Contagion spreading among the vaccinated

[Pohemi]

I think one of the reasons this has gotten so heated is that it became political. Obviously there are political consequence to many of these topics.

Nice attempt to deflect from how you're repeatedly used circular reasoning, bullshit claims, and contrarianism for 30 fucking pages of this thread.
You've been called out repeatedly and told EXACTLY what was wrong with your statements and posts, and here you are, still trying to play dumb, sidestep or ignore facts, make ridiculous and bullshit (or simply misrepresentative) claims, while discounting or ignoring others with actual verifiable evidence, and distracting from the original topic and purpose of the thread.

It's a political topic, to be sure...as the GQP has made it that way. But that's not really what went sideways here. That's been ALL you, and it's obviously been fully intentional on your part. Don't bother continuing to play dumb about it.

Just because you decided to be a fucking clown, doesn't mean anyone else is required to appease your supposed (and bullshit) quest for knowledge. You demonstrated here time and again how you aren't really interested in "learning" or even honest discussion.

Please tell me the post numbers you want me to change and I will correct them, making clear that you don't agree with me, and even that I had falsely previously suggested you did if you want.

It was already pointed out which post numbers it was, pages ago. You just chose not to see it or acknowledge it. You got called out directly by the person you were misattributing agreement to, and he stated the post #s then.

I guess those weren't obvious enough to grab your attention, because you (once again) ignored his commentary, and instead doubled down and STILL continued to blame your idiocy on him.

Funny that you can respond to nearly every other post addressing you by name, but just can't seem to find or see those specifically numbered call-outs for some reason...

In summary, and STILL, as I said dozens of pages ago: Fuck off, clown.

The issue is there is medical experts (i.e. Doctors)that say opposing things. Who do you believe? Please don't say Dr Fauci.

Nice FUD, jackass. You've still got rightwing media shit all over your face, and it's not coming off.

Predictably, you're the only clown that has agreed with him while he's been tromping back and forth in his shit-filled pig sty.

You can get in that clown car and fuck off alongside him. The consensus of the medical and scientific community at large has been evolving as we go (mainly on masking recommendations), but it's been overall the same: agreement on vaccinations.

You're still trying to push a bullshit anti-science narrative with your proto-typical statement like the one I quoted.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

I want to make this right.

Go get vaccinated. That'll make it right.

 

[Pohemi]

Go get vaccinated. That'll make it right.

You are talking to "He who shall not be told" though. This is how we got 35 pages deep in his bullshit.

 

[Muse]

Apologies I thought you were a no masks guy
and yes I agree it is time to use peer pressure to get the unvaccinated vaccinated.
Reason and coddling hasn’t worked as I knew it wouldn’t earlier in the year.

I played this at the beginning of my weekly radio show on KALX, Berkeley a week ago:

 

[Muse]

They sat down did the math, and decided Covid denial was their best shot at re-election, so Covid denial it was.

I've been paying attention and it's clear to me that prevarication is the name of the game for Republicans. And not just about covid, take global warming, for instance. Or the validity of the 2020 POTUS election result. I'm for burying the Republican Party.

Prevarication is when someone tells a lie, especially in a sneaky way. ... While the noun prevarication is mostly just a fancy way to say "lie," it can also mean skirting around the truth, being vague about the truth, or even delaying giving someone an answer, especially to avoid telling them the whole truth.

 

[cytg111]

I was thinking, there is the Amish people right, maybe its time for a second iteration of that, let conservatives live in that particular time bubble that they like so much and everyone else moves on. Build some walls and shit, do controlled trade etc

 

[Muse]

You . . . seem . . . to wish to present yourself as measured and intelligent. So it surprises me that this proferred analogy of yours is so ridiculously flawed . . . shallow, stupid and flawed.

I said he had some loose screws and he's gone and proved it... again.

 

[Muse]

I think that's wildly unfair. I'm TRYING to learn, but some around here just call me names, and the one guy that seems to know everything, and I don't mean that facetiously, will NOT answer simple questions other than "it's in the paper". When I then try to formulate something that better corresponds to the facts, I get ridiculed again. This is how science has lost its credibility with a LARGE part of the population. "Just go away, this is too difficult for you."

Please allow me to learn and help me!

I think what's important here is definitions, right? One way many discussions go so far off the rails is because two people are arguing with the same term, but meaning something completely different.

So what exactly does "being immune" mean MEDICALLY. If it means being impossible to reinfect the vaccines do not offer immunity to Delta, right? If it is not black and white, but there are different LEVELS of immunity, and Elledy's work is correct, doesn't that suggest SOME level of immunity for a long time for many?

Look, man, if you at all mean what you say about wanting to learn then stop posting and start educating yourself. You'll never gain understanding just posting your hairbrained ideas in threads here, reacting to others' posts. You're a dead troll. Come off it. Get some perspective. You had an exchange with a guy you deem infinitely more informed than you. That's your source of information? The epidemiology of covid-19 has been addressed widely and constantly since early 2020, in all kinds of media. It's there. Stop freaking out in this thread.

 

[Muse]

I was thinking, there is the Amish people right, maybe its time for a second iteration of that, let conservatives live in that particular time bubble that they like so much and everyone else moves on. Build some walls and shit, do controlled trade etc

They're too lazy for that. The Amish lifestyle, seems to me (never seen it up close and personal) is a lot of work.

 

[cytg111]

They're too lazy for that. The Amish lifestyle, seems to me (never seen it up close and personal) is a lot of work.

So send in some robots to help em out with the hard work.. all you’ll ask in return is their absence at the ballot box… small price to pay for entry into redneck paradise.

 

[cytg111]

on KALX, Berkeley

Which one is you?

 

[Muse]

Which one is you?

Check Programming/Schedule

I'm The Muse, Wednesdays 3-6PM, Pacific Time!

 

[Pohemi]

I've been paying attention and it's clear to me that prevarication is the name of the game for Republicans. And not just about covid, take global warming, for instance. Or the validity of the 2020 POTUS election result. I'm for burying the Republican Party.

Prevarication is when someone tells a lie, especially in a sneaky way. ... While the noun prevarication is mostly just a fancy way to say "lie," it can also mean skirting around the truth, being vague about the truth, or even delaying giving someone an answer, especially to avoid telling them the whole truth.

Yep, very semantically similar to 'disingenuousness'. And I see it constantly, in RW media, and from the usual suspect clowns here on the boards.

 

[blackangst1]

See? Thats how they got Clinton too. Some of the Fox propaganda bullshit filters through.
What is your issue with Fauci?

Not gonna derail the thread further.

 

[woolfe9998]

Well you miss my point, slightly. I wasn't referring to the question of vaccinations, just to a much more general irritation with how 'expertise' is treated. I'm fully on-board with vaccinations for COVID, but I do get irritated by the cacophony of confident-yet-incompatible pronouncements from experts on a variety of issues. E.g. what we heard early on about how to approach this pandemic. How many times did I hear people pointing at the Swedish 'experts' in support of claims there was no need for any sort of lockdown?
Even with the vaccines I'm pretty sure I remember some experts telling me at the start of the pandemic that the vaccines wouldn't be ready for years.

If you go back and read the last sentence of your post which I replied to, you tied your general point specifically to the issue of vaccines. Ignoring the consensus and suggesting that Fauci having a good resume was important here.

The right has tried to to turn this into a cult of personalities. They think that since Fauci is the most oft quoted expert, if they can somehow discredit this one person, then everything he says about Covid is then discredited as well. Never mind that they are mostly lying about Fauci. Far worse than that is the denial of the consensus which is implicit in their focus on one individual.

On a side note, I think you already know that predicting when a vaccine will be developed is not the exact science that reviewing a mountain of data to determine the safety and efficacy of an existing vaccine is. Nor is giving advice in the earliest stages of a pandemic where data is limited and understanding is evolving.

 

[pmv]

If you go back and read the last sentence of your post which I replied to, you tied your general point specifically to the issue of vaccines. Ignoring the consensus and suggesting that Fauci having a good resume was important here.

The right has tried to to turn this into a cult of personalities. They think that since Fauci is the most oft quoted expert, if they can somehow discredit this one person, then everything he says about Covid is then discredited as well. Never mind that they are mostly lying about Fauci. Far worse than that is the denial of the consensus which is implicit in their focus on one individual.

On a side note, I think you already know that predicting when a vaccine will be developed is not the exact science that reviewing a mountain of data to determine the safety and efficacy of an existing vaccine is. Nor is giving advice in the earliest stages of a pandemic where data is limited and understanding is evolving.

Well in the end, doesn't one have to look at resumes? And official positions? How else does one decide?

You mentioned climate change, and for me that's an exception, because it's a topic I feel I understand well enough to be able to make my own judgement as to who I believe (the mainstream orthodoxy seems entirely convincing to me, I feel just about capable of understanding why the various 'denier' arguments are wrong, e.g. the 'satuaration argument' or the 'sun spots argument').

But with medical questions I often feel stumped as to how I'm supposed to choose between conflicting advice, other than by considering professional heirarchies. I could mention at least two such dilemmas that people I know are having, except it would be an intrusionon their 'medical confidentiality' to go into details. Medical experts often seem to disagree, and when you look into it you often find there are broadly 'political' issues behind it (and then you find yourself reading scientific papers you don't really understand, in an attempt to try and work out which 'expert' is right).

As for 'advice in the earliest stages of a pandemic', the data may have been limited and understanding still crude, but that didn't seem to stop some 'experts' making super-confident pronouncements (e.g 'masks won't help' or that Stat paper I linked to earlier predicting only 10,000 deaths in the US). When they do that it creates confusion and, for me, damages the credibility of their entire class.

 

[woolfe9998]

Well in the end, doesn't one have to look at resumes? And official positions? How else does one decide?

Not when there’s a consensus, no.

Say, when you find the time, why don’t you check the resumes of every board member and researcher for all those government bodies and NGO’s I listed? What, don’t have the time? Of course not.

So what then? Do we pretend that this all boils down to a handful of individuals because then we can more easily evaluate the credibility of such a small group? No, because that is a false description of reality.

I’m beginning to think that your idea of “consensus” is when 100% agree. Yet there is no such thing. Based on that standard, we clearly don’t have a consensus that the earth is round.

mentioned climate change, and for me that's an exception, because it's a topic I feel I understand well enough to be able to make my own judgement as to who I believe (the mainstream orthodoxy seems entirely convincing to me, I feel just about capable of understanding why the various 'denier' arguments are wrong, e.g. the 'satuaration argument' or the 'sun spots argument').

It’s admirable that that you took the time to better understand climate science, but it isn’t necessary for the individual to do that in order to form a political opinion as to how we should address it (or not). Why? Because 97% of researchers agree.

Most people don’t have the time, the intellectual curiosity, or even the ability to form a conclusion independent of expert consensus. So what ought such people to do? Throw up their hands and say I guess we just don’t know? Remember, these are the people who vote to determine which candidates they favor, and hence, which policies to pursue.

But with medical questions I often feel stumped as to how I'm supposed to choose between conflicting advice, other than by considering professional heirarchies. I could mention at least two such dilemmas that people I know are having, except it would be an intrusionon their 'medical confidentiality' to go into details. Medical experts often seem to disagree, and when you look into it you often find there are broadly 'political' issues behind it (and then you find yourself reading scientific papers you don't really understand, in an attempt to try and work out which 'expert' is right).

This too is simple. You follow the consensus when there is one. Not everything in life sciences is a matter of consensus. Take for example the issue of whether artificial sweeteners are bad for our health. Lots of research says one thing, and lots of research says the opposite. That presents a more challenging decision for the individual. Neither climate change nor vaccines are in that category.

As for 'advice in the earliest stages of a pandemic', the data may have been limited and understanding still crude, but that didn't seem to stop some 'experts' making super-confident pronouncements (e.g 'masks won't help' or that Stat paper I linked to earlier predicting only 10,000 deaths in the US). When they do that it creates confusion and, for me, damages the credibility of their entire class.

Misstatements of a few discredit an entire class? Please look up the fallacies of composition and hasty generalization. You’ll quickly realize you’ve committed both.

And let’s put these early statements about masks into context. Not only were they uncertain that Covid was airborne then, they were also concerned that if too many people bought masks, there wouldn’t be enough for all the healthcare providers. Remember all that talk of ppe back then? This latter concern likely biased what some said about the importance of masks. For a short time.

I’m not happy about some of those early statements and do not think they served us well, but there is zero logic in translating a few comments which were biased for well known reasons into skepticism over vaccines or, for that matter, anything for which there is a strong consensus among experts.

Being hostile towards the idea of relying on the expertise of people who know a lot more than we do about highly technical subjects, based on not every expert being perfect is a common fallacy of the right. I suggest not falling any farther down that rabbit hole.

 

[eikelbijter]

Agreed. But most people dont use a cloth do they? I hope not.
I think the standard is "type IIR face mask" here.

I would say here in LA it's 70% cloth, homemade, or other bs.

 

[eikelbijter]

Perhaps making broad claims about a subject, you should actually put some time and energy reading about it in the first place. Can you explain to all of us, if vaccines are relatively ineffective compared to natural infection, why does the HPV vaccine prevent HPV-associated cancer but natural HPV infection still leads to HPV-associated cancer??? Modern science has provided us a shot that can prevent cancer, but here you are talking about how you'd rather be infected with HPV.

Another example. Which would you rather have, the rabies vaccine or be infected with the rabies virus

Here is a perfect example of how abj13 misunderstood what I said, and perhaps Dhand, I can't speak for him. After thinking about this for days, his responses finally make sense to me.

I never MEANT that there aren't diseases against which it's better to get immunity through a vaccine than through natural infection; that goes for all the ones we've made vaccines for, of course. For him to suggest I'd rather get a natural HPV infection is WAY off base.

What I meant, and indeed HPV is an excellent example of how THAT was incorrect by the way, was that there weren't (and I was citing Dhand) any diseases against which vaccine induced immunity would provide better future protection than NATURALLY acquired infection. Again, I acknowledge that that statement is incorrect.

My original statement, was in post 379:

"He also says that he doesn't know of a SINGLE disease against which a vaccine provides better protection than natural infection"
I should have said better FUTURE protection than HAVING HAD. I never meant it's better to GET rabies than a vaccine, and I don't believe it's fair to insinuate that, or worse, repeatedly accuse me of it.

 

[eikelbijter]

You really are a brave man willing to risk the lives of everyone's kids though.

It is now the official policy of the UK government to recommend against vaccinating kids under 18.

"Health Secretary Sajid Javid said in a statement that “today’s advice does not recommend vaccinating under-18s without underlying health conditions at this point in time. "

UK opts not to vaccinate most under-18s against COVID-19

The British government has decided not to inoculate most children and teenagers against COVID-19 until more data on the vaccines become available.

apnews.com

 

[eikelbijter]

Just because you decided to be a fucking clown, doesn't mean anyone else is required to appease your supposed (and bullshit) quest for knowledge. You demonstrated here time and again how you aren't really interested in "learning" or even honest discussion.

It was already pointed out which post numbers it was, pages ago. You just chose not to see it or acknowledge it. You got called out directly by the person you were misattributing agreement to, and he stated the post #s then.

I guess those weren't obvious enough to grab your attention, because you (once again) ignored his commentary, and instead doubled down and STILL continued to blame your idiocy on him.

Funny that you can respond to nearly every other post addressing you by name, but just can't seem to find or see those specifically numbered call-outs for some reason...

Again, SO classy.

Anyways, I have gone back and rectified multiple posts. It's not that easy to find all of them in his LONG thread. I tried a few searches, but the only post I can find where AJB specifically mentions a post number doesn't talk about me mention him. I did correct the one in which I said that he supposedly confirms my interpretation of that study. I will go over ALL the posts one more time.

Of course you don't NEED to appease me, but I assure you, my quest for knowledge is real.

 

[Perknose]

.

My original statement, was in post 379:

"He also says that he doesn't know of a SINGLE disease against which a vaccine provides better protection than natural infection"

I should have said better FUTURE protection than HAVING HAD. I never meant it's better to GET rabies than a vaccine, and I don't believe it's fair to insinuate that, or worse, repeatedly accuse me of it.

Dude, stop. You must stop posting in this thread now. You have presumed upon our collective good nature with your obstinate and dimwitted intransigence. It's too much.

I am hereby asking you here to stop posting in this thread, as a fellow poster. If you don't, I must inform you that further, more official action may well then be forthcoming.

As to what you wrote in post 379, there's no INSINUATION in our opposition to your appallingly WRONG statement. NONE. And we don't need nor want any more retroactive parsing of and excusing by you here of what you have previously littered this thread with.

You wish to figure this out? That's admirable. But this is me asking you to figure it out elsewhere. You have become an unproductive disruption in this thread. It's that simple.

Please forego your impulse to have the last word, as complelling as that may be for you personally. Either learn from this episode or don't, but, again, please don't post in this particular thread again.

 

[JTsyo]

Saw this article in my newsfeed. Not an encouraging outlook.

About three-fourths of people infected in a Massachusetts Covid-19 outbreak were fully vaccinated against the coronavirus with four of them ending up in the hospital, according to new data published Friday by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

 

[conehead433]

I just read where a woman in Florida (of all places) lost her fiance, her mother, and her grandmother to Covid within days of each other, and now others are crowdfunding for the family. Well gee, you wouldn't need any extra money if you had gotten vaccinated. Now she's urging others to get vaccinated, maybe she'll get one for herself. It doesn't help that DeSantis is saying schools will fully open without mask mandates or being vaccinated because the kids don't really need them. I know one thing this country absolutely does not need - DeSantis or any other Trump wannabe ever rising to the office of President again.

 

[pmv]

Not when there’s a consensus, no.

Say, when you find the time, why don’t you check the resumes of every board member and researcher for all those government bodies and NGO’s I listed? What, don’t have the time? Of course not.

So what then? Do we pretend that this all boils down to a handful of individuals because then we can more easily evaluate the credibility of such a small group? No, because that is a false description of reality.

I’m beginning to think that your idea of “consensus” is when 100% agree. Yet there is no such thing. Based on that standard, we clearly don’t have a consensus that the earth is round.




It’s admirable that that you took the time to better understand climate science, but it isn’t necessary for the individual to do that in order to form a political opinion as to how we should address it (or not). Why? Because 97% of researchers agree.

Most people don’t have the time, the intellectual curiosity, or even the ability to form a conclusion independent of expert consensus. So what ought such people to do? Throw up their hands and say I guess we just don’t know? Remember, these are the people who vote to determine which candidates they favor, and hence, which policies to pursue.



This too is simple. You follow the consensus when there is one. Not everything in life sciences is a matter of consensus. Take for example the issue of whether artificial sweeteners are bad for our health. Lots of research says one thing, and lots of research says the opposite. That presents a more challenging decision for the individual. Neither climate change nor vaccines are in that category.



Misstatements of a few discredit an entire class? Please look up the fallacies of composition and hasty generalization. You’ll quickly realize you’ve committed both.

And let’s put these early statements about masks into context. Not only were they uncertain that Covid was airborne then, they were also concerned that if too many people bought masks, there wouldn’t be enough for all the healthcare providers. Remember all that talk of ppe back then? This latter concern likely biased what some said about the importance of masks. For a short time.

I’m not happy about some of those early statements and do not think they served us well, but there is zero logic in translating a few comments which were biased for well known reasons into skepticism over vaccines or, for that matter, anything for which there is a strong consensus among experts.

Being hostile towards the idea of relying on the expertise of people who know a lot more than we do about highly technical subjects, based on not every expert being perfect is a common fallacy of the right. I suggest not falling any farther down that rabbit hole.

OK, firstly, what is it that represents the 'consensus'? Are you suggesting that the 'consensus' is unrelated to institutions and positions within them? Is there really no relationship between Fauci's post and whether he represents that consensus or not?

I mean, maybe there isn't because the US is such a profoundly dysfunctional country that apparently it politicized his post, making head of CDC a political appointment, but in a normal, properly-functioning country one would expect there to be a strong relationship between the consensus opinion in a field and the structures and formal posts people have in the relevant discipline. In the end you often have to fall back on those hierarchies when judging what the 'concensus ' is.

Also, the concensus isn't always right in every case anyway - the danger of just accepting whatever the majority in a field say, is that you then can end up unquestioningly accepting everything the Chicago school types push in economics, for example, or believing what "Evolutionary psychologists" or "IQ researchers" say about their "field". Or what "financial analysts" would have said about the state of the financial sector before the 2008 crash. The concensus in a field can end up being determined by socio-political factors. Particularly when a field is an intensely ideological one.

One of the worst things about US political culture is the way it has somehow turned distrust of elites into an exclusively right-wing trait. It seems quite weird and topsy-turvey to me.