think our difference is only that I don't believe (unfortunately) that it's possible to separate them such as to prioritise the former.

I haven't had the privilege of working with indigenous communities, but I have worked with many minority communities, particularly working class urban poor. These communities reel from one kick to another. I don't know if it made the international news, but some or our communities are still reeling from being burnt alive inside their own homes at Grenfell. A situation where the government approved something which they knew was unsafe and unnecessary to make their buddies rich.

Now the government wants to approve something which is definitely making their buddies rich, but this time we want to say it's different, this one really is safe and necessary, honest.

The boy who cried wolf didn't only harm himself when the wolf finally came, he hurt the sheep, the shepherd, the farmer...

As I said to @jorndoe, if people are falling for misinformation, and we care about that, it's on us to make the information more convincing. That's what I see transparency as doing, that's what I see reasonable debate as doing - making the crucial key message more convincing.

The key factor is trust and trust is not earned by ridiculing people's justified beliefs (and let's face it "the government are screwing us to make the wealthy richer" is a completely justified belief) - I'm not here suggesting you are ridiculing other people's beliefs, I'm talking about the public discourse - though this thread in general would certainly be a good example.

The smearing of dissenting voices, the refusals to talk about the pharmaceutical companies in anything but glowing terms, the relentless pushing of the one money-making bit of the raft of solutions required...all these erode trust, feed conspiracy theories, hamper efforts to get communities to adopt the strategies needed.

I'm not going to name names, but you'll be aware, no doubt, that psychologists were involved in devising government policy from day one (at least here in England, I suspect elsewhere). There were two camps - 'scare them shitless' and 'earn their trust'. The former won. They shouldn't have.

if people are falling for misinformation, and we care about that, it's on us to make the information more convincing. That's what I see transparency as doing, that's what I see reasonable debate as doing - making the crucial key message more convincing. — Isaac

The misinformation is quite convincing...is that not why so many are convinced? Socrates proved that nothing is more convincing to mankind than misinformation, and history has corroborated. You have made some key connections here...it would seem that if the crucial key message is to be made more convincing, then it should be packaged as misinformation. This would probably require that the presentation be sufficiently inflamatory so as to incite emotional reactions (rather than logical responses) in the target demographic.

If nothing else, a generation will pass, one which is physiologically unaffected by covid, then the free world will be imposed upon by another fabricated immanent threat...one that the easily convinced will buy into without blinking an eye.

Information about Covid-19 will continue to be valuable for people who are interested in being vaccinated and just need more data. But that may be only a small portion of the unvaccinated population now. If disbelief in the importance of vaccination is the primary barrier to reaching the country’s vaccination goals, more information is unlikely to work.

Our past research has also shown that more information often isn’t enough to change behavior. A classic example is doctors who struggle to follow the same medical advice that they give to patients. Despite doctors’ extensive training and access to medical information, as a group, they are barely better than patients at sticking to recommendations for improving their health. This includes vaccinations. Rates of chickenpox vaccination among doctors’ children, for example, are not meaningfully different from the rates among children whose parents are not doctors. While most parents vaccinate their children against chickenpox, you would expect the rates among doctors’ families to be especially high.

What interventions might work? Behavioral science research suggests that one of the best ways to motivate behavior is through incentives, either positive or negative. Incentives work because they do not force people to change their beliefs. A customer might switch cellphone providers not because he believes the new provider is better, but because the new provider is offering a free iPhone to switch (a positive incentive). A teenager might come home before curfew on a Saturday night not because she believes it’s dangerous to be out late, but because she knows her parents will take away her car keys if she stays out past midnight (a negative incentive).

While small positive incentives such as free doughnuts or entries into statewide lottery programs may have motivated some people, those and similar methods don’t seem to motivate people to get vaccinated on a scale large enough to close the vaccination gap.

The incentive that seems to work especially well is the employer vaccine mandate, a negative incentive. “Get vaccinated or get fired” has shown to be an effective message. United Airlines, which mandated the coronavirus vaccination for its employees this past summer, reported in November that 100 percent of their customer-facing employees were vaccinated, and that only about 200 of their 67,000 employees had chosen termination over vaccination. Similar stories have played out among private and public sector employers that enforce mandates, with vaccination rates approaching 100 percent (including at our own hospital).

By now, it’s clear that the public health system does not know how to change people’s beliefs about vaccines. Until we do, America’s leaders should focus on other strategies, especially the ones we already know are effective.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/21/opinion/vaccine-hesitancy-covid-omicron.html

So in other words: we're losing the battle of education, knowledge, facts, information, communication, etc. Corporate media and social media (but I repeat myself) are leading more and more people into conspiracies and bogus beliefs and into silos. That is clear.

What to do about it? Use "incentives." Translation: rewards and punishments. When people behave like animals, treat them as such and that will work. Behaviorism prevails, in this case. Simple principles of classical and operant conditioning will be enormously effective.

There's a part of me that's very leery about all this, even though I think it's justified in this case, based on scientific and medical consensus/direction, but much like the analogy to the teenager coming home for curfew because she's afraid of "negative incentive," that's far from ideal. Best to have a child understand why the rule is in place to begin with, not simply to force compliance with threats. If you're truly unable to make him or her understand the rule, for whatever reason, then you're left with no alternative -- but that doesn't negate the fact that you have a real issue on your hands.

And we certainly have a real issue in the United States. Our powerful corporate and political (but I repeat myself) masters, through their ownership and control of media and their infiltration of the education system, have really done a number on the populace. We're as divided and confused as ever. Not even a pandemic can change that. If 9/11 happened today, I doubt that would change anything either. Perhaps we had the best chance to come together in 2009 -- instead we got the Tea Party and Occupy, and Obama bailing out the banks.

Maybe it's already over, folks.

Anyway -- if "incentives" is the way of the future, it'll lead to even more division and violence. But when half the country's behavior effects the other half and vice versa, something has to be done. This is a tough one -- but in the end I blame the 40 years of the neoliberal assault and the influential people who engineered it. This is what comes from putting greed above everything.

Warren, who had received three shots of a coronavirus vaccine, added that she was experiencing only mild symptoms and was “grateful for the protection provided against serious illness that comes from being vaccinated & boosted.”

Booker said Sunday that he first felt symptoms the previous day and that they were “relatively mild.”
“I’m beyond grateful to have received two doses of vaccine and, more recently a booster — I’m certain that without them I would be doing much worse,” Booker said in a statement.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/12/19/sen-warren-tests-positive-coronavirus-says-she-is-grateful-protection-vaccines-booster-shot/

More examples of fully vaccinated people with boosters spreading the virus. Now we know the claim that a vaccinated (and now boosted) populace will bring us out of the pandemic was a false promise. Politicians lied and people died.

Consider the fact that there are people out there who actually believe breakthrough cases are the real problem.

See above article. Maybe it *is* better to treat them like animals after all.

Remember the old phrase "There's no cure for stupid." Apropos, I think.

Our powerful corporate and political (but I repeat myself) masters, through their ownership and control of media and their infiltration of the education system, have really done a number on the populace. — Xtrix

Bullshit.

Largest lobbying power over governments - Pharmaceuticals https://www.investopedia.com/investing/which-industry-spends-most-lobbying-antm-so/

Largest control over mainstream media- Pharmaceuticals https://trofire.com/2017/04/11/big-pharma-owns-corporate-media-americans-waking-fighting-back/

Media coverage has actually overall become more pro-vaccine during the pandemic - https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.11.07.21266018v1

Largest funding control over medical science - Pharmaceuticals https://www.bmj.com/content/348/bmj.g3058.long

Influence over government regulators - Pharmaceuticals https://www.science.org/content/article/fda-s-revolving-door-companies-often-hire-agency-staffers-who-managed-their-successful

Best performing hedge fund in the world's favoured investment - Pharmaceuticals https://portfolio-adviser.com/will-baillie-giffords-big-bet-on-moderna-pay-off/

But apparently it's not the influence of the multi-billion dollar corporation in every aspect of government, media, science and investment you're concerned about. No. It's the influence of some right-wing nutjobs and a few yoga loving health freaks. Yes. I can hear Wall Street quaking in its boots right now at the prospect of the shocking influence Proud Boys have over some corner of Farcebook. How will they ever cope?

The point is, the corporate interest driving government, media and scientific responses is overwhelmingly pro-vaccine. There's not a single major corporate player with an anti-vaccine agenda, and one of the largest, most powerful industries in the world is the main beneficiary.

So either the corporate agenda just happens on this rare occasion to be a good one (tragically failing to defeat the forces of ignorance), or the corporate agenda is responsible for the failure to defeat this crisis.

Either way, the idea that the anti-vax movement is the major player here, overwhelming a spirited defence by those plucky underdogs - the US government and the pharmaceutical industry - is laughable.

So either the corporate agenda just happens on this rare occasion to be a good one — Isaac

As if modern medicine has an evil agenda. :lol:

As if modern medicine has an evil agenda. — frank

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/opioids

Opioids make life saving surgery possible. Modern medicine is among the greatest accomplishments of the species and you think a few cases of abuse make it entirely evil. That's ridiculous.

Opioids make life saving surgery possible. Modern medicine is among the greatest accomplishments of the species and you think a few cases of abuse make it entirely evil. That's ridiculous. — frank

I haven't even mentioned modern medicine. My comments were about the pharmaceutical industry, if you're only referring to the medicines, then I'm not sure what your point is.

Question. Do you think we'd have made greater advances in modern medicine if it were a) nationalised, b) more heavily regulated, or c) less heavily regulated?

If you answered (a) or (b) then you admit that medical advances have happened despite the profiteering of the pharmaceuticals, not because of it. If you ananswered (c), then this conversation's over. I just can't take you seriously.

I haven't even mentioned modern medicine. — Isaac

Corporations gather round the things we need. That's how it works. General Mills makes a profit off their products. That doesn't mean anything about the safety and efficacy of their crackers.

If you want to target the mRNA vaccines, do so on their own merits, not on the vehicle the species uses to make and distribute them.

If you answered (a) or (b) then you admit that medical advances have happened despite the profiteering of the pharmaceuticals, not because of it. — Isaac

What does this have to do with whether people should get vaccinated?

Corporations gather round the things we need. — frank

Neoliberal bullshit. Corporations generate demand for their products. Why the fuck else do you think they spend billions on lobbying, advertising, sponsorship and sales? They sure as hell don't just wait around for a need to organically arise out of the grateful community.

What does this have to do with whether people should get vaccinated? — frank

Really? Just read back over literally any section of this interminable thread. It's not about whether any individual should take the vaccine. It's about whether government (and indeed society's) policy should be to throw everything it's got at one single aspect of the solution (the one that makes their primary sponsers richer), rather than focus on those areas where their attention yields most benefits. Just putting the same effort into clean water supplies or malaria nets could have saved twice the lives for half the cost.

We utilized a virtual budget to make mRNA vaccines a reality. That's how we do anything big: we conjure money out of thin air. This has been going on since banking was invented.

So yeah. As soon as we have a global dictatorial government, we can intelligently prioritize. :up:

Our powerful corporate and political (but I repeat myself) masters, through their ownership and control of media and their infiltration of the education system, have really done a number on the populace.
— Xtrix

Bullshit. — Isaac

Then goes on to cite the pharmaceutical companies. :lol:

I think you missed the point.

, everybody knows about the contemptible scandals, and that they ought to be dealt with.
Meanwhile we have a pandemic to deal with, which is kind of important enough.
Even if those companies (and facemask, hand sanitizer, horse dewormer companies) had conspired to create and deliver the virus worldwide (which they didn't), we'd still have to deal with the darn thing. :meh:
I'll venture a guess... If you put together a new opening post making a case for dealing with those scandals/companies, then it'll likely be fairly quiet, because most already agree. How to deal with them (not if) would more be up for debate.

I think this image is accurate enough for lay-persons:



Please let me know if you spot anything.

The point is, the corporate interest driving government, media and scientific responses is overwhelmingly pro-vaccine. — Isaac

True, yes. They’re not stupid — they know what’s good for the bottom line.

Either way, the idea that the anti-vax movement is the major player here, — Isaac

When 20 or 30 percent — being conservative — refuse vaccination, I’d say that’s become a major player, yeah. Same with the election lie — even the Wall Street Journal and Fox News (and every major corporation) don’t go that far. Yet something like 40% of Americans think Biden isn’t legitimate.

My point wasn’t about the anti-vax movement. It was about the divided, confused, and completely irrational state of affairs we’re living in. Vaccine irrationality, like election irrationality, is but one symptom. I do indeed blame the powerful for this — they’ve created this monster that they can no longer control. As I said before, it’s due to 40 years of policies that have decimated the populace and years of brainwashing/cultivating irrational attitudes.

Murdoch and Fox News, for example, share a great deal of responsibility for this — and for Trump. But does Trump now telling viewers to abandon Fox News somehow negate this? Not at all.

Then goes on to cite the pharmaceutical companies. :lol:

I think you missed the point. — Xtrix

You said...

we're losing the battle of education, knowledge, facts, information, communication, etc. — Xtrix

...then said...

Our powerful corporate and political (but I repeat myself) masters, through their ownership and control of media and their infiltration of the education system, have really done a number on the populace. — Xtrix

Since the most powerful group in that list are the pharmaceutical companies themselves, who are pushing the pro-vaccine agenda. So it's hard to see how you're blaming them for ignorance (wherein I assume - perhaps wrongly - you're referring to anti-vaccine sentiment)

Basically, if we're making irrational choices about vaccines and you're blaming that on corporations then you're either saying that it's supporting the vaccine that is irrational (which I merely assumed you weren't from our previous exchange), or that the corporations have been encouraging us to reject the vaccine (which is clearly nonsense). Or, I suppose a third option that the corporations have been persuading us to take the vaccine but it's backfired and caused us to reject it, which is one of the issues I've been arguing all along.

Alternatively, I have indeed missed your point entirely - in which case perhaps you could make it slightly less opaque.

When 20 or 30 percent — being conservative — refuse vaccination, I’d say that’s become a major player, yeah. — Xtrix

But this argument is completely circular. The idea that 20-30% of people's failing to take the vaccine is problematic is something you've repeated because it's been told to you by government agencies and media. The organisations you've just admitted are rife with corruption and corporate influence. You can't say that the corporations are right on this occasion because of the data the corporations have just given you showing how right they are.

If, on the one hand you're going to say...

Corporate media and social media (but I repeat myself) are leading more and more people into conspiracies and bogus beliefs and into silos. That is clear. — Xtrix

... you can't then use the information you've acquired from the very sources you've just accused of misleading, to argue that they're not (on this occasion) misleading. We have one source of data on Covid spread and extent - government data. We have one dominant source of data on the vaccine efficacy - pharmaceutical company (and corporate sponsored) studies. If you'd want to say that those organisations can't be trusted (and you'd be right) then you've no ground at all to make strong claims about the nature of the pandemic or it's efficacious treatment. The data you're basing such assessments on comes from the very organisations you've just indicted in leading us astray.

Meanwhile we have a pandemic to deal with — jorndoe

Yes, we do. We also have a malaria crisis to deal with, an obesity crisis, an opioid crisis, an AIDS crisis, a poverty crisis, a TB crisis, a diarrhoea crisis, a child labour crisis...

The death rates now are no different to those a few years ago. There's nothing world-shattering about Covid, it's just one more in the long list of killers. It's just one that has a newly patentable drug to peddle as the only solution.

Virtually all of the WHO's top interventions to save lives globally and nationally are more cost effective than the $300,000 per QALY invested in the Covid response. More than most medical treatments, more than almost all mooted interventions in the developing world. So, if not corporate intervention. You tell me why the governments have decided to save the covid-threatened at almost seven times the cost they were previously willing to spend on the poor, the starving and the sick.