Vaccine coercion/bribery

[bobzilla]

I dunno. This line of thinking seems more like virtue-signaling to me. I mean. Do you really give a flying **** what the average INGOer's weight is? I kinda don't.

It’s not my job to worry about you and your safety/health/wealth etc just as it’s not your responsibility to worry about mine. Your being used in the royal sense.

 

[Ingomike]

What doesn't work about the smokers example, smokers often have to pay more for health insurance, and they should, because they're a higher risk group. Also, in terms of risk evaluation, when deciding to smoke or not smoke, one doesn't need to consider the risks of not smoking. There is only an upside to not smoking. There IS a risk in being vaccinated.

Someone who is 20 and healthy has WAY less risk if they're infected with covid. It's extremely rare that a 20 year old has a bad outcome with covid. However, the risks associated with being vaccinated, as best I can tell from the literature, are about the same by age group. The upside to risking the vaccine has been that you won't infect others. And now it's looking like that upside is less true.

Where the risk is high from the disease, the best calculation is to be vaccinated. And most of those people are vaccinated. You want to talk about fear mongering, the Bidenites are telling people it's the knuckle dragging Trumpers not vaccinating. And I suppose if you break things down by political affiliation, it's true enough that vaccine reluctance is higher among right wingers than left wingers.

But that doesn't tell the whole story. The vast majority of people over 65, the group with the highest risk from covid, ARE vaccinated, and that's regardless of political affiliation. So it looks to me like vaccine compliance appears to follow risk, which is how it should be in a free society.

Very good post. A couple of quick points.

We had an article linked here that said that hesitancy among PH.D. was high and not falling like other demographic groups.

And another article linked that showed that knuckle dragging Trumpers are not the highest political group, I recall it was usually democrat minority groups that had that spot.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

What doesn't work about the smokers example, smokers often have to pay more for health insurance, and they should, because they're a higher risk group. Also, in terms of risk evaluation, when deciding to smoke or not smoke, one doesn't need to consider the risks of not smoking. There is only an upside to not smoking. There IS a risk in being vaccinated.

Someone who is 20 and healthy has WAY less risk if they're infected with covid. It's extremely rare that a 20 year old has a bad outcome with covid. However, the risks associated with being vaccinated, as best I can tell from the literature, are about the same by age group. The upside to risking the vaccine has been that you won't infect others. And now it's looking like that upside is less true.

Where the risk is high from the disease, the best calculation is to be vaccinated. And most of those people are vaccinated. You want to talk about fear mongering, the Bidenites are telling people it's the knuckle dragging Trumpers not vaccinating. And I suppose if you break things down by political affiliation, it's true enough that vaccine reluctance is higher among right wingers than left wingers.

But that doesn't tell the whole story. The vast majority of people over 65, the group with the highest risk from covid, ARE vaccinated, and that's regardless of political affiliation. So it looks to me like vaccine compliance appears to follow risk, which is how it should be in a free society.

Jamil, I agree with the vast majority of what you say... especially the MSM politicizing the non-vaccinated. While it is true that hardcore Trump supporters are less likely to be vaccinated, the same is doubly true about black and brown people in urban areas... who, IMO, are much more at risk since they live in densely populated areas... versus vast swatches of "Trump country" that are naturally "socially distanced".

And again, from the tribeless middle, hearing vaccines called "experimental gene modification therapy", telling people it changes their DNA, causes severe COVID symptoms, etc.... if you don't see that as fearmongering, then I'm afraid you have a blindspot.

To me, very much like the election... I voted Trump (for his policies and judges) and never considered voting Biden, but didn't hesitant to criticize him as a foul human being, he was a toad. And, I was tribeless then, so I'm used to it.

Very good post. A couple of quick points.

We had an article linked here that said that hesitancy among PH.D. was high and not falling like other demographic groups.

And another article linked that showed that knuckle dragging Trumpers are not the highest political group, I recall it was usually democrat minority groups that had that spot.

You beat me to it by mere moments.

 

[jamil]

From your article:

Maybe there's something different about the UK data. It showed that among people over 50 who were admitted to hospitals for covid (delta variant), vaccinated people faired worse. Of those >50 who died, 2/3's at least had the first shot. But that may have been mostly the impact of the AstraZenica vaccine, which we don't have here. The data was not specified by manufacturer.

In hospitalized people under 50, people fared way better with the vaccine, an order of magnitude better. However, the overall bad outcomes for people under 50 were very low anyway. So that order of magnitude isn't as statistically important as it sounds. The delta variant death rate is only 0.2%. The US PTB make it sound like it's worse. It is in terms of being more contagious. It's not in terms of outcome.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Maybe there's something different about the UK data. It showed that among people over 50 who were admitted to hospitals for covid (delta variant), vaccinated people faired worse. Of those >50 who died, 2/3's at least had the first shot. But that may have been mostly the impact of the AstraZenica vaccine, which we don't have here. The data was not specified by manufacturer.

In hospitalized people under 50, people fared way better with the vaccine, an order of magnitude better. However, the overall bad outcomes for people under 50 were very low anyway. So that order of magnitude isn't as statistically important as it sounds. The delta variant death rate is only 0.2%. The US PTB make it sound like it's worse. It is in terms of being more contagious. It's not in terms of outcome.

Yes, I think Israel is the better comparison for the US based upon the actual vaccines used there and here.

I hadn't followed AstraZeneca much since it isn't available here... I knew it was an adenovirus vaccine BUT was unaware it was a DNA vaccine that, unlike the mRNA vaccines, DOES enter the cell nucleus.

How the Oxford-AstraZeneca Vaccine Works

 

[Kirk Freeman]

So much for "my body, my choice".

Law professor with naturally acquired COVID immunity battles GMU’s strict vaccine mandate | The College Fix

‘Multiple clinical studies have shown that natural immunity provides at least as much protection against reinfection as the most effective vaccines.’…

www.thecollegefix.com

 

[Ingomike]

And again, from the tribeless middle, hearing vaccines called "experimental gene modification therapy", telling people it changes their DNA, causes severe COVID symptoms, etc.... if you don't see that as fearmongering, then I'm afraid you have a blindspot.

Why is telling the truth fear mongering? Hiding that the vaccine is not a traditional vaccine, and that they had to redefine vaccine to even call it that is something the people should know. (They also had to redefine other words to hide from the people.) I am over those that nit pick lay folks discussing this subject.

The vaccine uses mRNA to tell the DNA what to do, a vast technological difference from natural vaccines. Much of the other things you complain about are due to TPTB have lost the trust of many people, deservedly so.

We are a free country we do not need government to act a a super mommy and daddy to decide if we can handle the truth. But they squandered that trust...

 

[BugI02]

Links?

ETA: I am seeing data indicating that the vaccines aren't as protective against Delta as previous variants, resulting in hospitalizations/deaths in vaccinated (Kaiser) but those go include data all the way back to January... so aren't particularly useful.

Also seeing reports out of Israel that the elderly who were vaccinated first (Jan) are seeing lessened protection against severe outcomes versus those vaccinated later (March).

But nothing that vaccinated have worse outcomes.

Information is sparse, spotty and quite a bit of it is anecdotal. This is a Johns-Hopkins interpretation of a study in the Lancet, but it links to the study if you wish to see it

SARS-CoV-2 Delta VOC in Scotland: demographics, risk of hospital admission, and vaccine effectiveness | NCRC

The highly transmissible Delta variant (B.1.617.2) of SARS-CoV-2, originating from India, rapidly spread across the globe, replacing the Alpha variant (B.1.1.7) as the dominant lineage in Scotland by the end of May 2021. This study describes how the rise of the Delta variant in Scotland impacted...

ncrc.jhsph.edu

COVID-19-related hospitalizations were also more frequent among Delta variant cases (HR: 1.85; 95% CI: 1.39-2.47) when compared to Alpha variant cases, after adjusting for comorbidities and demographic/temporal variables. Risk of hospitalization was greatest among individuals with 5 or more comorbidities. Both the Pfizer-BioNTech and Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccines were protective against breakthrough infection of both variants
but with reduced effectiveness against the Delta variant (Pfizer BioNTech: Alpha—92%, Delta—79%; Oxford AstraZeneca: Alpha—73%, Delta—60%).

The Delta variant did not become dominant in Scotland until close to the end of the study period (on May 19, 2021), so the full extent of this variant’s impact on hospitalization and vaccine breakthrough infection may not have been adequately captured. The study does not identify any mechanisms that lead to increased hospitalization or vaccine breakthrough infection, and it is possible that the Delta variant influences disease presentation and testing pattern; if the Delta variant results in fewer symptomatic cases but more severe illness among those who are symptomatic, individuals infected with this variant who get tested for SARS-CoV-2 would appear to have worse outcomes in terms of hospitalization and vaccine breakthrough infection. In calculations of vaccine effectiveness, authors admit that temporal adjustments may not adequately account for trends in vaccine uptake and variant spread. No formal statistical analysis comparing the effectiveness of the two vaccines to each other was completed due to insufficient sample size for vaccine breakthrough cases.

I calculate the hospitalization rate with all variants to be about 1.93% with Scotland showing 72.8% vaccination both doses and 90.4% one dose. The study does not separate out breakthrough hospitalizations but does draw conclusions about preliminary data on Delta exposure in a population with high vaccination percentages

Sorry about the incomplete post. I accidentally hit post when I was trying to insert text in and around the quotes

 

[wtburnette]

Why is telling the truth fear mongering? Hiding that the vaccine is not a traditional vaccine, and that they had to redefine vaccine to even call it that is something the people should know. (They also had to redefine other words to hide from the people.) I am over those that nit pick lay folks discussing this subject.

The vaccine uses mRNA to tell the DNA what to do, a vast technological difference from natural vaccines. Much of the other things you complain about are due to TPTB have lost the trust of many people, deservedly so.

We are a free country we do not need government to act a a super mommy and daddy to decide if we can handle the truth. But they squandered that trust...

They didn't squander our trust, they took a big on it and then revile us for our hesitance over anything they say afterwords....

 

[bobzilla]

So much for "my body, my choice".

Law professor with naturally acquired COVID immunity battles GMU’s strict vaccine mandate | The College Fix

‘Multiple clinical studies have shown that natural immunity provides at least as much protection against reinfection as the most effective vaccines.’…

www.thecollegefix.com

I’ve mentioned this multiple times to the sound of crickets.

 

[jamil]

Very good post. A couple of quick points.

We had an article linked here that said that hesitancy among PH.D. was high and not falling like other demographic groups.

And another article linked that showed that knuckle dragging Trumpers are not the highest political group, I recall it was usually democrat minority groups that had that spot.

While that is true enough, for this topic, the denominator of importance isn't the total number of people in the subject group, but it is the number contributing to the overall group of non-vaccinated.

There are maybe at least 3 million PhDs in the US. But there are 75 million people* voted for Trump. If 100% of the PhDs didn't vaccinate they would still be an order of magnitude fewer than "Trumpers" even if only 1/3 of them did not vaccinate. The significance of the higher percentage of PhDs being skeptical is that they are a counterpoint to the narrative that it's only the "bad" people who won't get vaccinated. If everyone's being honest, I'd say the two biggest factors for people not getting vaccinated is age (people evaluate their own risks) and trust. With conservatives people don't trust the government. With PhDs, it appears that it's not so much the government, but the science they don't trust. That's astonishing if that's the case.


* A quick google search to verify how many people voted for Trump revealed an article complaining that Trump keeps exaggerating how many people voted for him by 800K votes. He received 74,223,369, but he often says 75 million. So do I. It's called rounding. Those retarded ****s get to round down by roughly the same percentage to get their nice round number that Trump rounds up to get his. These people are ****ing retarded. This article was written specifically for JH to consume.

 

[jamil]

Jamil, I agree with the vast majority of what you say... especially the MSM politicizing the non-vaccinated. While it is true that hardcore Trump supporters are less likely to be vaccinated, the same is doubly true about black and brown people in urban areas... who, IMO, are much more at risk since they live in densely populated areas... versus vast swatches of "Trump country" that are naturally "socially distanced".

And again, from the tribeless middle, hearing vaccines called "experimental gene modification therapy", telling people it changes their DNA, causes severe COVID symptoms, etc.... if you don't see that as fearmongering, then I'm afraid you have a blindspot.

To me, very much like the election... I voted Trump (for his policies and judges) and never considered voting Biden, but didn't hesitant to criticize him as a foul human being, he was a toad. And, I was tribeless then, so I'm used to it.



You beat me to it by mere moments.

Well, first, in terms of blindspots, I did not say anything about fearmongering. Which means I did not deny that there is that on the anti side. There absolutely is.

I'm pretty much tribeless myself, but there's a sort of pigeonhole effect that is difficult to avoid. There are just two tribes with any voice. When it comes to ideas and opinions, sometimes I agree with one. Less often, but often enough I agree with the other. I suppose that looks to the people in both tribes like fence-riding. It's not fence-riding though, it's the problem of a low resolution grouping. There isn't a group that fundamentally supports enough of the opinions and ideas that I have.

But, when it comes down to a war of ideas, between two incompatible worldviews, I'll back the tribe that is closest to my worldview. So that pigeonholes me into a binary I'd rather not have, but also that I can't help. The binary is, should we allow the country to devolve into a totalitarian ******** or not. That's separate from "fearmongering". And it doesn't mean I can't and don't criticize the tribe for what it gets wrong. But I'm far less confident in the realm of biology to get too worked up over various claims, unless there's a clear flaw in logic that doesn't not depend on the truth value of the arguments.

It's like the global warming arguments. I'm not a climate scientist. People arguing about science who aren't scientists just use their favorite tribe's expert to fight a proxy battle of experts. So you're not gonna see me getting into the weeds on mrna/gene therapy disputes. Silence is not tacit approval.

 

[jamil]

Why is telling the truth fear mongering? Hiding that the vaccine is not a traditional vaccine, and that they had to redefine vaccine to even call it that is something the people should know. (They also had to redefine other words to hide from the people.) I am over those that nit pick lay folks discussing this subject.

The vaccine uses mRNA to tell the DNA what to do, a vast technological difference from natural vaccines. Much of the other things you complain about are due to TPTB have lost the trust of many people, deservedly so.

We are a free country we do not need government to act a a super mommy and daddy to decide if we can handle the truth. But they squandered that trust...

First, let's acknowledge what fearmongering is. It is an intentional act to try to stoke fear into people about some issue. There are fearmongers on both sides. But those aren't people who are afraid that are the fearmongers, they are the people instigating fear. The extent to which disinformation is spread intentionally, and the people believe it, that is victimization. So I think if SD4L accuses skeptics who believe disinformation of being fearmongers, he's accusing the victims. I don't know **** about DNA/mRNA technology to a level sufficient to argue whether it is or is not gene therapy.

I think it's best to leave that argument to those who study this **** for a living to decide that. It's not particularly important to either side. There is plenty enough data to support the idea that the vaccines aren't as safe as Joe Biden appears to want people to believe. But there is also evidence to support the idea that most people who are vaccinated don't have long term issues. And since some people DO have very bad outcomes with the vaccine, they have every right to refuse it.

 

[jamil]

They didn't squander our trust, they took a big on it and then revile us for our hesitance over anything they say afterwords....

See? Now this is a verifiable thing, and a good reason why people who tend to be temperamentally skeptical of things like this anyway. Inconsistency makes people believe, at best that TPTB are incompetent, and at worst are malevolent. People can tell the difference between being pissed on and rain.

 

[jsx1043]

Well, first, in terms of blindspots, I did not say anything about fearmongering. Which means I did not deny that there is that on the anti side. There absolutely is.

I'm pretty much tribeless myself, but there's a sort of pigeonhole effect that is difficult to avoid. There are just two tribes with any voice. When it comes to ideas and opinions, sometimes I agree with one. Less often, but often enough I agree with the other. I suppose that looks to the people in both tribes like fence-riding. It's not fence-riding though, it's the problem of a low resolution grouping. There isn't a group that fundamentally supports enough of the opinions and ideas that I have.

But, when it comes down to a war of ideas, between two incompatible worldviews, I'll back the tribe that is closest to my worldview. So that pigeonholes me into a binary I'd rather not have, but also that I can't help. The binary is, should we allow the country to devolve into a totalitarian ******** or not. That's separate from "fearmongering". And it doesn't mean I can't and don't criticize the tribe for what it gets wrong. But I'm far less confident in the realm of biology to get too worked up over various claims, unless there's a clear flaw in logic that doesn't not depend on the truth value of the arguments.

It's like the global warming arguments. I'm not a climate scientist. People arguing about science who aren't scientists just use their favorite tribe's expert to fight a proxy battle of experts. So you're not gonna see me getting into the weeds on mrna/gene therapy disputes. Silence is not tacit approval.

It’s like I tell my wife when we get into it about this whole debacle:

“I’m the absence of absolute and verifiable information, adhering to the Constitution and the following the principles of liberty, enumerated rights and individual sovereignty provide the foundation upon which all decisions should be made.”

 

[lovemachine]

First, let's acknowledge what fearmongering is. It is an intentional act to try to stoke fear into people about some issue. There are fearmongers on both sides. But those aren't people who are afraid that are the fearmongers, they are the people instigating fear. The extent to which disinformation is spread intentionally, and the people believe it, that is victimization. So I think if SD4L accuses skeptics who believe disinformation of being fearmongers, he's accusing the victims. I don't know **** about DNA/mRNA technology to a level sufficient to argue whether it is or is not gene therapy.

I think it's best to leave that argument to those who study this **** for a living to decide that. It's not particularly important to either side. There is plenty enough data to support the idea that the vaccines aren't as safe as Joe Biden appears to want people to believe. But there is also evidence to support the idea that most people who are vaccinated don't have long term issues. And since some people DO have very bad outcomes with the vaccine, they have every right to refuse it.

What sends up red flags for me is that anything online that shows how unsafe the vaccines are, gets deleted. It’s almost like the media/big tech/gov doesn’t want anyone to know the risks. Which I don’t see how anyone can dispute the fact that there ARE risks.

 

[jamil]

What sends up red flags for me is that anything online that shows how unsafe the vaccines are, gets deleted. It’s almost like the media/big tech/gov doesn’t want anyone to know the risks. Which I don’t see how anyone can dispute the fact that there ARE risks.

This is the kind of thing that people can be ingaged with who aren't experts enough in biology to engage in the technical arguments. Like with Global Warming, I don't know the climate science, but I can look for logically consistent arguments and I can also detect when people are trying to hide something. A major reason why I don't trust TPTB on vaccine efficacy/safty is that they try to silence scientists who state opinions that go against TPTB. If you act like you're hiding something, it's reasonable to suspect that you're hiding something.

These are 4 minimum steps I think need to be taken to help the public regain trust.

1. Fire Fauci - no one but the sycophantic yes-people believe him. He's incapable of reaching skeptics. He's earned every ounce of their distrust
2. TPTB must be transparent. Admit all the things that are true and not true
3. Stop the campaign against expert dissenters and allow full public discourse between experts of differing opinions
4. Stop the campaign to smear people who are reluctant to be vaccinated. It only stokes more fear and distrust
5. Stop making everything political and then complain about it being politicized by the other side.

Those are all things that make me think that TPTB are not to be trusted.

 

[rhamersley]

This is the kind of thing that people can be ingaged with who aren't experts enough in biology to engage in the technical arguments. Like with Global Warming, I don't know the climate science, but I can look for logically consistent arguments and I can also detect when people are trying to hide something. A major reason why I don't trust TPTB on vaccine efficacy/safty is that they try to silence scientists who state opinions that go against TPTB. If you act like you're hiding something, it's reasonable to suspect that you're hiding something.

These are 4 minimum steps I think need to be taken to help the public regain trust.

1. Fire Fauci - no one but the sycophantic yes-people believe him. He's incapable of reaching skeptics. He's earned every ounce of their distrust
2. TPTB must be transparent. Admit all the things that are true and not true
3. Stop the campaign against expert dissenters and allow full public discourse between experts of differing opinions
4. Stop the campaign to smear people who are reluctant to be vaccinated. It only stokes more fear and distrust
5. Stop making everything political and then complain about it being politicized by the other side.

Those are all things that make me think that TPTB are not to be trusted.

But that would take the P from TPTB...never happen.

 

[BugI02]

With PhDs, it appears that it's not so much the government, but the science they don't trust. That's astonishing if that's the case.

I wouldn't be in that much of a hurry to grant Ph.Ds enhanced authority. Not only does knowledge become more specialized and narrow at that level, but the area of knowledge, such as psychiatry or psychology for instance, may not be particularly useful for judging hard science

I would like to see companion numbers from that cohort of what percentage believe they have gluten allergies or that living near HVT lines increases their risk of cancer

Both Watson and Pauling, both brilliant Ph.Ds in their field, had some pretty off the wall beliefs outside of them. Even Luc Montangier, a virologist and Nobel laureate I've quoted recently, while having undeniable chops in his specialty, is said to be a believer in homeopathy (I have not investigated the claim)

While viewing them in aggregate might mute some of the sideband craziness, I think using them as a datapoint might do more to prove that appeal to authority is correctly identified as a fallacy than anything else

 

[tim87tr]

What sends up red flags for me is that anything online that shows how unsafe the vaccines are, gets deleted. It’s almost like the media/big tech/gov doesn’t want anyone to know the risks. Which I don’t see how anyone can dispute the fact that there ARE risks.

Big picture...Everyone ask themselves what will this look like in retrospect in a short future time frame of a couple years. Will there be a bunch of Nobel peace prizes for scientific advancements, or trials for crimes against humanity? Most likely an increase in civil disobedience with the results of the emergency use only shot versus the control group outcome. Both sides will be unhappy.