Here's one example I recall: umpires are, as a group, somewhat reluctant to make game-deciding strike calls. That is, when a called strike would decide the outcome of the game, then and there, umpires are slightly more likely to call a ball a pitch they would usually call a strike. — Srap Tasmaner

A distribution of individual umpires. First, this group will perform better than others, as experts. So betting on them as a group instead of non-experts is the question -- and I'd argue you must go with the umpires, mistakes aside.

Second, and most importantly, think about if, instead of one umpire making a call, it were a hundred -- and 97 percent of them agreed that it was a strike and not a ball. How confident should we be that they got it right? Say we let the computer analyze it -- would the computer call it a ball or a strike?

I'd say the computer would confirm the majority opinion, more so with higher consensus.

Thus, as a non-umpire (and non-expert, or layperson), the smart bet would be on the expert consensus, not the dissent. Seems almost like a joke that this even has to be justified, but here we are.

Science and experts make mistakes, sometimes they get things wrong, sometimes the prevailing ideology changes, new theories emerge with new evidence, and on and on we go. That's a truism. The question is: what do we, as people who cannot be experts in everything, do when we want to learn something about the world? When we have to base our decision and actions on other people, who do we trust? Who do we "bet on"? That's the question.

The answer, in my view, unless there's good reason to believe otherwise (and there almost never is), one goes with the experts, and the expert consensus within the field of science or medicine.

If this rule of thumb were followed by most people today, the pandemic would be lower than the levels they were at in June (at least in the US), we wouldn't have such "division" about climate science and could actually pass some legislation to do something about it, etc. Instead, we have people listening to anti-vaxxer enthusiasts, conspiracy theorists, industry propaganda, climate deniers, astrologers, psychics, 9/11 truthers, media pundits, etc. A lot of this stems from not only ignorance (as most people are ignorant of all kinds of things), but bad instinct. The ones who have the instinct to make the correct choice don't deserve much praise, but they deserve some.

Alternatively, as Yohan pointed out earlier, this undermines the idea of majority consensus. If it's just linearly related to intellect then the majority are almost certainly wrong, as they don't represent the cohort with most intelligence. The group that are right will will one of the minorities but we won't be able to judge which (are they the most intelligent, or the most stupid?) because we won't understand the arguments. — Isaac

First of all, by what metric are you judging "intelligence" by? The IQ distribution? In which case, this is not the general population but a group of people who are experts in their field. To argue there's a similar distribution within this subgroup in terms of general intelligence or expertise is bizarre and unfounded.

Second, think for a second about the logical consequences of this reasoning. It would mean that the majorities are almost always wrong, since they constitute the mediocre middle 80%. The super smart top 10% will usually have it right, since they're the top 10% -- but it's just a matter of figuring out if they're actually the super smart ones or the stupid ones, the bottom 10%.

By this reasoning, we'd certainly want to bet on flat earth theorists and Creation scientists, who themselves argue along similar lines and, according to you, are correct to do so.

This is a ridiculous argument. Why you go on like this, simply to justify your own decision to bet on a minority view (in this case, I assume, issues around COVID), is beyond me. But it's truly embarrassing to read, in my view. You've now had to regress to empty verbiage and abstractions, as is the typical tactic of those who no longer have any real argument. This was one of Trump's tactics, for example, when confronted with realities.

All (sufficiently detailed) theories about how to handle COVID are new theories, — Isaac

No, they aren't new. And they're not theories.

If it was a trending item, there seems to be a coordinated effort to "dislike" almost anything from mainstream news that trends. You see it in every news video that pops up on YouTube. It's almost always right-wing, as far as I can see. If it's Trump speaking or something they consider positive, the ratios change. I'm not sure if bots are being employed, but I imagine they are.

I noticed this a while ago. It's pathetic.

Anyway -- funny video, and he's exactly right.

There are a few serious side effects, most notoriously the blood clots that in "Some cases were life-threatening or had a fatal outcome", according to the UK Government. — Down The Rabbit Hole

You're right -- my last statement wasn't clear, but I was referring more to the issue of birth control and blood clots which was raised by Baker.

It's part of how Astrazeneca got a bad reputation. I've heard it on the national news, and I'm sure they can fact-check better than I can. — baker

I think that had to do with blood clots, and was shown to be mistaken.

Aww. And completely excuse the men. Because, hey, boys will be boys, right. — baker

Excuse the men for what?

Taking hormonal contraceptives increases the risk of something going wrong when taking the vaccine. — baker

I haven't seen any evidence of this.

If it's true, then women who are taking hormonal contraceptives have to weigh what those chances are. The hospitals mandating vaccines should make a similar assessment in deciding whether to allow exceptions.

“To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason, and whose philosophy consists in holding humanity in contempt, is like administering medicine to the dead, or endeavoring to convert an atheist by scripture.” -- Paine

In some countries, a high-risk population that is reluctant to get vaccinated are young medical nurses, for fear that they will become infertile.

Now, at first glance, and esp. when seen from a male perspective, this seems an unwarranted fear. — baker

I sympathize with anyone who has concerns. It turns out this is completely untrue. When shown that this is untrue, the result shouldn't be to dig in further, but to get vaccinated. When this doesn't happen, despite overwhelming evidence, then it becomes clear that the conclusion to not take a vaccine was foregone and that the evidence never mattered.

It's un-American to think "we're all in this together". — baker

This mentality cannot be overcome with education — baker

There's no reason to think it can't. This "mentality" didn't come out of nowhere. It's the result of a change in thinking spurred on by the educational and information systems, by elite colleges and universities and by corporate media. It took a while to settle in, but it can be reversed -- and in fact is being reversed.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion and to make decisions regarding their own body — Tzeentch

Vaccination is not only about one's own body, as has been repeated multiple times. Similar arguments about "freedom" were you used about smoking laws, which were equally absurd, unless of course one rejects the medical facts (in that case, about the link to cancer and effects of second-hand smoke).

If people don't want to be vaccinated, that is indeed their right. If people want to smoke, that is indeed their right. But have the decency to stay away from public places.

The point here is simply that degree of agreement in a cohort is simply a low value variable when it comes to likelihood of being right compared to other more powerful ones like skin in the game. — Isaac

@Srap Tasmaner

I'll keep repeating it for others' sake, since this guy is mentally blocked from hearing it:

The question is about laypeople. Given no other information but consensus within a field, what is the better bet. Is it better to go with the overwhelming scientific and medical consensus, or not? That's the only question raised here, all these desperate contortions and embarrassing digressions aside (the reason for which is to convince oneself that one is correct after being shown one's decision is remarkably silly).

The example was raised in this thread in response to the fact that none of us are experts in the fields mentioned in the title -- climatology, medicine, virology, etc.

If one really believes the chances of 99 doctors being right versus 1 is 50/50, then one has failed in mathematics -- in probability, in statistics -- and in logic.

The correct answer, and obvious to any thinking being, is to go with the 99 doctors. This is not difficult.

If 99% of experiments show the same result, we have far more confidence than it were less.

Going with the international scientific consensus on climate change is the right move for a layperson. Going with the medical consensus in the 70s and 80s regarding smoking and cancer, rather than tobacco-sponsored "dissenting views," was the correct answer. And so forth.

:yawn:

And you, if you keep it up, will likely (and rightly) be banned from this site. It's almost a certainty you're a returning member, so I'd say "banned again."

Can the moderators please remove this person's posts from my thread? He's contributing nothing and he's basically spamming. Thank you. @Banno@Hanover

One way I've thought of it is, out of all professionals, the majority will be most likely be of fairly average general competence when compared to all other professionals in that field, while there would be at least two groups of small minorities, the far below average and the far above average professionals. So that when there is any professional who comes to a different conclusion than the majority, there is roughly a 50% chance that the person will be in the far below or far above average group. — Yohan

Am I the only one following this? Is anyone else reading it?

lol

We just specified that the problem is so hard to spot that there's only a 1% chance it will be spotted so we'd expect only 1 in every 100 engineers to spot it - 99% of experts would be wrong. — Isaac

No. That's a 1% chance of it being spotted by an individual. If you want to formulate it to fit what you're trying to say, you'd say the following: 1 out of a 100 people will solve this problem.

In that case, you get your answer in one step. In reality, the overwhelming scientific consensus, as in climate science, has a much greater chance of being true. The consensus on atomic theory, likewise. Electromagnetism, likewise. Quantum mechanics, etc.

As a layman, knowing nothing else but the information "97% of scientists agree/have come to the same conclusion/have gotten the same results", the correct move is to go with the consensus. It's that simple.

You don't want to see this -- probably because you want to justify some "minority view" you hold, like any anti-vaxxer, climate denier, creationist, or holocaust denier will do ("there's a consensus among historians, but that means nothing!). This is unfortunately why so many lay people can get sucked into pseudoscience and quackery. Con men will always take the position of heroic skeptic questioning establishment dogma. Very self-serving.

So the variable that matters is how hard the flaw is to spot, not how many experts spot it.
Since that's an unknown variable, there's a 50% chance we're in the first scenario, and a 50% chance we're in the second. So the ratio of experts judging safe:unsafe is irrelevant, it just cancels out. — Isaac

Imagine working this hard to defend a stupid choice. To the point where you have to convince yourself that it's just a coin flip between climate scientists and climate deniers, evolutionary biology and Creationism, Dr. Fauci and Tucker Carlson.

Reminds me of the old roulette joke: "I figure I have only two possibilities: I win or I lose -- 50/50"

That makes sense. — Yohan

:rofl:

Two heads are better than one.
That's a truism. When in doubt, get a second opinion. Yep, could be helpful.
Does it mean a group of people is more likely to be right than one single individual? No, that is not a truism, that is bias. — Yohan

I never once said a group of people is more likely to be right than one single individual. But you know that already, and are just arguing for some other reason -- my guess is because I'm not a nice person. That's usually the case. But regardless, you're embarrassing yourself.

Most people used to believe in flat earth (I assume including most geologists). — Yohan

No, there were no geologists in any sense we mean today. The flat earth example is often misunderstood by those who have no history of science. In fact the circumference of the globe was calculated with remarkable accuracy in the 3rd century BC by Eratosthenes, an early "natural philosopher."

What "most people" believed is questionable. They believed all kinds of things. Probably many believed the earth was flat, yes. Folk science isn't science.

I will trust my intelligence thanks. — Ambrosia

:rofl:

Quite a display of intelligence so far.

There simply isn't a mechanism whereby the agreement of a majority of one's peers could affect the likelihood of a theory being right. — Isaac

There is, as demonstrated over and over again. This is why consensus is important and, within science, taken very seriously indeed. This is exactly why experiments are conducted in multiple settings, with multiple research teams. When results are duplicated, the likelihood of the original results being accurate are further confirmed.

When 97% of climate scientists from around the world have reached consensus, it's more likely this is true than if there were 30% agreement. If 97% experiments gave the same result, confidence is higher than if 20% of experiments gave the same result. Etc.

But the original question -- which you can't seem to understand -- was about what laymen should do when no other information is available: go with the overwhelming scientific and medical consensus, or go with the minority view? The answer to that, I believe, is simple and straightforward. Sorry that you struggle with it.

I think there are probably multiple reasons for that, resistance to medical advice being only one of them. — frank

True, one of many. But I'd say the main one. There's studies on this. 18% of men say they will never get the shot. 46% of Republicans have not yet been vaccinated; 44% of White evangelicals. They give their reasons, as well: 75% of all groups are "skeptical" of both COVID and its vaccines. 90% say they aren't concerned about getting sick and are less convinced the vaccines work.

And so on. It's by far the biggest factor among the unvaccinated -- and right now, it's exactly the unvaccinated that are being hospitalized and dying. Well over 90%.

Last Scenario then I give up — Yohan

I stopped reading around this point. I’m not going over it again. If you are legitimately struggling with a truism, I wish you well in working that out.

it.

So here we have two sets of facts: (1) vaccination, hospitalization, and death statistics per state and (2) the political affiliation of those states governments.
— Xtrix

Again, you are drawing correlations. — Merkwurdichliebe

No. Stating FACTS. Those two sets of facts, above, are exactly that. They’re beyond question, unless you’re questioning the accuracy of the statistics.

It’s also a fact that these states have Republican governments.

the one who has been trolling and gaslighting for pages. — Merkwurdichliebe

Lol. Good one, Donald Trump.

Am I suggesting that? By no means am I or would I. I have no issue with any statistics you provide concerning vaccination rate numbers, or hospitalization rates/death rates. Very strange mind you have, in which post of mine did you transmute that I was speaking about vaccination rate numbers, or hospitalization rates/death rates? — Merkwurdichliebe

I'll jog your memory. I referred you to the NY Times global map of vaccination rates and death rates. This followed.

Looking closer into the map, the cases spiking right now are among the states with high rates of unvaccinated people— mostly states run by Republicans.
— Xtrix

Sounds like you are partisan minded. Just a cop out — Merkwurdichliebe

No, a fact. Maps and statistics aren’t partisan. — Xtrix

Really, they aren't? I guess those with fanatical dispositions , political biases or agendas never manufacture statistics and maps. We are all safe to believe all statistics and maps without nonpartisan scrutiny. Very convincing. — Merkwurdichliebe

So now you're saying that accusing me of being "partisan" was pertaining to the FACT that these rates are occurring "mostly in states run by Republicans"?

So here we have two sets of facts: (1) vaccination, hospitalization, and death statistics per state and (2) the political affiliation of those states governments.

I suppose it's "partisan minded" to link these two sets of facts? An odd thing to say, considering it's very well documented that conservatives are far more likely to refuse the vaccines than other demographics.

But continue gaslighting if you'd like.

The issue is, the world is full of morons, both left and right — Merkwurdichliebe

I'm realizing that right now.

I guess those with fanatical dispositions , political biases or agendas never manufacture statistics and maps. — Merkwurdichliebe

So you're suggesting, without evidence, that vaccination rate numbers are wrong -- or that hospitalization rates/death rates are wrong, or both.

It's amazing how many conspiracy theorists this site attracts. They have to undermine all evidence, consensus, and credibility -- because none of these are on their side. So they must be wrong. Excellent reasoning.

Very convincing.

Sounds like you are partisan minded. Just a cop out — Merkwurdichliebe

No, a fact. Maps and statistics aren’t partisan. But interesting that you’d take it personally. Pretty revealing.

Take a look at the world map displayed every day in the NY Times. Look at COVID hotspots. You’ll find the US around the same levels as Cuba and Mongolia.

Plenty of other places doing much better, which are far less wealthy. This isn’t all due to vaccines, either, but a general following of medical protocol. Here we’re fighting school boards over masks.

The issue are anti-vaxxers, ignorance, and misinformation

How many shots is it gonna take, 20 billion?. . .40 gazzilion? — Merkwurdichliebe

Is this a joke?

What is needed is a 99% effective vaccine that immunizes permanently. — Merkwurdichliebe

No, what’s needed is for people to listen to the overwhelming medical consensus, get vaccinated, and follow protocol. It’s worked elsewhere, it can work here. We’re the wealthiest nation in the world, and we have currently some of the worst results. We’re a hot spot. Looking closer into the map, the cases spiking right now are among the states with high rates of unvaccinated people— mostly states run by Republicans. If refusal continues, there’s greater risk of more variants.

The reason we’ve seen another spike in the US is because of vaccine refusal and hesitancy. This has nothing to do with boosters.

And…?

That is being studied closely, but appears to be true— at least in Israel.
— Xtrix

It's true here. — frank

No. What’s been studied so far suggests less effectiveness after 6-8 months. There’s discussion about need for boosters. This is not the same as wearing off. This is also different than Israel’s situation.

but, as I mentioned, if we had a polio-level rate when that vaccine was rolled out, we might have reached herd immunity, or — without question — had far less hospitalizations and deaths.
— Xtrix

I think the polio vaccination rate was around 80%. — frank

Which, if true for the same timeline, would have — without question — reduced hospitalizations and death, and might have reached herd immunity.

And the other 35% are vaccinated. The vaccine wears off after a few months. — frank

That is being studied closely, but appears to be true— at least in Israel. Those with boosters comprise far less than those with two shots.

What’s your point, exactly? Or do you have one, besides making statements out of the blue, irrelevant to my post?

Regrettably, if we had the same level of vaccinations as we did with polio and other vaccines, we might have achieved herd immunity already.
— Xtrix

Unfortunately, Israel has already shown that this isn't true. — frank

That what isn’t true?

78% over 12 vaccinated, no herd immunity. — frank

Again, we don’t know what number we need for herd immunity— but, as I mentioned, if we had a polio-level rate when that vaccine was rolled out, we might have reached herd immunity, or — without question — had far less hospitalizations and deaths.

Also worth pointing out that 65% of current serious COVID cases are among the 17% unvaccinated in Israel.

This means that even if 70% global vaccination is acheived, future transmission and infection always remain possible. — Merkwurdichliebe

But not as possible as 60%. No one knows when herd immunity is reached— there’s no exact number, but clearly the more the better.

Regrettably, if we had the same level of vaccinations as we did with polio and other vaccines, we might have achieved herd immunity already.

But, thanks to politicization, the social media-accelerated spread of misinformation, and a sizable percentage of the population primed for refusal through years of deliberate undermining of science (and facts, and truth) by conservative media, we’ve missed that chance.

I don’t know what more it will take.

:lol:

My all-time favorite comedian.

And no mistake: some of us will suffer; some of us have suffered. Our children will suffer, and grandchildren suffer greatly. There is not the luxury of losing this war - and war it is. The question, then, is how to fight the war to win it. Not just to fight it - that's a mug's game - but to win it. Churchill again, "For without victory there is no survival," rather misery, death, and nothing beyond. — tim wood

I'm reminded of one of my favorite educators, Carl Sagan:

“We've arranged a global civilization in which most crucial elements profoundly depend on science and technology. We have also arranged things so that almost no one understands science and technology. This is a prescription for disaster. We might get away with it for a while, but sooner or later this combustible mixture of ignorance and power is going to blow up in our faces.” (Demon Haunted World)

I'm posting this here as well. To moderators: this is my third time posting this. If this violates rules for "spamming" or whatever, my apologies. Given that there are multiple threads where this information can be relevant, I figured it was worth sharing in all.

Excellent summary by Dr. Suppinger:

As a doctor, I have recently been asking my patients whether they have gotten a COVID-19 vaccine or made a plan to do so. Initially, some expressed reluctance or just wanted to “wait and see.” This is understandable, given the unprecedented speed with which the vaccines were developed. While I was happy to get my shot as soon as I could, I understood why some others felt uncomfortable getting it right away. Now that almost 150 million Americans have received at least one dose of a vaccine, some are feeling a little more confident about getting it, too.

But the negative responses from patients have shifted somewhat in recent weeks. A number of those who haven’t been vaccinated are saying that they have no intention of doing so — ever. One common reason is that they just don’t perceive much of a threat. As case counts continue to decline, some younger patients think their risk of severe disease or death is so low that it’s just not worth it. Conversely, some elderly patients tell me that they just don’t get out and about very much, so they don’t think it’s likely they will be exposed.

It’s frustrating to realize that the elusive herd immunity we all thought would hasten a return to our pre-COVID lives may never be achieved, by our own collective choice. On the other hand, I am relatively healthy and have been vaccinated, so my chances of survival if I contract COVID are excellent. Why should I care if some people don’t want to get vaccinated? Here’s three reasons why I do care:

1. People who are elderly or immunocompromised may not have as robust an immune response to vaccination as a young, healthy person in a clinic trial. Getting more of the population vaccinated adds a layer of protection for those most vulnerable. And while some elderly people may not go out much, almost no one lives in complete isolation; small family gatherings over the holidays likely fueled the winter surge. In other words, if you won’t get vaccinated to protect yourself, consider doing it to protect your grandmother.

2. While FDA authorization for children ages 12-15 is beginning, children under age 12 cannot get vaccinated yet. The risk of severe COVID symptoms in children is low, but it’s not zero. The virus has also been linked to a potentially serious condition in children called Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in Children (MIS-C). Until children can get vaccinated themselves, the best way to protect them is to vaccinate adults around them.

3. Viral replication is suppressed by mass immunization, which may slow down the emergence of additional viral variants over time. While no vaccine is perfect, so far, symptomatic disease has been very uncommon in those who are vaccinated. However, it is not clear how well the vaccines will perform against all of the SARS-CoV-2 variants, so suppressing viral replication and preventing new ones from emerging helps to protect us all.

It’s important to remember that getting vaccinated is not just about protecting yourself; it’s also about protecting those around you. In the long run, we will all benefit from herd immunity. The question that remains is whether we can actually get there.

http://www.williamsonherald.com/opinion/commentary-why-should-i-care-if-others-get-vaccinated/article_96e737c2-b369-11eb-90ce-c79d7571ff9a.html

Posted in another thread, but I think it's worth a read here as well.

For those truly interested, and not simply trying to dig in and defend an ignorant position, here's an excellent summary by Dr. Suppinger:

As a doctor, I have recently been asking my patients whether they have gotten a COVID-19 vaccine or made a plan to do so. Initially, some expressed reluctance or just wanted to “wait and see.” This is understandable, given the unprecedented speed with which the vaccines were developed. While I was happy to get my shot as soon as I could, I understood why some others felt uncomfortable getting it right away. Now that almost 150 million Americans have received at least one dose of a vaccine, some are feeling a little more confident about getting it, too.

But the negative responses from patients have shifted somewhat in recent weeks. A number of those who haven’t been vaccinated are saying that they have no intention of doing so — ever. One common reason is that they just don’t perceive much of a threat. As case counts continue to decline, some younger patients think their risk of severe disease or death is so low that it’s just not worth it. Conversely, some elderly patients tell me that they just don’t get out and about very much, so they don’t think it’s likely they will be exposed.

It’s frustrating to realize that the elusive herd immunity we all thought would hasten a return to our pre-COVID lives may never be achieved, by our own collective choice. On the other hand, I am relatively healthy and have been vaccinated, so my chances of survival if I contract COVID are excellent. Why should I care if some people don’t want to get vaccinated? Here’s three reasons why I do care:

1. People who are elderly or immunocompromised may not have as robust an immune response to vaccination as a young, healthy person in a clinic trial. Getting more of the population vaccinated adds a layer of protection for those most vulnerable. And while some elderly people may not go out much, almost no one lives in complete isolation; small family gatherings over the holidays likely fueled the winter surge. In other words, if you won’t get vaccinated to protect yourself, consider doing it to protect your grandmother.

2. While FDA authorization for children ages 12-15 is beginning, children under age 12 cannot get vaccinated yet. The risk of severe COVID symptoms in children is low, but it’s not zero. The virus has also been linked to a potentially serious condition in children called Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in Children (MIS-C). Until children can get vaccinated themselves, the best way to protect them is to vaccinate adults around them.

3. Viral replication is suppressed by mass immunization, which may slow down the emergence of additional viral variants over time. While no vaccine is perfect, so far, symptomatic disease has been very uncommon in those who are vaccinated. However, it is not clear how well the vaccines will perform against all of the SARS-CoV-2 variants, so suppressing viral replication and preventing new ones from emerging helps to protect us all.

It’s important to remember that getting vaccinated is not just about protecting yourself; it’s also about protecting those around you. In the long run, we will all benefit from herd immunity. The question that remains is whether we can actually get there.

http://www.williamsonherald.com/opinion/commentary-why-should-i-care-if-others-get-vaccinated/article_96e737c2-b369-11eb-90ce-c79d7571ff9a.html

For those truly interested, and not simply trying to dig in and defend an ignorant position, here's an excellent summary by Dr. Suppinger:

As a doctor, I have recently been asking my patients whether they have gotten a COVID-19 vaccine or made a plan to do so. Initially, some expressed reluctance or just wanted to “wait and see.” This is understandable, given the unprecedented speed with which the vaccines were developed. While I was happy to get my shot as soon as I could, I understood why some others felt uncomfortable getting it right away. Now that almost 150 million Americans have received at least one dose of a vaccine, some are feeling a little more confident about getting it, too.

But the negative responses from patients have shifted somewhat in recent weeks. A number of those who haven’t been vaccinated are saying that they have no intention of doing so — ever. One common reason is that they just don’t perceive much of a threat. As case counts continue to decline, some younger patients think their risk of severe disease or death is so low that it’s just not worth it. Conversely, some elderly patients tell me that they just don’t get out and about very much, so they don’t think it’s likely they will be exposed.

It’s frustrating to realize that the elusive herd immunity we all thought would hasten a return to our pre-COVID lives may never be achieved, by our own collective choice. On the other hand, I am relatively healthy and have been vaccinated, so my chances of survival if I contract COVID are excellent. Why should I care if some people don’t want to get vaccinated? Here’s three reasons why I do care:

1. People who are elderly or immunocompromised may not have as robust an immune response to vaccination as a young, healthy person in a clinic trial. Getting more of the population vaccinated adds a layer of protection for those most vulnerable. And while some elderly people may not go out much, almost no one lives in complete isolation; small family gatherings over the holidays likely fueled the winter surge. In other words, if you won’t get vaccinated to protect yourself, consider doing it to protect your grandmother.

2. While FDA authorization for children ages 12-15 is beginning, children under age 12 cannot get vaccinated yet. The risk of severe COVID symptoms in children is low, but it’s not zero. The virus has also been linked to a potentially serious condition in children called Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in Children (MIS-C). Until children can get vaccinated themselves, the best way to protect them is to vaccinate adults around them.

3. Viral replication is suppressed by mass immunization, which may slow down the emergence of additional viral variants over time. While no vaccine is perfect, so far, symptomatic disease has been very uncommon in those who are vaccinated. However, it is not clear how well the vaccines will perform against all of the SARS-CoV-2 variants, so suppressing viral replication and preventing new ones from emerging helps to protect us all.

It’s important to remember that getting vaccinated is not just about protecting yourself; it’s also about protecting those around you. In the long run, we will all benefit from herd immunity. The question that remains is whether we can actually get there.

http://www.williamsonherald.com/opinion/commentary-why-should-i-care-if-others-get-vaccinated/article_96e737c2-b369-11eb-90ce-c79d7571ff9a.html

Folks, Bartricks denies that refusing to take a vaccine entails risks to others than himself. Such silliness is not to be reasoned with. Is he that stupid? Or vicious, or a troll? Hard to tell, maybe some of all, but certainly a waste of time in discussion. Be wise, don't waste your time. — tim wood

Seconded. Don't say you weren't warned. If you're interested in a serious medical ethicist, check out Dr. Arthur Caplan:

https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2021/08/10/vaccine-financial-liability

https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/955509

https://www.medpagetoday.com/opinion/second-opinions/93808

Unfortunately, continued resistance to commonsense public health measures has demonstrated that too many people in both Europe and the U.S. have a simplistic and erroneous view of liberty. Liberty does not mean you have the freedom to do whatever you want wherever you want. Nor does it make sense to conflate the concept of individual rights, which inform our liberties, with that of privileges, which are predicated on each of us upholding certain responsibilities.

It is hard to argue in good faith that American citizens have an inalienable "right" to dine at restaurants, attend shows in a theater, and travel for leisure. Indeed, if these were truly protected as rights, our government would be obligated to ensure basic access to them through entitlement programs or legal protection. But while food stamps are meant to ensure that all citizens can feed themselves, and federal law (namely the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act) guarantees universal access to emergency medical care, equivalents do not exist for leisure or recreational activities. We have a tacit societal agreement that these are privileges to be obtained only if one has the requisite time and money for them, and if one agrees to abide by the rules of these establishments, such as wearing clothing and refraining from smoking.

Furthermore, there is ample precedent for limiting individual liberty. What you choose to do cannot impinge upon the liberty of others. Driving is a privilege that must be maintained by ongoing licensure, registration, vehicle inspection, and adherence to the rules of the road for the sake of personal and public safety so that all may drive. If you reject these responsibilities, you risk losing the privilege of driving. The concept of requiring COVID-19 vaccination to access privileges involving social gathering similarly protects public health and prevents reckless individuals from harming others, particularly those who cannot receive vaccines due to age or underlying illness or those who are unable to respond to them due to immunodeficiency. — Art Caplan

The article goes on -- worth a read over the self-proclaimed "expert" who so far has limited his analysis to undergraduate thought experiments.

I agree. — NOS4A2

...A foolproof sign to run the other way, this.