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. — AJJ

An 8% increase in the world's mortality rate strikes me as significant.

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. — AJJ

Why should you choose?

I don't share your confidence in those sources you mention — Janus

I don’t share your confidence in yours.

or in your ability to form a rationally justified opinion that contradicts the experts — Janus

My opinions don’t contradict the experts, only some of them.

and reading your posts has convinced me that arguing further would be wasting my time and effort, — Janus

I suspect this is because your position is too difficult to argue when you’re unfamiliar with mine.

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. — Janus

Also, this is tendentious. Infection fatality rate much lower than case fatality rate. Infections and deaths inevitable and spread out.

An 8% increase in the world's mortality rate strikes me as significant. — Srap Tasmaner

Source? From what I’ve seen the UK’s mortality rate has been within the normal range.

Why should you choose? — Srap Tasmaner

Because it appears by not choosing you harm everyone for no benefit.

You might want to look at this critique of Ionaddis...or not. — Janus

You missed out the link I assume you were supposed to include.

Source? — AJJ

Dividing 5 by 60.

Because it appears by not choosing you harm everyone for no benefit. — AJJ

I meant, why do you have to choose whether to sympathize with those who lost loved ones to the virus and those who lost something -- loved ones, livelihood, way of life -- to the response?

Dividing 5 by 60. — Srap Tasmaner

That isn’t an 8% increase in mortality. It’s just 8% of 60,000,000.

I meant, why do you have to choose whether to sympathize with those who lost loved ones to the virus and those who lost something -- loved ones, livelihood, way of life -- to the response? — Srap Tasmaner

This isn’t what I said. I’ve recognised at this point that you’re a sneak.

This isn’t what I said. — AJJ

Good to know. I was confused and asked as clearly as I could.

I’ve recognised at this point that you’re a sneak. — AJJ

As you wish. I believe you have accused me of bad faith in every exchange we've had, but for the life of me I don't know why.

I believe you have accused me of bad faith in every exchange we've had, but for the life of me I don't know why. — Srap Tasmaner

Well it’s impossible to know, but I’d expect the same comments from someone wearing a smirk as they typed.

Yeah I forgot to include the link: https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/what-the-heck-happened-to-john-ioannidis/

Hospital admittance was and is real.
— Benkei

It certainly is. Do lockdowns help in this regard? You can’t say. — AJJ

We can say: they do.

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.) — Srap Tasmaner

I can't see the risk you're seeing. If we boil my claim down to "people who have good* reason to believe they don't really* need the vaccine ought not to take it", then it seems that everyone could follow that principle. Most would take the vaccine because most people are either overweight, old, unhealthy, useless at hygiene, or live/work in crowded places. In terms of outcome, if everyone followed that maxim (and the other necessary healthcare measures), we'd probably be fine.

* 'Good' here meaning evidence-based and 'really' meaning to reduce risk below an acceptable threshold.

The only issue was whether they'd feel enthusiastic enough about doing so if they knew others weren't.

But here's what I just don't understand about the argument you're making (and @Janus). If all the psychotics stopped taking their medicines there'd be a crisis in the mental health institutions. Should we all take anti-psychotics in solidarity, because some must? If all travellers refused the vaccination appropriate to their destination there'd be a massive increase in tropical diseases in returnees, must we all take such measures out of solidarity? If all diabetics stopped taking insulin hospitals would be overwhelmed, must we all take insulin?

It seems a completely normal way of doing things, that those people who need a medication take a medication and those people who don't, don't. As Martin Kulldorff, Professor at Harvard Medical School, put it

Thinking that everyone must be vaccinated is as scientifically flawed as thinking that nobody should.

So what am I missing? If some people need to take a vaccine because their life choices, or just luck of the draw, puts them in a higher risk category for hospitalisation and spread, then why must we all take it?

You might want to look at this critique of Ionaddis — Janus

Yeah. An oncologist and journalist with no training at all in epidemiology criticises just about the most cited epidemiologist in the world and you side with the oncologist?

Weren't you only just lecturing us about picking sides because you prefer the message?

If the claims made in that article about the claims Ionaddis made early on about the likely number of deaths due to covid and his dismissal of the idea that covid was anything more than a bad flu are true, then I don't think he's a reliable source of good insight. Anyway I was not making any claim. one way or the other, about the status of Ionaddis as a reliable source of advice, I was just presenting an alternative view to the one AJJ obviously has about the man.

In any case was there anything in that article you disagree with, any criticism of the actual article as opposed to focusing on the author's credentials? Although I have said I follow what I perceive to be the advice of the majority of experts, it doesn't follow that when considering what two individuals have to say that I will automatically default to believing the one who seems to be the more qualified. Highly qualified individuals can and do lose the plot, even in relation to their chosen professions.

But here's what I just don't understand about the argument you're making (and Janus). If all the psychotics stopped taking their medicines there'd be a crisis in the mental health institutions. Should we all take anti-psychotics in solidarity, because some must? If all travellers refused the vaccination appropriate to their destination there'd be a massive increase in tropical diseases in returnees, must we all take such measures out of solidarity? If all diabetics stopped taking insulin hospitals would be overwhelmed, must we all take insulin? — Isaac

These seem to be poor analogies to me. Psychosis and diabetes are not infectious, so there;s that. And as to taking vaccines to protect against tropical diseases that may be caught in certain regions, what would be the point of those not traveling to such regions taking them?

I can say because the effects of lock downs in the Netherlands lead to reduced hospital admissions.

At a glance the studies you’ve shared are models/guesswork. — AJJ

Wrong. Try actually reading what they did. They tried to make models that fit the available data, which data shows lock downs worked. Which is useful for future reference for policy decisions. And they build a counter factual scenario for Sweden using actual data from other countries. But the underlying data is real.

Also note that you have not managed to submit information that's researched and peer reviewed. So my heuristic is to not spend time on reading it. Send a paper how lock downs don't work.

If the claims made in that article about the claims Ionaddis made early on about the likely number of deaths due to covid and his dismissal of the idea that covid was anything more than a bad flu are true, then I don't think he's a reliable source of good insight. — Janus

Yes, seems self evidently true. So the question is whether the claims are true. We have two choices - we analyse the claims ourselves, or we trust someone else to have done so for us. I assume you haven't analysed them yourself, so that leaves trust - hence the question about expertise and trustworthiness. The article is written in an extremely confrontational style and includes dozens of attempts to merely cast shade and insinuate among it's scattering of actual cited arguments. That alone mkaes me far less likely to trust it as a source, but each to their own.

If you're interested, heres a response in the BMJ (a considerably more reputable journal that 'sciencebasedmedicine.org, but as I say, each to their own).

https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2021/03/22/an-open-plea-for-dignity-and-respect-in-science/

what would be the point of those not traveling to such regions taking them? — Janus

Exactly.

If you're interested, heres a response in the BMJ (a considerably more reputable journal that 'sciencebasedmedicine.org, but as I say, each to their own). — Isaac

I read that article and I have no argument with it. I haven't suggested Ioannidis should be vilified or de-platformed. I don't care whether sciencebasedmedicine.org is more or less reputable than the BMJ, all I would care about, if I cared about what he says, is whether the claims made about Ioannidis' claims are true. If sciencebasedmedicine.org has made false claims about Ioannidis then he, or his supporters, should be able to expose their falsity.

I can't be bothered trying to find that out because I don't rely on him for advice anyway; but I would say that anyone who does rely on him for advice would be well advised to find out if the claims about his claims are true.

I follow the consensus, or at least what I perceive to be the consensus because I, as a non-expert, simply have nothing else to go on and I believe that if the majority of experts believe a certain thing then that is most likely, although obviously not guaranteed, out of the suite of opinions out there, to be correct.

I’m not American and I nevertheless still doubt the official narrative. — AJJ

Technically, you don't need to be an American republican to be a cretin (though it helps). All you need is to swallow their lies. You see, you all proud of yourselves because you can doubt the 'official narrative', but any idiot can do that. Call me when you can doubt your own narrative, when you can see through the many lies of your own side, when you are not possessed anymore by this obscene eagerness to believe anything as long as it is not official.

Technically, you don't need to be an American republican to be a cretin (though it helps). — Olivier5

:lol: I don't need help being a cretin. I can do it all by myself.

I would say that anyone who does rely on him for advice would be well advised to find out if the claims about his claims are true. — Janus

How would anyone go about doing that without simply getting into a second level of some scientists saying one thing, some saying another and having to decide who to trust? That route doesn't seem to get us anywhere.

I believe that if the majority of experts believe a certain thing then that is most likely, although obviously not guaranteed, out of the suite of opinions out there, to be correct. — Janus

Why?

How would anyone go about doing that without simply getting into a second level of some scientists saying one thing, some saying another and having to decide who to trust? That route doesn't seem to get us anywhere. — Isaac

If he said the things it is claimed that he said, then there should be documentary evidence, no?

Why? — Isaac

Why not? If ten people say that the truck involved in the accident was at fault and two say the car was at fault, who would you believe? The opinions of ten experts is more likely, although obviously not guaranteed, to be correct than the opinions of two who disagree. It's called scientific consensus, the basis of peer review. It's not infallible, obviously, but it's the best we have.

If he said the things it is claimed that he said, then there should be documentary evidence, no? — Janus

Yes, but in question is the veracity of those things, the interpretation of them, the contextual meaning. The literal transcript is irrelevant.

If ten people say that the truck involved in the accident was at fault and two say the car was at fault, who would you believe? — Janus

Depends on the two and the ten. If the two were nearby and the ten far away, I'd err on believing the two. We're not blinded to the sources of data in scientific studies. Nor are we blinded to the methodology, so we needn't act as if we have no other factors than popularity on which to make our choice.

It's called scientific consensus, the basis of peer review. — Janus

It really isn't. I've been peer reviewed and done peer review. It's a process of checking for methodological errors, occasionally conceptual confusions, suitability for the journal in question, and conflicts of interest. It's carried out by a handful of people, usually the same faces. It's totally unrelated to the popularity of some given study after it's been published, or the popularity of any given field or method of investigation.

The 'scientific consensus' is...

a) usually unmeasurable, what you're getting is the media narrative of it, not some sort of poll.

b) a feature of the popularity of certain starting assumptions and methodological fashions

c) heavily influenced by funding bodies, journal biases, corporate employment and sponsorship, and plain old social dynamics.

d) largely unrelated to veracity. We do not all check each other's work, there's no mass error checking going on, no forum at which conflicting ideas are thrashed out and a vote taken. It just doesn't work like that, not at these timescales.

I can say because the effects of lock downs in the Netherlands lead to reduced hospital admissions. — Benkei

Did they?

They tried to make models that fit the available data, which data shows lock downs worked. — Benkei

We apply a variation of the stochastic Susceptible-Infectious-Recovered model

To quantify the lockdown effect, we approximate a counterfactual lockdown scenario for Sweden

The model is constructed from a stochastic continuous-time Markov chain

Guesswork.

Also note that you have not managed to submit information that's researched and peer reviewed. So my heuristic is to not spend time on reading it. — Benkei

And now you’re sulking.

Powerful stuff.

Your inability to understand the research papers is noted as is your inability to share research papers that argue the opposite. I guess we're done?

“Stochastic” is a term derived from a Greek word meaning... “guess”.

Those links you’re sulkily refusing to look at are enough. But here’s an article listing 35 pertinent studies: https://www.aier.org/article/lockdowns-do-not-control-the-coronavirus-the-evidence/

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. — Isaac

So what am I missing? If some people need to take a vaccine because their life choices, or just luck of the draw, puts them in a higher risk category for hospitalisation and spread, then why must we all take it? — Isaac

Here's what I think just happened -- look back through this little sub-thread and see if you agree.

You are making at least two claims: one is the "on average" thing; the other is that you personally don't trust pharmaceutical companies.

I endorsed the "on average" claim, distinguishing between reasons to believe that not everyone needs to get vaccinated and reasons to believe that everyone needs not to get vaccinated.

I presented an argument that your distrust of pharmaceutical companies is a reason for no one to get vaccinated, and is inconsistent with a belief that some people should. You tried to manage this inconsistency in your first response by resenting the fact that some people should trust vaccine vendors.

In your second response, you don't mention distrust of pharmaceutical companies at all, but you present the "on average" argument as a response to the claim that everyone should get vaccinated. I never made that claim; my argument was only to show that distrust of pharmaceutical companies does not belong here, but in an argument that no one should get vaccinated, an argument you do not intend to make but keep making.

(Maybe you recall that some time ago I suggested that your arguments on this issue strike me as "associative" rather than logical, and if I were presenting my position as you present yours I would worry. It's an indicator of motivated reasoning. --- I don't normally look into the motives of those I'm arguing with, but you and I know what we're about here and I trust you'll take the question in the spirit it's intended.)

Roughly, here you said "A and B" and I agreed to A but warned you off B, and then you presented A as if it's a response to my claim that B is inconsistent with A.

If you want to argue that vaccination is only indicated for those with risk factors -- which has consistently been your position, I believe -- then you need to accept that it is so indicated and stop making claims about the pharmaceutical industry in general that can only support the view that the vaccine is indicated for no one.

I can put it one more way: I addressed your claim that you have a reason not to take the vaccine and you responded, really quite specifically, by saying that you (and many others) don't have any reason to take the vaccine. That's a non sequitur. If I did that, or, more to the point, if I did that and didn't even notice that I'd done it, but it was pointed out to me, I'd worry that my reasoning was motivated.

you know what's annoying? People who just randomly link shit because it agrees with their view without actually reading them. So I dived in the footnotes of your "research".

First link, doesn't work.
Second link isn't peer reviewed even after a year.
Third link, doesn't work.
4th link, not peer reviewed after a year.
5th link, not peer reviewed after a year.
6th link, doesn't work.
7th link, not peer reviewed after a year.
8th link, not peer reviewed after a year.

I assume it doesn't get better and I have better things to do than follow all these rabbit holes.

All the pre-prints are old so probably data at the beginning of the pandemic wasn't very good allowing for differing interpretations.

If quarantaines work then obviously lock downs do too. It's really... Logical. If quarantaine of sick people works to avoid having a disease spread then effectively putting all family units in quarantaine works too. Lock downs were imposed during the plague as well.

Of the first 10 only two lead to a blank page, but you can find them by Googling their titles.

All the pre-prints are old so probably data at the beginning of the pandemic wasn't very good allowing for differing interpretations. — Benkei

Of course.

If quarantaines work then obviously lock downs do too. — Benkei

Not according to what I’ve shared. I will say this again: your house is not built on rock. Whinging won’t fix the subsidence.