If I just repeat the heuristic rule "trust the scientific consensus" then it doesn't have any argumentative force. — Benkei

Well...

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022537177800121

It's certainly a popular approach.

I suspect that this statement is just the superficial rationalization of something deeper and darker: a fundamentally individualistic view point, in which the individual and his choices are mythologized and glorified, while anything collective (e.g. a nation, a policy or a private firm) is vilified or mistrusted, as standing in the way of personal realization... Atlas Shrugged and all that neoliberal BS. — Olivier5

However interesting your psycho-analysis may be, have you ever considered that there are people who genuinely believe that goverments (and now large industries too) are increasingly invading the private lives of people, and that this is a problem? ... Maybe you'll start to realize that we are taking a step back in time, forgetting the lessons of the Enlightenment where humanity (almost) collectively realized that individuals are not owned, and should never be owned by states. — Tzeentch

It was more meant as a logical deconstruction than a psychoanalysis. I am trying to eek out the unsaid assumptions. Yes of course there are such people, and I happen to be one of them.

Individual are not owned by states. Rather, states are owned by individuals. We collectively form the state - the Leviathan. So to say that you mistrust the state is to say that you mistrust others with whom you happen to live. And I am fine with that -- I tend to distrust collective wisdom too -- up to a point. What I am not fine with is antisocial behavior, i.e. behavior that will risk the lives of many for no good reason. If you don't care that your neighbors might die because of you, if you are going to systematically ignore the needs of others with whom you share a society, then you are not fit to live in that society.

“I tend to distrust collective wisdom too — [except when I immerse myself in it so completely that I can no longer see beyond it].”

What I am not fine with is antisocial behavior, i.e. behavior that will risk the lives of many for no good reason. If you don't care that your neighbors might die because of you, if you are going to systematically ignore the needs of others with whom you share a society, then you are not fit to live in that society. — Olivier5

That just doesn't make any sense. Unless you have access to the raw data then the extent to which such actions affect others is exactly the matter about which the government's information is not trusted.

It's not like people are agreeing that these measures are necessary to avoid the net cost of millions of lives but then saying "fuck it, I don't care". They don't believe these measures are necessary to avoid the net cost of millions of lives.

They don't believe it because their governments have told them it and their governments routinely lie.

They don't believe it because it's a solution that enriches corporations and corporations routinely lie in favour of their further enrichment.

You've never heard of the boy who cried 'wolf'?

No, I've indicated my source of information was the explanation of a doctor. I haven't said it's safe because doctors say so. I've said it's safe based on my understanding of the mechanism of mRNA. mRNA is unstable and is broken down by the body within hours. Furthermore, the proteins the cells create in these cases are not toxic - although I can imagine theoretically you could have cells create venom through mRNA.

Nevertheless, people seem to also forget the technique has been around for 30 years. It started with treatment against cancer. So 30 years of testing available for mRNA drugs already exists.

So the mRNA itself is harmless - it only tells a cell to do something. The cell might create something that's unhealthy to us - in this case it creates a protein that only looks like a virus to our immune system. Our understanding of viruses is sufficient to know that no viral reproduction can occur without viral polymerase which needs another gene. If that gene isn't part of the mRNA what you're left with is harmless capsid.

https://scopeblog.stanford.edu/2020/04/02/whats-a-virus-anyway-part-1-the-bare-bones-basics/

Of course, I trust these sources but you don't have to. However, without alternative facts or explanations why the above descriptions are wrong I have no reason to believe otherwise. Your distrust of the source wouldn't be an argument though; I don't trust Fox News but that doesn't mean everything they say is false.

What works and what constitutes an argument are two different things. Persuasion obviously isn't all about arguments.

I haven't said it's safe because doctors say so. I've said it's safe based on my understanding of the mechanism of mRNA. — Benkei

You said it was safe based on a claim some doctors had made. But on that basis I’m not willing to dismiss or downplay the accounts of injuries and deaths so easily.

It seems obvious to say that it doesn’t matter whether or not it decomposes quickly if the damage is done before it does so. According to my understanding this damage is done when a cell takes up the vaccine and begins producing the spike protein of the virus; the immune system, perceiving those cells now as threats, attacks them. This is why side-effects have been reported as being more severe in the young whose immune systems are stronger.

It's not like people are agreeing that these measures are necessary to avoid the net cost of millions of lives but then saying "fuck it, I don't care". They don't believe these measures are necessary to avoid the net cost of millions of lives. — Isaac

And you know that how, pray tell?

They don't believe it because their governments have told them it and their governments routinely lie.

What does their doctor say?

What I am not fine with is antisocial behavior, i.e. behavior that will risk the lives of many for no good reason. If you don't care that your neighbors might die because of you, if you are going to systematically ignore the needs of others with whom you share a society, then you are not fit to live in that society.
— Olivier5

That just doesn't make any sense. — Isaac

It makes perfect sense. The fact that you struggle with truisms doesn’t mean they don’t make sense.

They don't believe these measures are necessary to avoid the net cost of millions of lives.

They don't believe it because their governments have told them it and their governments routinely lie. — Isaac

Yes, we all know this has been politicized. We also know that the anti-vax movement and social media misinformation contributes to all this.

But denying reality doesn’t give you special rights to harm others, nor does it exempt you from the reality of increased risk (which is why the unvaccinated are overwhelmingly the ones getting hospitalized and dying— despite what they “believed,” oddly).

Suppose I “don’t believe” in smoking bans and drunk driving laws. Do law enforcement and courts take that “reason” seriously?

Suppose I believe I have the right to infect others with my infection. Is that a good enough reason to do so?

What people believe and why they believe it is an interesting question. But when lives are on the line, there’s incomplete information, and time is of the essence— there’s simply no room for delay. Besides, the questions will always outnumber the answers, and there’s no reason to believe that any amount of evidence will change minds.

Thus, vaccine mandates are a necessity. For those who don’t want to participate, they should have the decency to quit their jobs and remove themselves from crowded places.

This is a legitimate use of state power, backed by medical expertise.

People disagree— fine. People disagree about the election, claiming it was “rigged” — those people lose over and over again in court, and for good reason: they’re wrong. The evidence, and reality, are simply not on their side.

What works and what constitutes an argument are two different things. Persuasion obviously isn't all about arguments. — Benkei

I was just being facetious.

people seem to also forget the technique has been around for 30 years. It started with treatment against cancer. So 30 years of testing available for mRNA drugs already exists. — Benkei

Of possible interest...

https://www.statnews.com/2020/11/10/the-story-of-mrna-how-a-once-dismissed-idea-became-a-leading-technology-in-the-covid-vaccine-race/

The problem, she knew, was that synthetic RNA was notoriously vulnerable to the body’s natural defenses, meaning it would likely be destroyed before reaching its target cells. And, worse, the resulting biological havoc might stir up an immune response that could make the therapy a health risk for some patients.

behind the scenes the company’s scientists were running into a familiar problem. In animal studies, the ideal dose of their leading mRNA therapy was triggering dangerous immune reactions — the kind for which Karikó had improvised a major workaround under some conditions — but a lower dose had proved too weak to show any benefits.

mRNA is a tricky technology. Several major pharmaceutical companies have tried and abandoned the idea, struggling to get mRNA into cells without triggering nasty side effects.

The indefinite delay on the Crigler-Najjar project signals persistent and troubling safety concerns for any mRNA treatment that needs to be delivered in multiple doses — https://www.statnews.com/2017/01/10/moderna-trouble-mrna/

The technology is so old because no one could get it to work without triggering nasty immune responses. The exact type of response some experts are concerned about now, particularly with multiple booster doses.

You said it was safe based on a claim some doctors had made. But on that basis I’m not willing to dismiss or downplay the accounts of injuries and deaths so easily. — AJJ

I explained why, I didn't say you should believe it because a doctor said it. But without explaining the causal mechanism between vaccination and injuries and death I really have nothing to go on, do I?

And side-effects certainly happen. Nobody has ever claimed this wasn't the case so that's not really a counter argument. What has been argued is that the risks of the vaccine outweigh the risk of contracting the virus. And even if vaccinations have caused deaths or severe injuries then that still doesn't tell us how those risks compare to the risks of contracting the virus.

Good to know, since I already had moral misgivings about getting booster shots when poorer countries can't vaccinate at all.

What has been argued is that the risks of the vaccine outweigh the risk of contracting the virus. And even if vaccinations have caused deaths or severe injuries then that still doesn't tell us how those risks compare to the risks of contracting the virus. — Benkei

Let’s take the example of a 25 year old male with a healthy BMI and no health conditions. Would you be willing to give your own estimate of the risk such a person has of catching and dying from Covid within a 90 day period?

“I tend to distrust collective wisdom too — [except when I immerse myself in it so completely that I can no longer see beyond it].” — AJJ

Try me.

Verdict reached. You’ve been rebutted already and have expressed incredulity at the idea that your opposition simply disagree with you about the degree of risk involved in all this.

Alrighty then, goodbye.

Not a complete answer. We use this at work.

http://covid19-phenomics.org/PrototypeOurRiskCoV.html

This one is the only one I know of to include BMI

https://www.qcovid.org/Calculation

You might be interested.

Thanks. The second one is what I’d already used to get the risk estimate for my example. My guess is that many people will be inclined to massively overstate the risk compared to the estimate that calculator provides.

We could put it in the payloads of some missiles and bomb Texas with it. — frank

I've always considered Texas as a kind of convict colony. But if we are going to use bombs, I prefer neutron.

To put it very crudely, if one does not have a passion for truth, reason has no function. My modern translation of 'passion' is 'giving a fuck'. — unenlightened

I like that, lol. Thanks for the clarification

ve always considered Texas as a kind of convict colony. But if we are going to use bombs, I prefer neutron. — Merkwurdichliebe

As long as they end up in another universe as a result, I'm ok with it.

We have vaccines that are safe, effective, and slow the spread of the virus.

We also have a large number of people being fed misinformation by social media and the anti-vaxxer crowd who refuse to be vaccinated, willing to take their stand on this issue -- during a pandemic. Not huge income inequality, not the tax cuts for rich people, not the destruction of the environment, not the fact that corporations can buy our politicians, not the gutting of voting rights and abortion rights. No, they're willing to quit jobs and debate endlessly about getting a jab in their arm.

Just worth reflecting on this stupefying situation.

this stupefying situation — Xtrix

It certainly has been that.

... not the fact that corporations can buy our politicians... — Xtrix

Not being coerced into taking a corporate product by those exact same politicians is taking a stand against the fact that corporations can buy our politicians.

Can you do the same for the vaccine?

https://www.qcovid.org/Calculation

According to this calculator the risk that the 25 year old catches and dies from Covid within a 90 day period is 1 in 500,000.

If we make him an eternal 25 year old we can expect him to catch and die from Covid an average of once every 125,000 years.

Do you think he requires a vaccine?

Based on the UK ONS numbers that's an infinitely higher risk than dying of a vaccination since exactly zero people, regardless of age and BMI, have died of a Covid vaccination. So the risk of vaccination is lower, even for him, than contracting COVID.

And then there's the important other considerations like avoiding having to go to the hospital and take up healthcare resources others need (which is significantly more likely as dying from it) and diminishing spread thereby avoiding people who are weaker getting the vaccine.

He's free to think 1 in 500,000 is a low enough risk but it's an unnecessary risk and it's also inconsiderate with respect to the other considerations.

exactly zero people, regardless of age and BMI, have died of a Covid vaccination. — Benkei

Not true. One example to show it: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-tyne-58330796.amp

And then there's the important other considerations like avoiding having to go to the hospital and take up healthcare resources others need — Benkei

From the same calculator and inputs the 25 year old’s chance of a Covid associated hospital admission within a 90 day period is 1 in 12,346.

If we make him an eternal 25 year old we can expect him to be hospitalised by Covid an average of once every 3,086 years.

Do you think he requires a vaccine?

She's not in the statistics. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/datasets/monthlymortalityanalysisenglandandwales

But I'll grant you that one. The risk is still way lower, considering the number of vaccines given.

So my previous comment stands. A higher risk and inconsiderate.

Based on the UK ONS numbers that's an infinitely higher risk than dying of a vaccination since exactly zero people, regardless of age and BMI, have died of a Covid vaccination. — Benkei

The two data sets can't be compared since they use different methods of classifying cause of death.

COVID deaths are recorded by mention on the death certificate (which is almost universal practice after a positive test) whereas ADR deaths are recorded by known cause, and expected deaths by normal 7 day death rate are deducted.

The MHRA recorded 1,143 deaths following vaccination (about 35 million doses at the time) so if these were recorded in a similar manner to COVID deaths the comparative figure would be much higher. Could even be as high as 1 in 350,000 if they all were added to the death certificate under assumption as COVID is.

Of course, the correct thing to do is to change how we record COVID deaths, not up how we record ADRs. Point is, you can't compare them meaningfully.

Anyone who thinks risk is the main reason people resist is missing the point.

Governments are invading the lives of citizens, censoring information, constantly in contradiction and spreading information that is factually false, acting in contempt of human rights and their own constitutions.

Anyone who isn't on their hind legs yet, is an ignorant. Sorry, there is no other way around it.