Do you think either has primacy on strategic decision-making? — Isaac

Yes, yours has primacy.

I'm a consultant in psychology, I advise (among other clients) long-term risk analysts. They usually have a team of academics from all sorts of fields so there's considerable debate. None of it goes like this! — Isaac

Interesting. Totally off topic, but I keep running into seemingly undiagnosed cases of DID on Facebook. When I ask if they told a professional the answer is always that the executive control prevents verbalizing the condition. Anyway, I'm sure you are good at it.

keep running into seemingly undiagnosed cases of DID on Facebook. When I ask if they told a professional the answer is always that the executive control prevents verbalizing the condition. Anyway, I'm sure you are good at it. — Cheshire

I'm sure that's fascinating but I (as with about 50% of what you write) have not the faintest idea what you're talking about.

Probably because I don't know your position on the matter at hand.

Probably because I don't know your position on the matter at hand. — Cheshire

Increasingly cryptic, I like it. The 'matter at hand' being? The thread? My argument? Your response? My job? Your most recent aphorism?...

Increasingly cryptic, I like it. The 'matter at hand' being? The thread? My argument? Your response? My job? Your most recent aphorism?... — Isaac

The thread. What's the take away?

The thread. What's the take away? — Cheshire

Gosh. It's been quite long...

The question seemed to be about whether anti-vaccination sentiment was right. Anti-vaccination sentiment is not homogeneous. As has been cited, the most prevalent education level who are anti-(this)vaccine are PhD educated. Do you imagine there's been an outbreak of professors suddenly believing in lizardmen, or is it more likely that there's some technical merit to the opposition?

So, the simple answer to the thread is - some of it is, and some of it isn't. It's not a plot by Bill Gates, it's not got Chinese nano-bots in it, it's not going to kill more than it saves... But also it's not a panacea, the risk/benefit assessment is not positive for everyone, distribution is complex, and the economics of using profit-making private enterprises interferes with policy...

The question of moral obligation arose. I think the only possible moral imperatives that could be relevant are reducing the extent to which one is a burden on one's healthcare system, and reducing the risk of transferring the virus to another. The former, as I've shown, can be achieved with greater efficacy by making healthier lifestyle choices. The latter can be achieved with about equal efficacy (as far as we currently know) by taking non-pharmaceutical hygiene measures. So, since a person has options as to how they might meet their moral obligations other than by vaccination, I don't see any moral imperative to get vaccinated. I do see a moral imperative to do something to absolve both those duties, but it's not yet demonstrated that that something has to be vaccination.

Based on this analysis what should everyone do? Antivaccination is a stance that suggest people should not get vaccinated. Are the resources available to make a risk/benefit analysis on an individual basis prior to being over taken by the pandemic- read defeating our own purpose in creating a vaccine?

You're more likely to be a vector if you don't get vaccinated, so there's that. Don't ask for citation. You should have already read the findings on that.

Based on this analysis what should everyone do? — Cheshire

One of the strategies which evidence shows absolves both those duties. There needn't be a single answer.

Are the resources available to make a risk/benefit analysis on an individual basis prior to being over taken by the pandemic- read defeating our own purpose in creating a vaccine? — Cheshire

No, but we can do so by broad cohort. It's a normal part of the safety and efficacy checking. People (by which I mean experts in the field) disagree as to the results. I don't see what the urgency has to do with it. Urgency only advocates that we do something, quick. It doesn't alone advocate any particular thing.

You're more likely to be a vector if you don't get vaccinated, so there's that. Don't ask for citation. You should have already read the findings on that. — frank

I don't believe that's the case. There's been less than a handful of studies on transmission, none, to my knowledge, have compared vaccination to other hygiene measures, only to non-vaccination with undifferentiated other actions. One, the PHE study, had a proxy differentiation by age group, but lacked pillar I data so couldn't give a full picture. I think the evidence is quite compelling that vaccination lowers transmission on average and so is a good public policy, but we're questioning moral duty here, not public policy. The two are different and operate under different assumptions.

Edit - unless you think there's a moral obligation to follow public policy? I'd be interested to hear that argument if so.

There's been less than a handful of studies on transmission, none, to my knowledge, have compared vaccination to other hygiene measures, only to non-vaccination with undifferentiated other actions. — Isaac

See this is why someone would accuse you of arguing in bad faith. You throw out a scrap of data and build all sorts of assumptions around it to support your view, and then throw spitballs at good science when you don't like the conclusion.

You don't demonstrate a demeanor appropriate to a scientist, plus you're on a mission to find an El Dorado of misplaced intellectual weight.

Are you disagreeing with my claim about what the studies covered? You know how science works right? If you want to test for something you must measure that thing, it's no good testing something else on the same topic and then fudging your conclusions to cover. The limitations of the PHE study are listed by the study authors, they're not 'spitballs', and CDC policy refers directly to the PHE study.

So what ought I conclude and why?

I presume you think I should read a study which demonstrates a moderate reduction in transmissibility between vaccination and non-vaccination and conclude, in spite of the the limitations cited by the study's own authors, that this means vaccines always reduce transmission when compared to absolutely anything. What I can't for the life of me understand is why you would want me to do that.

Are we trying to find out what actually is the case, or are we just looking for the least crumb of data to support the current policy?

Are we trying to find out what actually is the case, or are we just looking for the least crumb of data to support the current policy? — Isaac

Do you see why you appear hypocritical here? If not, we're sorely be lacking in enough common ground to carry the question further.

I think the evidence is quite compelling that vaccination lowers transmission on average and so is a good public policy, but we're questioning moral duty here, not public policy. The two are different and operate under different assumptions. — Isaac

Antivaccination as it's understood would not consider vaccination a good public policy.

Do you see why you appear hypocritical here? — frank

We're all somewhat guilty of seeking data to support pet theories, yes. The difference here is that I'm not trying to tell you that your strategy is wrong. It's well supported. If you think vaccination reduces transmission in all cases you'd be quite justified in thinking that. I don't agree, and am also quite justified in doing so. The evidence is sufficiently imprecise to support a difference of opinion. The hypocrisy is in thinking I'm the only one susceptible to it. Remember ,we're not discussing public policy here, where it's sometimes necessary to pick an option despite uncertain science. We're talking about moral justification, the threshold here being only for sufficient justification

Antivaccination as it's understood would not consider vaccination a good public policy. — Cheshire

I don't think anti-vaccination as a sentiment is that homogeneous.

Double post

If you think vaccination reduces transmission in all cases you'd be quite justified in thinking that. I don't agree, and am also quite justified in doing so. The evidence is sufficiently imprecise to support a difference of opinion. The hypocrisy is in thinking I'm the only one susceptible to it. — Isaac

No, the hypocrisy is in doing the very thing you criticize.

I don't think anti-vaccination as a sentiment is that homogeneous. — Isaac

What defines the set? If not a person opposed to a particular policy, activity, or idea.

No, the hypocrisy is in doing the very thing you criticize. — frank

I didn't criticise it. You and I have surely crossed swords sufficiently often for you to know that I hold a view of belief that is completely opposed to any 'one true answer' philosophy.

What defines the set? — Cheshire

Language users I suppose. I've heard some of the academics I've cited called anti-vaxxers. If you want to talk only about some particular homogeneous group then the conversation might be different, but that's not the terms in which I first engaged.

Language users I suppose. I've heard some of the academics I've cited called anti-vaxxers. If you want to talk only about some particular homogeneous group then the conversation might be different, but that's not the terms in which I first engaged. — Isaac

I can doubt a vaccine, am I an antivaxxer?

I can doubt a vaccine, am I an antivaxxer? — Cheshire

As I said. It's a term I've heard applied in those cases, yes. I think the thread would have been a lot shorter and considerably less interesting if it had only asked "are anti-vaxxers right?", meaning only those lunatic conspiracy theorists. "No, obviously". Next thread... "Do flat earthers have point...?" Is that seriously what you thought we were discussing?

As I said. It's a term I've heard applied in those cases, yes. — Isaac

So, in order to maintain your position you have to argue the prefix -anti (in this novel case) does not imply opposition, but merely the capability for balanced inquiry. I don't think that's representative of the case.

So, in order to maintain your position you have to argue the prefix -anti (in this novel case) does not imply opposition, but merely the capability for balanced inquiry. — Cheshire

No. My 'position' has nothing to do with the term 'anti-vaccine', it just happens to have arisen in a thread of that title (threads are like that sometimes) and then you asked me about the term. Gods! Who's arguing for arguing's sake now?

No. My 'position' has nothing to do with the term 'anti-vaccine', it just happens to have arisen in a thread of that title (threads are like that sometimes) and then you asked me about the term. Gods! Who's arguing for arguing's sake now? — Isaac

Oh, I thought this discussion was taking place in a context. Yes, there's lots of things spooky about vaccines. Immune responses can swell your brain and kill you. So, doing what's it's designed to do is still a threat. And your right, corporations are in business to make money. Setting objective welfare in opposition to profit brought us the Pinto. An exploding American vehicle. All that's well and good. And none of it is reason to oppose vaccinations; merely question them. You are not anti-vaccine. Glad we agree.

https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/nation/pandemic-has-never-been-worse-in-mississippi-top-doctor-says-as-20000-students-are-quarantined/

Need to start a thread called : Vaccines, the moral compulsory certainty for which consensus remains absolute?

didn't criticise it. You and I have surely crossed swords sufficiently often for you to know that I hold a view of belief that is completely opposed to any 'one true answer' philosophy. — Isaac

I see. Well I can respect that.

How does one overcome the fear of getting a needle stabbed into one's flesh, to make this into a voluntary event?

In the moment one looks the other direction and simply doesn't feel anything. Needle tech has come a long way in 20yrs. There isn't even a pinching sensation anymore; one would have to be trying to feel it.

Does anyone have misgivings about the vaccine which don't pertain to altering public policy or threaten advocacy for the general participation of the public? — Cheshire

I don't. All my misgivings about the vaccine exist in a maelstrom of shit about public policy. I can't even ask those who have the creds about misgivings because they too are in the same maelstrom; anything they said would be spun by stupid people into a "see, It's bad" talking point. It's like a climate change expert expert expressing a doubt about some nuance. Some idiot will jump on that and claim it's all BS.