Yes, we do. We also have a malaria crisis to deal with, an obesity crisis, an opioid crisis, an AIDS crisis, a poverty crisis, a TB crisis, a diarrhoea crisis, a child labour crisis... — Isaac

Goodie, let's keep up our pandemic stomping efforts. :up: Containing, tracking, learning, ...



^{Dec 01, 2021 WHO recommends malaria vaccine for children - malaria
Dec 02, 2021 First Malaria Vaccine a Major Milestone Despite Hurdles Ahead - malaria
Dec 06, 2021 More malaria cases and deaths in 2020 linked to COVID-19 disruptions
Dec 10, 2021 Communication between immune cells shows potential for cancer vaccine - cancer
Dec 10, 2021 Scientists developed Promising and safe mRNA HIV vaccine :up: AIDS
Dec 18, 2021 I want to build muscle and lose belly fat. A nutritionist said to eat more protein and snacks. - obesity
Dec 19, 2021 Outgoing NIH director implores Fox News viewers to stay focused on the real 'enemy' :up: good advice
Dec 20, 2021 FDA approves first injectable PrEP medication to lower HIV risk - AIDS
Dec 20, 2021 BioNTech's mRNA Cancer Vaccine Has Started Phase 2 Clinical Trial :up: cancer
Dec 20, 2021 34 healthcare and biotech startups that are set to take off in 2022, according to top investors :eyes: watch?
Dec 21, 2021 FDA approves first injectable HIV prevention drug - AIDS
Dec 21, 2021 Criminals have stolen nearly $100 billion in Covid relief funds, Secret Service says :angry:
Dec 22, 2021 Covid Deaths Exceed Annual Death Toll of HIV, TB and Malaria}

I didn't ask if the pharmaceuticals intended to monetise those problems too. I asked you why you thought our governments weren't previously willing to spend the money on saving those lives that it is now willing to spend on saving COVID-threatened lives (now that 'saving' them involves huge transfers of wealth to the pharmaceuticals).

I don't doubt for a minute the pharmaceuticals will profiteer from all those crises as well.

Why an anti-malaria vaccine now when mosquito nets have been available for decades, are cheaper and yet budgets to pay for them have been cut?

Why a cancer vaccine now when moves to stop the sales of cigarettes, processed meat, and carcinogenic chemicals have been blocked at every turn. Why a cancer vaccine when simply cleaning the urban air could save millions of lives?

Your sycophantic apologetics for the pharmaceutical industry is noted. The question was about effective interventions.

Uhm... @Isaac, going by comments, I honestly wouldn't want you as a pandemic manager, but I might want you on a team going after unethical business activities. Maybe you don't see a difference. :mask: ^{(BBB came to mind peripherally while typing, except I don't think they take anyone to court.)}

I honestly wouldn't want you as a pandemic manager, — jorndoe

So who would you want as pandemic manager? The government?

A little query for you (and any other nothing-to-see-here, business as usual advocates) to help me to see the other side of...

The following is mainly from Vinay Prasad's blog, I'm going to paraphrase...

In April 2021 Pfizer CEO declared "People will likely need a booster shot of Pfizer's vaccine within 12 months"

Immediately, the CDC, the WHO and various vaccine advisory boards responded, with Fauci saying it should be a 'public health decision' and Pfizer should not be making such announcements. The WHO were even more condemnatory.

In July 2021 Pfizer announced they would be seeking FDA approval for their boosters.

A few days later, there was a private meeting between Pfizer officials and the White House administration.

A short while later, the White House launched a media campaign advocating boosters in defiance of the advice from the WHO, the advice from their own FDA, the advice from their own ACIP, and the advice from several independent experts.

The Director and Deputy Director of the FDA's Office of Vaccine Products both resigned over the political influence on scientific advice and wrote a paper for the Lancet detailing their concerns https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)02046-8/fulltext as well as several pieces in popular newspapers.

The White House declared a meeting (with the newly standing-in FDA team and the ACIP) to respond to the article. Both teams of scientific advisers recommend scaling back the booster advice to only the more elderly population.

Walensky (CDC Director - a government appointee) unilaterally overrides the advice of all of her advisors, yet again, to roll out boosters to all age groups.

They are told, in no uncertain terms that this is unscientific - by the former chiefs of vaccine safety at the FDA, by the former FDA vaccine Advisor Paul Offit, by several independent experts, by their own Advisory committee (the ACIP), their own Vaccines and Related Biological Product Advisory Committee, and by the WHO.

In December, they expand the booster programme to 16-17 year olds with no new evidence and all their advisory boards advising against it.

---

So, the question for you is - what happened at that private meeting that gives you such confidence in the government's approach here?

Did the Pfizer officials hand over some super robust scientific evidence that neither the WHO, the ACIP, the VRBAC, Harvard and Maryland Medical Schools, nor their own advisors had access to?

Or did they offer a substantial donation to party funds?

And these are the people you'd prefer to have in charge of pandemic policy? People who ignore the advice of literally all of their scientific advisory boards to pursue a political (or worse, economic) agenda?

Nor is this just an American thing. The UK government have recently approved the roll out to children against the advice of their own Advisory committee (the JCVI).

Anyone who thinks governments are 'following the science' is dangerously deluded. Finding some scientists who say what they want to hear and ignoring, smearing and sacking the rest, does not constitute 'following the science'.

Good news

You said...

we're losing the battle of education, knowledge, facts, information, communication, etc.
— Xtrix

...then said...

Our powerful corporate and political (but I repeat myself) masters, through their ownership and control of media and their infiltration of the education system, have really done a number on the populace.
— Xtrix

Since the most powerful group in that list are the pharmaceutical companies themselves, who are pushing the pro-vaccine agenda. So it's hard to see how you're blaming them for ignorance (wherein I assume - perhaps wrongly - you're referring to anti-vaccine sentiment) — Isaac

My point wasn’t about the anti-vax movement. It was about the divided, confused, and completely irrational state of affairs we’re living in. Vaccine irrationality, like election irrationality, is but one symptom. I do indeed blame the powerful for this — they’ve created this monster that they can no longer control. As I said before, it’s due to 40 years of policies that have decimated the populace and years of brainwashing/cultivating irrational attitudes. — Xtrix

The idea that 20-30% of people's failing to take the vaccine is problematic is something you've repeated because it's been told to you by government agencies and media. — Isaac

I see no reason to distrust the figures from hospitals and medical establishments on this particular issue.

The point about corporate media brainwashing people is fairly straightforward, especially in conservative media -- which has now gone off the rails completely. Fox News being a prime example. However, they and their corporate backers generally want people to take the vaccine -- because it's good for business (won't have to lock down again, etc).

There's no contradiction. They've simply created a monster, as I said before, that now they cannot subdue. Even Trump was booed when he said "get the vaccine, it's good." That's not contradictory either.

Corporate media and social media (but I repeat myself) are leading more and more people into conspiracies and bogus beliefs and into silos. That is clear.
— Xtrix

... you can't then use the information you've acquired from the very sources you've just accused of misleading, to argue that they're not (on this occasion) misleading. — Isaac

I'm not using information from the sources I mentioned. I don't get my information from social media or corporate media (NBC, ABC, CNN, Fox, MSNBC, CBS, etc).

But even if I did, there's a real difference between straight reporting and opinion sections. "Commentators" like Sean Hannity et al. are far more influential than the Fox Newsroom. Take a look at the Wall Street Journal, as well. A very good newspaper -- yet their editorials are to the right of Attila the Hun.

Not sure what you're struggling with here.

The data you're basing such assessments on comes from the very organisations you've just indicted in leading us astray. — Isaac

I never accused medical experts of leading us astray. I've accused the corporate media for leading many people astray, to the point that they're now ripe for making stupid decisions, like refusing to wear masks or take the vaccine.

Omicron is like a vaccine. Just crap luck it didn't come earlier.

Got my Pfizer booster shot today. Nothing to report (yet).

1st jab: Astrazeneca
2nd jab: Moderna
3rd jab: Pfizer

Philosophically sound: Eclectic (a little bit of this, a little bit of that). I'm gonna confuse the hell out of Covid-19.

:grin:

so back in April, 2020, when I was mandated to put this stupid mask on my face at work, I made the comment that it was a pointless gesture as it wasn't the right kind of mask and the filtration was way too big to for virus. I equated it with using a properly set up volley ball net to stop paint balls (or marbles, for those who are unfamiliar with the size of a paint ball). Predictably, I was called an anti-vaxer and all sorts of other less than flattering things. I also was of the opinion that the virus was airborne, and also received a bevy of crap as that position was not supported by science at the time. Turns out the virus was airborne, no shock there, and, as of a few weeks ago, our provincial health officer admitted on public television that the masks we are mandated to wear are ineffective because the virus is airborne and the filtration of the mask is far too large (so the virus slips right through). I am still mandated to wear this useless thing though. So, in keeping with my track record, I am saying that in 2 years someone will notice that the masking, social distancing, and multiple rounds of vaccinations have accomplished exactly nothing and that our modeling was flawed and that the lockdowns were as effective as the other useless steps we took.

bring on the naysayers...

I see no reason to distrust the figures from hospitals and medical establishments on this particular issue. — Xtrix

Yes. That's clear from what you've already written, but since you're not the Oracle of Delphi we expect reasoning or justification for your beliefs. Its a discussion forum. It gets a bit boring if it's just an exchange of pronouncements. I'm not interested in your opinion, I'm interested in your reasons.

There's no contradiction. They've simply created a monster, as I said before, that now they cannot subdue. — Xtrix

Again, reasons please, not just opinion. Unargued for opinion is boring, there's nothing for me to respond to.

I'm not using information from the sources I mentioned. I don't get my information from social media or corporate media (NBC, ABC, CNN, Fox, MSNBC, CBS, etc). — Xtrix

So where do you get your information from? Direct from the source? You personally interview medical experts? Take the death counts yourself? Ask the MEs what the cause of death was?

But even if I did, there's a real difference between straight reporting and opinion sections. "Commentators" like Sean Hannity et al. are far more influential than the Fox Newsroom. Take a look at the Wall Street Journal, as well. A very good newspaper -- yet their editorials are to the right of Attila the Hun. — Xtrix

So corporate media is prepared to steer society off a cliff, encourage mass deaths and leave no habitable earth for our grandchildren, but apparently infusing actual news stories with bias is one step too far for them? Who are these people?

I never accused medical experts of leading us astray. I've accused the corporate media for leading many people astray — Xtrix

But the data you're basing your conclusions on doesn't come from medical experts. It comes from the government and the media. Unless you've taken some private poll of medical experts yourself, if so I'd be really interested in the results?

I'll try and make the distinction really simple for you...

If Professor Bob of Oxford University tells you something - that's you getting the information from medical experts

If the government agency say "our medical experts say..." that's you getting your information from the government, not the experts - I really don't know how much more gently I can break this to you, but governments lie.

If a newspaper says "most experts say..." that's you getting your information from the media, not the experts - again, not to shatter your comfort bubble, but newspapers are biased (yes, heaven forbid, even in their news reporting - I know, the scoundrels!)

Even if a medical journal publishes a paper (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21216501/), the WHO publishes advice (https://gh.bmj.com/content/bmjgh/6/6/e005216.full.pdf), or even the American Association of Really Smart People issues a statement, those are all filters applied to expert opinion. Filters largely controlled by corporate or political interests, filters with their own personal biases.

I see no reason to distrust the figures from hospitals and medical establishments on this particular issue.
— Xtrix

Yes. That's clear from what you've already written, but since you're not the Oracle of Delphi we expect reasoning or justification for your beliefs. Its a discussion forum. It gets a bit boring if it's just an exchange of pronouncements. I'm not interested in your opinion, I'm interested in your reasons. — Isaac

Because there’s no evidence whatever to believe these numbers are inaccurate. True, there could be a vast conspiracy — but that’s on you to show.

There's no contradiction. They've simply created a monster, as I said before, that now they cannot subdue.
— Xtrix

Again, reasons please, not just opinion. — Isaac

Reasons for what?

I think the reasons behind conservative media are fairly straightforward: appeal to advertisers, stoking hostility and prejudice, etc — all very good for business. Ditto for MSNBC.

After years of Rush Limbaugh and the undermining of truth, it’s no wonder that people are confused about whether to take a safe, effective vaccine. Or whether the election was “stolen,” etc.

These are symptoms, from years of media conditioning that has systematically undermined science and expertise.

to.

I'm not using information from the sources I mentioned. I don't get my information from social media or corporate media (NBC, ABC, CNN, Fox, MSNBC, CBS, etc).
— Xtrix

So where do you get your information from? — Isaac

From scientific journals and medical journals, mostly. The Lancet, Science, Nature, etc. I also read the Times, WSJ, etc.

So corporate media is prepared to steer society off a cliff, encourage mass deaths and leave no habitable earth for our grandchildren, but apparently infusing actual news stories with bias is one step too far for them? Who are these people? — Isaac

Straw man.

Not once did I say corporate media is “prepared” to steer us off the cliff. In fact corporate America happens to be aligning itself with science and facts when it comes to vaccines — why? Because they’re not idiots, and when it comes to their bottom line they’re very serious. Same with polling.

Perhaps it’s helpful for you to pause 5 seconds before responding to what you THINK I’m saying, and look at what I’m ACTUALLY saying.

But the data you're basing your conclusions on doesn't come from medical experts. It comes from the government and the media. — Isaac

Hospitals are government and media? Medical journals are government and media?

I'll try and make the distinction really simple for you... — Isaac

Yes, because I’m definitely the one struggling to understand here. :roll:

I really don't know how much more gently I can break this to you, but governments lie. — Isaac

Riveting analysis. Thank you for the insight.

Filters largely controlled by corporate or political interests, filters with their own personal biases. — Isaac

Yes, and thankfully you’re here to weed it all out for us.

The reality is you’re as much a victim of the info-demic as the suckers who believe the election was stolen, repeating exactly the same lines and “challenging” sources and the very nature of truth and facts just to maintain their conditioned beliefs. Yes, I know you reject this assessment.

The issue isn’t science and medicine — or even government. The issue is that most Americans listen to opinion shows, run by corporate America, and are stuck in information silos via social media. That is what’s accelerating these whacky beliefs and stupid decisions, not to mention our divisions. There’s nothing controversial about this — it’s well documented and rather obvious. You want to somehow appropriate this fact and apply it to science and medicine, a la Trump and “fake news,” but that’s your issue, not mine.

Again, , the two mentioned things aren't the same.

On February 6, 2014, General Motors (GM) recalled about 800,000 of its small cars due to faulty ignition switches, which could shut off the engine while the vehicle was in motion and thereby prevent the airbags from inflating. The company continued to recall more of its cars over the next several months, resulting in nearly 30 million cars recalled worldwide and paid compensation for 124 deaths. The fault had been known to GM for at least a decade prior to the recall being declared. As part of a Deferred Prosecution Agreement, GM agreed to forfeit $900 million to the United States. — General Motors ignition switch recalls

As an aside, would you actually like to join Strang and his many colleagues around the world? (They differentiate.)

Because there’s no evidence whatever to believe these numbers are inaccurate. — Xtrix

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/356756711_Latest_statistics_on_England_mortality_data_suggest_systematic_mis-categorisation_of_vaccine_status_and_uncertain_effectiveness_of_Covid-19_vaccination

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/355437113_Discrepancies_and_inconsistencies_in_UK_Government_datasets_compromise_accuracy_of_mortality_rate_comparisons_between_vaccinated_and_unvaccinated

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/04/we-could-be-vastly-overestimating-the-death-rate-for-covid-19-heres-why/

I think we've got to start moving to that, otherwise as infection becomes endemic we are going to be frightening ourselves with very high numbers that actually don t translate into disease burden. — All-Party Parliamentary Group on Coronavirus - Professor Hunter.

Reasons for what? — Xtrix

Reasons for believing your claim. That it's just...

From scientific journals and medical journals, mostly. The Lancet, Science, Nature, etc. I also read the Times, WSJ, etc. — Xtrix

None of those publications record death rates.

Hospitals are government and media? Medical journals are government and media? — Xtrix

So you're polling hospitals directly yourself? And yes, journals are media.

The reality is you’re as much a victim of the info-demic as the suckers who believe the election was stolen, repeating exactly the same lines and “challenging” sources and the very nature of truth and facts just to maintain their conditioned beliefs. — Xtrix

Uh huh, and "thankfully you’re here to weed it all out for us."

Again, ↪Isaac
, the two mentioned things aren't the same. — jorndoe

Which two mentioned things?

As an aside, would you actually like to join Strang and his many colleagues around the world? (They differentiate.) — jorndoe

Differentiate what?

You're being quite opaque here.

Because there’s no evidence whatever to believe these numbers are inaccurate.
— Xtrix

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/356756711_Latest_statistics_on_England_mortality_data_suggest_systematic_mis-categorisation_of_vaccine_status_and_uncertain_effectiveness_of_Covid-19_vaccination

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/355437113_Discrepancies_and_inconsistencies_in_UK_Government_datasets_compromise_accuracy_of_mortality_rate_comparisons_between_vaccinated_and_unvaccinated

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/04/we-could-be-vastly-overestimating-the-death-rate-for-covid-19-heres-why/ — Isaac

You had mentioned the number of people vaccinated. These articles have nothing to say about that. They’re talking about vaccinated and unvaccinated death rates.

None of those publications record death rates. — Isaac

I never once mentioned death rates.

Hospitals are government and media? Medical journals are government and media?
— Xtrix

So you're polling hospitals directly yourself? And yes, journals are media. — Isaac

Polling hospitals myself? Is this a serious question?

Journals are not corporate media — which was the topic. My fault, I guess, for not specifying the obvious.

Uh huh, and "thankfully you’re here to weed it all out for us." — Isaac

No — I simply encourage people to listen to the science and to medical experts. I’ve said that from the beginning, and have been very transparent about my sources and about what sources I take seriously. I take the Lancet seriously; I don’t take social media or corporate opinion shows seriously (as most Americans do, and which was the initial —uncontroversial — point I was making).

Sorry that you struggle with truisms in your quest to defend vaccine “skepticism.”

, do I have to repeat again?

• the scandals, failures, conspiracies, malaria, poverty, General Motors, ...
• the task at hand (like what Strang and colleagues around the world does)

_{Feb 27, 2021 Children with long covid
Apr 28, 2021 7 Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Kids
Dec 27, 2021 New York City sees four-fold increase in COVID-19 hospitalizations among kids
Dec 28, 2021 Child Covid hospitalizations are up, especially in 5 states
↑ take care of your 5-year-olds out there}


So ...

would you actually like to join Strang and his many colleagues around the world?

You had mentioned the number of people vaccinated. These articles have nothing to say about that. They’re talking about vaccinated and unvaccinated death rates. — Xtrix

No. I mentioned (bolded for your reading pleasure).

The idea that 20-30% of people's failing to take the vaccine is problematic is something you've repeated because it's been told to you by government agencies and media. — Isaac

If not death (and death which higher vaccination levels could mitigate), then what problem are you raising with the poor vaccination rates. Your argument that it's a problem (the low vaccination rates), relies on studies and data produced by exactly the corporations and governments (and presented in the exact media) you've condemned for 'leading us astray'.

So I'll ask again - from where are you getting your data on death rates if not a government? From where are you getting your judgement on vaccine efficacy if not a corporation? From where are you getting your view of "the majority of medical professionals..." if not the media?

Did you gather your own data? No. Did you conduct your own trials, or understand the intricacies of the actual published papers? No. Did you poll the experts yourself? No.

You trusted governments, media and corporations to do those things for you and decided to believe the results you were thereby handed.

Polling hospitals myself? Is this a serious question? — Xtrix

Yes. you said you trusted the hospital data. I assume you're polling them yourself. Otherwise it's not the hospital data you're trusting is it, it's the data of whomever tells you they've polled the hospitals.

Journals are not corporate media — Xtrix

Who owns the journals then? A kibbutz?

I simply encourage people to listen to the science and to medical experts. — Xtrix

You were earlier imploring that we not 'do our own research'. Now you're saying we should listen directly to the experts. Which is it?

I take the Lancet seriously — Xtrix

I seriously doubt you have even close to the expertise to judge the accuracy of an article in the Lancet. I've also presented several papers from journals, each one you've dismissed in favour of your preferred narrative. This idea that you're just impartially constructing an opinion by listening, unfiltered, to the experts is transparently bullshit. You choose the experts you're going to listen to on the basis of whether they're supporting the message your politics inclines you to believe.

do I have to repeat again?

the scandals, failures, conspiracies, malaria, poverty, General Motors, ...
the task at hand (like what Strang and colleagues around the world does) — jorndoe

It seems all we do is repeat.

The right course of action in the 'task at hand' is determined by who you trust to deliver it. The two are inseparable.

If the 'task at hand' were to build a wall, the fact that your builder had criminal convictions for negligence is extremely relevant, no?

No. I mentioned (bolded for your reading pleasure).

The idea that 20-30% of people's failing to take the vaccine is problematic is something you've repeated because it's been told to you by government agencies and media.
— Isaac — Isaac

I've already mentioned several sources which I (and apparently you) find credible.

But I don't remember saying 20/30% is "problematic," I said that after years of consuming media that systematically undermine academia, expertise, science, research, and truth, there is an outgrowth of stupid decisions. Perhaps it's the word "stupid" you object to -- fine. Irrational is better. Many (though admittedly not all, but i would argue MOST) of that 20/30% are making these decisions irrationally, partly based on the consumption of the media I mentioned before (in this case, conservative media -- talk radio and Fox News in particular and for longer; social media like Facebook more recently). I don't necessarily include you in this group, but I don't remember much about my exchange with you.

Your argument that it's a problem (the low vaccination rates), relies on studies and data produced by exactly the corporations and governments (and presented in the exact media) you've condemned for 'leading us astray'. — Isaac

If you consider science and medicine somehow part of corporate and social media (which I what I was talking about) or governments, fine. I don't. If we discount all science that is funded by corporations or government, we're ruling out a lot indeed. I think it's important to be skeptical, but remember that it's in the interest of corporations and governments to get facts, to really know what's going on -- if for no other reason than that it increases their power, control, wealth, self-interests, etc. I mentioned polling as one example. That's extremely important to companies -- they want accurate polling, not simply what they'd like to hear -- because it turns out being delusional about the world is often a very poor policy, especially when it comes to numbers.

In any case, I never accused the government of "leading us astray" in this case, nor corporations, because I think both happen to be (reluctantly) doing the right thing by following the advice of experts. They haven't done that great a job -- I think, much like with climate change, that we should be following more of the prescriptions, the programs that scientists and experts are advising. Here we're back to where I think we discussed consensus -- and I argue in favor of following the consensus, particularly if it's overwhelming.

You trusted governments, media and corporations to do those things for you and decided to believe the results you were thereby handed. — Isaac

So listening to experts, and to the evidence and studies that they cite from credible sources, and even looking at the sources directly (science and medical journals), I would hardly qualify as "trusting government and corporations." It is true that journals and academic research publications generally, are a type of "media." They are not corporate media.

So yes, one thing you mentioned is technically true: I'm trusting a form of media. Short of polling people myself and seeing and collecting evidence first hand, as you mentioned, and which is absurd, I have to often rely on media. If I speak to friends who are also experts in a given field, if not dealing with them face-to-face, I have to rely on e-mail, telephones, texts, and even letters -- all are a kind of medium. If we want to get technical. Bottom line: yes, I mostly trust experts and the reasons and evidence they present.

Yes. you said you trusted the hospital data. I assume you're polling them yourself. Otherwise it's not the hospital data you're trusting is it, it's the data of whomever tells you they've polled the hospitals. — Isaac

Who cite their sources, which come mostly from hospitals, doctors, researchers, etc. True, they could all be wrong. So could mechanical engineers and quantum physicists. But I usually have to assume they know what they're talking about. I extend the same approach to general medicine and epidemiology.

You were earlier imploring that we not 'do our own research'. Now you're saying we should listen directly to the experts. Which is it? — Isaac

When did I say that?

I seriously doubt you have even close to the expertise to judge the accuracy of an article in the Lancet. — Isaac

It's not very difficult to follow research papers. Those that make the top journals are usually clearly written as well. What you mean by "accuracy" I can't say -- there is, again, a large degree of trust involved. But I take the attitude that even I wanted to learn further or look into the experiments or data myself, that what I found would align with the data, results, and evidence that's being presented.

I never claimed to be myself an expert in medicine. Rather, I said I listen to the experts.

This idea that you're just impartially constructing an opinion by listening, unfiltered, to the experts is transparently bullshit. — Isaac

Right, but I never once made that claim. Of course I'm partial -- I hold a particular set of values and beliefs. I hold a perspective. That's everyone, I would say. I try my best to put emotions aside -- that I'm less successful with. But that frustration, even borderline contempt, really is rooted in wanting to see human beings thrive rather than suffer and die. I wouldn't mistake this flaw as having much to say about my analysis, beliefs, principles, and conclusions.

You choose the experts you're going to listen to on the basis of whether they're supporting the message your politics inclines you to believe. — Isaac

But this assumes I'm in the two-party trap which I've already myself condemned. This gets launched at me occasionally, but I see no evidence of it. I have made no secret of my voting record and rationale for it, of what I think of our political and economic system, of the power of misinformation and social media bubbles, who I follow/consult/listen to, what sources I trust, etc. I feel no loyalty to any political ideology, even anarchism. It's whatever our current situation calls for -- a kind of pragmatism perhaps. Is that the "message" that's being supported by Nature, Science, the Lancet, the New York Times, the WSJ?

Perhaps it's the word "stupid" you object to -- fine. Irrational is better. Many (though admittedly not all, but i would argue MOST) of that 20/30% are making these decisions irrationally, partly based on the consumption of the media I mentioned before — Xtrix

...and the 80/70%? You think they've made their decision rationally because...? It happens to be the same as yours?

If you consider science and medicine somehow part of corporate and social media (which I what I was talking about) or governments, fine. I don't. If we discount all science that is funded by corporations or government, we're ruling out a lot indeed. — Xtrix

Who said anything about discounting. Gods! I'm genuinely baffled by the almost religious submission you people have on this issue. Do you really not see any position to take between 'discounting all science' and actively campaigning for one of it's products to be forceably injected in the entire population of the world? There are positions in between, you know.

I think it's important to be skeptical — Xtrix

See above. What level of scepticism are you displaying here. Where is any reasonable caution in what you advocate? Scepticism is using their products to the minimum necessary at the utmost need. Scepticism is understanding that not everyone is going to be as trusting as you and nor should they. Scepticism is accepting that, with uncertainty, people ought to be allowed to make their own choices. Scepticism is campaigning for oversight, checking data, listening to dissenting voices.

You're exhibiting none of this. Corporate science says everyone must take the vaccine and you unquestioningly fall in line. They say 'jump' you say 'how high?'

it's in the interest of corporations and governments to get facts, to really know what's going on — Xtrix

So? That doesn't therefore mean it's in their interests to provide those facts to us, unfiltered. What they themselves benefit from knowing and what they benefit from us thinking are two completely different things.

Here we're back to where I think we discussed consensus -- and I argue in favor of following the consensus, particularly if it's overwhelming. — Xtrix

Yes. Notwithstanding my disagreement about being morally obligated to follow a 'consensus', it's this conclusion that I'm questioning. What Lancet article told you there's a 'consensus'? What medical expert did you speak to who'd conducted a poll of his peers? You talk of 'consensus' as if that were an established fact, but there's been no such check. As far as I can tell, there's healthy debate among experts about the extent and force with which the vaccine should be used. There's disagreement as to it's use in the under 25s and further use in the under 40s, disagreement about the value of cloth masks (particularly for the very young), there's disagreement about the value of boosters, there's disagreement about the use of passports, there's disagreement about the value of natural immunity, there's disagreement about the role of vaccines in ending this (as opposed to just reducing illness severity).

Where's your impartial, non-media, evidence of the 'overwhelming consensus' you keep referring to?

You were earlier imploring that we not 'do our own research'. Now you're saying we should listen directly to the experts. Which is it? — Isaac


When did I say that? — Xtrix

I must have confused you with someone else then, I'm not trawling back through your comments. If you say you didn't say it I'll take your word for it. I assume then, you're in favour of people doing their own research?

that frustration, even borderline contempt, really is rooted in wanting to see human beings thrive rather than suffer and die. — Xtrix

Such a common theme here Do you not see the flaw?

1. I believe the people who tell me that x is going to avoid suffering and death.
2. I believe them because I want to avoid suffering and death.

So if I told you that you should put a bowl of trifle on your head right now or a billion people will die you'd do it - because you want to avoid suffering and death? No, obviously not. You don't choose who to believe on the grounds of the severity of the message. Those who oppose the global enforcement of vaccinations do so because they too want to avoid suffering and death. When someone like Vinay Prasad speaks out against promoting vaccines for children, he's obviously concerned about the suffering of the children. What makes you think you've the monopoly on concern?

I wouldn't mistake this flaw as having much to say about my analysis, beliefs, principles, and conclusions. — Xtrix

As I said. Both sides can claim to be concerned about suffering and death. You still picked a side nonetheless, so your 'concern' here has nothing to do with the side you've chosen.

But this assumes I'm in the two-party trap which I've already myself condemned. — Xtrix

No insisting that any mention of the word 'politics' must refer to your party ties is what assumes that.

Hospitals are government and media? — Xtrix

Absolutely. I have a useless mask on my face for "optics" not actual value. I was mandated to get the vaccine, not because I needed it, but because the health region wanted to be able to post really high uptake in healthcare workers to further promote vaccine uptake in the general public, 80% of which also did not really need the vaccine. Now my health region can make statements like "98% of healthcare staff are fully vaccinated". No mention of firing us if we didn't submit to the vaccine, and no mention of the 1600 staff that walked away, rather than get the useless vaccine. We also have signs all over the hospital explaining that all staff are to wear masks due to Covid, but no mention of the fact that even the Chief Medical officer of the province admits that those same masks are useless. Now we are more short staffed, more burnt out, and still doing useless shit for optics. Yes, hospitals are government and media run, make no mistake there.

Indeed. Not to mention the fact that, contrary to our bizarre mythology, hospital reports are not provided by the plucky, overworked nurse. They're provided by the entirely un-plucky overpaid hospital manager.

Yes. However, in the manager's defense, the job is entirely awful, just a horrid thing of a career. I did it for a year, foolishly thinking that I could be the manager I always wanted to work for. I honestly tried, but there was just no chance of success. I was not allowed to make any successful changes, every time I reallocated funds for staff training, better equipment, or more staff, I had my budget suddenly reduced by whatever amount I had managed to find for the improvement. Zero chance for success there. The only "success" on could achieve was to show up, do nothing of value, and collect a cheque and pension. If that is all you want, management isn't a bad gig as there are almost no metrics to meet to keep your job. Welcome to Canadian Healthcare; we have no idea why it is so expensive...

Well, the manager's manager is an even less plucky, even more overpaid cog, and I sympathise, but I don't see your story as much of defense. You left. What does that say about the moral fibre of the ones that didn't, the current incumbents?

Or is it perhaps a continuous cycle of disenchanting the idealists? I can imagine that. Perhaps it's not so broken after all. "How do we deal with these idealistic doctors?", "Stick them in management for a year, crush them with soul-destroying bureaucracy, then put them back on the ward". Like breaking horses!

Oh but I forget. There's a crisis on, so we all must pretend that hospitals are all run by Dr. Kildare. He wouldn't massage any figures would he?

I understand the awakening (or crushing, depends on the person) that happens when you realize that the position you have been hoping to get, to finally create a solid, positive difference, amounts to so much bullshit, and the options you have left are walk and start over, or say fuck it, I did my bit, now I am going to ride it out to retirement and this place can eat me. I walked away and went back to the bedside, I can't fix the system, so fuck it, let it fall. But I can make a difference to my patients, so I do that when I can. These days I do at least one thing a day that can get me fired, and eventually someone will. Until then, ever forward.

...and the 80/70%? You think they've made their decision rationally because...? It happens to be the same as yours? — Isaac

A good deal of them are making the decision because of media, what their doctors say, etc. So I would say they're making a correct decision, in that it corresponds to the consensus of experts, but not necessarily made through extensive thought or research.

Corporate science says everyone must take the vaccine and you unquestioningly fall in line. They say 'jump' you say 'how high?' — Isaac

I realize this is your take on the matter, yes. It's stunningly ridiculous.

I'm not listening to "corporate science," I'm listening to science.

Maybe you have disagreements about quantum theory as well. Does my listening to the consensus about quantum theory mean I'm only following "corporate physicists"?

You fail to see, repeatedly, why there's even this level of "debate" and "controversy" to begin with. Those who are just "asking questions" about last year's election make similar claims about skepticism. What they fail to see is that their skepticism on this particular issue isn't an accident to begin with. It's a product of our current intellectual climate, which has its causes -- many of which I've gone over already, and which vaccine "skepticism" is simply another example of. That the 2020 election was stolen is also believed by many people -- and it's irrational. Do we say those who believe the election was legitimate are equally irrational because they don't know the ins and outs of state election laws?

The science and medical consensus on vaccines is overwhelming. They're safe and effective. The expert consensus on the election is that it was free and fair. Many people believe otherwise in both cases. My point is: there are reasons for this. The reason, in part, is years of consuming media that systematically undermine trust in science, expertise, government, academia. It's anti-intellectual and usually conspiratorial. This was the point, and it still stands.

So? That doesn't therefore mean it's in their interests to provide those facts to us, unfiltered. What they themselves benefit from knowing and what they benefit from us thinking are two completely different things. — Isaac

Of course. Polling is a good example.

Where's your impartial, non-media, evidence of the 'overwhelming consensus' you keep referring to? — Isaac

There is overwhelming consensus that vaccines are safe and effective, and should be taken by those eligible. I'm not interested in "debating" this again. If you want to continue your quest, you're welcome to. The point made wasn't exclusively about vaccine resistance, which is only one symptom of a larger problem.

I assume then, you're in favour of people doing their own research? — Isaac

Of course.

When someone like Vinay Prasad speaks out against promoting vaccines for children, he's obviously concerned about the suffering of the children. What makes you think you've the monopoly on concern? — Isaac

I don't. I think you misread what I wrote or I didn't communicate it effectively. I was in that case describing my own emotional reactions -- that they arise mostly out of concern for the continuation of the human experiment.

No insisting that any mention of the word 'politics' must refer to your party ties is what assumes that. — Isaac

Fair enough, I suppose. I have no idea what political factor you're referring to, in this case.

Hospitals are government and media?
— Xtrix

Absolutely. — Book273

Hospitals are not governments, and they're not media.

Oh but I forget. There's a crisis on, so we all must pretend that hospitals are all run by Dr. Kildare. He wouldn't massage any figures would he? — Isaac

We should listen to experts and have reasonable faith in our scientific and medical institutions and processes, whether in a crisis or not. The real crisis, however, is why non-experts (like you) pick certain issues to "question" and not others. That very choice is not an accident, whether it's about election fraud or vaccine efficacy. Millions believe in election fraud -- and I bet every one of these people feel that they're the exception, in that that they came to this belief on their own free will.

I had someone just tell me almost exactly the same thing about election fraud -- that I'm the dupe for trusting in government data. That's an interesting fact.

We’ve also had to fundamentally alter our lives, go into lockdowns, all for the expressed purposes of avoiding overwhelming the hospitals. So we were double-crossed: forced to alter our lives in order to protect them from their own failure to provide the healthcare they promised us. Maybe this failure will lead some sort of change.

it corresponds to the consensus of experts — Xtrix

I'm listening to science. — Xtrix

listening to the consensus — Xtrix

The science and medical consensus — Xtrix

There is overwhelming consensus — Xtrix

I asked

Where's your impartial, non-media, evidence of the 'overwhelming consensus' you keep referring to? — Isaac

You don't need to "go over all this again", just point me to the impartial scientific journal from which you obtained your knowledge that there's an 'overwhelming consensus' on the issues you advocate. You keep using 'safe and effective', but you're advocating far more than that. Amoxicillin is 'safe and effective' too - doesn't mean I ought to take it. You're advocating a particular health policy regarding vaccines (and masks, and distancing, etc), that it's 'safe and effective' is woefully insufficient as justification. So again, what are your sources for this claim that your position is supported by an 'overwhelming consensus'?

I suppose. I have no idea what political factor you're referring to, in this case. — Xtrix

Seriously? You don't see any political similarity in people who are strongly pro-vaccine? You think they're from a wide range of political beliefs? It's crap. To a man, they're all the generally liberal-left leaning, post-enlightenment, secular, urbanites. You find me a single transphobic vaccine supporter I'll give you ten quid. What's a position on transgender issue got to do with a position on treatment for a pandemic? Nothing at all. but you'll not find an overlap because it's a political tribal decision. pro-transgender, pro-vaccines, pro-immigration, pro- gay marriage, pro-climate action, etc. I could probably take a more than 50/50 guess at what music they like.

We should listen to experts — Xtrix

Indeed. Recently I've been listening to Vinay Prasad, Stefan Baral, Martin Kulldorff, Jay Bhattacharya, Norman Fenton, Pete Doshi, Paul Hunter... Or are they the 'wrong' experts?

I think that you make some good decisions. It seems that there are so many myths and things which are contradictory. I know people who cling to the belief that they cannot catch Covid_19 and I am fed up with explaining that it masks only prevent passing germs onto others. Also, some people are adhering rigidly to advice and others doing exactly what they like in terms of mixing, including people with Covid_19 socialising freely while some people who are negative are being so careful.


There just seems to be no balance and the most absurd thing is seeing discarded masks littered on public transport. At some point, if Covid_19 becomes a thing of the past, so much of contradictory advice and behaviour may be viewed as involving so many mistakes. The problem is that those giving rules are making them up as they go along. Some of it seems to be about prescriptive rules. I wonder if it would be more helpful if the emphasis was on harm minimization, with a focus on people balancing risks, amidst all the uncertainties.