prophylactic medicine — Isaac

Just if it wasn't clear, in this context, speaking of harmless/harmful isn't the same as when speaking of Dihydrogen Monoxide.

Yeah, most reports show that more education and vaccine acceptance (less education and vaccine hesitance) correlate. — jorndoe

No they don't. Not in the light of this latest one. With any evidence of a u- or j- shaped relationship, previous studies which lack sufficient granularity to pick up the apparent function simply lack adequate precision. You can't just go back to studies you know lack the granularity to show a variable effect and claim they prove a relationship which assumes it's absent. That's just deliberately selecting data at a granularity you know is going to avoid the relationship you want to deny.

I'm not saying such a relationship even exists, it may yet turn out to be absent. But studies which don't even look for it have no bearing on it's likelihood.

Just if it wasn't clear, in this context, speaking of harmless/harmful isn't the same as when speaking of Dihydrogen Monoxide. — jorndoe

Not clear what you're trying to say here. Is it addressed to me, or simply about my comment?

deliberately selecting — Isaac

I didn't.

I didn't. — jorndoe

Did you select them accidentally then?

Not clear what your trying to say here — Isaac

There isn't much to it.

Did you select them accidentally then? — Isaac

Nope, I selected whatever demographics-related reports.

Nope, I selected whatever demographics-related reports. — jorndoe

To comment on the PhD question... A question none of those reports addressed.

If it's a lack of charitable interpretation that's bothering you, there's a list of posts ahead of mine need addressing. — Isaac

Whataboutism. I thought Murica had an monopoly on that. Anyway, those posts ahead of yours did not arise in a vacuum. They were preceded then again by your own. So many now that I have lost track. Best I can make out is a moving target that keeps getting hit.

Their content doesn't matter. — Isaac

And therein lies the rub. If my guys say X and your guys say Y and that is the end of it, then the only recourse is to choose X or Y. The analytic mind would ask what X had to say about what Y said, but apparently that does not matter. So, as a non-expert, I choose X, the vetted, peer-reviewed, expert authorities upon which policy makers rely. You choose Y, flapping in the breeze and being obstinate, petulant, apparently for it's own sake. If you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with bull shit. Load that straw! What do the Phd's in astrophysics and geology and paleontology have to say? They're smart.

Just if it wasn't clear, in this context, speaking of harmless/harmful isn't the same as when speaking of Dihydrogen Monoxide. — jorndoe

Largest real-world study of COVID-19 vaccine safety published (Aug 26, 2021)


, the comment was explicitly using broader categories:

Yeah, most reports show that more education and vaccine acceptance (less education and vaccine hesitance) correlate.
The delimiters are typically high school and college, and far from all are done with detailed rigor and checks.
(Seems biased to dismiss those reports.)
Granted, you can find some that show differently than that, though they're a minority.

People having changed their minds almost always go from hesitance to acceptance.
Some reports suggest a "hard core" that never change their minds.
(In different areas, incorrigibility seems correlated with radical/extreme views.)

One report found that fear of side effects was the most common reason for hesitance. — jorndoe

Just if it wasn't clear, in this context, speaking of harmless/harmful isn't the same as when speaking of Dihydrogen Monoxide. — jorndoe


Largest real-world study of COVID-19 vaccine safety published (Aug 26, 2021) — jorndoe

That hasn't made anything any clearer. You might want to to try stringing your media snippets together with actual words relating them to the topic at hand.

the comment was explicitly using broader categories: — jorndoe

Why?

Now NicK does not want to get vaccinated... :fear:

Now NicK does not want to get vaccinated... — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Has he recently earned his PhD? You might be able to clarify something for us...

Sorry , I may play your games some other time.

FYI, here are a couple reports that may or may not support some of your assertions:

Conscientious vaccination exemptions in kindergarten to eighth-grade children across Texas schools from 2012 to 2018: A regression analysis (Mar 10, 2020)

Mistrust of the medical profession and higher disgust sensitivity predict parental vaccine hesitancy (Sep 2, 2020)

They're a bit early for the current pandemic I suppose.

I prefer risks from external elements to risks from things I did to myself), I don't want to support the pharmaceutical industry, I don't like prophylactic medicine in general. — Isaac

Reverse some of those and see if an inclination to get vaccinated, simply as a matter of preference, appears, notwithstanding any of someone's other views about risk. — Srap Tasmaner

I'm afraid I can't make sense of this paragraph. — Isaac

Sorry, yes, that's one of those sentences that makes sense in your head...

What I meant was this: suppose I did not avoid but preferred risks that were of my own choosing; or suppose I wanted to support the pharmaceutical industry; or suppose I generally approved of prophylactic medicine. Any such preference might even trump other views I have about risk in general, or about the risks of covid and vaccination in particular. But without knowing about those preferences, you might be hard pressed to make sense of my views -- that was the point.

If it's a lack of charitable interpretation that's bothering you, there's a list of posts ahead of mine need addressing. — Isaac

True, but yours are worth addressing.

To get from your stated preferences (about risk and medicine generally) to refusing vaccination is straightforward; the only critique you might be open to there would be if there is some additional premise or premises, which you either already accept or could be brought to accept, which would lead to a different conclusion. This may or may not be the case, but would be the usual sort of discussion.

But the other part of what you've been up to could be summarized, only a little uncharitably, like this:

I don't want to get vaccinated and you can't say boo to me about it because other people smoke and eat red meat.

If I held a position that could be summarized thus, warning bells would be going off that I had made some kind of mistake somewhere. This part is not a bad argument; it's just no argument at all, but somehow you came to believe it is. (I'm very interested in how that might happen.)

I'm sure on your side it all seems to hang together in mutual support, perfectly neat and consistent. But from my side, there's a crazy patchwork of argument and obiter dicta with the actual structure obscured by a tangle of threads connecting everything to everything else.

What I meant was this: suppose I did not avoid but preferred risks that were of my own choosing; or suppose I wanted to support the pharmaceutical industry; or suppose I generally approved of prophylactic medicine. Any such preference might even trump other views I have about risk in general, or about the risks of covid and vaccination in particular. But without knowing about those preferences, you might be hard pressed to make sense of my views -- that was the point. — Srap Tasmaner

Ahh, that makes sense now. Yes I agree. But here, I'm interested primarily in why people believe my actions are bad. Those reasons you gave (reversed), would explain why someone might consider their own actions justified, but I can't really tie them to a belief that my actions are wrong. Kind of like my preference for whiskey would explain why I'm drinking one right now, your preference for brandy would explain why you're not (but rather are having a brandy), but your preference for brandy wouldn't explain why you think my drinking a whiskey is wrong.

Having brought them up, however, I would be interested in what your preferences are, if you've a mind to say. What factors would you consider apart from health risk/benefit[/]?

If I held a position that could be summarized thus, warning bells would be going off that I had made some kind of mistake somewhere. — Srap Tasmaner

Could you explain why?

But from my side, there's a crazy patchwork of argument and obiter dicta with the actual structure obscured by a tangle of threads connecting everything to everything else. — Srap Tasmaner

So the main thread is the threshold of acceptable risk to your community's health services. I don't suppose anyone has something like a number in mind, but a rough idea of what is and is not acceptable. I expect a degree of consistency, and I don't think that's all that odd. We'd find it odd if someone who smoked like a chimney started complaining about the burden on the health service caused by meat-eaters. You'd find that odd no? But that's exactly what's happening here. People who take a reasonably large risk of burdening their health services are complaining about those taking a smaller risk. I'm trying to find out why.

New running joke at work: "What did we learn today?"

"Get vaccinated."

my preference for whiskey would explain why I'm drinking one right now, your preference for brandy would explain why you're not (but rather are having a brandy), but your preference for brandy wouldn't explain why you think my drinking a whiskey is wrong. — Isaac

Indeed. But the world's a complicated place, so we take shortcuts.

Your differing taste might leave another unable to understand your action. "Ugh. How can you drink that stuff!" Unable to understand means unable to approve. This isn't just a matter of taste though; the selection here of "not drinking whiskey" as the default behavior -- this is the shortcut, the partitioning of the alternatives by naming a "favored term" -- only means I'll need an explanation to understand your choice.

It's clear enough that for many of the people you've interacted with here, getting vaccinated is seen as the default. Your choice is hard to understand; I expect your explanations have persuaded some you've made a reasonable decision, just not all. For me, your explanations have gotten me roughly to the middle -- still not sure you've made the right choice, but not sure you've made the wrong one either.

Having brought them up, however, I would be interested in what your preferences are, if you've a mind to say. What factors would you consider apart from health risk/benefit[/]? — Isaac

Ah. Not sure, honestly. I don't have a lot of opinions one way or another about medicine and the use of pharmaceuticals. I know the industry is a horror show, as most multi-billion-dollar industries are, but I've been pleased to have ibuprofen in my life, and I know there are cases where drugs have saved people and cases when they're an obscene money-grab.

I'm rather strongly pro-science, in a vague way, so if men and women in lab coats hold press conferences and tell me they think I ought to do something, I'll need reasons not to, or at least excuses, maybe rationalizations will do. This is, sadly, a tribal matter here in the United States now, especially where I live, in the Deep South, and it is perhaps hard to understand if you don't live here. This may be why it seemed natural to me to compare getting vaccinated to voting -- simultaneously civic-minded and tribe-supporting -- a comparison that may not have the same resonance with you.

But the other part of what you've been up to could be summarized, only a little uncharitably, like this:

((S)) I don't want to get vaccinated and you can't say boo to me about it because other people smoke and eat red meat.

If I held a position that could be summarized thus, warning bells would be going off that I had made some kind of mistake somewhere. — Srap Tasmaner

Could you explain why? — Isaac

Well, it's a non sequitur, for starters, so we'd have to add some premises to get it looking like an inference. I don't like the look of what we'd have to add, though: that's a lot of individuals with their own reasons and given their own circumstances. If I ignore all that, my conclusions are probably worthless; not ignoring it introduces lots and lots of variables. Doesn't strike me as a good opportunity for generalizing.

And then there's what we'd be adding if we proceed: the goal is to compare what someone says about one thing with what they say about another. Even if I'm careful, and do the work, do I get anything better than plain "whataboutism"?

It's hard to put my finger on why -- evidence, as a matter of fact, that this impression is mistaken -- but it just doesn't feel like reasoning to me at all. It feels more "associative" than inferential.

You've provided a gloss, so let's look at that.

the main thread is the threshold of acceptable risk to your community's health services. I don't suppose anyone has something like a number in mind, but a rough idea of what is and is not acceptable. I expect a degree of consistency, and I don't think that's all that odd. — Isaac

Right off the bat, I'm uncomfortable. You've made a choice about how to classify people's views; it's not a bad choice, but there's no reason to think it's their choice. That doesn't always matter, but explicitly here we're supposed to be interested in why people say one thing and another, and you've decided for them why they're saying what they do.

We'd find it odd if someone who smoked like a chimney started complaining about the burden on the health service caused by meat-eaters. You'd find that odd no? — Isaac

No, not if by "odd" you meant "surprising". (I know by "odd" you mean "irrational", but I don't want to touch that.) Add the right premise or premises and their views might be perfectly consistent. (No guarantees, of course; sometimes people do reason poorly.) There are people in the United States who won't get vaccinated precisely because the federal government and the pointy-headed scientists want them to; the problem here is not their inconsistency, and that's what we're supposed to be interested in.

People who take a reasonably large risk of burdening their health services are complaining about those taking a smaller risk. I'm trying to find out why. — Isaac

Obviously because they have other beliefs informing their views. Is that so strange? If you didn't have preferences against getting vaccinated, this might have been a matter of indifference to you. You might have flipped a coin.

I don't have a solution for you. You can evaluate another's views using their criteria, and they'll pretty often pass that test; you only catch the occasional faulty inference that way. Or you can evaluate another's views using your criteria, but what's the point in saying that if someone thought like you they'd agree with you? There doesn't seem to be much percentage in doing either. If the exercise is to have any point at all, it has to start by settling on shared criteria, our criteria. Insofar as people haven't done that with you, they've wasted their time and yours. Insofar as you haven't done that with them, you've wasted your time and theirs. What else is there to say?

Head over to this parallel post ⇒ Poll: (2020-) COVID-19 pandemic ⇐ hit some buttons (y) (n) and let's see what the forum members think at large.



A Jan-Jun 2021 probe somewhere out there ...

... via KFF COVID-19 Vaccine Monitor: In Their Own Words, Six Months Later (Jul 13, 2021)

the partitioning of the alternatives by naming a "favored term" -- only means I'll need an explanation to understand your choice. — Srap Tasmaner

Not sure I get this. Does 'unable to understand' really mean 'unable to approve'? I assume the bit I'm not getting is the explanation, but it seems to lack something. I mean, I can not understand someone's choice and yet still approve. I don't understand how people like brandy... You took an opportunity to present an example, but gave one for the exception (I don't know what you see in him...). What I could have done with was an example of the rule (I can't approve because I don't understand why you prefer...).

if men and women in lab coats hold press conferences and tell me they think I ought to do something, I'll need reasons not to — Srap Tasmaner

Really interesting you should say that. It crops up a lot in my field. Men and women in lab coats tell you what the odds ratios are - "you're 1.4 times as likely on average to get cancer if you spend more than eight hours sitting down..." type of thing - they can't tell you what you ought to do. Maybe you're happy with that risk, maybe you love sitting down and don't care about cancer... The scientists can only tell us what the facts are, not what we ought to do about them.

we'd have to add some premises to get it looking like an inference. I don't like the look of what we'd have to add, though: that's a lot of individuals with their own reasons and given their own circumstances. — Srap Tasmaner

I get that, but this is a discussion forum - is it not within reason to say "...and you can't say ..." with the expectation that someone might reply "I can to, because...". In other fields we don't couch our opening gambits in overly conciliatory terms, I've only just read you saying that indirect realism about patterns is 'horseshit', a strong opener, but I expect you expect people to come back at you nonetheless. I'm quite happy to have my assertion ripped to pieces if it's a non-sequitur, but I do expect that ripping to have some substance.

the goal is to compare what someone says about one thing with what they say about another. Even if I'm careful, and do the work, do I get anything better than plain "whataboutism"? — Srap Tasmaner

Well no, because whataboutism aims to shift the attention. I'm not shifting any attention, I'm enquiring about inconsistency. It's not a matter of saying "what about the obese" (don't look at me), it's saying "if you think this about me, why not the obese?" it's a question, not an avoidance strategy. If it's avoidance I was after, my consistent posting would be somewhat undermining that aim, no? I could have not mentioned it, no-one would have judged, no-one need know. I can't see this caricature having any merit.

That doesn't always matter, but explicitly here we're supposed to be interested in why people say one thing and another, and you've decided for them why they're saying what they do. — Srap Tasmaner

Interesting. I can't say as I'd heard many other options. The talk is all about the risk not vaccinating produces. I can see perhaps people may view vaccine hesitancy in terms of risk and smoking not, but then I'd want to know why - what justifies the categorisation for them.

Add the right premise or premises and their views might be perfectly consistent. — Srap Tasmaner

Yes. It's those I'm after.

Obviously because they have other beliefs informing their views. Is that so strange? — Srap Tasmaner

Not strange no - absent. I want to know what they might be.

If the exercise is to have any point at all, it has to start by settling on shared criteria, our criteria. — Srap Tasmaner

Yes. I thought risk of burdening the healthcare services might be such a shared criteria, it seems popular and there's not been so much as a hint of anything else forwarded as a consideration. But if not that (or not only that), then what else? What could these additional factors be, and why have they remained hidden these last 200 pages behind a wall of talk about harms.

You have to admit that if, after 200 pages of talking primarily about the harms to society of non-vaccination, some other factor rears it's head only now, it'd be odd.

Not sure I get this. Does unable to understand really mean unable to approve? — Isaac

I think so. What would you be approving of? But again, someone choosing the non-favored option only means you require some explanation -- or don't because you have other reasons not to.

A little expansion on the partition idea, which I find useful pretty often: if you have a set of options {a, b, c, d}, you can take that as-is and choose between them, or you can designate a default and partition the options into two sets. If the default is a, then you get {a, not-a, not-a, not-a}; if it's not-b, and substituting for clarity, you get {ok, not ok, ok, ok}.

Your whisky and brandy example might be just be a matter of taste rather than "How could anyone possibly like brandy? Anyone who says they do is a poseur."

The scientists can only tell us what the facts are, not what we ought to do about them. — Isaac

Fair point. But in some cases the scientist is wearing a public health hat with the lab coat, so I grandfather them in.

I've only just read you saying that indirect realism about patterns is 'horseshit' — Isaac

Heh. I'm trying to be okay with indirect realism, but there's an armchair version of it that still rubs me the wrong way.

it's a question, not an avoidance strategy — Isaac

Also a fair point. It still seems like a long way around to me: if your critique of my position is solid, then it is, even if you're wrong about lots of other stuff. If the meat-eater's response is just "I really like steak and I've never understood why people smoke" then it's his premises and his weighting of them you'll have to take issue with, because he's perfectly consistent.

I can't say as I'd heard many other options. — Isaac

Maybe there isn't a single premise everyone shares that carries more weight than all their other preferences put together. Maybe what we're looking at here is more of a "family resemblance" situation, lots of overlap and so on, but not one single most important thread.

You're risking long term loss of lung function if you don't get vaccinated.

You're risking long term loss of lung function if you don't get vaccinated. — frank

Shaking my head in defeat. :fear:
I'm getting tired my friend. :worry:

What would you be approving of? — Srap Tasmaner

Their having chosen with integrity?

But again, someone choosing the non-favored option only means you require some explanation — Srap Tasmaner

But when we're talking about preferences (not facts), that starts to sound worryingly like a presumption of conformity. As if you owe someone an explanation just to be different. It's non-favoured for men to wear make-up, it doesn't require an explanation when they do.

I think I understand what you're saying about defaults, but I don't think it applies well here. I think a position where the default is to accept the prophylactic product of a "horror show" and an explanation is required to not, is a very dangerous precedent to set (or allow to continue). If we can't even say that the default position is to not inject ourselves with commercial products, then something's seriously wrong.

in some cases the scientist is wearing a public health hat with the lab coat, so I grandfather them in. — Srap Tasmaner

Could do, but public health officials tell what course of action would, for an average person, best balance the various objectives of their bosses (usually the government). It's still your decision as to what to do with those facts.

there's an armchair version of it that still rubs me the wrong way. — Srap Tasmaner

Likewise with me and public health institutions I'm afraid.

It still seems like a long way around to me — Srap Tasmaner

I've been too long in research. I never just ask.

Maybe there isn't a single premise everyone shares that carries more weight than all their other preferences put together. Maybe what we're looking at here is more of a "family resemblance" situation, lots of overlap and so on, but not one single most important thread. — Srap Tasmaner

That seems likely, yes. I don't believe it's impossible to learn though still, but people apparently aren't going to just say what it is (even after 200 pages of opportunity, it seems), and that makes it all the more interesting a question.

You're risking long term loss of lung function if you don't get vaccinated. — frank

You take risks with your long-term health every day, do you mitigate them all?

You take risks with your long-term health every day, do you mitigate them all? — Isaac

If a friendly voice says, "No really, go ahead and do it.", I usually do.

Shaking my head in defeat. :fear:
I'm getting tired my friend. :worry: — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Did Nick get the virus earlier? Has he actually tested positive in the last year?

If a friendly voice says, "No really, go ahead and do it.", I usually do. — frank

Yes, but you were imploring me, not you. That you're swayed by the friendliness of the voice (seems a bit easily led to me, but, hey ho), why ought I be? Personally, I'm persuaded by the best available scientific data on the relative risk and my personal level of acceptable risk.

The evidence for these possible sequelae is largely derived from acute manifestations of covid-19, along with extrapolations from the 2003 outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and data on acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). (https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3001)

This prospective cohort study has shown that 52% of [patients hospitalized with SARS infection] survivors had persistent impairment in DLco (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1440-1843.2010.01720.x - the study referred to by the BMJ article)

Since my risk of Cov-19 hospitalisation is 1 in 2778 (https://www.qcovid.org/) my risk, of even the relatively mild lung damage (impairment in DLco) is about 1 in 5000 lifetime risk.

Similar to riding a motorbike for a couple of days, a skiing holiday, commuting to work, eating bacon, living in a city centre...

Reply — Isaac

The data you're using isn't for the delta variant. This is the problem with preferring data over the friendly voice.

The data you're using isn't for the delta variant. This is the problem with preferring data over the friendly voice. — frank

It is in terms of risk assessment. Since there is no evidence for the delta variant (the study is still recruiting https://www.ukri.org/news/examining-long-term-impacts-of-debilitating-lung-damage-from-covid/) there's a 50% chance it'll be worse and a 50% it'll be better, making the risk 0.5*0.0002 + 0.5*0.0002. Or you could even write a function for the Gaussian distribution of greater and lesser harms. Either way it's the same risk - at the moment.

Ok. You'll most likely be infected with the delta variant between now and October. As you say, most likely you'll be fine.