What to do if close family member won't get the Vaccination?

[novaveritas]

of which i provided both. and you chose to ignore both, so yes, it is futile.

show me where you logically refute any of the statements in the chain, hand waving and bluster is not logical refutation as you well know, you were asked to show one of the logic was wrong.

The chain that leads to a potential harm to an unwitting bystander becoming real is that chain, and all those states have to be true for the causal chain to be unbroken and the risk to become real. There are no ifs buts or whatabouts involved. On an individual basis the likelyhood of all those states becoming true is vanishingly small, therefore to pitch a vacine to someone on the basis that someone else will benefit is weak.

It is much more ethical to pitch it on the basis that the recipient benefits from the intervention and the benefit is clear, where it is not then it is unethical to pitch it and it is an individual choice and always will be. You don't want to accept any of those precepts because it undermines your utilitarian collectivist positiion. Accepting any of those truths means you have to stop preaching and try convincing instead.

Whether to take a vaccine or not is an individual choice, the individual doesn't need to justify their decision to anyone else, if they want to then that is fine if they don't that is also fine, end of discussion.

You like to appeal to authority, maybe take the logic to your esteemed colleagues and ask them whether the logic is correct and properly constructed, if they are being honest they will say yes it is logically constructed and correct. This is not new logic, this is more than 2000 years old and has stood the test of time.

the second point about machine learning is a feint, we are discssing a flavor of physical failure analysis, The question is how do you arrive at the bad outcome and how likely that is to happen
I really don't give a shit about machine learning in response to failure or managing control parameters critical or not it is not relevant to the subject at hand and is once again a deflection by yourself.

 

[Jabberwocky]

On an individual basis the likelyhood of all those states becoming true is vanishingly small,

at the population level, the risk is genuine. however you choose to calculate it.

an individual needs to accept that the society they live in is not obliged to support them if they breach their side of the social contract, so if they make decisions that put society at risk then they shouldn't expect to continue receiving the benefits of living in that society.

I really don't give a shit about machine learning in response to failure or managing control parameters critical or not it is not relevant to the subject at hand and is once again a deflection by yourself.

so you don't care about modern techniques about how to deduce conclusions from data. we already established that last week.

i provided you with a literature reference by one of the greats of the field, including a specific chapter that uses a medical example, and a link to an open access paper containing a vast array of citations about applications to many different areas. you can go back through the thread to find them if you actually care but don't sit there saying i provided nothing. if you don't like those references, explain your issues, don't just ignore them and say i provided nothing.

where is your reference that modern decision making- by professionals in that area, not medics and life scientists- is done using booleans and bayes theorem? you have demonstrate no expertise in this area and don't have the humility to accept you might be wrong. its a bit sad seeing an evidently intelligent person make such a fool of themselves just because they don't want to admit their knowledge is incomplete on an internet forum.

 

[LoginNotSecure]

This back and forth is tedious reading and almost child like in the fact you both must each have the last word. Just ignore each other and go about your days.

 

[Jabberwocky]

This back and forth is tedious reading and almost child like in the fact you both must each have the last word. Just ignore each other and go about your days.

haha yes it is pretty childish but its fun on a boring lockdown sunday afternoon. it would be more fun with someone who was actually up for a discussion instead of trying to shout everyone down, so why don't you get involved! what areas that you've never bothered to study do you have opinions about that you won't back down on? what's your favourite disingenuous debating technique?

 

[Sky God]

How many people have died waiting for cancer and other treatments due to lock downs? Suicide and overdoses have higher numbers in my area. My uncle passed from a heart condition while waiting for a surgery that was delayed because everyone is concentrating on Covid. I'm not saying it isn't real but the world can't stop for something as deadly as the flu. I wonder what the global numbers are for suicide/overdoses and preventable illnesses compared to other years and compared to covid.

 

[novaveritas]

Refute the logic using logic. simple request.

You are clearly despatrate to show that you didn't see the right tool to analyse the problem because you failed to identify the nature of the problem.

It is a series of events all of which have to occur for the negative outcome to be real. A chain of events. It is just a version of fault tree analysis. which you think is not used because errr machine logic fuzzy logic algo nonsense..

Chained failure analysis, you might want to look at NASA, where it really is rocket science. This was just grabbed in 10 seconds,

https://www.fmea-fmeca.com/NASA_FMEA_Presentation.pdf

Failure mode, effects, and criticality analysis - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

If you use the right tool you come to the conclusion that promoting a coronavirus vaccine to someone for any reason other than they themselves get a clear benefit themselves is exceptionally weak. Actually I say that your position is irrational and illogical but that is merely my opinion, feel free to show using logic that your position is actaully rational and logical and we can go forwards.

I await you refuting the statement using inductive logic, based on your deflection and performance so far I think I am going to be waiting a while.

 

[novaveritas]

How many people have died waiting for cancer and other treatments due to lock downs? Suicide and overdoses have higher numbers in my area. My uncle passed from a heart condition while waiting for a surgery that was delayed because everyone is concentrating on Covid. I'm not saying it isn't real but the world can't stop for something as deadly as the flu. I wonder what the global numbers are for suicide/overdoses and preventable illnesses compared to other years and compared to covid.

exactly.

 

[Jabberwocky]

How many people have died waiting for cancer and other treatments due to lock downs?

i addresses this in an earlier post, there was a big hit to cancer diagnostics in my area at the start but now mostly normal service has been resumed.

i do agree about the mental health toll, in my recovery circles people have been relapsing left right and centre.

the R0 of SARS-COV2 is higher than that of flu viruses so the comparison isn't direct.

Refute the logic using logic. simple request.

i stated over and over again, i don't refute your logic, i refute your conclusion that a significant unvaccinated population poses no threat to vaccinated people, which you arrive at by focusing on the individual level and the minimal probability in the individual case, which, when multipled to a population translates to real deaths.

Chained failure analysis, you might want to look at NASA, where it really is rocket science. This was just grabbed in 10 seconds,

https://www.fmea-fmeca.com/NASA_FMEA_Presentation.pdf

Failure mode, effects, and criticality analysis - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

neither of your references contain the words 'Bayes' or 'Boolean' so you have demonstrated that your own simplistic conception is false. thank you.

 

[ChemicallyEnhanced]

Leave it with her. Her choice, you shouldn’t be actively looking for reasons to encourage her otherwise.

Considering she could DIE from not taking it...maybe OP should at least TRY to convince her?

 

[novaveritas]

neither of your references contain the words 'Bayes' or 'Boolean' so you have demonstrated that your own simplistic conception is false. thank you.

you do understand that bayes and boolian are names for a intellectual concepts and that those concepts exist independently of whether you call it bayes boolean dog logic or even chinup logic?

leave it there shall we.

 

[Jabberwocky]

you do understand that bayes and boolian are names for a intellectual concepts and that those concepts exist independently of whether you call it bayes boolean dog logic or even chinup logic?

Yes. you're using personal attacks to deflect from the fact your own references show nothing even approximating what you think they do, and yes i looked properly, which is more than you can say of mine.

 

[novaveritas]

i stated over and over again, i don't refute your logic, i refute your conclusion that a significant unvaccinated population poses no threat to vaccinated people, which you arrive at by focusing on the individual level and the minimal probability in the individual case, which, when multipled to a population translates to real deaths.

Maybe we are getting somewhere, remember you are pitching a vaccine, a medical intervention to a person, not a society.

You accept that there is minimal probability that an individual unvaccinated person represents a real threat to vaccinated people or anyone for that matter, but you still think it is rational to promote vaccination to an individual on this basis? It can only be a side benefit, the individual must gain a benefit and must think gaining that benefit is worth the non zero risk of that intervention.
There is a symetrical arguament, vaccinated individuals pose a transmission threat to other people too, because of how vaccines work. If there are significantly more vaccinated people than unvaccinated people the absolute level of transmission by vaccinated people is higher than by unvaccinated people. which brings it right back to the start.

Therefore the choice comes down to an individual making a choice for themselves based on their personal risk benefit calculation.

This is especially true when the intervention is unlicensed, where the only immunity that is guaranteed is the immunity of the manufacturer from being sued.

You are free to try and convince people to freely do what you think they should do (nebulous social contracts or whatever) but the choice is theirs and theirs alone and should not be coerced.

 

[Jabberwocky]

Therefore the choice comes down to an individual making a choice for themselves based on their personal risk benefit calculation.

this is the problem. in the case of a vaccine that prevents transmission and assuming that herd immunity is maintained, there is almost no personal benefit to getting the vaccine. based on purely individualistic reasoning, vaccine uptake rates get so low so as to enable new outbreaks of preventable disease, as we have seen with measles in the states.

so you need to foster attitudes where each individual takes responsibility for maintaining the safety of the society they live in as a condition for enjoying the benefits of living in that society.

in the case of vaccination against covid, the benefits to the individual and society are clear. but anti science rhetoric has taken over and people are denying that vaccination offers protection, despite more and more data showing the contrary- so people denying it are impervious to arguments regarding their self interest.

if people denying the covid vaccine only harmed themselvs i wouldn't mind so much, but if they will put more pressure on health services as a result then its a problem for everyone.

 

[Jabberwocky]

i think my view comes down to this.... if your individual choice depends on other people making the opposite choice for your safety to be protected, its not really an individual choice.

 

[novaveritas]

i think my view comes down to this.... if your individual choice depends on other people making the opposite choice for your safety to be protected, its not really an individual choice.

With covid and vaccines in general I don't care whether other people get vaccinated or not, I pragmatically don't care because it doesn't change my risk. I don't need to free ride. With Covid my position is wait and see.

If I think it makes sense personally having weighed it up to be vaccinated for whatever illness or disease then I will be, if it doesn't then I won't. So not only is it my position that I have my own choice, so does everyone else and I respect that choice. I have no wish to tell you or anyone else what they individually should do.

The NHS health service in the UK is to put it mildly completely fucked, it falls apart almost every single winter, It has fallen apart practically every winter since the late 90's. Labour Conservative makes no difference, It is a cumbersome monster. that falls apart mostly due to its own weight and contradictions.
You may think differently because of them moving rapidly on screening (I guess is because of BRCA, in your anecdotal case but the performance in cancer diagnosis and treatment has been historically poor and in some areas abysmal in comparison to many other countries. Covid has made things even slower and even more inefficient, the cost is paid in lives. I have seen far too much death in the last year and none of it was directly due to the death doom virus.

to the woke mod, the heritage is where excess risk from BRCA comes from and gives 1 in 40 risk vs 1 in 300....duh

 

[Jabberwocky]

With covid and vaccines in general I don't care whether other people get vaccinated or not, I pragmatically don't care because it doesn't change my risk. I don't need to free ride. With Covid my position is wait and see.

i care because i care about other people. i'm sure if you were immunocompromised you might see the issue- or would you be fine with people giving you a preventable disease?

to the woke mod, the heritage is where excess risk from BRCA comes from and gives 1 in 40 risk vs 1 in 300....duh

lol you think to diagnose me based on a tiny bit of information, you're only partially right, there are other genes that contribute to enhanced risk of cancer too but i'm not giving you my entire family history/heritage.

i don't think that just because of my screening. i think that because i've had a bit of an insider perspective on the impact of covid on cancer diagnostics and theraputics in the northwest of the UK and don't expect the rest of the UK to be significantly different. the bottleneck seems to be mostly initial access to GPs.

you seem confident that the response to COVID by health service has been excessive, but i don't get what alternative you propose. given that there has been transmission of COVID in cancer specific facilities, it seems that they haven't done enough to address the pandemic and their patients have been put at enhanced risk as a result. but you seem to be suggesting that health services have overreacted?

everyone knows the NHS is fucked, and letting COVID run rampant has fucked it even more. so, more should have been done, both within the health service, and across society.

 

[stardust10]

End of day for me my best mate cannot get vaccinated and something that's minor for others can kill her or something. And if people don't wanna take vaccine then I think it's selfish/a bit silly if they can and choose not to, just to test the waters for themselves ( are you shitting yersels?jk btw). I am also a bit of a hippy and am torn in all different directions with all of this. The government/s have obviously fucked a lot of things up (surprise) everyone was probably shitting themselves and in denial e.g. Boris not locking us down sooner to prevent further lockdowns etc. Mental health including addiction funding is needed now more than ever on the NHS let's see if they can acknowledge it now and stop sweeping it under the fucking carpet. Let's see what happens and hope for the best. Interesting debate I love it.

 

[LoginNotSecure]

 

[trogere]

According to section 10.4.2 of the Pfizer/BioNTech trial protocol, a woman of childbearing potential (WOCBP) is eligible to participate if she is not pregnant or breastfeeding, and is using an acceptable contraceptive method as described in the trial protocol during the intervention period (for a minimum of 28 days after the last dose of study intervention).​

This means that it could take a relatively long time before a noticeable number of cases of postvaccination infertility could be observed. And now, they want to massively give this "vaccine" to woman still in age of having babies.

 

[pinkpapaver]

Unfortunately you fell over examining the logic here. You fell over way before the mystic gnosticism of your jedi master level mathematical logic.

The only way a harm can result is through a conditional chain with all conditions beng true. Basic conditional probability defines the risk of the harm becoming extant. Nothing to do with counterfactuals fuzzy logic, or whatever other chaff and smoke screens you throw up. You know this or rather you should know this.

You are still advocating witholding medical treatment based on a moralistic judgement of worthiness (whether or not something is someones' choice), no matter how you twist and turn.

You want absolution for some people but are willing to withhold medical treatment of other people without seeing the inherent inconsistency. That is immoral, unethical and is not in the interests of the utilititarian greater good, which is the only justification for you can have for your position. You effectively completely undermine your own position by not acting in the greater good whilst claiming that is for the greater good.

You still seem to think it is acceptable to resort to the threat of the stick, coercion in other words. You were taught ethics therefore you know that is unnacceptable when it comes to medical intervention.

Lovely first paragraph.

And the unvaxed are worse people than junkies now ... Uh uh. Because academia. Because there's too many people scared of wheelbarrows and shovels in the world want to sit creating ways to make money off other people actually toiling. Academia, media, politics. Pharmacy.