there's the desertion paradox, that no soldier's individual contribution to the outcome of a battle is so great that he should risk injury or death, therefore every individual soldier has rational grounds for deserting, even if he wants the battle to be won. But of course if every soldier behaves that way then the battle will certainly be lost. — Srap Tasmaner

Yes. This is the line of argument I have most sympathy with (though not quite enough to actually agree). If something ought to be done on average, but there's some opposition, then I can see an argument that we all ought to do that thing (even if we're not part of that average), just to show solidarity, encouragement, etc...

And I think I'd be swayed by it were there not a social component to my distrust of the pharmaceutical companies. I'm like it with software too. Passionately open-source, I hate it when organisations I work for use systems which are owned by large corporations. I was an absolute pain in the arse when everyone wanted to use Zoom (when Jitsi is better). I once was asked to file my report on a form which used Microsoft Excel macros. The department (government department, no less!) said that the macros were essential to their system. I asked them for a copy of the tender they were legally required to put out in which Microsoft bid to supply their spreadsheet software and provided the best price for the service...they provided me with a macro free version for my Libre Office.

The point is, there's a lot more to consider than just 'doing our bit' in this one matter, the rest of the world hasn't stood still while we sort out Covid and all the issues with corporate lobbying and the monumental failure of our healthcare systems, taken over by these, frankly, criminal enterprises (lest we forget, they illegally marketed suicide-inducing anti-depressant to children!). I'd need an absolutely watertight model showing no other option would work before I felt that putting my enthusiastic support behind this solution wasn't going to do more harm than good in the long run. A muted, resentful vaccination for those for whom it's absolutely necessary, no fanfare and no reward is, I think, an appropriate response to the blatant exploitation of this crisis by these profiteering hoodlums.

Is there not scope for me to trust some of them? — Isaac

Oh I'm sure none of them ever lied, nor did you, ever....

My money is on a very different idea than yours: a good number of COVID contratians are of the opinion that we're making too big a big fuss for a few thousands deaths, that the world is fundamentally Darwinian and tough luck if the weak die. I know that because they say so online, including here.

They have a point of sort... The world is Darwinian and everybody dies in the end. But if we can avoid crowding hospitals in the meantime, why not?

My money is on a very different idea than yours: a good number of COVID contratians are of the opinion that we're making too big a big fuss for a few thousands deaths, that the world is fundamentally Darwinian and tough luck if the weak die. I know that because they say so online, including here. — Olivier5

That's not a different idea than mine. I'm absolutely certain some of then think that way too. Are you really having so much trouble with the notion of heterogeneity?

And yet you stated:

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

Yep. And you stated

Such expressions of gloom are great precisely because they make one feel superior to the unwashed, 'non-intellectual' masses. — Olivier5

So I guess we both know how to use absolutes in a rhetorical fashion. Well done us, eh.

You own this one, this naïve profession of faith in the motives of a whole bunch of people you know nothing about.

this naïve profession of faith in the motives of a whole bunch of people you know nothing about. — Olivier5

I don't think it's a particularly naïve faith to assume that there aren't huge swathes of people so psychopathic that they're knowingly going to let millions die while they sit back and watch just because they don't like needles, to assume they at least have a narrative in which they're the heroes not the villains.

I mean, it's possible, but I can't for the life of me think why you'd start out from that assumption as a default position whilst at the same time assuming our doctors, governments and corporations have nothing but our best interests at heart. How did the world become thus divided, the psychopaths all in rural America and the saints all in biosciences?

to assume they at least have a narrative in which they're the heroes not the villains — Isaac

Oh they do: they are the Darwinian heroes who survive because they are fit for survival. Or not... Many of them actually die.

it's possible, but I can't for the life of me think why you'd start out from that assumption as a default position whilst at the same time assuming our doctors, governments and corporations have nothing but our best interests at heart. — Isaac

But the Covid contrarians keep lying all the time. And you said you mistrust all governments because they lie all the time. So why turn a blind eye to all the lies of your side, all the BS by Trump and co, all the clown show on the right? Why trust such a bunch of obvious liars? Why not stay on the fence?

You are casting your lot with a lot of very crazy people.

But what is funny about your type, about those folks who lose contact with reality, progressively as it often happens, who start to doubt the official narrative and question all the seemingly settled points, what's funny with them is how naïvely they take the alternative narratives coming from their similes in good spirit, as potentially true and valid, without even the slightest doubt.

Because it is not the government saying it, therefore it must be true... :mask:

If something ought to be done on average, but there's some opposition, then I can see an argument that we all ought to do that thing (even if we're not part of that average), just to show solidarity, encouragement, etc... — Isaac

There's something of what you say here in the way social norms work -- the usual, driving on the right (or the left) side of the road because everyone else does. But there your self-interest presents no conflict.

Desertion is a cousin of the boar hunt, or the tragedy of the commons, or even the ultimatum game or prisoner's dilemma, where the dominant strategy for an individual leads to a less than optimal outcome for that individual, in some cases, and for the entire group of individuals "playing".

If you want the battle to be won, without your help (and the risk that helping entails), you have to hope that almost none of the other soldiers behave as rationally as you. (And you won't post your argument on the soldiers private chat.)

Either that, or you deem your reasons persuasive only to you, not to everyone. (This is the line I thought you were going to take.)

Your choices seem to be (1) not talking about your decision so as not to persuade anyone else, or (2) not talking about your decision because your reasons aren't persuasive.

You could, even more cynically, talk about your views just for fun, assuming everyone else is too stupid to understand that they too should desert.

What you really can't do, I think, is say, here are the reasons I found persuasive but I don't think you should; this is just "my truth", as the saying goes, and you have to find your own. That's (a) not playing the justification game properly, and, more importantly, (b) you actually want almost everyone to reach the opposite conclusion you did, so this is not some "to each his own" situation anyway.

those folks who lose contact with reality... who start to doubt the official narrative — Olivier5

Olivier “I tend to distrust collective wisdom too” 5.

Anecdotal aside.

The desertion argument is not just some academic theory. I have had a few customers argue, to my face, that since everyone else is wearing a mask, they don't have to. (And of course the history of conflict will yield examples.)

Anyone know of a specific (medical/biological) term for asymptomatic pathogen ☣ factories?

(infectees that aren't harmed, or are insignificantly or very slowly harmed, and the pathogen unexpectedly remains and does its propagation thing, which typically harms the host, unless taken out by the immune system)

active carrier

What you really can't do, I think, is say, here are the reasons I found persuasive but I don't you should; this is just "my truth", as the saying goes, and you have to find your own. That's (a) not playing the justification game properly, and, more importantly, (b) you actually want almost everyone to reach the opposite conclusion you did, so this is not some "to each his own" situation anyway. — Srap Tasmaner

Yes, that's precisely the hypocrisy of that position. For my part the double standard and facile rationalizations make it not even worth responding to any more. A certain kind of mentality aint never gonna change.

Oh I don't know.

The same reasoning underlies the decision of many people not to vote. (What difference could my one vote make?) Usually a plurality of eligible voters in the US don't vote, but lately we've seen substantial increases in voting. Maybe more Americans now believe their vote does matter.

For my part the double standard and facile rationalizations make it not even worth responding to any more. — Janus

You’re only characterising it that way. For me what it comes down to is this: your house is not built on rock; accept that you might be wrong and leave people alone.

Well, hopefully those same Americans will apply the same logic to vaccination. In New South Wales we are up around 90% first dose and still rising, so it looks like the recalcitrants will be somewhat less than 10%.

You’re only characterising it that way. For me what it comes down to is this: your house is not built on rock; accept that you might be wrong and leave people alone. — AJJ

That's what I said; I'm going to leave them alone. But it's not a matter of me possibly being wrong. There's a larger than zero chance that the advice of the experts that is determining the strategy of vaccination being adopted by virtually every country in the world is wrong, but that is not the point. If you are at war, there is a chance that the General's strategy is wrong; from that it does not follow that soldiers should start arguing against the strategy, refusing to follow orders or deserting, because the battle will be lost if enough soldiers were to follow this course.

And it doesn't matter if you don't believe this situation is an emergency or amounts to war. Because the majority do think that, rightly or wrongly, and if the current strategy of vaccination were to fail it would have disastrous consequences for everyone, including you.

from that it does not follow that soldiers should start arguing against the strategy, refusing to follow orders or deserting, because the battle will be lost if enough soldiers were to follow this course. — Janus

You don’t think a side has ever fought a battle that for the world would be better lost?

Because the majority do think that, rightly or wrongly, and if the current strategy of vaccination were to fail it would have disastrous consequences for everyone, including you. — Janus

In my view those disastrous consequences will be effected by mistaken people incapable of admitting fault; people who will never truly accept that they might be wrong.

Olivier “I tend to distrust collective wisdom too” 5. — AJJ

I’m no MAGA-capped cretin, you got that right.

In my view those disastrous consequences will be effected by mistaken people incapable of admitting fault — AJJ

I agree this is a serious concern. In the early days, public health officials had to make decisions before they knew how it was transmitted (remember the "droplets not aerosols" period?) and before they knew what the case fatality rate was. There have been changes in the guidance from various officials since the beginning, but that's tricky from a public confidence standpoint, plus there are always people that will claim this shows you don't actually know what you're doing. In 20/20 retrospect, maybe the lockdowns were more a result of institutional momentum than anything else. I think the jury is still out, but YMMV.

Still, the US has hit 700,00 dead and the worldwide total is approaching 5 million. The thing about a novel virus is that it is inherently more infectious, as no one is immune to it yet, and you do not, by definition, know enough to know how dangerous it is and what measures are appropriate. If we were over-cautious, that would be understandable; that we were is not really obvious from the death toll.

MAGA-capped cretin — Olivier5

I don’t know if this reference was arbitrary or meaningful. If the latter, I’m not American and I nevertheless still doubt the official narrative.

and the worldwide total is approaching 5 million. — Srap Tasmaner

This isn’t particularly alarming when you consider that worldwide about 60,000,000 people die each year. This virus principally affects those who are elderly and in poor health, i.e. those who would constitute a significant portion of that number anyway.

You don’t think a side has ever fought a battle that for the world would be better lost? — AJJ

If this battle is lost the whole world loses.

In my view those disastrous consequences will be effected by mistaken people incapable of admitting fault; people who will never truly accept that they might be wrong. — AJJ

If there were enough recalcitrants to cause the vaccination program to fail, yes, and of course I wouldn't expect them to admit they had been wrong. I can't see any evidence to suppose the vaccination program itself will result in disastrous consequences, but of course that, however unlikely, is not impossible. There are always risks involved in any course of action.

This isn’t particularly alarming when you consider that worldwide about 60,000,000 people die each year. This virus principally affects those who are elderly and in poor health, i.e. those who would constitute a significant portion of that number anyway. — AJJ

A remarkable display of compassion; well done!

The current case fatality raise is just over 2%, so based on that if we just let 'er rip and everyone were to contract the virus, we could expect a death toll from covid alone of 160,000,000. Add to that deaths from the medical facilities being overrun and economic collapse and it looks like a pretty grim scenario.

If this battle is lost the whole world loses. — Janus

Have you accepted yet that you might be wrong?

A remarkable display of compassion; well done! — Janus

My compassion is for those who have lost their livelihoods, their lives or the lives of their children to authoritarian measures implemented and advocated for by people too stupid to have done otherwise.

Have you accepted yet that you might be wrong? — AJJ

Of course it's logically possible that the expert consensus is wrong. Can you give any good reason for thinking that it is likely to be wrong?

My compassion is for those who have lost their livelihoods, their lives and lives of their children to authoritarian measures implemented and advocated for by people too stupid to have done otherwise. — AJJ

What do you think would happen if we let it rip and didn't bother with vaccination or lockdowns ? when people started dying like flies, you don't think panic would ensue and people would lock themselves down?

Have you accepted yet that you might be wrong, and that you are in a much less qualified position to judge the likely outcomes than the experts?

Can you give any good reason for thinking that it is likely to be wrong? — Janus

The last three pages of this thread I think contain adequate reasons for doubting the official narrative.

What do you think would happen if we let it rip and didn't bother with vaccination or lockdowns ? — Janus

Temporary hospital crises no worse than what we’ve had.

Have you accepted yet that you might be wrong, and that you are in a much less qualified position to judge the likely outcomes than the experts? — Janus

My opinions are formed partly from listening to some experts over others. John Ioannidis and Sunetra Gupta being two good examples.

Temporary hospital crises no worse than what we’ve had. — AJJ

You seriously beleive that this hasn't been improving as more and more people have been vaccinated?

My opinions are formed partly from listening to some experts over others. John Ioannidis and Sunetra Gupta being two good examples. — AJJ

You believe two experts against how many others? On what basis? Because you like what they say more?

If your opinions are only "partly formed" by listening to those, then what else contributes to forming them?

You seriously beleive that this hasn't been improving as more and more people have been vaccinated? — Janus

I can accept that it protects those vulnerable to virus for a while. I don’t accept that it’s of overall benefit for others to roll the dice on the potential side-effects.

You believe two experts against how many others? On what basis? Because you like what they say more? — Janus

Because I can think, what they say makes sense, and no one has yet been able to argue adequately against what they say.

If your opinions are only "partly formed" by listening to those, then what else contributes to forming them? — Janus

Articles that refer to pertinent facts or observations such as this one: https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/no-the-nhs-was-not-overrun-by-covid-during-lockdown/amp

OK, thanks for your reply. I don't share your confidence in those sources you mention, or in your ability to form a rationally justified opinion that contradicts the experts, and reading your posts has convinced me that arguing further would be wasting my time and effort, so I'll leave it there.
You might want to look at this critique of Ionaddis...or not.
Good luck.