Bull Ring A discussion about the COVID vaccine between Forkup and Task0778

[task0778]

The question:

What is the objective reality concerning the COVID vaccine, and why are so many people refusing to get the shots?

Let's start with this:

Senator Ron Johnson, R-Wisc., claimed that the U.S. still doesn't have an FDA-approved vaccine.

SEN. RON JOHNSON: We do not have an FDA-approved vaccine being administered in the U.S. The FDA played a bait and switch. They approved the Comirnaty version of Pfizer drugs. It’s not available in the U.S. They even admit it. I sent them a letter three days later going "What are you doing?" What they did is they extended the emergency use authorization for the Pfizer drug vaccine that’s available in the U.S., here that’s more than 30 days later, they haven’t asked that very simple question. If you’re saying that the Pfizer drug is the same as the Comirnaty, why didn’t you provide FDA approval on that? So, there’s not an FDA-approved drug and, of course, they announced it so they could push through these mandates so that people actually think, "Oh, OK now these things are FDA approved." They are not and again, maybe they should be, but the FDA isn’t telling me why.

Sen. Ron Johnson: There is not an FDA approved COVID vaccine in the US

Senator Ron Johnson exposes the real Pfizer vaccine the FDA approved on ‘Fox News Primetime’

www.foxnews.com

The reason why the Comirnaty drug has been approved but the Pfizer one hasn't is because the FDA approval does not shield against lawsuits for adverse events. So they are using non-branded EUA label instead which is protected against lawsuits for adverse events. So, if Pfizer won't stand behind their product, I should trust them to have it injected into me?


Now let's talk about objective reality, in today's world can anyone really say with 100% certainty what is and is not the truth? This issue in particular is highly political, it probably got Trump out of office. I don't know that anything anyone says one way or the other can or should be taken as gospel truth. Reports are that Israel is one of the most vaccinated nations on Earth and yet they've got mounting numbers of COVID cases, so WTF? I wouldn't doubt that the vaccine is a good idea for those with a comorbidity, but what about the rest of us? According to the latest CDC numbers, the number of cases and the number of deaths is declining, so why should I get a shot, absent a good reason?

 

[forkup]

These 2 quotes seem to be a nice summary of what I see as the problem.

in today's world can anyone really say with 100% certainty what is and is not the truth?

100% certainty is always very hard. I would even say impossible in most cases. It is however I think the wrong question. You don't need certainty to make informed decisions. In the case of a novel virus, certainty is simply impossible. What you do is make the best possible decision on the available information.

So let's look at the available information to come to what I consider an objective truth. We have several vaccines that after clinical trials not to mention billions of doses already distributed are at least over 90% percent effective. Have very few actual reported side effects in relation to the doses distributed, and are the fastest way to end the effects of the pandemic.

According to the latest CDC numbers, the number of cases and the number of deaths is declining, so why should I get a shot, absent a good reason?

Maybe because it can't hurt and it will probably help? We are talking about a disease that has been serious enough to kill 700000 people in the US alone. Granted most have comorbidities which include by the way things like high blood pressure or diabetes. But most people know people like that, so why would you want to extend the crises and endanger other people? I think both are objectively good reasons?

 

[task0778]

Maybe because it can't hurt and it will probably help?

Maybe and probably? Maybe it can't hurt and maybe it will. Maybe it'll help and maybe it won't. I'm not going to fight the idea that those with comorbidities are better off getting the shot, but that is their decision to make, not the gov'ts. And for the rest of us, it's our decision too. You talk about extending the crisis and endangering other people, so why is it that places like Israel and Iceland are experiencing higher COVID numbers even though their vaccination rate is very high? Why didn't the FDA approve the Pfizer vaccine? Instead they approved the Comirnaty drug, non-branded EUA label instead which is protected against lawsuits for adverse events. Don't know about you, but I tend to get a little suspicious when I get lied to or deceived, and I get a little nervous getting an injection that isn't really FDA approved. Especially when it appears I don't really need it.
[see link in post #1]


Vaccines are designed to protect the injectee, not everybody else. As we see in Israel and Iceland, it appears that the protection you get from the vaccine is somewhat overblown; people are getting sick after they got the shot. So, I think there's a question about whether taking the vaccine actually does preclude extending the crises. Since the number of cases and deaths is dropping, I think that argument is suspect.

 

[task0778]

100% certainty is always very hard. I would even say impossible in most cases. It is however I think the wrong question. You don't need certainty to make informed decisions. In the case of a novel virus, certainty is simply impossible. What you do is make the best possible decision on the available information.

What if you don't trust the information? These days, how can you tell truth from misinformation or even disinformation? The gov't? Not me, I haven't trusted the gov't to tell the whole truth in a very long time. The media? Please. Academia? Think tanks? Who? Where do these people that issue reports and surveys get their money? How long will they continue to get funding if their conclusions do not jive with what the benefactor wants to hear.

Look - when a company comes out with a vaccine but won't back it from lawsuits, isn't that kind of a tell? I should get their shot knowing I can't sue the bastards if there are problems? There are anecdotal stores all the time about somebody got the shot and then had a problem or maybe even died? Maybe a comorbidity, maybe not. Maybe it at least partly comes down to trust, who do you trust when it comes to injecting you with a vaccine that the company doesn't have the guts to support against lawsuits? For a lot of people, the trust factor is running kinda low right now. I do not blame only one side for that either.

 

[forkup]

Maybe and probably? Maybe it can't hurt and maybe it will. Maybe it'll help and maybe it won't. I'm not going to fight the idea that those with comorbidities are better off getting the shot, but that is their decision to make, not the gov'ts. And for the rest of us, it's our decision too. You talk about extending the crisis and endangering other people, so why is it that places like Israel and Iceland are experiencing higher COVID numbers even though their vaccination rate is very high? Why didn't the FDA approve the Pfizer vaccine? Instead they approved the Comirnaty drug, non-branded EUA label instead which is protected against lawsuits for adverse events. Don't know about you, but I tend to get a little suspicious when I get lied to or deceived, and I get a little nervous getting an injection that isn't really FDA approved. Especially when it appears I don't really need it.
[see link in post #1]


Vaccines are designed to protect the injectee, not everybody else. As we see in Israel and Iceland, it appears that the protection you get from the vaccine is somewhat overblown; people are getting sick after they got the shot. So, I think there's a question about whether taking the vaccine actually does preclude extending the crises. Since the number of cases and deaths is dropping, I think that argument is suspect.

Maybe it can't hurt and maybe it will.

There are no reports of it hurting people on any scale. That is an objective truth. Another objective truth is that getting vaccinated helps you from not getting the virus.

You talk about extending the crisis and endangering other people, so why is it that places like Israel and Iceland are experiencing higher COVID numbers even though their vaccination rate is very high?

Sorry but 64 percent is not very high Vaccinations and COVID-19 – Data for Israel. As to your question. It might have something to do with the Delta variant which is documented as being more contagious and which has had the same effect in most of the world.

Vaccines are designed to protect the injectee, not everybody else.

Not true. Vaccines are designed to protect the injected and it provides protection to everybody else too, provided the vaccination rate is high enough to cause any infection to run out of people to infect. So called herd immunity.

Herd Immunity: Will We Ever Get There?

Yale Medicine experts discuss the hurdles to reaching herd immunity for COVID-19.

www.yalemedicine.org

Immunity is conferred either by building antibodies after an infection from the virus or from a vaccine.

 

[forkup]

What if you don't trust the information? These days, how can you tell truth from misinformation or even disinformation? The gov't? Not me, I haven't trusted the gov't to tell the whole truth in a very long time. The media? Please. Academia? Think tanks? Who? Where do these people that issue reports and surveys get their money? How long will they continue to get funding if their conclusions do not jive with what the benefactor wants to hear.

Look - when a company comes out with a vaccine but won't back it from lawsuits, isn't that kind of a tell? I should get their shot knowing I can't sue the bastards if there are problems? There are anecdotal stores all the time about somebody got the shot and then had a problem or maybe even died? Maybe a comorbidity, maybe not. Maybe it at least partly comes down to trust, who do you trust when it comes to injecting you with a vaccine that the company doesn't have the guts to support against lawsuits? For a lot of people, the trust factor is running kinda low right now. I do not blame only one side for that either.

These days, how can you tell truth from misinformation or even disinformation?

It is hard. It requires an open mind, AND a healthy dose of skepticism, intellectual honesty. Both the ability and the inclination to decently source and understand what you are reading.

Where do these people that issue reports and surveys get their money? How long will they continue to get funding if their conclusions do not jive with what the benefactor wants to hear.

I'm sorry to tell you but in my opinion, you can trust academia. Not because they are always right but because that is the only of "those people" that have an actual built-in process to challenge their belief.

Look - when a company comes out with a vaccine but won't back it from lawsuits, isn't that kind of a tell?

Not in the US considering how happy anybody is to sue everybody else. What company would take on a liability like that? There's a reason that EVERY ad you see for medicine in the US includes the list citing possible side effects.

For a lot of people, the trust factor is running kinda low right now. I do not blame only one side for that either.

This is where you lose me. The virus has absolutely no preference according to political affiliation. The fact that it's looked at through a political lens is well ... crazy. A vaccine is not judged by politics it is judged by effectiveness.

 

[task0778]

Okay, first let's talk about what you mean objective truth. According to one definition, objective truth is a proposition that is generally considered objectively true (to have objective truth) when its truth conditions are met without biases caused by feelings, ideas, opinions of a sentient subject. A second, broader meaning of the term refers to the ability in any context to judge fairly, without partiality or external influence. The problem is that you might believe that a proposition's truth conditions are met without biases that another person (me) is not so ready to accept. For instance, you might say that academia can be trusted but I doubt that very much. And I think that manifests itself in the way they discriminate against those who disagree with whatever their political leanings happen to be. Which is mostly progressively liberal, I don't see much of that on the conservative side.

Consider this:

Moreover, CDC research shows that vaccinated individuals still get infected with COVID-19 and carry just as much of the virus in their throat and nasal passage as unvaccinated individuals

“High viral loads suggest an increased risk of transmission and raised concern that, unlike with other variants, vaccinated people infected with Delta can transmit the virus,” CDC Rochelle Director Walensky noted following a Cape Cod outbreak that included mostly vaccinated individuals.

These data suggest that vaccinated individuals are still spreading the virus much like unvaccinated individuals.

Harvard Epidemiologist Says the Case for COVID Vaccine Passports Was Just Demolished

A new study on Israel's COVID outbreak found that vaccinated individuals had 27 times higher risk of symptomatic COVID infection than those with natural immunity from prior COVID infection.

fee.org

AND:


A new paper in the European Journal of Epidemiology that analyzed 168 countries and 2,947 US counties found that higher vaccination rates were not associated with fewer COVID-19 cases.
Friday, October 15, 2021

On Friday, the San Francisco Chronicle published an article noting that California has some of the lowest COVID-19 case rates in the US, even though the Golden State’s vaccination rate lags many states that are currently struggling with the delta variant.

“One clear example is the New England states of Vermont and Maine,” the Chronicle reported. “Relatively shielded from the worst of the nation’s previous surges, they have struggled against the delta variant, which has sent their case rates soaring.”

In fact, Vermont has the highest vaccination rate in the country. Among those 65 years and older, 99.9 percent are fully vaccinated, and 74 percent of those 18-64 are fully vaccinated, according to data from the Mayo Clinic.

Yet, as the Chronicle points out, despite its high vaccination rate, Vermont recently set its single-day case record for the entire pandemic. And as of Oct. 1, Vermont’s seven-day average case rate per 100k people was 30—triple that of the Bay Area.
.
.
Their [vaccines] effectiveness at reducing transmission of the virus, however, remains a subject of debate, particularly since the CDC released findings in June that show vaccinated individuals still contract the virus, transmit it, and carry just as many virus particles in their throat and nasal passages as unvaccinated individuals do when they contract the virus.
.
.
Other scientists are less sure, and a new study suggests their skepticism may be warranted. The study, published last month in the European Journal of Epidemiology, a monthly peer-reviewed medical journal, examined 168 countries and 2,947 counties in the United States and concluded that higher vaccination rates are not associated with fewer COVID cases.

“At the country-level, there appears to be no discernable relationship between percentage of population fully vaccinated and new COVID-19 cases in the last 7 days,” the researchers concluded. “In fact, the trend line suggests a marginally positive association such that countries with higher percentage of population fully vaccinated have higher COVID-19 cases per 1 million people.” (emphasis added)

Vaccination Rates Not Linked to Lower COVID Rates, Epidemiology Paper Finds | Jon Miltimore

A new peer-reviewed study that analyzed 168 countries and 2,947 US counties found that higher vaccination rates were not associated with fewer COVID-19 cases. “At the country-level, there appears to be no discernable relationship between percentage of population fully vaccinated and new COVID-19...

fee.org

In other words, evidence that shows COVID vaccination is primarily about individual health runs counter to the raison d'etre of the gov't, which is to exercise their plan over society.

“What those calling themselves planners advocate is not the substitution of planned action for letting things go. It is the substitution of the planner's own plan for the plans of his fellow-men,” Mises argued in Planned Chaos. “The planner is a potential dictator who wants to deprive all other people of the power to plan and act according to their own plans. He aims at one thing only: the exclusive absolute pre-eminence of his own plan.”

For people trying to understand why for the first time in modern history public health officials are trying to combat a respiratory virus by coercing healthy individuals to take their desired actions—and in many cases lose their job and basic freedoms if they do not—Ludwig von Mises is required reading.

So - the virus of course has no politics, it attacks anybody. But those pushing the vaccines do have a political agenda.

 

[forkup]

According to one definition, objective truth is a proposition that is generally considered objectively true (to have objective truth)

I agree with that defintion. That's why I take care to distinguish between my opinion and what I portray as objective truths.

I'm sorry to tell you but in my opinion, you can trust academia.

And I explained why I stated that. The reason is that scientists actually work hard to take out bias out of research. Your article is proof of that. And the idea that it discriminates seems not supported by it.

or instance, you might say that academia can be trusted but I doubt that very much. And I think that manifests itself in the way they discriminate against those who disagree

A new paper in the European Journal of Epidemiology

This paper is done by scientists right?
Does this not suggest that new ideas are allowed in academic circles.

So let's objectively look at your own source. A source that by reading it suggests bias to YOUR point of view.

There is widespread agreement among scientists that COVID-19 vaccines are highly effective at reducing the risk of developing severe COVID symptoms, which can result in hospitalization and death.

This is the first paragraph after the introduction. Seems pretty unambiguous as to it being a good idea to get vaccinated.

While scientists concede that the vaccines cannot stop transmission, many contend they still reduce transmission of the virus.

and opposed.

Other scientists are less sure and a new study suggests their skepticism may be warranted.

So the best objective evaluation either of us can give is that while there is little debate that getting the vaccine is a good idea. Its effectiveness as to how it allows for group immunity is still under question.

At the start of the debate, you posed the question of what the objective reality of the Covid vaccine is. This seems to be it right?

The second part was why people refuse to get it? And it seems to me that you also answered that. It is because people look at the vaccine through a political lens devoid of its objective reality. You source an article that concedes that it is objectively a good idea to be vaccinated and yet paints the government's efforts to ensure this happens as an authoritarian scheme. In my opinion not taking a vaccine because you don't trust the government is an objectively bad idea if you can't point to an actual disagreement of whether it works to protect you.

And even if you could point to a debate about that question it would probably still be a good idea to look at it from a risk management perspective. In other words, if you are uncertain whether or not a vaccine that protects you from hospitalization or death works erring on the side of caution sounds like an objectively good idea.

 

[task0778]

I agree with that defintion. That's why I take care to distinguish between my opinion and what I portray as objective truths.

Actually, your concept of an objective truth IS your opinion, because you have biases just like everyone else does. So, what you claim to be an objective truth is in fact based on your own political biases, same as me or anyone else. But you are attempting to claim otherwise as though your POV is unassailable. People on both sides have their own idea of what objective truth is, and therefore anyone on either side may be right or wrong to varying degrees.

And when I explained why I stated as a reason that scientists actually work hard to take out bias out of research.

I think some scientists do that but others do not. There are some who do research and draw their conclusions based on what the data tells them. And there are others who manipulate or interpret some data to fit their pre-determined conclusion, leaving out that which does not fit. The question we have to ask is what to believe. In my experience, it is very hard to believe most of what I read, pro or con to my own biases. And most of the time when we read of somebody's scientific research we are reading a reporters view of that research. If you read a report of a specific scientific study you may come away with an entirely different idea of what it said if you read it in a progressive liberal source vs a conservative one.

This paper is done by scientists right?
Does this not suggest that new ideas are allowed in academic circles.

Some circles yes, but other circles, no. I am sure new ideas are always welcome, but I have no doubt that how much allowance depends on the findings relative to the politics of the institutions and their political leanings. But I do believe that eventually truth will out.

So the best objective evaluation either of us can give is that while there is little debate that getting the vaccine is a good idea.

I noticed that you left out the word 'SEVERE'. The article says "reducing the risk of developing severe COVID symptoms, which can result in hospitalization and death." CAN result, not WILL result. If you have a comorbidity, yes it's a good idea. I already stipulated that in post #1. Otherwise, then it's an individual's choice, much like a flu shot. You conveniently left this part out too:

“At the country-level, there appears to be no discernable relationship between percentage of population fully vaccinated and new COVID-19 cases in the last 7 days,” the researchers concluded. “In fact, the trend line suggests a marginally positive association such that countries with higher percentage of population fully vaccinated have higher COVID-19 cases per 1 million people.” (emphasis added)

Vaccination Rates Not Linked to Lower COVID Rates, Epidemiology Paper Finds | Jon Miltimore​

A new peer-reviewed study that analyzed 168 countries and 2,947 US counties found that higher vaccination rates were not associated with fewer COVID-19 cases. “At the country-level, there appears to be no discernable relationship between percentage of population fully vaccinated and new COVID-19...
fee.org


In other words, evidence that shows COVID vaccination is primarily about individual health runs counter to the raison d'etre of the gov't, which may be to exercise their plan over society.

It is because people look at the vaccine through a political lens devoid of its objective reality.

I contend that there is no objective reality with respect to the vaccine on either side of the issue, for the reason that politics is involved and personal biases on the part of everyone involved do exist. I do not claim to know what is true or not, objective or otherwise. But I will claim that nobody else really knows either, because we all have a political lens, even the scientists. Or some of them anyway.

 

[forkup]

Let's start here. Can you name your objective truth that runs counter to these cited objective truths?

there is little debate that getting the vaccine is a good idea.

not taking a vaccine because you don't trust the government is an objectively bad idea

if you are uncertain whether or not a vaccine that protects you from hospitalization or death works erring, on the side of caution sounds like an objectively good idea.

I would like you to assail these statements. Since they are at the core of my opinion.

 

[task0778]

forkup said:
there is little debate that getting the vaccine is a good idea.

Seems to be plenty of debate about that around here at the USMB. Should we make a decision like that based on public opinion?

Here's one debate for starters:

More Covid Lies

The media you listen to never tells the whole story. That leads people to believe what just is not true. https://creativedestructionmedia.com/news/2021/10/02/sen-ron-johnson-there-is-not-an-fda-approved-covid-vaccine-in-the-us/

www.usmessageboard.com

forkup said:
not taking a vaccine because you don't trust the government is an objectively bad idea

‘I’m not taking it’: Joe Biden, Kamala Harris led Covid vaccine skepticism parade before election

A video mashup shows that Joe Biden and Kamala Harris were originally the country's biggest coronavirus anti-vaxxer skeptics.

www.bizpacreview.com

Prior to be elected, both Joe Biden and Kamala Harris said they wouldn't get the vaccine because they didn't Trust Trump, as though he had anything to do with whether or not the vaccine was safe and effective. Well guess what, there are quite a few people who do not trust the current gov't either.

forkup said:
if you are uncertain whether or not a vaccine that protects you from hospitalization or death works erring, on the side of caution sounds like an objectively good idea.

If a person doesn't think they need it then it isn't an objectively good idea for them IMHO.

 

[task0778]

I will add this:

But most vaccine skepticism, if by that we mean reluctance, is not based on conspiracy theorizing — it’s based on risk-benefit calculations. You may think it’s an innumerate calculation. But when you look at patterns of uptake in the United States, two factors stand out, factors that are larger in their effect than partisanship: age and density. The older you are and the denser your community, the more likely you are to be vaccinated. The younger you are, and the more rural your community, the less likely you are to have gotten it. This reflects the real facts about the risk of death from COVID. People may be wildly overestimating their risk from the vaccine and underestimating their risks from COVID — but they have the directional thinking correct. Those who are in less danger, act like it.

Convincing the Skeptics | National Review

Vaccine resisters can’t be persuaded if they feel disrespected.

www.nationalreview.com

Maybe these people have determined their own objective truth. It is I think a fact of life that some people don't get sick very often while others do. Genetics, life style, for whatever reason they ain't worried about COVID. Maybe they're right, and maybe not but it should be their call.

 

[forkup]

Seems to be plenty of debate about that around here at the USMB. Should we make a decision like that based on public opinion?

Here's one debate for starters:

More Covid Lies

The media you listen to never tells the whole story. That leads people to believe what just is not true. https://creativedestructionmedia.com/news/2021/10/02/sen-ron-johnson-there-is-not-an-fda-approved-covid-vaccine-in-the-us/

www.usmessageboard.com

‘I’m not taking it’: Joe Biden, Kamala Harris led Covid vaccine skepticism parade before election

A video mashup shows that Joe Biden and Kamala Harris were originally the country's biggest coronavirus anti-vaxxer skeptics.

www.bizpacreview.com

Prior to be elected, both Joe Biden and Kamala Harris said they wouldn't get the vaccine because they didn't Trust Trump, as though he had anything to do with whether or not the vaccine was safe and effective. Well guess what, there are quite a few people who do not trust the current gov't either.



If a person doesn't think they need it then it isn't an objectively good idea for them IMHO.

Should we make a decision like that based on public opinion?

No, of course not. This is a debate for medical experts. Medical experts agree that it does work. This according to studies... and your own source.

Here's one debate for starters

So I checked your "debate" it's not a "debate" about whether or not the vaccine works. It's a "debate" about whether or not the vaccines are FDA approved. A debate that rests on splitting hairs between an actual approval and an emergency approval. Like an emergency, approval is somehow less valid.

Joe Biden and Kamala Harris said they wouldn't get the vaccine because they didn't Trust Trump

You asked how a person recognizes misinformation. There are many ways, this way falls under.

a healthy dose of skepticism

and the inclination to decently source

Whenever a source is provided to me that sounds a little bit inconsistent with what I know, I get skeptical. Like for instance the claim that Biden and Harris would refuse the vaccine because they didn't trust Trump. They are and have been sending a message of taking this virus seriously, so it sounded off. Even more so because the information in your link only provides highly edited versions of Biden and Harris speaking. Sometimes simply a sentence. So I decided to spend the time to look for these quotes in unedited form. So I looked at the first clip of the CNN interview with Harris. And low and behold. Harris did say they wouldn't trust Trump's word on the efficacy of the vaccine. She did however say she would trust the word of health experts. It is called quoting out of context.

check the 2 min 30 mark.

And even if this would not be true. You would still be using a logical fallacy instead of trying to give an objective truth. Whether or not Harris of Biden said they would take a vaccine says absolutely nothing about why it's a good idea to not take a vaccine because you don't trust the government. It is an appeal to hypocrisy.

If a person doesn't think they need it then it isn't an objectively good idea for them IMHO.

This is called the personal incredulity fallacy. It is circular reasoning and is not an actual counter-argument. This is an objective truth by your own definition.

objective truth is a proposition that is generally considered objectively true (to have objective truth) when its truth conditions are met without biases caused by feelings, ideas, opinions of a sentient subject.

Do you think your argument meets that standard?

It comes down to this. You are claiming "my objective truths" are not objective truths at all but opinions. So I gave you the challenge of actually countering them. The first, you kind of counter. Mainly because I used the quote feature and it made my original proposition too vague. I thought it was obvious from the context of my previous statements what I meant but it still moves the goalposts. So I'll give you that one. But the 2 next ones you are totally incapable of countering. Instead you rely on logical fallacies.

 

[task0778]

I have provided sources that tell us the vaccine loses it's effectiveness over time, and may not cover future deviants. I have provided sources that show places with very high vaccination rates are experiencing an increasing number of cases. IOW, maybe it will protect you and maybe it won't, at least not for long and maybe not against the next Coronavirus version that comes along. I have provided sources that tell us a vaccinated person can still spread the virus. I have provided sources that say the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines do not provide herd immunity or improve public health.

There is evidence that shows COVID vaccination is primarily about individual health, which to me means it's actually up to each of us to decide whether to get the shot or not. We know that the number of cases and deaths are in decline. And we know that the deaths and most serious cases were primarily the aged or those with a comorbidity. Absent that, it is reasonable to determine not to get the shot if your circumstances do not make it appear to be worthwhile. Or at least not yet. And that is your own objective truth.

 

[forkup]

I have provided sources that tell us the vaccine loses it's effectiveness over time, and may not cover future deviants. I have provided sources that show places with very high vaccination rates are experiencing an increasing number of cases. IOW, maybe it will protect you and maybe it won't, at least not for long and maybe not against the next Coronavirus version that comes along. I have provided sources that tell us a vaccinated person can still spread the virus. I have provided sources that say the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines do not provide herd immunity or improve public health.

Yes and I simply stated the objective truth that when you are in doubt about whether a vaccine that protects you from Covid-19 or any highly contagious deadly vaccine works you err on the side of caution. Something you didn't counter. Care to have another go? The subject of the discussion was what the objective truth of the vaccine was after all?

There is evidence that shows COVID vaccination is primarily about individual health, which to me means it's actually up to each of us to decide whether to get the shot or not.

It might be what meaning you take from it, but it certainly isn't an assessment based on an objective truth about the Covid vaccine. Since you can't objectively claim the evidence is considered conclusive by the scientific community. Or for that matter if it's objectively a good idea to risk getting the severe sickness or death your article and indeed the millions of dead people testify of.

You don't wear a seatbelt because you know you'll get into an accident. You don't even wear a seatbelt because you know it will save you when you do get into an accident. You wear a seatbelt because you know that if you get into an accident your odds of survival dramatically increase. So it's an objectively good idea to wear a seatbelt as an INDIVIDUAL safety measure. ( maybe replacing covid with something that is less politically loaded will make my point better?)

 

[task0778]

Yes and I simply stated the objective truth that when you are in doubt about whether a vaccine that protects you from Covid-19 or any highly contagious deadly vaccine works you err on the side of caution.

That is your objective truth, but not necessarily someone else's. You might err on the side of caution, but another person might not. Their perception of bias towards what has been said about the virus might be different from yours; maybe they don't see the same amount of risk for themselves that you do, not knowing their circumstances. Maybe they don't see the degree of protection from the vaccine for themselves that you do either. And their perception of the risk involved with not taking the shot might be different too.

It might be what meaning you take from it, but it certainly isn't an assessment based on an objective truth about the Covid vaccine

Here we go again. Are you under the impression that your version of the objective truth is the only one that is correct? There's no chance that tomorrow or whenever that news will come out that the vaccines lose their effectiveness after a period of time? Or that there might be a serious side effect that manifests itself say a year from now? You don't know, one way or the other, but you're saying never mind all that, but someone else might err on the side of caution and decline the shot if they believe it isn't necessary for them.

Who's assessment based on who's objective truth? Your assessment and your objective truth may not the same as someone else's, and you seem unwilling to accept the possibility that a different assessment of objective truth cannot also be right for them. And IMHO you are all too willing to ignore the reports of highly vaccinated states and countries experiencing increasing Covid rates at a time when they should be declining.

You don't wear a seatbelt because you know you'll get into an accident. You don't even wear a seatbelt because you know it will save you when you do get into an accident. You wear a seatbelt because you know that if you get into an accident your odds of survival dramatically increase. So it's an objectively good idea to wear a seatbelt as an INDIVIDUAL safety measure. ( maybe replacing covid with something that is less politically loaded will make my point better?)

There's a difference between wearing a seat belt and getting a vaccine that is declared by the FDA as "Emergency Use Only" injected into your body. I don't think we can take the politics out of it; IOW, political bias exists no matter which side you're on or what your objective truth might be.

 

[forkup]

That is your objective truth, but not necessarily someone else's. You might err on the side of caution, but another person might not. Their perception of bias towards what has been said about the virus might be different from yours; maybe they don't see the same amount of risk for themselves that you do, not knowing their circumstances. Maybe they don't see the degree of protection from the vaccine for themselves that you do either. And their perception of the risk involved with not taking the shot might be different too.




Here we go again. Are you under the impression that your version of the objective truth is the only one that is correct? There's no chance that tomorrow or whenever that news will come out that the vaccines lose their effectiveness after a period of time? Or that there might be a serious side effect that manifests itself say a year from now? You don't know, one way or the other, but you're saying never mind all that, but someone else might err on the side of caution and decline the shot if they believe it isn't necessary for them.

Who's assessment based on who's objective truth? Your assessment and your objective truth may not the same as someone else's, and you seem unwilling to accept the possibility that a different assessment of objective truth cannot also be right for them. And IMHO you are all too willing to ignore the reports of highly vaccinated states and countries experiencing increasing Covid rates at a time when they should be declining.




There's a difference between wearing a seat belt and getting a vaccine that is declared by the FDA as "Emergency Use Only" injected into your body. I don't think we can take the politics out of it; IOW, political bias exists no matter which side you're on or what your objective truth might be.

The problem we seem to have is a different understanding on what objectivity is. This is weird because you provided the definition for it. A definition you keep on disregarding. You can not claim that an objective truth is true regardless of bias. And at the same time argue that an objective truth is conditional according to bias.

My bias isn't what makes me want to err on the side of caution for instance. The fact that doing so is objectively common sense does. Unless of course you want to argue that possibly getting sick or die is preferable to getting a shot that medical experts and facts have shown to prevent those outcomes to some extent ?

My perception of what's been said about the virus. ( it's efficacy, longevity, how it protects) still would work if my bias would be completely different. As long as I hold to the objective truth that you err on the side of caution when dealing with a virus this deadly.

As to entertaining the idea that the vaccine would somehow cause side effects in the future. That is by definition a completely subjective belief. There is no data to support it. And basing whether or not to get vaccinated on the premise of a subjective belief doesn't make an objective decision.

I'll put it like this. How can you make an objective decision if you can't point to objective data to support it?

I'm sorry it took so long to respond. I got really busy at work.

 

[task0778]

The problem we seem to have is a different understanding on what objectivity is. This is weird because you provided the definition for it. A definition you keep on disregarding. You can not claim that an objective truth is true regardless of bias. And at the same time argue that an objective truth is conditional according to bias.

Maybe I have not stated my position clearly enough regarding what objective truth is. It is supposed to be the unbiased, actual truth of what reality is. You claim to know what that is, even though your sources of information are or could themselves be biased. My claim is that nobody really knows for certain what the objective truth is because nobody can know for sure what sources of information exist that are unbiased. Who is to say what is actually objective and what isn't?

My bias isn't what makes me want to err on the side of caution for instance. The fact that doing so is objectively common sense does. Unless of course you want to argue that possibly getting sick or die is preferable to getting a shot that medical experts and facts have shown to prevent those outcomes to some extent ?

Our concept of what is caution appears to also be different. You're saying that getting the shot errs on the side of caution, while I'm saying that many people feel that NOT getting the shot errs on the side of caution. The idea of caution is related to what a person believes what the risk is to a specific decision. Maybe your opinion of the risk involved is greater than some other's. Both sides have their reasons for that; I do not sit in judgement of anyone's decision, while you do. Or seem to.

My perception of what's been said about the virus. ( it's efficacy, longevity, how it protects) still would work if my bias would be completely different. As long as I hold to the objective truth that you err on the side of caution when dealing with a virus this deadly.

That's a stretch, if your bias was different then there's a pretty good chance your perception of what's been said would be different. You are claiming that your concept of what is objective truth means that anyone who refuses to get the vaccine is not being cautious, but instead reckless. That's your opinion, and you are entitled to it. But that does not make you correct. And BTW, that virus is nowhere near as deadly as it once was, especially for those without some form of comorbidity. So, not everybody agrees with your version of what objective truth really is.

There’s still an awful lot we don’t know. These are, after all, experimental drugs, and they’re behaving like it. The bottom line is that a huge number of vaccinated people are getting COVID, and some of them are getting very sick, even dying. That’s true around the world: it’s true in Iceland, Gibraltar, Israel — small countries with high vaccination rates have seen big spikes in COVID cases — and it’s every bit as true here in the United States. According to the CDC today, fully three-quarters of the people infected in a recent outbreak, for example, in Massachusetts had already been vaccinated. The CDC announced vaccinated people can carry the virus with them, and they can easily spread the virus to others. As the CDC conceded, "Breakthrough infections may be as transmissible as unvaccinated cases."

Tucker Carlson: Democrats and the CDC have been lying about COVID and the vaccine

Tucker Carlson reacts to new COVID guidelines and highlights the flip-flops of Democrats and the CDC as they cling to power.

www.foxnews.com

As to entertaining the idea that the vaccine would somehow cause side effects in the future. That is by definition a completely subjective belief. There is no data to support it. And basing whether or not to get vaccinated on the premise of a subjective belief doesn't make an objective decision.

Kinda hard to find data that supports a future event, no? The possibility of future side effects is based on fear, for yourself and your family. Surely you've seen the anecdotal stories about people who got the vaccine and subsequently have adverse reactions. Some even died. And some of those people weren't old or had a comorbidity. And when you look at the data, the significant majority of deaths and severe cases are older people or have a comorbidity. Sounds like an objective decision to me, some people decide that they don't need it.

I'll put it like this. How can you make an objective decision if you can't point to objective data to support it?

There IS objective data to support the decision NOT to get the vaccine. Vaccinated people are getting the disease anyway. Not as many people are dying as before, and those people are older and/or have a comorbidity. And vaccinated people can spread the virus too. So, a person who is not in those groups could very well decide not to get the vaccine just from that data.

 

[forkup]

That's a stretch, if your bias was different then there's a pretty good chance your perception of what's been said would be different.

I don't think it's a stretch. I'll try to illustrate by listing both pros and cons for getting the vaccine and for not getting it using both biases.


Best case scenario. (the people who don't take the vaccine are right and the vaccine is unnecessary)

1. You don't have to get shots and the discomfort that some people experience.
2. You don't risk the documented very rare more serious side effects, including death.

Worst case scenario. (the people who don't take the vaccine are wrong and the vaccine is necessary)

1. You protect yourself from death.
2. You protect those around you from death.
3. Doing so will end the pandemic sooner.

I just included those things that have objective facts supporting it enough to be considered in dispute and not some hypothetical future side effect.

To put it into another way. I can be wrong and what we risk is some discomfort and a few deaths by rare side effects.
If these hypothetical people are wrong what they risk is many more deaths and a pandemic that will last longer.

One of these choices is objectively speaking better.

Kinda hard to find data that supports a future event, no? The possibility of future side effects is based on fear, for yourself and your family.

Yes, it is hard. It is even impossible. Yet you seem to be saying that basing your decisions on something that is not supported by data can be an objective decision.

 

[forkup]

Maybe I have not stated my position clearly enough regarding what objective truth is. It is supposed to be the unbiased, actual truth of what reality is. You claim to know what that is, even though your sources of information are or could themselves be biased. My claim is that nobody really knows for certain what the objective truth is because nobody can know for sure what sources of information exist that are unbiased. Who is to say what is actually objective and what isn't?




Our concept of what is caution appears to also be different. You're saying that getting the shot errs on the side of caution, while I'm saying that many people feel that NOT getting the shot errs on the side of caution. The idea of caution is related to what a person believes what the risk is to a specific decision. Maybe your opinion of the risk involved is greater than some other's. Both sides have their reasons for that; I do not sit in judgement of anyone's decision, while you do. Or seem to.




That's a stretch, if your bias was different then there's a pretty good chance your perception of what's been said would be different. You are claiming that your concept of what is objective truth means that anyone who refuses to get the vaccine is not being cautious, but instead reckless. That's your opinion, and you are entitled to it. But that does not make you correct. And BTW, that virus is nowhere near as deadly as it once was, especially for those without some form of comorbidity. So, not everybody agrees with your version of what objective truth really is.

There’s still an awful lot we don’t know. These are, after all, experimental drugs, and they’re behaving like it. The bottom line is that a huge number of vaccinated people are getting COVID, and some of them are getting very sick, even dying. That’s true around the world: it’s true in Iceland, Gibraltar, Israel — small countries with high vaccination rates have seen big spikes in COVID cases — and it’s every bit as true here in the United States. According to the CDC today, fully three-quarters of the people infected in a recent outbreak, for example, in Massachusetts had already been vaccinated. The CDC announced vaccinated people can carry the virus with them, and they can easily spread the virus to others. As the CDC conceded, "Breakthrough infections may be as transmissible as unvaccinated cases."

Tucker Carlson: Democrats and the CDC have been lying about COVID and the vaccine

Tucker Carlson reacts to new COVID guidelines and highlights the flip-flops of Democrats and the CDC as they cling to power.

www.foxnews.com

Kinda hard to find data that supports a future event, no? The possibility of future side effects is based on fear, for yourself and your family. Surely you've seen the anecdotal stories about people who got the vaccine and subsequently have adverse reactions. Some even died. And some of those people weren't old or had a comorbidity. And when you look at the data, the significant majority of deaths and severe cases are older people or have a comorbidity. Sounds like an objective decision to me, some people decide that they don't need it.





There IS objective data to support the decision NOT to get the vaccine. Vaccinated people are getting the disease anyway. Not as many people are dying as before, and those people are older and/or have a comorbidity. And vaccinated people can spread the virus too. So, a person who is not in those groups could very well decide not to get the vaccine just from that data.

You claim to know what that is, even though your sources of information are or could themselves be biased.

Here's the thing. All sources could be biased. You are the one that has to establish though that they are. "I don't trust academia doesn't really cut it." Argument from incredulity. And the one source you did cite actually agrees that the vaccine does prevent the more serious side effects.

My claim is that nobody really knows for certain what the objective truth is because nobody can know for sure what sources of that information exist that are unbiased.

The Bias Fallacy | Nick Byrd, Ph.D.

“They’re biased, so they’re wrong!” That’s a fallacy. Why? Because being biased doesn’t entail being wrong. In this post, I’ll explain the bias fallacy, gi…

byrdnick.com

Bias does not determine objective truths. Facts do. And yes you can be at least reasonably certain. But it takes actual effort.