It would have been much better to have moved forward in the beginning by using all the money spent on advertising, propaganda (education about the value of public policy), free masks, restrictions, (etc) to enhance existing healthcare facilities, services, equipment and staff numbers. That would have led to a much more robust healthcare system and much less confusion in the public while allowing for future treatment of whatever else.happens to.come along. No forward vision was used. Just sad.

So again, what are your sources for this claim that your position is supported by an 'overwhelming consensus'? — Isaac

Not my position. Vaccines are safe and effective— there is a consensus on this. Find your own articles about it if you’re interested— literally any credible journal or organization in the world.

Aaron Ciechanover, an Israeli scientist and winner of the 2004 Nobel Prize in Chemistry, called on the population to trust the scientific consensus on COVID-19 vaccines.

He said that people’s reluctance to get vaccinated has been caused by preconceptions, misinformation, and opinions of leaders that go against the general consensus of the scientific community.

https://tec.mx/en/news/national/research/nobel-laureate-calls-trust-scientific-consensus-vaccines

This is exactly what I’m saying.

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? — Isaac

:yawn:

Do these experts claim the vaccines aren’t safe and effective? Probably not.

Again: election fraud is also widely believed. Why not spend your time defending that as well?

, what's with the discontinuity? Not going to remind by going back and quoting comments.
Scrolled by, might speak to your sentiments, don't know ...

• A new coronavirus vaccine heading to India was developed by a small team in Texas. It expects nothing in return. (Dec 30, 2021)
• Corbevax (vaccine)

No patents, reminding of Salk's polio vaccine. I guess we'll see what comes of it.
So ...

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

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? — Isaac

Just those?

Vaccines are safe and effective— there is a consensus on this. — Xtrix

As I said Amoxicillin is also safe and effective. Should I take that too? Being safe and effective is not sufficient justification to cover all the policies you advocate.

This is exactly what I’m saying. — Xtrix

I asked you for a non-media source for your claim that there's an 'overwhelming consensus' of scientists in favour of the policies you advocate. You've given me a media source showing that one scientist agrees with you.

Do these experts claim the vaccines aren’t safe and effective? Probably not. — Xtrix

No. Neither do I. Again, 'safe and effective' does not automatically lead to 'everyone ought to take them'. One is a technical assessment, the other policy. We do not advocate the consumption (certainly not the enforced consumption) of every medicine which is safe and effective.

Being 'safe and effective' is merely the minimum threshold requirement to advocate the consumption of a medicine. It's not sufficient reason alone.

So, once more. Your favoured policy that everyone eligible ought to take the vaccine. Where is your (non-corporate, non-government, non-media) evidence that an 'overwhelming majority' of experts agree with you on this?

No patents, reminding of Salk's polio vaccine. I guess we'll see what comes of it. — jorndoe

Mmm, a noble aim, but I think this goes too far the other way. We need substantial resources to properly test new drugs, especially ones with such a widespread expected cohort of recipients. Nationalisation is the only route forward I can see. At the very least a forced release of the patents the pharmaceuticals already hold.

Just those? — jorndoe

Not exclusively no, but mostly. I make no claims to impartiality. I listen to those experts who are saying things that align best what I already believe.

The keyword there being 'experts', not 'anyone'.

It's a distinction I don't see many here grasping. There's a world of difference between listening to experts who align with your existing beliefs and listening to anyone who aligns with your existing beliefs.

Edit for the slow ones at the back, the 'world of difference' is that the former checks your beliefs are at least reasonable, the latter checks nothing.

Vaccines are safe and effective— there is a consensus on this.
— Xtrix

As I said Amoxicillin is also safe and effective. Should I take that too? Being safe and effective is not sufficient justification to cover all the policies you advocate. — Isaac

I wasn't advocating "policies," I was pointing out that irrationality abounds.

Also, amoxicillin is safe and effective, yes. Should people start refusing to take amoxicillin when told to by a doctor, I think the example would be relevant. During a pandemic, when experts are encouraging taking the safe and effective vaccines, and people are refusing for irrational reasons (for the same reasons they believe in election fraud), I'd say that's a problem. That was my entire point.

Somehow you don't -- fine. Not interested in expanding on truisms.

I asked you for a non-media source for your claim that there's an 'overwhelming consensus' of scientists in favour of the policies you advocate. You've given me a media source showing that one scientist agrees with you. — Isaac

Again, I wasn't advocating policies. I was pointing out something that anyone who isn't caught up in the "controversy" of vaccines would readily recognize. I was also questioning the "incentive" policy. That's not advocacy.

It's not one scientist, it's thousands of scientists and doctors. I simply liked how closely what he was saying matched what I was. What he's pointing out is so obvious it shouldn't even have to be stated. Alas, apparently it does.

Do these experts claim the vaccines aren’t safe and effective? Probably not.
— Xtrix

No. Neither do I. Again, 'safe and effective' does not automatically lead to 'everyone ought to take them'. — Isaac

Yes, and you persist in thinking that "everyone ought to take them" is my "policy" that I'm "advocating." You're wrong. That's not what I'm advocating, and that's not what I initially said. To do the legwork for you, this is what you decided to chime in on:

I quoted a New York Times article about using "incentives" to encourage vaccination...

So in other words: we're losing the battle of education, knowledge, facts, information, communication, etc. 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.

What to do about it? Use "incentives." Translation: rewards and punishments. When people behave like animals, treat them as such and that will work. Behaviorism prevails, in this case. Simple principles of classical and operant conditioning will be enormously effective.

There's a part of me that's very leery about all this, even though I think it's justified in this case, based on scientific and medical consensus/direction, but much like the analogy to the teenager coming home for curfew because she's afraid of "negative incentive," that's far from ideal. Best to have a child understand why the rule is in place to begin with, not simply to force compliance with threats.

[...]

And we certainly have a real issue in the United States. 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. We're as divided and confused as ever.

[...]

Anyway -- if "incentives" is the way of the future, it'll lead to even more division and violence. But when half the country's behavior effects the other half and vice versa, something has to be done. This is a tough one -- but in the end I blame the 40 years of the neoliberal assault and the influential people who engineered it. This is what comes from putting greed above everything.

I stand by every word of that. I'm sorry you continually want to make this about your bizarre vaccine obsession.

I wasn't advocating "policies," I was pointing out that irrationality abounds. — Xtrix

No you weren't. You were declaring anyone who disagrees with you to be 'irrational' under the thin guise of of some pseudo-intellectual sociological commentry. "Oh, isn't it tragic how so many people don't see the obvious truth that I'm so blessed with the vision of...". Yeah, we're all devastated that we lack your divine insight into the truth, do lead us into the light won't you.

During a pandemic, when experts are encouraging taking the safe and effective vaccines, and people are refusing for irrational reasons (for the same reasons they believe in election fraud), I'd say that's a problem. That was my entire point. — Xtrix

No it wasn't. Your point went on to blame corporate media, in a bizarre twist. Apparently the one group who stand to gain billions from everyone taking the vaccine are actively discouraging people from taking the vaccine in an devilishly cunning double-bluff.

Not interested in expanding on truisms. — Xtrix

I was pointing out something that anyone who isn't caught up in the "controversy" of vaccines would readily recognize. — Xtrix

Then what the fuck are you doing here? If any and all disagreement is immediately consigned to that which is not worth responding to, because what you've said is just an obvious truism, then why did you say it? Anyone you're prepared to discuss it with already agrees, anyone who disagrees is rendered unworthy of response. What exactly did you have in mind. Did you want a prize?

It's not one scientist, it's thousands of scientists and doctors. — Xtrix

No, it was definitely one scientist. They gave his name and a photo and everything. I may not be smart enough to see all the truisms a true Oracle such as yourself can see, but I can count. That was one.

So your evidence of this 'overwhelming majority'? That another truism you're not willing to discuss?

I stand by every word of that. — Xtrix

So you stand by every word of an article bemoaning the fact that some (eligible) people haven't taken the vaccine, but it's not your position that everybody (eligible) should take the vaccine...?

Oh and anyway...

I'm sorry you continually want to make this about your bizarre vaccine obsession. — Xtrix

...it's apparently not even about vaccines at all.

So the article (about vaccine mandates), worries about a lack of vaccine uptake, you quote it on a thread about Coronavirus (largely the vaccine-based response), but apparently talking about vaccine uptake is a bizarre diversion. I can only say how sorry I am that I misconstrued the obvious topic... turnip cultivation was it?

...and to think that here's me worried about something trivial like corporate greed among the largest transfer of wealth from the poor the world has ever seen, when there's some nutjobs who think the vaccine's going to turn them into a 5g transmitter. Yes, that's definitely our main concern; forget the corporate takeover of the world's economy, forget insider trading, lobbying power, control of the media, revolving doors, ministers having shares in the very companies they're supposed to regulate, consultancies offered as prizes for towing the line, billions spent in putting up puppet politicians to work solely for corporate aims, laws being passed left, right and centre to curtail freedom and enhance corporate powers (whistle-blower penalties, civil disobedience bans, spying without warrant...)

No. Forget all that. Some people think a silly thing about a medicine - that's where all our focus should be.

No you weren't. — Isaac

No it wasn't. — Isaac

:yawn:

I quoted myself. But believe what you wish.

Apparently the one group who stand to gain billions from everyone taking the vaccine are actively discouraging people from taking the vaccine — Isaac

I’ve said repeatedly that they’re encouraging people to take the vaccine. But to you this means I’m saying they’re discouraging it. Incredible how warped your perception has become in your bizarre obsession. Oh well.

No, it was definitely one scientist. — Isaac

No, it’s thousands of scientists. I quoted one. My quoting one does not mean there is only one who agrees vaccines are safe and effective, which was the point — nor about misinformation, which was my initial point. But keep trying.

So you stand by every word of an article bemoaning the fact that some (eligible) people haven't taken the vaccine, but it's not your position that everybody (eligible) should take the vaccine...? — Isaac

I stand by every word of mine. The article, which was a launching point for what I wrote, does not advocate “everyone” that’s eligible take the vaccine, and in fact makes the obvious qualification — which you seem so eager to point out.

I’ll make it easier so as not to hurt your ego: Some people are refusing the vaccine for irrational reasons. Many, in fact. This is what I’m talking about, what the article was talking about (incentives), and what the scientist I quoted was talking about. Some have legitimate reasons — which is all you seem to care about.

Heaven forbid we don’t always acknowledge what should be obvious — we may be accused of thinking that “everyone,” without exception, should be forced to take the product of Big Pharma.

Sorry you took it all so personally. May your pet project of deep-diving all things vaccine continue unabated.

Some people think a silly thing about a medicine - that's where all our focus should be. — Isaac

Not all our focus— but it’s a symptom of a major problem. A problem which, believe it or not, relates to the other issues you rattled off. Despite what you misperceive, this was the point.

and to think that here's me worried about something trivial like corporate greed among the largest transfer of wealth from the poor the world has ever seen, — Isaac

I don't think so. The money for the COVID-19 response came out of thin air. And now we have inflation. That's how that works.

I quoted myself. But believe what you wish. — Xtrix

It's not about what I believe, this is a debating platform, you're expected to support your positions against interlocutors. That's the point. Otherwise just write the stuff you think in your own private journal, or start a blog if you really want the world to hear. This is a debating platform, if you're not prepared to debate, you're in the wrong place.

I’ve said repeatedly that they’re encouraging people to take the vaccine. But to you this means I’m saying they’re discouraging it. — Xtrix

No, it means your point is flawed. Corporate media may well be responsible for 'irrational thinking' but vaccine hesitancy is a terrible example of it because all it shows is that people do not follow corporate media. As I said, just a thinly veiled attempt to get another "aren't non-vaxxers stupid" comment in by putting it in a new dress.

No, it’s thousands of scientists. — Xtrix

So you claim. I've yet to see you're evidence.

I quoted one. — Xtrix

Yes. In a direct response to my request that you support your claim of an 'overwhelming majority'. So it matters that there's only one. I didn't ask "do any scientists agree with you?" I asked where you got your evidence of an 'overwhelming majority' from. I've asked four times now and you've dodged the request each time. It's quite simple. You made the claim that an 'overwhelming majority' of scientists supported your position. I just want to know where you got the numbers from, that's all

Some people are refusing the vaccine for irrational reasons. Many, in fact. This is what I’m talking about — Xtrix

But some people are taking the vaccine for irrational reasons too. You agreed. So you've come onto a thread about Coronavirus, just to point out the general fact that lots of people are irrational.

Yes.

Good discussion?

This is a debating platform, if you're not prepared to debate, you're in the wrong place. — Isaac

Thanks for the tip. Funny thing with me, though: I like to argue for my positions, not positions people think I hold. I also don’t debate truisms. If one wants to debate about the earth being flat, they’re welcome.

I’ve said repeatedly that they’re encouraging people to take the vaccine. But to you this means I’m saying they’re discouraging it.
— Xtrix

No, it means your point is flawed. — Isaac

No, you mean your point is flawed. Because it’s your point you’re arguing against, not mine. Perhaps it is flawed — but I’m not involved.

Corporate media may well be responsible for 'irrational thinking' but vaccine hesitancy is a terrible example of it because all it shows is that people do not follow corporate media. — Isaac

Fox News is corporate media. Most talk radio is corporate media. They try to walk a thin line — as you do — about vaccines, but they know they’re audience. Remember Trump was booed about the vaccines?

But yes, generally these people no longer even follow Trump or Fox about vaccinations. That’s why I mentioned, repeatedly, that they’ve created a monster they can no longer control. I also said, crucially, that social media is what’s driving a lot of this irrationality. True, they’re owned by major corporations who “try” to regulate the spread of misinformation (Facebook, Google) — but they too have created a monster they can no longer control.

The contradiction you’re looking for just doesn’t exist. If you want to truly debate what I’m saying, then challenge the claim. That would mean challenging whether corporate media really did create this monster in the first place. Maybe other factors are more relevant — education, economic conditions, etc.

That at least would be interesting, and perhaps I could learn something. What you’re doing is just misrepresentation. That’s boring.

You made the claim that an 'overwhelming majority' of scientists supported your position. I just want to know where you got the numbers from, that's all — Isaac

Well I don’t know if there’s a poll asking doctors “do you think the vaccines are safe and effective?”, and I’m not interested in even googling it, so I guess you got me. I have no numbers. I did read somewhere that something like 98% of physicians received the vaccine — but otherwise I suppose I’m going by literally any credible scientific or medical source I’ve read. Or any credible organization, for that matter (I include the WHO, CDC, AMA, etc).

So no, I have no poll and no exact numbers. Maybe a sizeable percentage don’t believe germs exist. I’ve yet to see a poll, so I guess we can’t be sure.

thinly veiled attempt to get another "aren't non-vaxxers stupid" comment in by putting it in a new dress. — Isaac

Yes, we all know this is exactly what triggered you, essentially being one yourself. But don’t worry, it wasn’t directed at you. I also should have said “irrational,” not “stupid.” My bad.

So you've come onto a thread about Coronavirus, just to point out the general fact that lots of people are irrational. — Isaac

Apropos of the article I cited, yes. Just one more symptom (an important one) of a much wider problem of irrationality. The article talks about a potential solution of “incentives,” which I was leery about.

I think that’s an interesting discussion, yes. Because there’s little else to say about coronavirus or the vaccines, despite you wanting to relitigate this over and over again.

Just one more symptom (an important one) of a much wider problem of irrationality. — Xtrix

Let's look at that claim then.

Corporations have presided over the largest accumulation of wealth the world has ever seen. The pharmaceuticals have, in the space of just over a year, managed to take public funds and turn them into private patents that they've sold to over 80% of the population of the western world. An absolutely unprecedented success for any product ever. New legislation is being passed which will make it harder for people to report on corporate malfeasance, and the left-wing has voluntarily gagged themselves from complaining about any wrongdoing for fear of undermining confidence in their products.

Meanwhile, some nutjobs think the vaccine will turn them into a 5G transmitter because some Facebook page told them so.

Perhaps you could start by explaining why you think the latter is super important whilst the former is just old hat that there's not much point talking about.

The pharmaceuticals have, in the space of just over a year, managed to take public funds and turn them into private patents that they've sold to over 80% of the population of the western world. — Isaac

Governments have paid them for their vaccines. Most vaccines being offered are free. So this can be misleading. But should governments be paying private corporations for potentially life-saving medicine? I don't think so -- but that's a different story.

New legislation is being passed which will make it harder for people to report on corporate malfeasance, and the left-wing has voluntarily gagged themselves from complaining about any wrongdoing for fear of undermining confidence in their products. — Isaac

If that's in fact the case, I'm against it. I also think there should not be patent protection in this case. Whatever wrongdoing you're referring to, I don't know. I know the Johnson and Johnson vaccine was linked with blood clots and something like 10 people died out of millions...I don't see that being suppressed, really. But if there is some wrongdoing I'm unaware of, that's been suppressed for fear of undermining confidence, I'd certainly take a look.

Corpoate malfeasance doesn't surprise me. In this case it would, because of how heavily it's been scrutinized.

Meanwhile, some nutjobs think the vaccine will turn them into a 5G transmitter because some Facebook page told them so.

Perhaps you could start by explaining why you think the latter is super important whilst the former is just old hat that there's not much point talking about. — Isaac

I don't think that.

The latter is a symptom of a bigger problem, part of which you've mentioned. Another symptom is the election fraud claim. You can mock both as just some "nut jobs," and perhaps in other decades you'd be correct. When a majority of people, who identify with one of two major political parties, believe these things...that's not a minor issue anymore. And not very funny.

I don't think so. The money for the COVID-19 response came out of thin air. And now we have inflation. That's how that works. — frank

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/oct/07/covid-19-crisis-boosts-the-fortunes-of-worlds-billionaires

It's not all to do with government stimulus and investment money.

Corpoate malfeasance doesn't surprise me. In this case it would, because of how heavily it's been scrutinized. — Xtrix

By whom? You think government agencies are impartial in this?

When a majority of people, who identify with one of two major political parties, believe these things...that's not a minor issue anymore. And not very funny. — Xtrix

But they clearly don't. The figure for non-vaccination is hovering around 20-30%. You've agreed that there are some rational reasons for not taking the vaccine (though you equally rationally disagree with them). Many people are scared, many confused, many just incorrigible procrastinators. The list of those actually going along with the sort of irrational misinformation you're referring to is vanishingly small and, most importantly, have virtually no power at all.

So why are so many hung up on this group? Why is so much hatred being stoked up for a small, easily defeated straw-enemy which never had any real power, whilst those with real power continue to rake it in whilst you look the other way?

It's distraction tactics 101. If you're looking for dangerously irrational behaviour it's people like you falling for the oldest trick in the book as if you were toddlers at magic show.

There are properly powerful people making enormous amounts of money at the expense of oppressing an increasingly subjugated working class. They don't give a shit about a few nutjobs, but they sure as hell give a shit about making sure that's the only thing you're thinking about.

The media is flooded with reports of the new Covid-19 variant Omicron. Experts have been unanimous in declaring this new version of the contagion as, well, super-infectious. I'm just wondering, how does that work? What's the underlying mechanism that determines infectivity?

Corpoate malfeasance doesn't surprise me. In this case it would, because of how heavily it's been scrutinized.
— Xtrix

By whom? — Isaac

By the scientific and medical communities, and by the general public. I've yet to hear anything significant in this regard. I asked for what you were referring to and got nothing, so there's that as well.

When a majority of people, who identify with one of two major political parties, believe these things...that's not a minor issue anymore. And not very funny.
— Xtrix

But they clearly don't. — Isaac

Yes, they do. The unvaccinated, and those polled who say they will never or probably not be vaccinated, are mostly Republicans. Party affiliation is one of the best predictors. In terms of election fraud claims, it's off the charts. Something like 60-70% of more.

Many people are scared, many confused, many just incorrigible procrastinators. — Isaac

I think you're underestimating the percentage who are refusing for irrational reasons because of the information they consume. This is why party affiliation is such a good predictor.

The list of those actually going along with the sort of irrational misinformation you're referring to is vanishingly small and, most importantly, have virtually no power at all. — Isaac

I suppose the same is true about election fraud? Could be, I suppose -- there's no way to see into every individual's mind. But I'd say it's no coincidence that those who profess vaccine "skepticism" or refusal, and those who claim the election was stolen, happen to be majority Republican. There's no mystery as to why that is, all you have to do is take a look at the media they consume. Which was my point.

So why are so many hung up on this group? Why is so much hatred being stoked up for a small, easily defeated straw-enemy which never had any real power, whilst those with real power continue to rake it in whilst you look the other way? — Isaac

There are properly powerful people making enormous amounts of money at the expense of oppressing an increasingly subjugated working class. They don't give a shit about a few nutjobs, but they sure as hell give a shit about making sure that's the only thing you're thinking about. — Isaac

Unfortunately, the world is a complex place. Making general statements about corporations and the subjugated working class, while true, doesn't simply explain everything. As I said before, I'm against the entire capitalist system, I'm against the private medical and pharmaceutical companies, etc. But that has nothing to do with whether the product, no matter if it's Viagra or the vaccines, are safe and effective. If they created a vaccine at a private company, great -- they should share it with the world. The malfeasance you spoke of, I see no evidence of -- despite the attention its garnered. Again, if you have some I've overlooked, fine.

You're downplaying the significance of vaccine refusal, which is significant. You're downplaying the role of social media-drive irrationality, which is significant. And you're trying to find something that simply isn't there when it comes to these companies which have produced the vaccines. Not a bad instinct -- corporations will cut as many throats as they can get away with -- but not applicable in every scenario.

So yes, I think the bigger issue, until evidence points elsewhere, is the large number of unvaccinated people refusing vaccines because of their information bubbles. If you think there'd be this level of refusal 30 years ago, prior to the anti-vax movement and prior to Facebook/Twitter/YouTube, etc., we should simply agree to disagree and move on.

don't think so. The money for the COVID-19 response came out of thin air. And now we have inflation. That's how that works.
— frank

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/oct/07/covid-19-crisis-boosts-the-fortunes-of-worlds-billionaires

It's not all to do with government stimulus and investment money.
9h — Isaac

Yes. You seemed to be assuming the world's money supply is fixed so that if billionaires get richer, it must have been a transfer of wealth from poor people. Did you not assume that?

By the scientific and medical communities, and by the general public. I've yet to hear anything significant in this regard. I asked for what you were referring to and got nothing, so there's that as well. — Xtrix

I've cited stuff dozens of times, I'm not going to just repeat it all, it's your view I'm interested in here. If you don't know about the stuff I've posted I want to know why. You're clearly a well informed person in general. Has the whole debate passed you by. It was all over the editorials of the BMJ for months. The Editor in Chief there wrote directly to the FDA about it...but for you, a non-story?

Yes, they do — Xtrix

For God's sake man! Have you no humility at all? Do you really think that "Yes they do" is supposed to suffice as an answer at the level of conversation we should be aiming at here? If you want to support an argument that the numbers are significant, then give me the numbers. Without them you're just a loony on a soapbox. Where are you getting your numbers from? 'A significant number of people are rejecting the vaccine on irrational grounds because of what they read on Facebook etc' you say. Only 20-30% of the population are rejecting the vaccine at all. At least some of them are rejecting it on rational grounds, just plain fear, just plain procrastination. so than leaves you something in the low twenties at best. Hardly a policy-changing force to be reckoned with.

And no, 'the majority of vaccine deniers are Republican' is not the same as 'The majority of Republican's are vaccine deniers'.

Your claim that "a majority of people, who identify with one of two major political parties, believe these things" is not supported by your evidence that "unvaccinated, and those polled who say they will never or probably not be vaccinated, are mostly Republicans" Do you see the difference?

I think you're underestimating the percentage who are refusing for irrational reasons because of the information they consume. — Xtrix

OK. Why do you think that? Is it just something you 'reckon' or have you read something that tells you so (read in your scientific journals of course, since we're not trusting corporate media).

I'd say it's no coincidence that those who profess vaccine "skepticism" or refusal, and those who claim the election was stolen, happen to be majority Republican — Xtrix

No, I very much doubt that's a coincidence either. Republicans are generally less well educated and so tend to be more easily persuaded of daft positions.

There's no mystery as to why that is, all you have to do is take a look at the media they consume. Which was my point. — Xtrix

Again, your 'point' is flawed. The media they consume is wholly owned by rich corporations. The same rich corporations who have made more money than they've ever made out of this crisis including the profits and share hikes from the vaccine. Either they've suddenly become massively incompetent overnight, or the division serves their purposes. Now what purpose could possibly be served by promoting a vaccine heavily to one group and then promoting fear of it in another...? Why, that would only work if the group who'd been fed the pro-vaccine line spent all their time focussing on the group who'd been fed the anti-vaccine line so that the people in charge of both messages can bring in even more money without anyone paying them the slightest attention at all. But hey, who'd be daft enough to fall for that...again?

I'm against the private medical and pharmaceutical companies, etc. But that has nothing to do with whether the product, no matter if it's Viagra or the vaccines, are safe and effective. — Xtrix

Of course it has. They're the people telling you it's 'safe and effective'. If they can't be trusted it throws the whole thing out.

You're downplaying the significance of vaccine refusal, which is significant. You're downplaying the role of social media-drive irrationality, which is significant. — Xtrix

Well, then show me the significance. Your word obviously isn't good enough. Where are your numbers and measures of effect?

you're trying to find something that simply isn't there when it comes to these companies which have produced the vaccines. — Xtrix

Yet earlier you were saying that you might have missed it. Which is it? It isn't there, or you haven't looked?

I think the bigger issue, until evidence points elsewhere, is the large number of unvaccinated people refusing vaccines because of their information bubbles. — Xtrix

What problem is it causing? (and yes, I mean for you to provide evidence of the problem it's causing, not just tell me again that you 'reckon' it is)

If you think there'd be this level of refusal 30 years ago, prior to the anti-vax movement and prior to Facebook/Twitter/YouTube, etc — Xtrix

I don't. I think Facebook/Twitter/YouTube are responsible for an enormous amount of the problem we face. I'm just not so stupid as to think they only stoke one side.

You seemed to be assuming the world's money supply is fixed so that if billionaires get richer, it must have been a transfer of wealth from poor people. Did you not assume that? — frank

Yes, to a degree.

https://mises.org/library/how-inflation-helps-keep-rich-and-poor-down

Even the formal model, the Nairu (the non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment) allows that people begin to expect prices to keep going up so you get an inflation in the general level of prices that undermines purchasing power.

So no, inflation is not free money.

Even the formal model, the Nairu (the non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment) allows that people begin to expect prices to keep going up so you get an inflation in the general level of prices that undermines purchasing power. — Isaac

Isaac. You assumed if billionaires get richer, the money must have transferred from poor people, and thus made the astonishing assertion that the COVID response was the single largest shift in wealth from poor to rich in history. You'll have to back that up with facts.

And yes, inflation reduces buying power, but it also erodes return on investment. That's why the US, an economy with financial institutions at it's center, is hyper-antagonistic to inflation.

Good news

You seemed to be assuming the world's money supply is fixed so that if billionaires get richer, it must have been a transfer of wealth from poor people. Did you not assume that? — frank

Yes, to a degree. — Isaac

Isaac. You assumed if billionaires get richer, the money must have transferred from poor people, and thus made the astonishing assertion that the COVID response was the single largest shift in wealth from poor to rich in history. You'll have to back that up with facts. — frank

I agree with @frank here.

First, money supply isn't fixed. Second, money isn't transferred from the poor, because, uh, they don't have money in the first place! If I'm a rich guy and can go to the bank and get a million dollar loan to invest in something with a return-on-investment of 5% and pay a 1% interest rate and a poor investor could get a loan of 5000$ and pay 4% interest rate to invest in the same investment, the money that I'm making surely doesn't come from him! Me and the poor investor get both the money from the bank, which creates it basically from thin air. I'm just getting richer than the poor guy. One has to understand the difference between what is relative and what is absolute as the World isn't a place where the amount of wealth is fixed and anyone who gets more wealth would be taken it from others. This is simply not how the World works as wealth is created.

You see, the poor guy is only relatively getting more poor, but he isn't in absolute terms getting poor, in fact he is getting a little bit richer as the debt leverage is working for him too, but only in a smaller scale. Hence it's simply wrong to say that this means I'm getting more wealthy from the money of the poor people.

Another example of the difference between relative and absolute: If Elon Musk and Bill Gates would move into my neighborhood, my neighborhood would see income inequality rise dramatically and I would be relatively far poorer in my neighborhood than before the two moved in. Of course my absolute wealth didn't change and I'm as wealthy (or poor) as before, but by any relative statistic I would be "worse off" than before. In fact, income inequality decreases when there is an economic depression. Yet in an economic depression it's the poor that suffer the most, because they can drop into absolute poverty.

You're clearly a well informed person in general. Has the whole debate passed you by. It was all over the editorials of the BMJ for months. The Editor in Chief there wrote directly to the FDA about it...but for you, a non-story? — Isaac

About corporate malfeasance? I guess it did— but I have a feeling we’re talking passed one another.

If you want to support an argument that the numbers are significant, then give me the numbers. — Isaac

I have many times on this thread and others. It’s all over the papers and polling. Republicans, Trump voting districts, evangelical Christians, etc — all much more likely to refuse the vaccine.

And no, 'the majority of vaccine deniers are Republican' is not the same as 'The majority of Republican's are vaccine deniers'. — Isaac

True. But if not a majority, it’s significant. Regarding election fraud claims, which I also mentioned, it is indeed a majority. Consider that fact — is that a problem? I think so.

Your claim that "a majority of people, who identify with one of two major political parties, believe these things" is not supported by your evidence that "unvaccinated, and those polled who say they will never or probably not be vaccinated, are mostly Republicans" Do you see the difference? — Isaac

A majority of Republicans believe these things, yes. Both statements say the same thing. The former statement was referring to both vaccine refusal and election fraud. The former claim about "majority" may be wrong now, however -- I think it's over 50% who are vaccinated now.

According to Gallup, 40% of Republicans “don’t plan” to get vaccinated, versus 26% of Independents and just 3% of Democrats.

Brookings

So a large minority of Republicans are unvaccinated, and a majority believe in election fraud. Both are deeply concerning, and there's no coincidence why this is so.

There's no mystery as to why that is, all you have to do is take a look at the media they consume. Which was my point.
— Xtrix

Again, your 'point' is flawed. — Isaac

You've repeatedly been corrected about this. I'll do so again, and for as long as it takes.

The media they consume is wholly owned by rich corporations. The same rich corporations who have made more money than they've ever made out of this crisis including the profits and share hikes from the vaccine. — Isaac

No, they are not the same corporations. Believe it or not, but media conglomerates and large pharmaceutical companies have different interests, despite both being part of corporate America.

Regardless -- as I've said before, I also include social media, which has become unhinged. That's not quite the same as CNN, Fox, and CBS. Corporate media, in this case, has been fairly unified, rightly, about the vaccine. But that's because it serves their interests.

That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the last 30 years of undermining the institutions of academia, science, medicine. That has mostly come from conservative media, accelerated in our time by social media.

Why, that would only work if the group who'd been fed the pro-vaccine line spent all their time focussing on the group who'd been fed the anti-vaccine line so that the people in charge of both messages can bring in even more money without anyone paying them the slightest attention at all. But hey, who'd be daft enough to fall for that...again? — Isaac

Yeah, it does seem there's a lot of messaging out there, particularly on social media (with strands of it on Fox and talk radio), that are continuing the long tradition of undermining trust in institutions, particularly when the "other party" is in charge. That creates yet another wedge issue and keeps everyone divided. Not once did I say I lay the ultimate blame on the people, however. I blame the elites and the media they control, for continuously undermining truth and sowing division. They created a monster, and now they can't stop it (particularly on the social media front).

You're downplaying the significance of vaccine refusal, which is significant. You're downplaying the role of social media-drive irrationality, which is significant.
— Xtrix

Well, then show me the significance. Your word obviously isn't good enough. Where are your numbers and measures of effect? — Isaac

The numbers of unvaccinated are well known. 62% are fully vaccinated in the United States. 73% have taken at least one dose. Many were coerced into doing so by their employers, etc. But regardless, let's say the number is 20% of the population. If you don't think 70 million people is significant, you're not paying attention. In order for herd immunity to be achieved, the numbers should be in the 80s at least. But that's a pipe dream now -- there's already too many variants.

As far as social media-driven irrationality, there's a lot of good work on this. The effects are everywhere and obvious.

Social Media as a Primary Factor of Irrational Behavior

Trystan Harris also articulates the phenomenon very well. But there are plenty of articles and studies done about the negative effects of social media. I've no interest to give more than I've already cited. I find the question itself disingenuous.

you're trying to find something that simply isn't there when it comes to these companies which have produced the vaccines.
— Xtrix

Yet earlier you were saying that you might have missed it. Which is it? It isn't there, or you haven't looked? — Isaac

Yes, I may have. I have looked, quite a bit, but haven't found much in terms of "malfeasance." I mentioned the J&J bloodclot issue, etc. But given that you already accept that vaccines are safe and effective, I don't understand what you're driving at. You also refuse to explain what you're driving at or provide any references whatsoever. Your prerogative.

I think the bigger issue, until evidence points elsewhere, is the large number of unvaccinated people refusing vaccines because of their information bubbles.
— Xtrix

What problem is it causing? — Isaac

See above. The more people vaccinated, the better. Less people get sick, less people spread the disease, the symptoms are milder, less hospitalizations, etc. Good for everyone.

But it's another disingenuous question. Why do you think doctors are recommending the vaccines so much? We're in a pandemic and we have safe and effective vaccines, and so those who are eligible should take them. Fairly simple, so I look forward to seeing how you misrepresent it.

If you think there'd be this level of refusal 30 years ago, prior to the anti-vax movement and prior to Facebook/Twitter/YouTube, etc
— Xtrix

I don't. I think Facebook/Twitter/YouTube are responsible for an enormous amount of the problem we face. I'm just not so stupid as to think they only stoke one side. — Isaac

Yeah -- I never said they did. In the cases I mentioned, vaccines and election fraud, it so happens that this is coming mostly from Republicans. But not long ago there was widespread hysteria about "Russia stealing the election" of 2016, mostly from left-leaning sources. Which was obvious from the beginning was a complete waste of time. But Twitter and SNL loved it.

Many people don't research the vaccines at all, they just follow the advice of doctors. Those doing so in this particular case happen to be doing the right thing. The same is true of following other advice of medical experts -- if they say you need surgery, I would argue it's rational to take that advice even if you haven't done a deep dive into surgery.

Media influences many people. Still, that doesn't make them all the same, just as the political parties aren't the same, despite having some common ground (like both being corporate parties).

I don't think this is the appropriate place for this discussion (which is purely about economics). I've given a very brief case, as have you both.

The point I was making - with regards to the topic - does not depend on whether the poor get poorer or not. The point I was making was that it's ridiculous to suggest that this crisis is a 'monster out of control' when it's yielded exactly what those in charge wanted - more power and more money.

Does that sound like an out of control monster?

I have many times on this thread and others. It’s all over the papers and polling. Republicans, Trump voting districts, evangelical Christians, etc — all much more likely to refuse the vaccine. — Xtrix

That doesn't constitute an argument that the numbers are 'significant'. For that you need a negative effect and evidence of causation. You've given neither. Negative effects are abound these days, unfortunately, so we'll take that as given - your evidence that these 'irrationals' are causing any?

A majority of Republicans believe these things, yes. Both statements say the same thing. — Xtrix

They very clearly don't.

According to Gallup, 40% of Republicans “don’t plan” to get vaccinated, versus 26% of Independents and just 3% of Democrats.


Brookings

So a large minority of Republicans are unvaccinated — Xtrix

Assuming those figures are mutually exclusive and exhaustive (everyone is one of those three options), you have 69% of people not planning to get vaccinated. That's obviously untrue since over 70% of people have been vaccinated.

Your figures don't add up. You've only around 25% of the entire population to play with, even if all of them were Republican 'irrationals'.

You've repeatedly been corrected about this. — Xtrix

We've been through this. You giving an opinion to the contrary is not 'correcting' someone, it's disagreeing with someone. I'll draw a diagram.

Your opinion about what is the case ||| What is actually the case

Do you see how they're two different things?

No, they are not the same corporations. Believe it or not, but media conglomerates and large pharmaceutical companies have different interests, despite both being part of corporate America. — Xtrix

Your evidence?

I'm talking about the last 30 years of undermining the institutions of academia, science, medicine. That has mostly come from conservative media, accelerated in our time by social media. — Xtrix

I disagree. I think it's come from those institutions themselves being demonstrably untrustworthy.

If you don't think 70 million people is significant, you're not paying attention. — Xtrix

None of the population is significant. Government policy is dictated by corporate lobbying. the views of the population have a vanishingly insignificant effect.

In order for herd immunity to be achieved, the numbers should be in the 80s at least. — Xtrix

Your evidence?

given that you already accept that vaccines are safe and effective, I don't understand what you're driving at. — Xtrix

A point I've made before. The vaccines they tested and the vaccine they're about to put in your arm are not the same (obviously). In order for their tests to be meaningful in terms of global effect, we have to trust that they take no future shortcuts, or malpractice. Seeing as whistle-blowers have already shown that they do exactly that, and that pharmaceuticals are now taking steps to legally curtail whistle-blowing, I think we've cause for concern.

See above. The more people vaccinated, the better. Less people get sick, less people spread the disease, the symptoms are milder, less hospitalizations, etc. Good for everyone. — Xtrix

Again, you've provided no evidence of this. Qualified experts in the field disagree on that.

Why do you think doctors are recommending the vaccines so much? We're in a pandemic and we have safe and effective vaccines, and so those who are eligible should take them. Fairly simple — Xtrix

Well...

Media influences many people. — Xtrix

and

https://scri.siena.edu/2018/04/22/most-responsible-for-opioid-abuse-mds-over-prescribing/

Or do you think doctors are magically immune from media influence, zeitgeist, personal bias? What a obscenely bourgeois way of thinking. The clever professional above all the media circus, pities the poor stupid proletariat who can't tell the difference. Will we have have to step in and save them from themselves, the poor things? Us enlightened, unbiased academics with the wisdom of Solomon, coming to the rescue of the the poor dumb plebs. How noble.

Should people start refusing to take amoxicillin when told to by a doctor, I think the example would be relevant. — Xtrix

Depends on why they are refusing to listen to the doctor. Is amoxicillin the best actual choice of antibiotics? Are antibiotics actually required in their case? Do they trust their doctor? If any of those answers are "No" then declining to take amoxicillin is perfectly reasonable, despite it being safe and effective.

I recommend antibiotics when required, and only when required. I also recommend treating a fever with Tylenol (paracetamol for across the pond) when required, but not for low to midgrade fevers, those are there for a reason so we should let the immune system work unimpeded as much as possible. I strongly advise all of my patients to ask as many questions as they like until they are satisfied with the answer. They might not like my answer, but it will always be as clear as I can make it and provide the best possible information available. That way, whatever they decide, they have the best information available to them.

Safe and effective is all well and good, but if something is not required, why should anyone take it?

The viral load being exhausted into the air makes it more infective. However, if 99% of people get infected, have no particular symptoms, and simply shed viral particles for awhile and then resolve their infections...that would be called immunity. 99% of the population are immune, we should be happy about that. It doesn't support a booster requirement though, and it isn't very dramatic, so I guess...Omicron bad? and Carry on pandemic response! (because that has worked so well so far eh)