Table 2, 3 and 4 are about different aspects. Table 2 deals with cases testing positive without going into severity of disease while Table 3 and 4 deal only with data about severe cases and terminal ones. Figure 2 makes bar charts of parts of these tables, which maybe clarifying for some.
While it puts the maths right, Page 12 is outright misleading about possible causes. The interpretations therein are carefully worded to guide the uninitiated reader to look away from the vaccines themselves as cause of anything bad.
Another pertinent aspect is that only table 2 (and corresponding figure on page 17) has data relevant to the spread of the virus itself and how vaccination is affecting it; and it does appear that covid is spreading faster in the vaccinated, at least for higher age groups.
While Table 3 and 4 may hint that vaccines are reducing serious illness and deaths, the virus has already proven that it mutates and faster spreading of it will ultimately accelerate mutations and Table 3 and 4 will progressively look worse with passage of time.
yes i agree with most of that. i think most people who are interested in this stuff, and are scientifically literate, will be familiar with those problems, and are still pro vaccine. just a couple of things.
what’s a better interpretation than page 12? it sounded fine to me.
this is real world data, not a randomised trial. there are lots of confounding factors. this kind of record is no substitute for a rigorous research study.
Literacy doesn’t make people any less opinionated. Nor do opinions affect truth. Opinions only affect individual and collective decisions. For instance, if Titanic is sinking, no amount of opinions or voting against the fact of sinking will make any difference to the fact that it is sinking. Opinions only affect what people will do while it is sinking. Similarly, what people think about vaccines doesn’t affect vaccines’ actual impact.
To put my position on record:
I am okay with vaccines as long as people are not coerced into getting vaccinated. Vaccination must be voluntary.
Everyone opting to get vaccinated must be made aware that covid vaccines are still not fully tested, despite millions or billions of vaccines already administered.
Pretending that ill effects of vaccines aren’t there isn’t just ethically wrong, it is criminally dangerous. Let people make intelligent, informed choice, rather than behaving like sheep.
Now, as for the two specific points you raised:
If one removes the pro-vaccine disclaimers, page 12 does get the summary of the math right. That is all there should be on that page.
There are prior concerns here: why vaccines have been hurriedly unleashed on the world, without conducting necessary randomised trials? why are we pretending that all is well while real world data is showing otherwise, and randomised trial data isn’t there?
There is much to be skeptical about, but we are collectively grasping on straws. Not the finest hour of mankind.
I agree, but would go even further. Coersion in general can be dangerous in an epidemic. If everyone is forced to do the same thing (like take a vaccine or work from home or wear a mask or anything) and then it turns out there’s a problem with doing that, 100% of people have that problem and your society is in big trouble. For example if working from home causes obesity in 5% of people, then you have a medical emergency coming up. And the problem could be anything, you can’t predict these things. Every action has unknown unintended consequences. If there is no coercion and people all react in slightly different but mostly sensible ways, you get the same important behavioural change but without the making your society fragile.
Then, you’re leaving the responsibility to individuals, not taking it on yourself. If as president you force everyone to take a vaccine and that vaccine causes 1% of people to die, you are personally responsible for those deaths. If you make it optional, and most people take it, and some of them die, they are individually responsible.
But politicians think they are smarter than most people, which they are not. Most unusually stupid people think they are unusually intelligent. That leads to politicians having this arrogance that they can, and should, make personal decisions for other people.
2 and 3. The people who say that are just ignorant. The details of vaccine risks are online. You can understand them better than the average politician. They cause heart attacks, and other stuff I forget, in some tiny fraction of people. But in the case of covid, getting vaccinated is much safer than not.
page 12 does get the summary of the math right
Okay.
That’s the kind of question with no real answer. You can say, evil money and power and corruption, or because of dire emergency, or because vaccines are the best most effective remedy, or because of foolish short-sighted politicians and group think. All these answers are correct. You can argue which one is more correct, you can argue than forever and never convince anyone. Some people do!
While the position I expressed above pertains to vaccines, I am generally aligned with voluntaryism and hold that coersion is wrong in all matters. Being non-voluntary, after all, is the only thing that differentiates rape from sex, and scam from trade.
I feel we are both in harmony on points 1 to 4. I disagree on point 5. Real answers do exist even if we haven’t agreed upon them as yet. Public debate, even social media debate, is a way to form, refine or change opinions of individuals, ideally. Let us not treat it as anything less.
Yes great. But I still insist there’s two separate problems. Firstly yes you’re raping/scamming the very people who pay your salary. Or as I’d put it, stripping their civil rights (in many territories the measures which were taken are actually illegal/unconstitutional).
But the second thing is that it is counterproductive. For example in France the government first banned wearing masks, then enforced it. They first enforced all children goin to school, then enforced all children stopping school.
If they had not done that, many people would have started wearing masks and stopped going to school much earlier. Many lives would have been saved. The best government action would have been to do nothing and allow people to decide for themselves. By relying on the collective intelligence of society, you get a better outcome than relying on your own intelligence. To think otherwise is just the arrogance of the stupid.
But don’t get me started on that can of worms, the credibility/competence of governance in Frenace.
Table 2, 3 and 4 are about different aspects. Table 2 deals with cases testing positive without going into severity of disease while Table 3 and 4 deal only with data about severe cases and terminal ones. Figure 2 makes bar charts of parts of these tables, which maybe clarifying for some.
While it puts the maths right, Page 12 is outright misleading about possible causes. The interpretations therein are carefully worded to guide the uninitiated reader to look away from the vaccines themselves as cause of anything bad.
Another pertinent aspect is that only table 2 (and corresponding figure on page 17) has data relevant to the spread of the virus itself and how vaccination is affecting it; and it does appear that covid is spreading faster in the vaccinated, at least for higher age groups.
While Table 3 and 4 may hint that vaccines are reducing serious illness and deaths, the virus has already proven that it mutates and faster spreading of it will ultimately accelerate mutations and Table 3 and 4 will progressively look worse with passage of time.
yes i agree with most of that. i think most people who are interested in this stuff, and are scientifically literate, will be familiar with those problems, and are still pro vaccine. just a couple of things.
what’s a better interpretation than page 12? it sounded fine to me.
this is real world data, not a randomised trial. there are lots of confounding factors. this kind of record is no substitute for a rigorous research study.
Literacy doesn’t make people any less opinionated. Nor do opinions affect truth. Opinions only affect individual and collective decisions. For instance, if Titanic is sinking, no amount of opinions or voting against the fact of sinking will make any difference to the fact that it is sinking. Opinions only affect what people will do while it is sinking. Similarly, what people think about vaccines doesn’t affect vaccines’ actual impact.
To put my position on record:
Now, as for the two specific points you raised:
There is much to be skeptical about, but we are collectively grasping on straws. Not the finest hour of mankind.
Then, you’re leaving the responsibility to individuals, not taking it on yourself. If as president you force everyone to take a vaccine and that vaccine causes 1% of people to die, you are personally responsible for those deaths. If you make it optional, and most people take it, and some of them die, they are individually responsible.
But politicians think they are smarter than most people, which they are not. Most unusually stupid people think they are unusually intelligent. That leads to politicians having this arrogance that they can, and should, make personal decisions for other people.
2 and 3. The people who say that are just ignorant. The details of vaccine risks are online. You can understand them better than the average politician. They cause heart attacks, and other stuff I forget, in some tiny fraction of people. But in the case of covid, getting vaccinated is much safer than not.
That’s the kind of question with no real answer. You can say, evil money and power and corruption, or because of dire emergency, or because vaccines are the best most effective remedy, or because of foolish short-sighted politicians and group think. All these answers are correct. You can argue which one is more correct, you can argue than forever and never convince anyone. Some people do!
While the position I expressed above pertains to vaccines, I am generally aligned with voluntaryism and hold that coersion is wrong in all matters. Being non-voluntary, after all, is the only thing that differentiates rape from sex, and scam from trade.
I feel we are both in harmony on points 1 to 4. I disagree on point 5. Real answers do exist even if we haven’t agreed upon them as yet. Public debate, even social media debate, is a way to form, refine or change opinions of individuals, ideally. Let us not treat it as anything less.
Yes great. But I still insist there’s two separate problems. Firstly yes you’re raping/scamming the very people who pay your salary. Or as I’d put it, stripping their civil rights (in many territories the measures which were taken are actually illegal/unconstitutional).
But the second thing is that it is counterproductive. For example in France the government first banned wearing masks, then enforced it. They first enforced all children goin to school, then enforced all children stopping school.
If they had not done that, many people would have started wearing masks and stopped going to school much earlier. Many lives would have been saved. The best government action would have been to do nothing and allow people to decide for themselves. By relying on the collective intelligence of society, you get a better outcome than relying on your own intelligence. To think otherwise is just the arrogance of the stupid.
But don’t get me started on that can of worms, the credibility/competence of governance in Frenace.