Coronavirus outbreak

[D.B Cooper]

37 minutes ago, 4petesake said:

Seems like you do care. You were worried about giving it to your parents so you got injected. I’m guessing you must have had an opinion about  other unvaccinated people that came into contact with them otherwise why bother?

It’s up to my parents who they want to expose themselves too.   
And it’s up to the individual if they want it or not.  
It’s not up to me, and not something I concern myself with.  

[thedestroyerofworlds]

43 minutes ago, mdehaan said:

Unfortunately 'experts' have biases and emotions like fear and greed. They are also not correct 100% of the time, in fact much less than 100% of the time.

Global finance 'experts' are a very good example of this right now.

This position is based on feelings, rather than evidence.  If something is shown to be false based on evidence, then changes can be made.  You are taking a contrarian position without any current evidence to support your position.  Your feeling is that the current position is incorrect because there were some previous positions that were demonstrated to be incorrect, but you have no empirical evidence to directly demonstrate the position that you are actually taking.  

 

It is like saying that because chemists and physicists were incorrect about atomic theory in the past, then the current atomic theory is garbage.  Intellectually honest people would only make the bolded claim if they had some way, like evidence, to demonstrate the claim.  They wouldn't claim the current atomic theory is garbage  because Rutherford wasn't completely correct in his theory after the gold foil experiment.  He got some things right, but missed the mark on others.  

Edited October 21, 2022 by thedestroyerofworlds

[mdehaan]

1 minute ago, thedestroyerofworlds said:

This position is based on feelings, rather than evidence.  If something is shown to be false based on evidence, then changes can be made.  You are taking a contrarian position without any current evidence to support your position.  Your feeling is that the current position is incorrect because there were some previous positions that were demonstrated to be incorrect, but you have no empirical evidence to directly demonstrate the position that you are actually taking.  

 

It is like saying that because chemists and physicists were incorrect about atomic theory in the past, then the current atomic theory is garbage.  Intellectually honest people would only make the bolded claim if they had some way, like evidence, to demonstrate the claim.  They wouldn't claim the current atomic theory if garbage  because Rutherford wasn't completely correct in his theory after the gold foil experiment.  He got some things right, but missed the mark on others.  

That would be a massive assumption on your part.

There is lots of evidence. I stopped thinking with my feelings a decade ago.

 

What about the people walking down the street, with a mask on, by themselves? Do you think they're thinking with their feelings?

[Warhippy]

4 minutes ago, mdehaan said:

That would be a massive assumption on your part.

There is lots of evidence. I stopped thinking with my feelings a decade ago.

 

What about the people walking down the street, with a mask on, by themselves? Do you think they're thinking with their feelings?

talks about massive assumptions, then makes statements about peoples individual choices.

[thedestroyerofworlds]

Just now, mdehaan said:

That would be a massive assumption on your part.

There is lots of evidence. I stopped thinking with my feelings a decade ago.

 

What about the people walking down the street, with a mask on, by themselves? Do you think they're thinking with their feelings?

Your line of reasoning can be used in the whole of science.  The whole idea that you shouldn't accept ___ (fill in the black with a type of science) because they were wrong in the past is insane.  You don't take this line of reasoning in a number of scientific fields, but do so here.  If something is demonstrated to be false, and the evidence demonstrates an alternative, then the alternative is accepted.  You've tried to demonstrate your alternative, but failed.  You've posted "evidence" that didn't demonstrate the thing you thought it did.  

[JM_]

4 minutes ago, thedestroyerofworlds said:

Your line of reasoning can be used in the whole of science.  The whole idea that you shouldn't accept ___ (fill in the black with a type of science) because they were wrong in the past is insane.  You don't take this line of reasoning in a number of scientific fields, but do so here.  If something is demonstrated to be false, and the evidence demonstrates an alternative, then the alternative is accepted.  You've tried to demonstrate your alternative, but failed.  You've posted "evidence" that didn't demonstrate the thing you thought it did.  

 

its really odd to me that people think they know more than medical science, the "I know I'm healthy" crowd. You know nothing. I was at a conference a while back where a physician running the presentation asked for a show of hands of people who knew they were healthy. He proceeded to list off all the reasons why you actually can't know that, all on your own  lots of nervous people after that one.

 

Plus all the individualists out there don't seem to give a crap about public safety.

 

No one would get on a plane maintained by some yahoo who used "alternative engineering." 

 

[KristoffWixenschon]

2 hours ago, D.B Cooper said:

I’ve got a couple reasons why I haven’t gotten boosted.  I’ve got my first two, but not doing any more.  

We will start with the distrust in our health officials. 
I’ve watched them fumble move after move. 
They started by saying get the vax because it stops transmission. That was the only reason why I got it.  I’m healthy. I would be fine. 
I was worried for my parents. I didn’t want to give it to them. 
BUT.  We soon found out, it doesn’t stop transmission at all. 
My whole shop is vaxed.   Everyone in here has had it at least once.  
But they still tried blabbing the same shit. 
Also, as a rule, I don’t take advice from people who sound like they don’t know what they are talking about.  Coughbonnyhenrycough.  
Too much wishy washy bullshit for me. 
 

Second, and the most important one to me, I’ve had it 3 times now.  
It’s fine. It’s not even bad. 
Almost everyone I know who has gotten the booster, has gotten more sick from the shot than I have gotten from covid.  

 

Also, when does it end?   6 shots?  10?  
 

Realistically, I think we need to give our public health officials a bit of a break. They were dealing with a totally unprecedented situation and sifting through really dynamically changing information. It's hard enough to communicate settled science, let alone constantly evolving data.

But also I think you're right. The public health communication was imperfect. They did a terrible job of communicating why the data was evolving. They acted without humility and acted like they knew all of the answers. I believe they damaged the public trust in our public health messaging, which will have long lasting effects.

 

I dont mind that they got some things wrong. They err on the side of caution and I think that would have been my decision too. My issue with public health messaging is when they withhold information, pretend they know more than they do, and give a "one size fits all" approach to a complex problem. 

[Boudrias]

1 minute ago, KristoffWixenschon said:

Realistically, I think we need to give our public health officials a bit of a break. They were dealing with a totally unprecedented situation and sifting through really dynamically changing information. It's hard enough to communicate settled science, let alone constantly evolving data.

But also I think you're right. The public health communication was imperfect. They did a terrible job of communicating why the data was evolving. They acted without humility and acted like they knew all of the answers. I believe they damaged the public trust in our public health messaging, which will have long lasting effects.

 

I dont mind that they got some things wrong. They err on the side of caution and I think that would have been my decision too. My issue with public health messaging is when they withhold information, pretend they know more than they do, and give a "one size fits all" approach to a complex problem. 

They had a game plan written from the SARS outbreak and didn't use it I don't think? 

[DrJockitch]

7 minutes ago, KristoffWixenschon said:

Realistically, I think we need to give our public health officials a bit of a break. They were dealing with a totally unprecedented situation and sifting through really dynamically changing information. It's hard enough to communicate settled science, let alone constantly evolving data.

But also I think you're right. The public health communication was imperfect. They did a terrible job of communicating why the data was evolving. They acted without humility and acted like they knew all of the answers. I believe they damaged the public trust in our public health messaging, which will have long lasting effects.

 

I dont mind that they got some things wrong. They err on the side of caution and I think that would have been my decision too. My issue with public health messaging is when they withhold information, pretend they know more than they do, and give a "one size fits all" approach to a complex problem. 

Not sure what they said that was wrong. 
‘Masking and social distancing prevent transmission. Check. 
immunizations reduce illness.  Check and check. 

this is serious, it is not the flu. Check. 
‘What the politicians did with the info, that is different put the blame on them for politicizing and stepping on clear public health recommendations. 

[KristoffWixenschon]

1 minute ago, DrJockitch said:

Not sure what they said that was wrong. 
‘Masking and social distancing prevent transmission. Check. 
immunizations reduce illness.  Check and check. 

this is serious, it is not the flu. Check. 
‘What the politicians did with the info, that is different put the blame on them for politicizing and stepping on clear public health recommendations. 

There were mistakes. Though I think that was due to not knowing at the time, then being presented with new data, so they changed their recommendations. I dont think it was due to being deceptive. 

 

Examples:

Vaccines will stop transmission of the virus.

They initially thought the vaccines gave longer lasting protection.

Prior infection is not protective.

 

Now we know differently and that's okay.

[JM_]

10 minutes ago, KristoffWixenschon said:

There were mistakes. Though I think that was due to not knowing at the time, then being presented with new data, so they changed their recommendations. I dont think it was due to being deceptive. 

 

Examples:

Vaccines will stop transmission of the virus.

They initially thought the vaccines gave longer lasting protection.

Prior infection is not protective.

 

Now we know differently and that's okay.

best available evidence. Its the best thing we have to work from. 

[thedestroyerofworlds]

1 hour ago, KristoffWixenschon said:

There were mistakes. Though I think that was due to not knowing at the time, then being presented with new data, so they changed their recommendations. I dont think it was due to being deceptive. 

 

Examples:

Vaccines will stop transmission of the virus.

They initially thought the vaccines gave longer lasting protection.

Prior infection is not protective.

 

Now we know differently and that's okay.

Another poster trotted this point.  The examples he gave were from first half of 2021.  Prior to the height of the Delta wave and before Omicron took hold.  If/when those claims were made, it was at a time when the vaccines were more effective and the virus wasn't as contagious as the later variants became.

 

Demonstrate that this talking point was regularly trotted out this year and you may have a point.

[KristoffWixenschon]

1 hour ago, thedestroyerofworlds said:

Another poster trotted this point.  The examples he gave were from first half of 2021.  Prior to the height of the Delta wave and before Omicron took hold.  If/when those claims were made, it was at a time when the vaccines were more effective and the virus wasn't as contagious as the later variants became.

 

Demonstrate that this talking point was regularly trotted out this year and you may have a point.

That's actually the whole point I'm making. 

 

The entire point is that they were wrong. They did make a mistake. Yes this was being said last year, until they learned more and collected more data. 

 

Initially the vaccines did look to have great success in preventing disease and transmission. As time went on, it was discovered that the neutralizing antibodies which prevent you from becoming ill, start to wane after 3-6 months after immunization. 

 

It was an unintentional mistake. 

[JM_]

12 hours ago, KristoffWixenschon said:

That's actually the whole point I'm making. 

 

The entire point is that they were wrong. They did make a mistake. Yes this was being said last year, until they learned more and collected more data. 

 

Initially the vaccines did look to have great success in preventing disease and transmission. As time went on, it was discovered that the neutralizing antibodies which prevent you from becoming ill, start to wane after 3-6 months after immunization. 

 

It was an unintentional mistake. 

I'm not sure using the term 'mistake' is really accurate tho. Viruses can be a moving target to deal with, and this one is slippery. You have to go with the best option based on what you know at the time, and adjust. 

 

I see a bigger problem with some corners of the public need for overly simplistic messaging and absolutes. 

[Alflives]

9 minutes ago, JM_ said:

I'm not sure using the term 'mistake' is really accurate tho. Viruses can be a moving target to deal with, and this one is slippery. You have to go with the best option based on what you know at the time, and adjust. 

 

I see a bigger problem with some corners of the public need for overly simplistic messaging and absolutes. 

Thankfully science got us to the point now (with vaccines for Covid) where the people who foolishly choose to avoid vaccines aren’t seriously impacting those of us who are vaccinated.  

[DrJockitch]

9 minutes ago, JM_ said:

I'm not sure using the term 'mistake' is really accurate tho. Viruses can be a moving target to deal with, and this one is slippery. You have to go with the best option based on what you know at the time, and adjust. 

 

I see a bigger problem with some corners of the public need for overly simplistic messaging and absolutes. 

Not understanding how something works and not having a background to understand it is the position of the press when communicating science, unfortunately that is best case scenario as the news agencies now act as political agents. The politicians are worse because they decide their stance and than look for “facts” (often not accurate) to fit their narrative. Unfortunately we have shifted to many news agencies first looking for their narrative and twisting stories around them.  Social media presents everything as facts even though most of it is made up and more often than not mis-information created to distort the truth in ways that serve political agents. 
‘That immunity wains is not new or unexpected, it is why most vaccines have boosters. 
Great point at the end. This is what we need, simple messaging the problem is a lot of people just assume they can interpret the complicated parts with no background knowledge and the politicians step all over messages they see as inconvenient. 

[DrJockitch]

Oh and vaccines did significantly reduce transmission especially of the strains they were targeted at. There are numbers between 0% and 100%. 
The virus mutated as viruses do and we don’t yet know what the efficacy of the vaccines against Omicron will have as they are just rolling out and they are different between Moderna and Pfizer this time to make things more complicated. 

[JM_]

6 minutes ago, DrJockitch said:

Not understanding how something works and not having a background to understand it is the position of the press when communicating science, unfortunately that is best case scenario as the news agencies now act as political agents. The politicians are worse because they decide their stance and than look for “facts” (often not accurate) to fit their narrative. Unfortunately we have shifted to many news agencies first looking for their narrative and twisting stories around them.  Social media presents everything as facts even though most of it is made up and more often than not mis-information created to distort the truth in ways that serve political agents. 
‘That immunity wains is not new or unexpected, it is why most vaccines have boosters. 
Great point at the end. This is what we need, simple messaging the problem is a lot of people just assume they can interpret the complicated parts with no background knowledge and the politicians step all over messages they see as inconvenient. 

Media bias and politics are the main issues for sure. 

 

It does surprise me that people have the attitude of "when will the shots end"? we get a new flu shot every year, but no one complains about that? 

 

[JM_]

14 minutes ago, Alflives said:

Thankfully science got us to the point now (with vaccines for Covid) where the people who foolishly choose to avoid vaccines aren’t seriously impacting those of us who are vaccinated.  

whats really exciting about the mRNA work is the potential to treat cancer. Pretty exciting stuff. I wonder how many of the anti-vaxxers will skip new cancer treatments in a few years?

[DrJockitch]

23 minutes ago, JM_ said:

Media bias and politics are the main issues for sure. 

 

It does surprise me that people have the attitude of "when will the shots end"? we get a new flu shot every year, but no one complains about that? 

 

Lots do actually.  It just isn’t as political so doesn’t get yelled as loudly.