Joe Biden just assured the governorship for Larry Elder

Thistle

Well-known member
Do you have any scientific basis to back up your claim that these vaccines are different in any relevant way. Note that merely indicating some differences doesn't address whether those differences are relevant to the issue of how long it takes for side effects to show up.

This is what I mean about a lack of data to support your position, which makes it a hypothetical.
The relevancy you see in this question indicates to me do you don't appreciate how different these RNA vaccines are from standard vaccines. When these things were proposed they were called vaccines in a functional sense meaning you would take one of these in Iieu of a vaccine and for the same reason. Once they were developed they changed the definition of vaccine to include this.
Exactly where would you draw the cut-off line - how many years - and, very importantly, why at that point?
The asbestosis example shows that there is no cut off. With time confidence increases but it's hard to say much more than that.
You imagine science to be handing down absolute truth from above. It's **always** based on the best data we have, and must always be understood with that caveat. When we get more data, our conclusions may change. That is rational. Science operates differently than, say, politics, where a politician flip-flopping is generally a problem.
Changing the definition of a Covid death is obviously political not scientific. There are people with technical responsibilities who act very politically. This should come as no surprise to you.
Unless you are claiming they are rigging the test results - and you'll need support for that claim - so what? It's good to test people to see if they have a disease (when necessary). I don't see a problem.
The problem is economic not scientific. People respond to financial incentives. If you provide financial incentives to test In such a way that you will get positives on asymptomatic patients, then compare that data to previous epidemics or pandemics, you were going to have incompatible results. In other words, you would predict at the outset that the pandemic with the financial incentives for testing, cannot be used comparatively to give you a sense of whether or not the current pandemic is better worse more severe etc. I'm sorry if you don't see the problem, but I assure you that's a big problem, and economics is something that I know quite a bit about.
What does any of this have to do with the general principle that the - what can I call this for lack of a better word? - "effective death rate" = "nominal death rate" (deaths/cases) X number of cases. That formula may be stupid, but you get my point, I hope.
We know who's dying of Covid. These vulnerable groups need to be protected, and the correct policy prescription is not to mandate vaccines. Is it possible that some vulnerable people will refuse the vaccine, of course. Will some of them contracted Covid and die? Yes. While that is tragic, that's completely consistent with life and death on planet earth as it has been since the beginning of time. What we have found is that people are making rational choices and you will find a vaccine hesitancy to be much lower in people who are most vulnerable, and that's a rational risk reward trade off.
I only meant that *someone* had to be clear about what we were talking about.
Fair enough.
You had asked me if it was my opinion whether Covid would be eradicated. I replied that my earlier comments should not be considered predictions - which is what you were asking me to do. That's all.

I don't need to make a prediction to know that just because something is labeled endemic doesn't mean that it might no be eradicated. I'm speaking generally, with no regard to Covid. It was a question about the implications of something - any disease - being endemic.
It sounds much less likely that we are going to eradication an endemic health problem, then stop a pandemic, and fundamentally were discussing what's a rational public policy prescription to take. If COVID-19 is endemic by the end of next month, which is what the predictions are, here in the United States, the potential pay off of a mandatory vaccine policy becomes far less defensible. The damage to liberty in the face of government overreach looms much larger. That's all I'm saying.
I don't see how that answers my question. If you can't point to something, then is appears as if, even though something is endemic, that doesn't mean that it might be be eradicated (or at least reduced to a level where the population can basically ignore it).


Of course not, the CDC and WHO do know about viruses. And their definition has nothing to do with an endemic disease being incapable of being eradicated.


I have not conceding that. Has the CDC made two proclamations? (1) Covid is endemic. (2) Covid can never be eradicated to the level that the general population won't have to care about it, like we don't care very much at all about polio.
The general population will care about this as long as the left-wing press uses it to Poison the Well against the Republican Party. That's not a medical question! And it doesn't have a public policy solution.
No that hasn't been the issue at all. I decline to go any further with the southern border, we've got a lot on the plate anyway.
Then what could possibly be the justification for a mandatory vaccine policy? The only rationale that I can see is that unvaccinated people are a source of spreading Covid. How do you distinguish that from people pouring over the southern border being a source of spreading Covid? From a public policy perspective shouldn't matter that you get Covid from a citizen or an illegal alien from Guatemala? You need to understand for the record I am not anti-immigration. I'm the only person in my house who doesn't speak fluent Spanish. My wife grew up in Costa Rica and migrated to the United States as a young adult. The current border situation is just as big a problem for immigrants as it is for native born Americans.
Speaking of which, it's OK with me if, at some point, one of us pulls the plug, see diminishing returns, and ends this conversation. It might be me soon, we'll see.
I totally understand.
This is just a declaration on your part and ignores what it is in reply to: that being endemic does not say that it can't be eradicated for all intents and purposes.
You said something about malaria being different because of mosquitoes. Let's remember that most of the time that we've been talking about Covid the vector of transmission was through animals. It's only recently that it has been fashionable to speculate that it might've come from the Wuhan lab. But the idea of this virus couldn't exist in animals like malaria exists in mosquitoes, doesn't seem to make much sense to me. Therefore the probability of eradicating this kind of an endemic disease strikes me as a longshot.
You don't live in a bubble. You can be asymptomatic, not know you have it, and infect someone else. If many, many people do that, many, many other people will die. That's why we need many, many people to get vaccinated.
Vaccinated people die or unvaccinated people die? If people have agency for their own self preservation what does that imply about this argument?
All you doing is think about yourself, and I don't mean that as a pejorative, as the phrase is usually understood (although I'm using the emotional power of that to make a point). Public health emergencies can not be considered on a purely individual level; that's not acknowledging reality.
This is the health equivalent of economics. The greatest possible good for all is each person using their judgment to best take care of themself. That is the very essence of economics, capitalism, and good health policy.
 

Thistle

Well-known member
On a different sub topic,

This was written in 1989 about seat belts. This may well be relevant for your position, as you may well reject seat belts laws on the same basis as vaccine/testing mandates. But if you don’t, then . . . .
States actually have greater ability to write laws that affect everyone, then does the federal government under our constitution. Principally I agree with the sentiment, but states having state seatbelt laws is less of a problem constitutionally.
 

Bob1

Well-known member
If I did I wouldn't of gone to one of the top universities for law and business in the country. Nor would I have sent my daughter to Drake University where she graduated magna cum laude. It's usually at the prost graduate level where they really get serious about turning people into total imbeciles.

That comment couldn't be more orthodox if it came from the post graduate fever swamp of the Georgetown faculty lounge.
Apparently you didn't learn much, if what you said is true. If you valued education you wouldn't be falling for tRump's lies or the anti-vaxxer conspiracy nonsense.

It's a plain fact that Elders is a kook.
 

Thistle

Well-known member
Apparently you didn't learn much, if what you said is true.
That's the thing about the business school, they don't prioritize indoctrination to the exclusion of thinking to the same degree as many of the other departments. Turns out in business thinking is still required. Go figure!
If you valued education you wouldn't be falling for tRump's lies or the anti-vaxxer conspiracy nonsense.
If you valued knowledge you would know that Donald Trump recommends that people get these vaccines every time somebody asks him about it. You might ask your left wing handler's to issue you some updated talking points sheets. Clearly the ones that you have aren't serving you well.
It's a plain fact that Elders is a kook.
I'd give my eyeteeth to see you in a debate with Larry Elder.
 

Gus Bovona

Well-known member
The relevancy you see in this question indicates to me do you don't appreciate how different these RNA vaccines are from standard vaccines. When these things were proposed they were called vaccines in a functional sense meaning you would take one of these in Iieu of a vaccine and for the same reason. Once they were developed they changed the definition of vaccine to include this.
That did not answer my question: I'm looking for a scientific basis on which to distinguish the vaccines, and a scientific basis as to why it is relevant to how long side-effects might take to appear.

The asbestosis example shows that there is no cut off. With time confidence increases but it's hard to say much more than that.
So where would you draw the line, and why? I hope you understand that the line *does*need to be drawn (or acknowledge that we can never approve any medicine or drug). How many years out do we approve the drug without knowing if side effects will occur in a longer time?

Changing the definition of a Covid death is obviously political not scientific.
Why can't it (wasn't it) be scientific?

There are people with technical responsibilities who act very politically. This should come as no surprise to you.
Yes, but you need evidence that it happened in this case.
The problem is economic not scientific. People respond to financial incentives. If you provide financial incentives to test In such a way that you will get positives on asymptomatic patients, then compare that data to previous epidemics or pandemics, you were going to have incompatible results. In other words, you would predict at the outset that the pandemic with the financial incentives for testing, cannot be used comparatively to give you a sense of whether or not the current pandemic is better worse more severe etc. I'm sorry if you don't see the problem, but I assure you that's a big problem, and economics is something that I know quite a bit about.
Which of those non-comparable results were pertinent to what policy? I didn't see much policy driven on comparison to previous epidemics, I saw policy being driven on what was going to happen currently based on current data. In other words, even if what you say is true, so what?

We know who's dying of Covid. These vulnerable groups need to be protected, and the correct policy prescription is not to mandate vaccines. Is it possible that some vulnerable people will refuse the vaccine, of course. Will some of them contracted Covid and die? Yes. While that is tragic, that's completely consistent with life and death on planet earth as it has been since the beginning of time. What we have found is that people are making rational choices and you will find a vaccine hesitancy to be much lower in people who are most vulnerable, and that's a rational risk reward trade off.
This has nothing to do with whether you understand that death/cases ≠ death/cases times transmissibility. the principle that you are resisting acknowledging is that the number of deaths that will occur is not just a function of deaths/cases. Do you acknowledge that?

It sounds much less likely that we are going to eradication an endemic health problem, then stop a pandemic, and fundamentally were discussing what's a rational public policy prescription to take. If COVID-19 is endemic by the end of next month, which is what the predictions are, here in the United States, the potential pay off of a mandatory vaccine policy becomes far less defensible. The damage to liberty in the face of government overreach looms much larger. That's all I'm saying.
Now THAT sounds like a rational estimation and balance of relevant factors. However, here's this (source):
The expectation that COVID-19 will become endemic essentially means that the pandemic will not end with the virus disappearing; instead, the optimistic view is that enough people will gain immune protection from vaccination and from natural infection such that there will be less transmission and much less COVID-19-related hospitalization and death, even as the virus continues to circulate.
Note that the speaker is hoping that enough people will be hospitalized and survive infection that transmission drops to minimal levels.

So how someone estimates whether the downside of a mandate is worth the benefit depends partially on whether a view of a population or society as a whole is ever relevant. You've indicated several times that, for you, it's hardly relevant, if at all. That is an important factor in how all that adds up.

I'm also wondering when an endemic might be declared, by who, and on what criteria.

The general population will care about this as long as the left-wing press uses it to Poison the Well against the Republican Party. That's not a medical question! And it doesn't have a public policy solution.
You did not address whether something endemic can still be eradicated. A positive answer to that question would make your points about the endemic less relevant.

Then what could possibly be the justification for a mandatory vaccine policy? The only rationale that I can see is that unvaccinated people are a source of spreading Covid. How do you distinguish that from people pouring over the southern border being a source of spreading Covid? From a public policy perspective shouldn't matter that you get Covid from a citizen or an illegal alien from Guatemala? You need to understand for the record I am not anti-immigration. I'm the only person in my house who doesn't speak fluent Spanish. My wife grew up in Costa Rica and migrated to the United States as a young adult. The current border situation is just as big a problem for immigrants as it is for native born Americans.
I'm going to take a pass on that one. Too many pans in the fire, and other points are more pertinent.

I totally understand.
Thanks.

You said something about malaria being different because of mosquitoes. Let's remember that most of the time that we've been talking about Covid the vector of transmission was through animals. It's only recently that it has been fashionable to speculate that it might've come from the Wuhan lab. But the idea of this virus couldn't exist in animals like malaria exists in mosquitoes, doesn't seem to make much sense to me. Therefore the probability of eradicating this kind of an endemic disease strikes me as a longshot.
Sure, it could, hypothetically, exist in animals like malaria does in mosquitos, but malaria is *so* widespread, there's no data that shows that Covid is anything close. In fact, if you allow me to make up some science (!), it would seem to me that the initial outbreak of a disease would be the situation in which the disease is not at all widespread. Covid travelled around the world through people, not animals.

Vaccinated people die or unvaccinated people die? If people have agency for their own self preservation what does that imply about this argument?
Again and again you only look at an individual as an individual, but the virus doesn't look at things that way. Individual A can well die of Covid if they don't get vaccinated, but in the process infect individual B and kill them, or make them very sick, or give them long-term Covid. And maybe infect individual C, too, who then gives it to D, E, F, G, and H.

This is the health equivalent of economics. The greatest possible good for all is each person using their judgment to best take care of themself. That is the very essence of economics, capitalism, and good health policy.
I completely reject unfettered capitalism. The blend of free markets AND regulation is ideal, recognizing that you can go too far in either direction.
 

Gus Bovona

Well-known member
States actually have greater ability to write laws that affect everyone, then does the federal government under our constitution. Principally I agree with the sentiment, but states having state seatbelt laws is less of a problem constitutionally.
So you'd have no problem if a state instituted the same vaccine/testing mandate that Biden did federally?
 

Thistle

Well-known member
So you'd have no problem if a state instituted the same vaccine/testing mandate that Biden did federally?
No, when it comes to individual rights the constitution does restrain laws even written by the states. But the point of my comment was that most of the authority to write laws resides in the states with comparatively few exceptions.
 

Gus Bovona

Well-known member
No, when it comes to individual rights the constitution does restrain laws even written by the states. But the point of my comment was that most of the authority to write laws resides in the states with comparatively few exceptions.
Then the state v feds doing a vaccine/testing mandate isn't a very significant issue. The significant issues would still be there even if the states were doing a vaccine/testing mandate.
 

Thistle

Well-known member
That did not answer my question: I'm looking for a scientific basis on which to distinguish the vaccines, and a scientific basis as to why it is relevant to how long side-effects might take to appear.
I'm not a scientist and I don't pretend to be. And if you're a scientist you've been very restrained to not let that slip out in the conversation. But I can appreciate the difference between getting a broad spectrum of different kinds of immunity like traditional vaccines provide (including T cell immunity) and eliciting a RNA spike that presumably is supposed to be limited to the location where you got the injection. Which additionally is not supposed to cause any problems down the line. For everyone sake is getting this vaccine, I hope that's the case. But I don't want to be the guinea pig. There is a standard technology vaccine in the offing and I intend to take that. From an investment standpoint I've done very well with Novavax I've done a lot of due diligence on the company, and the management team, and their technology and I'm quite comfortable with it.

On a different subject did you view that video?
So where would you draw the line, and why?
So you want me to promulgate a rule so that you can use it to disqualify my objection? What happens if I (like the founders of this great country) like the deliberative of approach? You know like that process that led to the writing of our constitution, the Federalist papers? The great virtue of that was that the federalists and the anti-federalists achieved consensus. I would submit to you that most of what we're ultimately going to know about these new vaccines we don't yet know.
I hope you understand that the line *does*need to be drawn (or acknowledge that we can never approve any medicine or drug).
I understand that this kind of ultimatum is necessary to bulldoze through deliberation.
How many years out do we approve the drug without knowing if side effects will occur in a longer time?
Do you not remember the fiasco with the swine flu vaccine? That was among the stupidest decisions that Gerald Ford ever made.
Why can't it (wasn't it) be scientific?
There's nothing scientific about measuring in fathoms, then switching to inches, and ending up with meters, where you don't correct any of the data going back. That is colloquially called adding apples to oranges.
Yes, but you need evidence that it happened in this case.
Actually, I can apply judgment to this question, no problem. They were still teaching people how to think when I went to school. You're interrogating common sense like the grand inquisitors. The left is always all about "common sense" when it comes to promulgating a new gun law. It doesn't get the same warm reception went to stands in the way of one of the left's priorities.
Which of those non-comparable results were pertinent to what policy? I didn't see much policy driven on comparison to previous epidemics, I saw policy being driven on what was going to happen currently based on current data. In other words, even if what you say is true, so what?
The data that is being featured prominently in the policy discussion is the prevalence of cases of Covid. That number is highly dependent on the level of testing that you're doing. As a result we are justifying taking measures that would never have been justified in the past, because were using a different metric to get to those policy prescriptions. Specifically in this case were talking about a vaccine mandate.
This has nothing to do with whether you understand that death/cases ≠ death/cases times transmissibility. the principle that you are resisting acknowledging is that the number of deaths that will occur is not just a function of deaths/cases. Do you acknowledge that?
I'm pretty sure that's not a linear function.
Now THAT sounds like a rational estimation and balance of relevant factors. However, here's this (source):
Note that the speaker is hoping that enough people will be hospitalized and survive infection that transmission drops to minimal levels.
Read that again. The speaker doesn't say anything about hospitalized cases being necessary for the favorable result. He simply talking about total cases. I would expect a lot of those cases are gonna be asymptomatic, and people are never going to know they had it, until after the fact, when the antibody shows up in some screening. Reduce hospitalization is referred to as part and parcel of the favorable result.
So how someone estimates whether the downside of a mandate is worth the benefit depends partially on whether a view of a population or society as a whole is ever relevant. You've indicated several times that, for you, it's hardly relevant, if at all. That is an important factor in how all that adds up.
If you're going to have liberty (which I admittedly believe that everyone should prioritize highly) going around the circle and asking everyone how they feel about it will never reliably assure liberty. Going around the circle and asking everyone how they feel about it, is how you end up with the tyranny of the majority.
 

Thistle

Well-known member
I'm also wondering when an endemic might be declared, by who, and on what criteria.
Well, the National Bureau of Economic Research decides when the recession begins and ends. But those dates are fixed looking backward. I expect if there is an equivalent here, the same would apply.
You did not address whether something endemic can still be eradicated. A positive answer to that question would make your points about the endemic less relevant.
As a practical matter, can we eradicate an endemic disease in our lifetime, I expect the answer to that is not universal. But what seems to be behind the question is the idea that if we can find one example this could be the second example so your argument is intact, and I don't buy that.
I'm going to take a pass on that one. Too many pans in the fire, and other points are more pertinent.
You don't have to respond, but I have to point out it's not a different policy question, it's the same policy question. You could put every American citizen in solitary confinement inject them with whatever you like to stop the spread of Covid and if you let a constant flow of illegal immigrants over the southern border, you're still gonna have Covid in the United States. This is not a different policy question it's the same policy question.
Yes, and to be clear I'm not trying to force the issue on you. I'm putting the argument in for any reader who may have the patience or tolerance of boredom to actually get through these posts.
Sure, it could, hypothetically, exist in animals like malaria does in mosquitos, but malaria is *so* widespread, there's no data that shows that Covid is anything close. In fact, if you allow me to make up some science (!), it would seem to me that the initial outbreak of a disease would be the situation in which the disease is not at all widespread. Covid travelled around the world through people, not animals.
I wish I could put this argument in a time machine and go back a year, when we were all assured that if you didn't stipulate COVID-19 came from bats in the fresh market you were a conspiracy theorist. I don't think Biden is going to be able to get Chinese bats to social distance.
Again and again you only look at an individual as an individual, but the virus doesn't look at things that way.
Because liberty is sacrosanct and nowhere is liberty more sacrosanct than forcibly being injected with an experimental drug. Literally, what you're arguing for is a violation of the Geneva Convention. Because this is exactly what the Nazis did. Theoretically this shouldn't even be a question, because treaties even trump the constitution.
Individual A can well die of Covid if they don't get vaccinated, but in the process infect individual B
Let's talk about B. B is a very interesting fellow. Does B have agency for his own health?
and kill them,
Who is doing the killing here, A? If that's the case, I guess B didn't have agency for his own health. Because if B did have agency for his own health, he chose the risk of contracting Covid over the risk of whatever the consequences of taking the vaccine might be. So the responsibility for B's death belongs to B, if B has agency for his own health.
or make them very sick, or give them long-term Covid.
So we decided B doesn't have agency for his own health… Who did he lose it to?
And maybe infect individual C, too, who then gives it to D, E, F, G, and H.
Ah, I see now, the same people who took the agency from CDEFG & H. Joe Biden will henceforth be, "special agent no agency."
I completely reject unfettered capitalism.
So you're going back to the theory that people work better in fetters. Does that depend on who's wearing them?
The blend of free markets AND regulation is ideal, recognizing that you can go too far in either direction.
The devil is in the details.
 

Gus Bovona

Well-known member
I'm not a scientist and I don't pretend to be. And if you're a scientist you've been very restrained to not let that slip out in the conversation. But I can appreciate the difference between getting a broad spectrum of different kinds of immunity like traditional vaccines provide (including T cell immunity) and eliciting a RNA spike that presumably is supposed to be limited to the location where you got the injection. Which additionally is not supposed to cause any problems down the line. For everyone sake is getting this vaccine, I hope that's the case. But I don't want to be the guinea pig. There is a standard technology vaccine in the offing and I intend to take that. From an investment standpoint I've done very well with Novavax I've done a lot of due diligence on the company, and the management team, and their technology and I'm quite comfortable with it.
So you have nothing by which to say that some difference between vaccines is relevant to the issue of side effects showing up past two months or so. *That* is what a hypothetical is.
On a different subject did you view that video?
Sorry, what video?

So you want me to promulgate a rule so that you can use it to disqualify my objection? What happens if I (like the founders of this great country) like the deliberative of approach? You know like that process that led to the writing of our constitution, the Federalist papers? The great virtue of that was that the federalists and the anti-federalists achieved consensus. I would submit to you that most of what we're ultimately going to know about these new vaccines we don't yet know.
No, I wanted you to show you that, no matter what time limit you set, someone could come along and, with the same justification you're using, claim that we hadn't studied it enough and even longer-term side effects would be possible.

The idea that you submit is based on no actual data. On that basis is should be ignored for scientific conclusions.

I understand that this kind of ultimatum is necessary to bulldoze through deliberation.
See above.

Do you not remember the fiasco with the swine flu vaccine? That was among the stupidest decisions that Gerald Ford ever made.
What exactly was the problem with the swing flu vaccine that you're talking about? There might have been several.

There's nothing scientific about measuring in fathoms, then switching to inches, and ending up with meters, where you don't correct any of the data going back. That is colloquially called adding apples to oranges.
This definition issue doesn't matter when you can't articulate why some difference in the Covid vaccines matters in terms of side effects past two months.

Actually, I can apply judgment to this question, no problem. They were still teaching people how to think when I went to school. You're interrogating common sense like the grand inquisitors. The left is always all about "common sense" when it comes to promulgating a new gun law. It doesn't get the same warm reception went to stands in the way of one of the left's priorities.
I'm not the left. I've interrogated Critical Race Theory, too. Everything is fair game if you want to think clearly. And, you still need evidence for claims. If you think asking for evidence for a claim is interrogating, then that says something all by itself.

The data that is being featured prominently in the policy discussion is the prevalence of cases of Covid. That number is highly dependent on the level of testing that you're doing. As a result we are justifying taking measures that would never have been justified in the past, because were using a different metric to get to those policy prescriptions. Specifically in this case were talking about a vaccine mandate.
Do you have a link where it is featured prominently? the prevalence of cases of Covid is determined, as far as I can tell, NOT by comparing it to previous pandemics, and using that data would be nonsensical anyway, for measuring current covid cases.

I'm pretty sure that's not a linear function.
I didn't say it was. Resistance to incorporating transmissibility into predicted numbers of deaths is intellectually dishonest.

Read that again. The speaker doesn't say anything about hospitalized cases being necessary for the favorable result. He simply talking about total cases. I would expect a lot of those cases are gonna be asymptomatic, and people are never going to know they had it, until after the fact, when the antibody shows up in some screening. Reduce hospitalization is referred to as part and parcel of the favorable result.
Sorry, I wrote that sentence poorly. What I meant was that the speaker was hopeful that the combination of people with immunity because they got Covid (and survived) plus people with immunity because they got the vaccination, would together reduce the levels down to something manageable.

If you're going to have liberty (which I admittedly believe that everyone should prioritize highly) going around the circle and asking everyone how they feel about it will never reliably assure liberty. Going around the circle and asking everyone how they feel about it, is how you end up with the tyranny of the majority.
Perhaps. I didn't mean to imply that I was suggesting anything like going around the circle.
 

Gus Bovona

Well-known member
Well, the National Bureau of Economic Research decides when the recession begins and ends. But those dates are fixed looking backward. I expect if there is an equivalent here, the same would apply.
So it's not endemic yet? Don't we have a chance to make it not endemic?

As a practical matter, can we eradicate an endemic disease in our lifetime, I expect the answer to that is not universal. But what seems to be behind the question is the idea that if we can find one example this could be the second example so your argument is intact, and I don't buy that.
My logic is working not so much on some second example, but merely that, if there's nothing inherent in an endemic disease that makes it permanent, then it can go away and we can try to make it go away. No, whether that is more likely to be successful or not in any particular circumstance depends on other factors, but just the fact that it is endemic doesn't mean it can't go away. Which is what I think you were arguing when you first brought up "endemic."

Yes, and to be clear I'm not trying to force the issue on you. I'm putting the argument in for any reader who may have the patience or tolerance of boredom to actually get through these posts.
Poor soul! ; )

I wish I could put this argument in a time machine and go back a year, when we were all assured that if you didn't stipulate COVID-19 came from bats in the fresh market you were a conspiracy theorist. I don't think Biden is going to be able to get Chinese bats to social distance.
The point has nothing to do with where it came from. The point is that, no matter where it came from, it is people, not anything else, that is driving its spread around the world.

Because liberty is sacrosanct and nowhere is liberty more sacrosanct than forcibly being injected with an experimental drug. Literally, what you're arguing for is a violation of the Geneva Convention. Because this is exactly what the Nazis did. Theoretically this shouldn't even be a question, because treaties even trump the constitution.
That statement is incoherent because you've declined the opportunity to actually define what you mean by "experimental" in that context.

Let's talk about B. B is a very interesting fellow. Does B have agency for his own health?
Not completely, no one does. Congenital diseases occur without the agency of the individual. Actually, being in good health has a strong component of not being within the agency of the individual, as one's genes are not within one's agency.
Who is doing the killing here, A? If that's the case, I guess B didn't have agency for his own health. Because if B did have agency for his own health, he chose the risk of contracting Covid over the risk of whatever the consequences of taking the vaccine might be. So the responsibility for B's death belongs to B, if B has agency for his own health.
A and B share responsibility for B's death, don't they? I'm not speaking legally.

So we decided B doesn't have agency for his own health… Who did he lose it to?
See above.

Ah, I see now, the same people who took the agency from CDEFG & H. Joe Biden will henceforth be, "special agent no agency."
See above.

So you're going back to the theory that people work better in fetters. Does that depend on who's wearing them?
What empty rhetoric. We all live under laws that restrict us, or put us in fetters, in your words.

The devil is in the details.
Absolutely. It's something we can screw up in either direction.
 

Gus Bovona

Well-known member
No, it's very significant. The whole principle of federalism turns on it.
OMG, this is so tedious. It's insignificant for the issue we were talking about. For the problems of the vaccine/testing mandate, not the problems of federalism.
 

Thistle

Well-known member
So you have nothing by which to say that some difference between vaccines is relevant to the issue of side effects showing up past two months or so. *That* is what a hypothetical is.
If you're knocking on the possibility of my point you've totally failed. These vaccines didn't exist two years ago they are not standard vaccine technology and it is perfectly rational to be concerned that they might cause problems down the road. In fact two years ago these would not have been called vaccines.
Sorry, what video?

It's not directly relevant I just wondered if you had any thoughts.
No, I wanted you to show you that, no matter what time limit you set, someone could come along and, with the same justification you're using, claim that we hadn't studied it enough and even longer-term side effects would be possible.

The idea that you submit is based on no actual data. On that basis is should be ignored for scientific conclusions.
This is a policy question. Neither one of us or scientists as far as I know. 100% of policy questions balance competing considerations. Liberty is the big competing consideration in this issue. Substituting your scientific judgment for somebody else's scientific judgment when none of us are scientists doesn't really advance the ball. The rush to make a decision, quick before we have better information, is not helpful.
See above.


What exactly was the problem with the swing flu vaccine that you're talking about? There might have been several.
First problem was Ford made vaccine mandatory, and the second problem was it led to several hundred cases of Guillain-Barré syndrome, which is particularly regrettable because there's no cure.
This definition issue doesn't matter when you can't articulate why some difference in the Covid vaccines matters in terms of side effects past two months.
You're comparing vaccines definition A to vaccines definition B and treating them interchangeably. They're not interchangeable. You can't generalize from one to the other.
I'm not the left. I've interrogated Critical Race Theory, too. Everything is fair game if you want to think clearly. And, you still need evidence for claims. If you think asking for evidence for a claim is interrogating, then that says something all by itself.
Yes, it says that when Ford made the swine flu vaccine mandatory there was no evidence that it would cause Guillain-Barré syndrome.
Do you have a link where it is featured prominently? the prevalence of cases of Covid is determined, as far as I can tell, NOT by comparing it to previous pandemics, and using that data would be nonsensical anyway, for measuring current covid cases.
And there's plenty more where these came from:

I didn't say it was. Resistance to incorporating transmissibility into predicted numbers of deaths is intellectually dishonest.
No, it's countermanded by the countervailing point that everyone who does not have one of these RNA vaccines has chosen not to. They have chosen one set of risks over and against another.
Sorry, I wrote that sentence poorly. What I meant was that the speaker was hopeful that the combination of people with immunity because they got Covid (and survived) plus people with immunity because they got the vaccination, would together reduce the levels down to something manageable.
I expect this will resolve itself that way. I still intend to take the Novavax vaccine.
Perhaps. I didn't mean to imply that I was suggesting anything like going around the circle.
I'm not particularly wild about leaving it up to "government experts" who are insulated from political accountability either.
 

Gus Bovona

Well-known member
Thistle, I think I've come to the end of our discussion. I hope we've both learned something.

Be careful out there.

Gus
If you're knocking on the possibility of my point you've totally failed. These vaccines didn't exist two years ago they
 

Thistle

Well-known member
OMG, this is so tedious. It's insignificant for the issue we were talking about. For the problems of the vaccine/testing mandate, not the problems of federalism.
If we're not addressing issues like federalism where it's at stake, in this deliberation then we are on longer really considering a public policy question. There are problems that arise of the state level to, and we got to pay attention to those as well. To my mind these are crucial for deciding all public policy questions.
 

Bob1

Well-known member
That's the thing about the business school, they don't prioritize indoctrination to the exclusion of thinking to the same degree as many of the other departments. Turns out in business thinking is still required. Go figure!

If you valued knowledge you would know that Donald Trump recommends that people get these vaccines every time somebody asks him about it. You might ask your left wing handler's to issue you some updated talking points sheets. Clearly the ones that you have aren't serving you well.

I'd give my eyeteeth to see you in a debate with Larry Elder.
Apparently business school thinking isn't too wise... if it leads you to fall for anti-vaxxer conspiracy nonsense.

I know he recommends the vaccines. And a lot of his cultists still can't think their way past the anti-vaxxer nonsense. I was referring to those that can't see tRump's lies about the election. He lost, plain as day.

Elders wouldn't last long. The fact that you people think he's someone worth electing demonstrates a LACK of thought.
 

Mike McK

Well-known member
Are you ready for red state California?

Joe Biden's incoherent speech about no more Mr. Nice Guy with Covid vaccines, is the final straw. These vaccines which allegedly work require, everyone to get vaccinated? Because apparently they don't work. If you're cowering under the table with your mask on completely vaccinated, you're unvaccinated neighbor is not going to cause you to die of COVID-19, in spite of Joe Biden's fear mongering that he's protecting you from your unvaccinated Trump voting neighbor.

For months Joe Biden has been assuring us that he doesn't have the power to mandate vaccines, right before he gives a speech in which he makes it clear he's mandating vaccines. The dyed in the wool Democrat voters and Hubert Humphrey liberals are completely unaware of how independence are viewing the Biden administration's performance so far. This is the last straw, prepare for governor Elder.
Didn't work out that way. Never underestimate the stupidity of Californians.
 
Top