The data is never good enough for you. — Olivier5

The data is fine. Not as good as it could be, but mostly fine. What I take issue with is the refusal to address it in favour of these huge broad brush simplifications that institutions like the media and public health announcements deal in.

If that's all anyone wants to discuss then this whole thread is pointless. There's nothing whatsoever of interest there.

-Are a lot of people dying from COVID? Yes. Tragic global event. Dull conversation.
-Are there discrepancies in the way COVID deaths are recorded which might have implications for risk analysis? Yes. Global import, much lower. Conversational interest, significantly higher.

-Is vaccination good public policy? Yes. Very important message to get across. Totally dull conversation.
-Are there issues with the vaccination program (even though they don't necessarily effect the overall public policy)? Yes. Not a very important public health message. A significantly more interesting topic of conversation.

If all you want to talk about is the easy, broad issue stuff that anyone sane already agrees with then I can't see how a discussion forum is the best place for you to pursue that interest, particularly one focused on philosophy.

So you're focusing on points of disagreement, leaving aside the points where there is broad agreement because there's nothing to discuss in them?

Still it is important in any philosophical discussion to clarify points of agreement, if only to stay away from them afterward.

In this case, thank you for stating that:

-Are a lot of people dying from COVID? Yes. Tragic global event. — Isaac

-Is vaccination good public policy? Yes. Very important message to get across. — Isaac

If it is important to get that message across, it is also important not to counter that message with fabricated or artificial doubt. Which implies a responsibility to not spread fabricated or artificial doubt.

So when you focus on points of disagreement, be careful not to muddle the discourse and make it look like full of doubts and disagreements when there aren't.

First of all, what "action" is being taken against anti-vaxxers? If you mean complaining, hey, that's what this forum is for. — T Clark

The issue was not the action taken but the action suggested, which was "bashing them on the snout".

I still don't get why going after China matters. — T Clark

The pandemic has done serious damage across the world. If China's rulers have any culpability in this, then I think it stands to reason that they should be held to account. This is what we have international laws for.

Besides, you said that you have no objection:

I doubt that would be effective, but sure. I have no objection. — T Clark

China may be a bad place, but I don't know what it means to say it is national socialist. Is it dangerous? I think significantly less so than the Soviet Union was. — T Clark

Well, that's where we have to disagree.

"National Socialist" means "Nazi", i.e. Socialist + Nationalist. China has a long history of discrimination against ethnic and religious minorities like Tibetans and Uighurs. It has concentration camps. It is militaristic and expansionist, etc. So, it seems to have all the features of a Nazi dictatorship.

Plus, if something is admittedly "bad", then the international community must ensure that it does not spread.

The pandemic has done serious damage across the world. If China's rulers have any culpability in this, then I think it stands to reason that they should be held to account. — Apollodorus

It's not China we need to worry about. It's the extent to which the medical establishment are hopelessly tangled up in this. After having published a disgraceful set-piece letter to which leading geneticists obediently put their name, The Lancet initiates a 'task force' to look into the whole matter on which is the same fucking person who funded the damn thing and wrote the letter denying it was possible. If anything China are just being used as a conveniently deniable tool, just like offshore interrogation centres were.

https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n2414

This is the same academic establishment whose 'consensus' is apparently so beyond rational reproach.

COVID-19 must be eliminated, not become endemic, if America is to survive (Oct 3, 2021)

Might be a bit late now.

IMO China is run by brutal dictators with an appalling human-rights record and a very long history of suppressing ethnic and religious minorities.

But I agree that the pandemic has exposed some unsettling facts about the academic community and academic publications.

So, yes, it looks like an investigation by The Daily Telegraph has shown that of the 27 scientists who wrote a letter in The Lancet medical journal dismissing the possibility that Covid-19 originated from a Wuhan lab, 26 have links to its Chinese researchers, their colleagues or its benefactors.

REVEALED: 26 out of the 27 Lancet scientists who trashed theory that Covid leaked from a Chinese lab have links to Wuhan researchers - Daily Mail

If we can't trust our own scientists, that's bad news for everybody. It looks like our leaders are becoming increasingly unreliable and unaccountable. We can get rid of dodgy political leaders even if it may take years, but how do you get rid of dodgy scientists and professors?

IMO China is run by brutal dictators with an appalling human-rights record and a very long history of suppressing ethnic and religious minorities. — Apollodorus

I don't think that need be relegated to an opinion.

how do you get rid of dodgy scientists and professors? — Apollodorus

First and foremost the fault lies with the scientific community. In my opinion...

1. Nothing which is not fully pre-registered, should be considered a valid study. Full stop. That means data gathering, exclusion policies, statistical methodology (including any code), and significance limits.

2. Studies which refuse to publish their raw data should likewise be rejected.

3. Journals should actively pursue conflict of interest statements - it's about the most important aspect of peer review and currently it's treated like it's a token exercise.

4. Journals should publish null results in good proportion to positive ones.

5. Industry should not be allowed to fund, lobby, or employ from key research fields.

For anyone who thinks the above sound like the sort of reasonable and fair standards good studies probably meet, none of the studies relating to COVID vaccine effectiveness has met these standards, not a single one.

The issue was not the action taken but the action suggested, which was "bashing them on the snout". — Apollodorus

Yes, a poor choice of words, although it was meant metaphorically. @tim wood takes pride and pleasure in being cantankerous. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

If China's rulers have any culpability in this, then I think it stands to reason that they should be held to account. This is what we have international laws for. — Apollodorus

I'm ok with that.

China has a long history of discrimination against ethnic and religious minorities like Tibetans and Uighurs. It has concentration camps. It is militaristic and expansionist, etc. — Apollodorus

The US has a long history of discrimination against ethnic and religious minorities like black people and American Indians. It has had concentration camps - reservations for American Indians, internment camps for Japanese Americans during World War 2. It is militaristic and expansionist, etc.

No, I don't think the US is national socialist.

REVEALED — Daily Mail Online

calling into question their impartiality — Daily Mail Online

, The Sun already ran an article about that, posted here on the forum.

As per this old comment, I'd watch out for the slant they put on their ("impartial") articles.
(And with "REVEALED", now a bit pseudo-sensational, too.)

As per this old comment, I'd watch out for the slant they put on their ("impartial") articles.
(And with "REVEALED", now a bit pseudo-sensational, too.) — jorndoe

The BMJ article is more measured.

I'll continue to look for the one you're after though "Everything's absolutely fine, no-one did anything wrong because all our scientists are saints who are incapable of any deception or bias, nothing to see here". I think possibly the NEJM ran that one, I'll check.

The Sun already ran an article about that, posted here on the forum. — jorndoe

Correct. But the original article that the Sun also refers to is from the Telegraph:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/09/10/revealed-scientists-dismissed-wuhan-lab-theory-linked-chinese/

I do agree that the media tends to sensationalize news. However, the intelligence services have long been warning of growing Chinese influence on Western academics, which is not surprising if universities and research centers are co-funded by corporations with links to the Chinese state in the first place.

The BMJ article is more measured — Isaac

(y)

the one you're after — Isaac

?

That said, of course the Wuhan lab leak theory remains on the table, just not with the added thrust you suggest — jorndoe

the Chinese state — Apollodorus

Not that it matters, but I'm no fan personally.

First and foremost the fault lies with the scientific community. — Isaac

I agree. But the problem tends to be exacerbated by the issue of funding. As in any other field, whoever provides the cash gains the ability to exert influence. And when foreign powers get involved, things can go seriously wrong very fast ....

the one you're after — Isaac


? — jorndoe

Take a look back at the number of wildly sensationalist pro-establishment articles you've posted, without a single complaint about their tone or use of rhetoric. One turns up questioning the scientific establishment and you're suddenly a deconstructionalist.

Now see if you can get the joke.

the problem tends to be exacerbated by the issue of funding. As in any other field, whoever provides the cash gains the ability to exert influence. And when foreign powers get involved, things can go seriously wrong very fast .... — Apollodorus

There's no obligation to take funding offers. I've turned down research opportunities because I didn't like the organisation funding them.

I've turned down research opportunities because I didn't like the organisation funding them. — Isaac

Which is absolutely right. Unfortunately, there is a growing tendency for universities and research centers to accept funding from Middle Eastern and other sources that are not always as reputable as they seem.

When it comes to Chinese organizations I have no idea why any Westerners would accept money from them. Unless they are naive enough to believe that the Chinese state is a force for progress .... :smile:

Reiterated a few times by now ...

I've already mentioned that the evidence is the ground authority. And we'd be fools not to learn from it. — jorndoe

The evidence is the authority here more so than some (unweighted) "he-said-she-said", the truth of the SARS-CoV-2/pandemic matter more so than some sort of radical cultural relativism. Would be kind of neat if the virus could just be argued away though. :smile: — jorndoe

But you want to make it about me, ? Cool. :) (old comment)

No, I don't think the US is national socialist. — T Clark

Neither do I. I am saying that China is, though.

Stalinist Russia also had concentration camps. But it was not National Socialist, it was Marxist and its concentration camps were for political prisoners.

Nazi Germany's concentration camps were largely for ethnic minorities, as are China's.

Therefore China resembles Nazi Germany more that Marxist Russia, though there are of course similarities to Russia too.

China has put 2 million Uighurs in concentration camps, it has occupied Tibet, it is gradually replacing Tibetans with Chinese, and it has expansionist plans for Taiwan, India, and other parts of the world.

See also:

We hanged Uyghurs from ceilings and ordered their rape, says Chinese police whistleblower – The Telegraph

But you want to make it about me, ↪Isaac
? Cool. :) — jorndoe

As I said to @Olivier5 above, the 'evidence on the ground' as you put it, the broad picture, is so utterly uninteresting entirely because it is so unarguably the case. COVID is a real pandemic, killing millions. The vaccine, lockdowns, masks and social distancing have all helped to bring down the numbers of people dying. All those techniques are generally safe and effective. No one in their right mind would argue against those positions, and, more importantly, no-one here has.

So the only interesting thing to discuss (for us laymen) is the response. The beliefs and tactics of the people - yourself being one of them - either advocating or dissenting from the set positions.

Neither do I. I am saying that China is, though. — Apollodorus

When you get down to it, I don't really care about what we call China. We deal with countries that do bad things all the time. We can't fix the world, although there is a faction that thinks we should try. It usually leads to disaster, e.g. Vietnam, Iraq, Chile, Libya...

Great -- but that's not what you were asking for, when discussing "MY numbers."

If this counts as the kind of number you want, fine -- then simply divide the vaccine data into men and women, and compare rates of death. They'll be exceedingly low in both groups -- but at least you'll have what you wanted.
— Xtrix

You asked for an example. You know what an example is, right? — Isaac

Apparently you don't. Yes, an example of what "MY numbers" would be. You gave me statistics for lung cancer in smokers, divided into males and females.

So, I repeat: that's not what you were asking for. Thus, it's not an example of what you were asking for.

If the probability of having a stroke is .000015%, that pertains to you as well -- as much so as a roulette wheel.
— Xtrix

So there are no variables involved at all? Strokes are a random event, like the roulette ball? — Isaac

No, but the 0.00015% still applies to you in the same way a roulette wheel does.

So you agree the vaccines are safe. Fantastic.

So what's the problem?
— Xtrix

Literally everything I've written over the last200 pages — Isaac

Everything you've written over the last 200 pages is the problem? Care you summarize? Because the conversation started with you responding to me with this:

If one is making the argument that there are people having strokes and dying because of the vaccine, and that this is a reason for not taking the vaccine, then how is this not simply risk-aversion? It would be perfectly rational if the rates were higher -- but the chances are so low that to point to this as reason for rejecting it simply makes no sense, as we engage in activities all the time that have higher chances of death and disfigurement, like riding in cars and showering in a bathtub. — Xtrix

If it's all about risk profiles, then help me make my choice. What are my numbers? Let's ignore any selfish aims for now. My relative risk of causing harm to others by getting a vaccine compared to not getting one. Not the average relative risk (I know for a fact I'm not average), Not the public policy conclusion (that's based on the average risk and public policy is a blunt tool aimed at the masses). My relative risk.

Because if you can't produce figures for my risk then my decision is not risk based is it? — Isaac

Which is incoherent. Your decision can be risked based without having individualized numbers for yourself, which don't exist.

Are you suggesting that nobody is above average (or below it)? Otherwise I can't see why you'd find such a claim so obviously erroneous.
— Isaac

Above average for what? As human beings? When you say that the probabilities or prevalence applies to an average, and so doesn't apply to you because you're above average, what exactly are you talking about? -- and how do you know? Are you talking about height? Weight? Chess skill? IQ? — Xtrix

The variables which influence the probabilities we're talking about. — Isaac

That's not what I asked, as seen from the entirety of the quotation -- not the one taken out of context, as you tried to do. So the question stands: "Nobody is above average" in terms of what? There are many variables involved, and I named some myself.

It doesn't apply to me if I only choose the safest airlines, it doesn't apply to me if fly six times a day, it doesn't apply to me if refuse to put the seatbelt on when instructed, it doesn't apply to me if I'm elderly, frail, or otherwise compromised — Isaac

As I already made clear:

It's really an absurd position, if you look at it. What's the risk of taking Tylenol to you? Is there zero risk? No -- there's some risk. It's just miniscule. If you had liver disease, then perhaps it's not so miniscule. But there's a number to that subset as well, and we're in the same predicament and can make exactly the same claims: well yes, that's the prevalence within that subset, but what about ME? And so on. It's chasing a fantasy. It's like the idea of limits in calculus -- you'll never get there, but that's not the point. — Xtrix

Which is exactly right. Plenty of subsets out there to look at if you choose to -- but even then you'll never get an N of 1 -- which is the standard you've set so you can go on justifying an anti-vax position. And again I repeat: have you been vaccinated or not? I assume the answer is no.

If you're looking for "your" specific numbers, whatever that may mean, then narrow down the data for your age, sex, family history, etc. Perfectly fine. We do this all the time. You can do this with the vaccine as well -- the data is out there. Compare the risk in your specific age and gender group, for example, to the risk of contracting the virus -- or the increased risk of spreading the disease, etc.

The discussion was about people refusing the vaccine out of fear of risks like stroke and death. Those risks are minuscule -- no matter how you slice the data. They remain so.

-Are a lot of people dying from COVID? Yes. Tragic global event.
— Isaac

-Is vaccination good public policy? Yes. Very important message to get across.
— Isaac

If it is important to get that message across, it is also important not to counter that message with fabricated or artificial doubt. Which implies a responsibility to not spread fabricated or artificial doubt.

So when you focus on points of disagreement, be careful not to muddle the discourse and make it look like full of doubts and disagreements when there aren't. — Olivier5

Absolutely. :100:

Thank you for writing this. It seems as though people just want to argue for argument's sake. That's fine -- but not when we have literally millions of people refusing vaccinations during a pandemic because of anti-vaxxer claims and massive amounts of misinformation/manufactured doubt.

Irresponsible indeed.

Interesting to be such an advocate for one group while entirely ignoring another, larger group with far higher rates of fatality.
— Xtrix

You should know better.

There is less fault with the anti-vaccers, becuse their stance is a reaction, a revolt against the normalization of scientism, against capitalist exploitation, against being ruled by aged adolescents with advanced degrees. — baker

So you empathize more with anti-vaxxers and their concerns than those who are suffering and dying from COVID. Figured as much. Which is why you're a complete waste of time, and probably deserving of the contempt you so quickly project onto others while engaging in it yourself.

That seems a little daft. So assessing someone's risk for lung cancer you'd just take the prevalence of lung cancer deaths and say "that's it", yes? If another doctor said "what about the variables like smoking, sex, obesity, history, age..." you'd say "that's just chasing a fantasy, you can't get a truly individualised risk so don't even bother starting"? — Isaac

Ask yourself if that's really my position after writing this several posts earlier:

Because if what you're asking for is, "what's MY number"? I'm afraid that's not possible. Ever. You have general probabilities when it comes to almost any action in life. You can narrow down the range if you like, and select subgroups like ethnicity, sex, age, BMI, family history, history of vaccine reactions, allergies, etc. -- but even that won't be good enough to get you a specific number for YOU personally. You can claim this selection of data, customized for you, is still only generalities or prevalences. — Xtrix

:chin:

Risk analysis is not perfect, but it's a damn sight more complex than the naïve presentation of national prevalence statistics we see posted here masquerading as serious analysis. — Isaac

Then narrow the data, restricting for your specific criteria -- your age, your ethnicity, your sex, etc. The data is available for this. But the national statistics are still important. If there are 150 strokes per 10 million cases, you can carve up the 150 into males and females, older and younger, etc. -- and I'm sure you'll get some variance (much more likely to occur in the 60 and older subset, for example). Does that really change the risk all that much? No, not at all. A basis point would be shocking to me. But you're still welcome to do so.

So let's return to the airplane analogy. You look at the overall statistics of crashes versus flights -- and that'll tell you a lot. Can you narrow it down? Of course you can, if you're interested. That will show you some variance as well. As you mentioned: the airline you choose to use, the time of day, the country of departure, the country of arrival, the length of the flight, age and make of the plane, etc. etc. Plenty of variables to control for.

You're welcome to do so. But to argue there can't be "risk analysis" without doing so is disingenuous at best.

COVID is a real pandemic, killing millions. The vaccine, lockdowns, masks and social distancing have all helped to bring down the numbers of people dying. All those techniques are generally safe and effective. No one in their right mind would argue against those positions, and, more importantly, no-one here has. — Isaac

Right -- but let's do our best to give the impression that we are, because we're straight-shooting iconoclasts. Anything less is just "boring."

We can't fix the world, although there is a faction that thinks we should try. It usually leads to disaster, e.g. Vietnam, Iraq, Chile, Libya... — T Clark

It does tend to lead to disaster when not Justice but hidden agendas or mere political expediency are the real motivation.

However, is the argument that the international community should do nothing under any circumstances, a better one?

However, is the argument that the international community should do nothing under any circumstances, a better one? — Apollodorus

There is one primary question - Does what the other country is doing affect the national security of the United States? If the answer is "no," then, generally, the US should not get involved. That may not always be true, but there would have to be extraordinary justification.

Now to get back to the specific question - China's role in the pandemic is definitely a matter of national security for the US, so it is reasonable for us to get involved. On the other hand, there is very little we can do that will force them to comply with what we think is the correct action. To somehow equate action against China as something of equal priority to actions to actually address the pandemic at home is very short-sighted.

The delta wave is waning. You probably only have a week's worth of mileage left.

The delta wave is waning. You probably only have a week's worth of mileage left. — frank

'bout time. :clap: Only a week, tho'?

I think so. It was supposed to peak mid-October, but it's dropping off now. There's always the next variant, though. :sad: