Vaccine mandate ethical dilemma

[dneal]

In February, the Alpine republic [Austria] will join Turkmenistan, Tajikistan and Indonesia in mandating Covid-19 vaccination for all adults. In the West, only the Vatican, with roughly 800 residents, has so far imposed such a mandate.

WSJ Article (https://www.wsj.com/articles/austrias-return-to-covid-19-lockdown-is-met-with-anger-resignation-11637578887)

One study (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34055843/) estimates the mortality rate for the vaccine is roughly 8 per million. The population of Austria is roughly 9 million. Back of the napkin math comes up with 72. There's lots of room for argument with that calculation and the study's estimate, but the specific number isn't that important.

What is important that there will certainly be some citizen deaths caused directly by their government. Have we given this right to them? Is there a debt or obligation incurred? How do you pay? What currency will compensate a family for a love one lost. Spouse, parent, sibling, child?

This is Utilitarianism. The "greatest happiness" principle, for realz. Some people will be condemned to death by their government. They just don't know who it is yet. A mandatory lottery of death, of sorts. All must play, orders the elected officials.

Yes, the other side of the scale is whatever it is. Anti-vaxxers dying or spreading (but both of those are also possible with/from the vaccinated). Fine, do the math (that's utilitarianism). But the reality remains that there will be death on the other side - due to a direct decree from one's government. Is that simply an obligation owed by the individual to society? Is that being free? Does one's intrinsic value weigh more heavily? Every man for himself, come what may?

Again, none of this is hypothetical. Real world. Real countries. Real people.

[Empty_of_Clouds]

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

If the vaccine is mandatory there will no doubt be associated deaths, if not then there will no doubt be deaths associated with being unvaccinated (including among those who rely on herd immunity) in addition to those associated with the vaccine. So what then is the right course of action? Take the math route to the lowest projected mortality outcome?


Is that simply an obligation owed by the individual to society?

I believe it is. I feel I do have obligations to society that are balanced with the benefits I get from society. Taking the vaccine for me is a part of that obligation. Further to this it is my opinion that people slice the freedom thing far too thinly in the mistaken assumption that the curtailing of even the smallest perceived freedom is going to suddenly manifest itself as a nationwide call for chains, despite the fact that there are so many little freedoms that we happily concede without real concern, and that help society run a bit smoother or make life a little safer. Crazy position to take, eh?

[Chip]

Speaking of government mandates, compulsory military service and military service in general is responsible for a higher death rate, owing to both combat and to occupational hazards such as toxic exposure (Agent Orange, dust and emissions from explosives and fires), chronic effect of wounds and associated shock, post-traumatic stress, a smoking habit acquired during service, stress-induced drug use, domestic violence, suicide, etc.

Any problem with that?

[dneal]

I considered conscription, but I can't think of an example where it applied to 100% of the population. Usually only males of a certain age range, with exceptions for health, religious beliefs, etc... Also, most western democracies have abolished it. So the analogy begins to fail.

[dneal]

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

If the vaccine is mandatory there will no doubt be associated deaths, if not then there will no doubt be deaths associated with being unvaccinated (including among those who rely on herd immunity) in addition to those associated with the vaccine. So what then is the right course of action? Take the math route to the lowest projected mortality outcome?

That is the crux of Utilitarianism. The problem is if and how you weight individual "happiness".



Is that simply an obligation owed by the individual to society?

I believe it is. I feel I do have obligations to society that are balanced with the benefits I get from society. Taking the vaccine for me is a part of that obligation. Further to this it is my opinion that people slice the freedom thing far too thinly in the mistaken assumption that the curtailing of even the smallest perceived freedom is going to suddenly manifest itself as a nationwide call for chains, despite the fact that there are so many little freedoms that we happily concede without real concern, and that help society run a bit smoother or make life a little safer. Crazy position to take, eh?

Ok, but the obligation in this case is death. The freedom lost is the freedom to exist. You, or a loved one is obligated to risk death or simply die, for the benefit of society; by governmental decree. You have no choice or agency in the decision. It has been taken from you. That is the moral dilemma.

[Chuck Naill]

Speaking of government mandates, compulsory military service and military service in general is responsible for a higher death rate, owing to both combat and to occupational hazards such as toxic exposure (Agent Orange, dust and emissions from explosives and fires), chronic effect of wounds and associated shock, post-traumatic stress, a smoking habit acquired during service, stress-induced drug use, domestic violence, suicide, etc.

Any problem with that?

Good point. When I was in HS I had to register for the draft during the Vietnam War. Fortunately for me it ended. While I would not have dodged, I didn't want to go and know no one that did. Had the war been about protecting the country and it's citizens, the motivation would have been reversed.

[TSherbs]

I think that you are cherry-picking, dneal.

Every governmental regulation, one way or another, likely results in some deaths.

Some people die every year because they are wearing seat belts and become trapped. Some motorcycle riders die because they have to wear a helmet and can't hear the car behind them. The arming of police with lethal weapons results in the deaths of innocent persons. Etc. We are still obligated to take these safety measures (and accept the arming of the police) for the over-all benefit of society (or suffer a penalty for not doing so). In modern society, with hundreds of millions of community members (and billions across the planet), this is one of the trade-offs we accept--even morally--as part of reducing the over-all threats to our health and safety in such large aggregate numbers.

[dneal]

I am not cherry-picking. If I say I think you are obfuscating, does it change the moral dilemma or is it just an irrelevant opinion?

I am merely pointing out the logical consequence of utilitarianism as opposed to Kant's "intrinsic value". Mandate or no, in each case there will be death. Is it simply a math equation? Mandatory vaccines results in less deaths, so it is ethical? Or is individual acceptance of risk the higher good, even if it might result in a greater amount of death (particularly in vulnerable populations)?

What are the principles we want to adhere to, in the context of our social contract?

The dilemma creates a real and difficult choice - not a false one. There is no right answer, no matter how many analogies are introduced.

[TSherbs]

That is the crux of Utilitarianism. The problem is if and how you weight individual "happiness".

What is the moral obligation to provide "happiness"? Or even a even a civic ethical obligation?

Even "liberty" is not meant as an absolute. Both "general welfare" and "blessings of liberty" are in the US Constitution, but "happiness" is not. And none of it is meant in absolute terms.

The DoI includes the "right" of the "pursuit of happiness," but I would emphasize the importance of the word "pursuit" there. This is the right to "pursue" happiness, not the right to "be happy." That would be preposterous.

[TSherbs]

We're just chatting, right?

I actually do think that there is a "right answer" to many ethical questions. They are just often difficult to see through our various biases and prejudices and limited capacities to understand.

Like how Thoreau says that there is a bedrock of Reality beneath the slush and mud of opinion (and gossip), but only the most dedicated of thinkers will push their feet down through the crap to find it (only one in a million million, he says, is fully "awake,' and how could we dare look that person in the face?)

[Chuck Naill]

We're just chatting, right?

I actually do think that there is a "right answer" to many ethical questions. They are just often difficult to see through our various biases and prejudices and limited capacities to understand.

Like how Thoreau says that there is a bedrock of Reality beneath the slush and mud of opinion (and gossip), but only the most dedicated of thinkers will push their feet down through the crap to find it (only one in a million million, he says, is fully "awake,' and how could we dare look that person in the face?)

Interesting he used "awake". Sounds familar...LOL!!

I do agree, but acting ethically requires work for which some do not want to exert. I can say this as a former Evangelical, we wanted a scripture rather than have to think.

I do agree that happiness cannot be a right. My complete happiness might required someone else to be unhappy. That cannot be ethical.

[dneal]

That is the crux of Utilitarianism. The problem is if and how you weight individual "happiness".

What is the moral obligation to provide "happiness"? Or even a even a civic ethical obligation?

Even "liberty" is not meant as an absolute. Both "general welfare" and "blessings of liberty" are in the US Constitution, but "happiness" is not. And none of it is meant in absolute terms.

The DoI includes the "right" of the "pursuit of happiness," but I would emphasize the importance of the word "pursuit" there. This is the right to "pursue" happiness, not the right to "be happy." That would be preposterous.

Perhaps you should more thoroughly familiarize yourself with Utilitarianism. Here is a good overview (http://ethics.iit.edu/teaching/utilitarianism).


We're just chatting, right?

I actually do think that there is a "right answer" to many ethical questions. They are just often difficult to see through our various biases and prejudices and limited capacities to understand.

Like how Thoreau says that there is a bedrock of Reality beneath the slush and mud of opinion (and gossip), but only the most dedicated of thinkers will push their feet down through the crap to find it (only one in a million million, he says, is fully "awake,' and how could we dare look that person in the face?)

Yes, I'm just chatting; and yes I agree there is a "right answer" to many ethical questions. But we're not talking about many ethical questions. We're talking about ethical dilemmas. A mandate creates one (and so does the lack of a mandate, to be fair).

From the link above:

"Moral theories can be divided into two major types, teleological and deontological. In teleological theories, (moral) right is derived from a theory of the (non-moral) good, or what is good or desirable as an end to be achieved. In Greek, telos means ‘goal’ or ‘aim.’ In deontological theories, (moral) right is derived without a theory of (non-moral) good, or what choice is (morally) right regardless of the end consequences. In Greek, deon means ‘duty.’ Utilitarian theories are teleological."

In layman's terms, do the ends justify any means? If not, why? Or, is there some principle so valued (like intrinsic individual value) that no end justifies a means violating it?

[kazoolaw]

Further to this it is my opinion that people slice the freedom thing far too thinly in the mistaken assumption that the curtailing of even the smallest perceived freedom is going to suddenly manifest itself as a nationwide call for chains, despite the fact that there are so many little freedoms that we happily concede without real concern, and that help society run a bit smoother or make life a little safer. Crazy position to take, eh?

A little closer to home for you-Quarantine camps in Australia:
https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/australian-army-begins-transferring-covid-positive-cases-contacts-quarantine-camps
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2021/11/22/covid-madness-continues-down-under-australia-northern-territory-use-army-to-force-people-into-quarantine/

[dneal]

Further to this it is my opinion that people slice the freedom thing far too thinly in the mistaken assumption that the curtailing of even the smallest perceived freedom is going to suddenly manifest itself as a nationwide call for chains, despite the fact that there are so many little freedoms that we happily concede without real concern, and that help society run a bit smoother or make life a little safer. Crazy position to take, eh?

A little closer to home for you-Quarantine camps in Australia:
https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/australian-army-begins-transferring-covid-positive-cases-contacts-quarantine-camps
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2021/11/22/covid-madness-continues-down-under-australia-northern-territory-use-army-to-force-people-into-quarantine/


At least they are practicing what they preach. Austria's "lockdowns" have exceptions for work, shopping, exercise, etc... Not really a lockdown, IMHO. Just lip-service and abuse.

[TSherbs]

I'm not much interested in formal philosophy or discussions about it. I'll bow out. Others can continue on that vein.

[kazoolaw]

Austria's "lockdowns" have exceptions for work, shopping, exercise, etc...

""Residents of Binjari and Rockhole no longer have the five reasons to leave their homes," said Northern Territory chief minister, Michael Gunner, referring to the country's five allowable reasons to avoid lockdown (buying food and supplies, exercising for up to two hours, care or caregiving, work or education if it can't be done from home, and to get vaccinated at the nearest possible location)."

[dneal]

Austria, not Australia. I was contrasting the two...

Each threatening/implementing "lockdowns". The European one rendering them ineffective with exceptions (which would make a good Monty Python skit), the Southern Hemisphere one at least having the integrity to do what they say (no matter how authoritarian/draconian).

[Chuck Naill]

Last two posts are , shall we say, not relevant?

[Chip]

About the legal mandate for seatbelts in vehicles, the number of people who die or are injured as a result of being trapped by them is far fewer than those who are saved from death or injury by using them. The same goes for motorcycle helmets.

When some errant bonehead's idea of freedom creates significant liabilities for the society (medical treatment, stress on healthcare workers, anguish and loss of support for families) it seems like a near absolute lack of responsibility and human decency to insist on determined stupidity as a sort of freedom.

[Chuck Naill]

About the legal mandate for seatbelts in vehicles, the number of people who die or are injured as a result of being trapped by them is far fewer than those who are saved from death or injury by using them. The same goes for motorcycle helmets.

When some errant bonehead's idea of freedom creates significant liabilities for the society (medical treatment, stress on healthcare workers, anguish and loss of support for families) it seems like a near absolute lack of responsibility and human decency to insist on determined stupidity as a sort of freedom.
But some would be pissed not to be afforded an ICU bed.

[dneal]

The seatbelt analogy is false. Conscription is a little closer, but still false.

An accurate analogy would be if a government showed up with a 1 million-round revolver, loaded with 8 bullets. A form of Russian roulette, mandated. Put it to your head, and pull the trigger. Now your spouse, now your kids, now the government moves on to the next house. Your odds (or those of your loved ones) of dying is only 8 in a million. If for whatever hypothetical reason this would save exponentially more lives, would it be ethical? That is the gist of the dilemma.

But bear in mind the purpose of these vaccine mandates: to "win the war on COVID" and other buzz-phrase formulations. It ignores that the virus has mutated, and likely will continue to. It ignores that the vaccine doesn't prevent contraction or transmission. It doesn't prevent death (in those 999,992 times it doesn't kill). It only improves odds.

Just like "lockdowns" (except for all the reasons you don't have to follow them...), the contradictions are obvious. People see the contradictions, which is why you see protests across the globe over "mandates". That's also why lockdowns are relevant to this thread. It is one more use of power people find illegitimate. It is something some people find an overstepping of authority. Perhaps they really find it all unethical

They have a point.

[TSherbs]

About the legal mandate for seatbelts in vehicles, the number of people who die or are injured as a result of being trapped by them is far fewer than those who are saved from death or injury by using them. The same goes for motorcycle helmets.

When some errant bonehead's idea of freedom creates significant liabilities for the society (medical treatment, stress on healthcare workers, anguish and loss of support for families) it seems like a near absolute lack of responsibility and human decency to insist on determined stupidity as a sort of freedom.

I agree with you and was not suggesting an equivalency in mortality statistics, by any means. I was simply stating that following the regulation would actually result in some deaths. But yes, very very few, especially in comparison to the resulting number of the regulation is not followed.

[kazoolaw]

Austria, not Australia. I was contrasting the two...

Too many hours at a computer monitor: sorry I misread your post.

[Chuck Naill]

While the seat belt and liability insurance requirement is the same or similar. I have no motivation to argue or discuss.

[Chip]

An accurate analogy would be if a government showed up with a 1 million-round revolver, loaded with 8 bullets. A form of Russian roulette, mandated. Put it to your head, and pull the trigger.

Hard to see how you can be amazingly, insensately stupid about how the world works.

Do you get it that dickheads who choose not to be vaccinated can not only get sick but infect others, causing them to suffer and perhaps die? And you serve up this blatant crap about the government?

[dneal]

I thought you had me on ignore (twice now, if I recall correctly)?

Do you lack courage of convictions, or are you just a liar?

The fact that you can't follow a topic and default to vitriol has well been established.

Try harder, there are millions of you on the interwebz.

--edit--

p.s.: Dickheads that do get vaccinated can do all those things you mention too. Facts don't care about your feelings! ;)

[Chip]

FYI, the ignore function is subject to my choice. I can choose to to view your posts, which I do on occasion. It's like walking past the local dope dealer's place and chucking a few pebbles through the chainlink fence at his raging pit bull. Low-risk aggro.

You have the illusion, perhaps a symptom, that you alone define the topic.

As usual, you respond to contrary points with insults, and little else.

[dneal]

No Chip, post #25 is you (again) initiating this type of rhetoric. Like others, your thought is superficial and you begin with insults when your argument fails. I merely respond in kind.

Do you think you're the first to pout your lip and declare you will ignore me? "To the ignore list with you, Bye!" or something of the sort which you felt necessary to declare. Behavior of a petulant toddler, now making excuses for his lack of self control.

[Cyril]

The seatbelt analogy is false. Conscription is a little closer, but still false.

An accurate analogy would be if a government showed up with a 1 million-round revolver, loaded with 8 bullets. A form of Russian roulette, mandated. Put it to your head, and pull the trigger. Now your spouse, now your kids, now the government moves on to the next house. Your odds (or those of your loved ones) of dying is only 8 in a million. If for whatever hypothetical reason this would save exponentially more lives, would it be ethical? That is the gist of the dilemma.

But bear in mind the purpose of these vaccine mandates: to "win the war on COVID" and other buzz-phrase formulations. It ignores that the virus has mutated, and likely will continue to. It ignores that the vaccine doesn't prevent contraction or transmission. It doesn't prevent death (in those 999,992 times it doesn't kill). It only improves odds.

Just like "lockdowns" (except for all the reasons you don't have to follow them...), the contradictions are obvious. People see the contradictions, which is why you see protests across the globe over "mandates". That's also why lockdowns are relevant to this thread. It is one more use of power people find illegitimate. It is something some people find an overstepping of authority. Perhaps they really find it all unethical

They have a point.

I am in a wrong place >>>> :facepalm:
All the healings and blessings. to you all

[Empty_of_Clouds]

But bear in mind the purpose of these vaccine mandates: to "win the war on COVID" and other buzz-phrase formulations. It ignores that the virus has mutated, and likely will continue to. It ignores that the vaccine doesn't prevent contraction or transmission. It doesn't prevent death (in those 999,992 times it doesn't kill). It only improves odds.

Improve odds, doesn't prevent death? That is a form of lexical semantics. The evidence, adjusted for confounding, shows that the number of deaths directly due to COVID-19 is lower in fully vaccinated people than in those without any vaccination. Vaccinations most certainly do prevent death from cause.

And no, vaccination programs do not ignore mutations or transmissibility - that's the language used to undermine the simple fact that vaccinations are current best practice, not perfect practice. Until something better is invented/discovered, it's without a shadow of a doubt the best resource we have, and certainly a lot better than not having vaccines available. People who speak against it generally do so on the basis of it not being perfect. Expecting a perfect solution is profound indicator of a lack of understanding of life processes on Earth.


Other than that I restate from an earlier posting that I fully believe in social responsibility, for organisations as well as individuals.

[Chuck Naill]

I think of it as we weren’t as warm had we had seasoned wood, or wool is preferred, but synthetic fleece is all we had.

[Chip]

No Chip, post #25 is you (again) initiating this type of rhetoric. Like others, your thought is superficial and you begin with insults when your argument fails. I merely respond in kind.

Do you think you're the first to pout your lip and declare you will ignore me? "To the ignore list with you, Bye!" or something of the sort which you felt necessary to declare. Behavior of a petulant toddler, now making excuses for his lack of self control.

I obviously annoy you much more than you annoy me. While I find your mental contortions mildly amusing, I'll go on mostly ignoring your posts.

https://i.imgur.com/deFywru.jpg

[dneal]

Not quite the self portrait of you I imagined, Chip, but close enough.

[Chuck Naill]

😅😅😅

[Chip]

Could a bad person grow tomatoes like this? :)

https://i.imgur.com/vVCBi2y.jpg

[dneal]

@Cyril. Respectfully, what you posted looks an awful lot like the other echo-chamber. Is there a "conspiracy" for most all politicians to leverage the system of campaign donations, fundraisers, lobbyist "requests", business interests, etc... all scratching each other's backs for profit? I'm on board.

Some of the other things you're posting are a little "pedophiles drinking infant blood on billionaire island" leaning. My mother was just telling me about Bill Gates wanting to kill people to reduce the population, and then gave an example of someone squeezing "something" in some young foreign boy's mouth. Poison to kill him, of course. I told her it is the polio vaccine, and the Gates Foundation has made herculean efforts in eradicating it. It's in his bio. I'm way on board with nuclear power, and he's leading the way.

Sure he's probably a sexually harassing freak who made a trip or two to Epstein's island, but I can see the good and bad in humans and judge actions independently.

Anyway, want to know the real conspiracy? There are two groups that are well funded and have methods of sending you a message every day. Two different information operation campaigns. You see how good it works on the lefties? Now find the other one and think about who it's working on. Doubt everything. Especially what you don't want to. Remember the media is mostly part of the profiting group. Here is the problem with capitalism that the left should be harping on (and the right, too). The system is rigged, but it's rigged for the "professional kleptocrats", to use Eric Weinstein's term. Go watch his interview with Glenn Beck.

[Chip]

Glenn Beck? Seriously?

https://i.imgur.com/9EUEejx.jpg

[ethernautrix]

So... getting back on topic...

65219

What actions (that don't require force) can the government take that could/would assuage the (reasonable) concerns that some have, for instance, about side effects of the vaccine? Not talking about death specifically.


BTW: Wearing a mask makes sense, perhaps because I've been around mask-wearers, sick people keeping their cooties to themselves, long before covid-19. Seems neighborly, considerate. Hand-washing should go without saying. (Public bathrooms are kept cleaner, I've noticed.) Maintaining physical distance is a bonus to those of us with a slightly wider personal-space radius, haha.

[dneal]

Glenn Beck? Seriously?

Yep. Your tactic is to shove Joy Reid type diatribe down people's throats, wrongly thinking they'll see the "truth" of the rhetorical partisan bullshit you readily consume.

Glenn is to the left of the Q-anon. Eric Weinstein is a (classic) liberal. Baby steps.

[dneal]

What actions (that don't require force) can the government take that could/would assuage the (reasonable) concerns that some have, for instance, about side effects of the vaccine? Not talking about death specifically.


BTW: Wearing a mask makes sense, perhaps because I've been around mask-wearers, sick people keeping their cooties to themselves, long before covid-19. Seems neighborly, considerate. Hand-washing should go without saying. (Public bathrooms are kept cleaner, I've noticed.) Maintaining physical distance is a bonus to those of us with a slightly wider personal-space radius, haha.

The problem seems to be that the less severe consequences (not-death) encourage one side to advocate for government control. Those that believe freedom is provided by government, rather than protected by government - not to mention the notion of freedom from government.

Statistics are ok if the vaccine is "safe and effective", with only a statistically insignificant chance of side-effect or death, but statistics are not ok for a virus that has a statistically insignificant mortality rate. Then it's the "what if it's your loved one?" argument. Then it's plane-crash hyperbole as they total up global deaths. In short, it's hypocrisy.

If a country is truly going to "mandate" a vaccine that has a (probably wrong) 8 in a million chance of death, the problem with "mandates" is more stark - hence this thread. "You want people to die" is the rhetorical argument against the anti-vaxxers (for whatever reason they have that position), and any other position regarding the pandemic that doesn't follow their script. Economic damage / lockdown strategy questions? "You want people to die!!!".

In the case of a government mandate, the argument works the other way - and more clearly. Their hypocrisy is directly confronted. You see them try to wiggle out of it with false analogies, many of the same ones they use to justify government control; but now they must say they are ok with directly causing death. An ethical dilemma.

[Chip]

Your tactic is to shove Joy Reid type diatribe down people's throats, wrongly thinking they'll see the "truth" of the rhetorical partisan bullshit you readily consume.

Don't know who Joy Reid is, sport. Nor Eric Weinstein. I do know Glenn Beck is a profiteering RWW pimp, a failed Rush Limbaugh.

FYI I don't use partisan websites, etc. but simply keep track of mainstream news: the NY Times, The Guardian, etc. Which whackjobs like you consider partisan, no doubt, because they try to tell the truth.

[Chuck Naill]

Had to look up Joy Reid myself. And who EVER listened to Glenn Beck? Lol!

Always verify any quotes he posts. In fact fact check everything.

[dneal]

You guys who seem to have formed a clear opinion of Glenn Beck didn't know who MSNBC's Joy Reid is? She took Chris Matthews' 7pm slot, replacing Hardball last year. MSNBC's primetime slot, but you never heard of her. Curious.

Also out of curiosity, was Glenn Beck a "RWW pimp" (whatever that is...) when he was on CNN slamming Bush the Jr.? You weren't nodding sagely at his wisdom then? No need to answer.

BTW, you're still missing the point of the Glenn Beck recommendation. The poster I recommended that to (who deleted the content of his post), is very right leaning (judging from the deleted content). Glenn Beck is a stepping stone back to center-right. Baby steps. Not the final destination.

[Chip]

I don't watch TV. I read.

In terms of our sources, we have little in common.

[TSherbs]

But bear in mind the purpose of these vaccine mandates: to "win the war on COVID" and other buzz-phrase formulations. It ignores that the virus has mutated, and likely will continue to. It ignores that the vaccine doesn't prevent contraction or transmission. It doesn't prevent death (in those 999,992 times it doesn't kill). It only improves odds.

Improve odds, doesn't prevent death? That is a form of lexical semantics. The evidence, adjusted for confounding, shows that the number of deaths directly due to COVID-19 is lower in fully vaccinated people than in those without any vaccination. Vaccinations most certainly do prevent death from cause.

And no, vaccination programs do not ignore mutations or transmissibility - that's the language used to undermine the simple fact that vaccinations are current best practice, not perfect practice. Until something better is invented/discovered, it's without a shadow of a doubt the best resource we have, and certainly a lot better than not having vaccines available. People who speak against it generally do so on the basis of it not being perfect. Expecting a perfect solution is profound indicator of a lack of understanding of life processes on Earth.


Other than that I restate from an earlier posting that I fully believe in social responsibility, for organisations as well as individuals.

I agree with every sentence here, EoC. And well-put!

[TSherbs]

Is there anything more to say or to ask for on this topic? Part of the problem here is that these threads go on for too long (or are begun with toxic tones).

So, the question was, if I understand it right, can a government ask of its citizenry a compulsory form of compliance that is meant to protect hundreds of thousands from death and serious disease (and the society from a large portion of the associated costs and burdens) but will also likely result in a statistically probable number of very few deaths from the corrective.

To me, this is not much of a dilemma, and I say "yes." There is no need to fight, argue, etc, unless you want to (of course). I don't. The question is fair and reasonable. So can the discussion be, even if it is not a debate.

[Chip]

Well said. Thanks.

Much of the progress in public health over the last century has come from the discovery and application of vaccines: smallpox, polio, influenza, et many ceteras. What I find amazing is that anyone can imagine some dark, malignant design in an effort to save lives and prevent suffering. Or in the science that supports it.

[Cyril]

They ((((Who!!!!!!)))) are mocking the humanity. Hollywood and the fiction culture is one of the base to create the Corvid cult and turn it into a new RELIGION.

The new Variant "Up-grade booster software' is OMICRON AND HOW COME IT WAS already on a fiction cinema in the past????

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sDXEZ8X0zWY

Any idiot would now see what is going on. Instead of arguing discussing for years It is time to wake up folks before it take down all of you first.
Peace and love!!!!

[Chuck Naill]

Well said. Thanks.

Much of the progress in public health over the last century has come from the discovery and application of vaccines: smallpox, polio, influenza, et many ceteras. What I find amazing is that anyone can imagine some dark, malignant design in an effort to save lives and prevent suffering. Or in the science that supports it.

For me the value of vaccines coinsides with my relationship with two seventy year olds who contracted polio in the early 1950's. One spent time in an "iron lung". This disease has portrayed their entire lives every minute of every day. Both became medical professionals with successful careers.

I also remember taking the sugar cube vaccine at school in the 1960's. People were glad to get it even if the vaccine initally was flawed resulting the contracting the disease. Some died if I remember. That's horrible for the person and their parents. However, were the vaccine producers made to be an evil empire? What about the deaths from unfounded conspiracies so prevalent today? Perhaps as a species we are not as advanced as once thought.

[joolstacho]

Hmmm. It couldn't be simpler really.
What right does the anti-vaxxer have to threaten the life of my daughter.

[Chip]

Any idiot would now see what is going on.

Which qualifies you to explain it to the rest of us.

(Might help to use spell and grammar check).

[Chuck Naill]

Hmmm. It couldn't be simpler really.
What right does the anti-vaxxer have to threaten the life of my daughter.

How would an "anti-vaxxer" threaten your daughter's life? If she's of age she can access reliable information and if not, it's up to you.

[Chuck Naill]

Apparently 1000 people per day dying from COVID-19 in the US.

[dneal]

Does the vaccine prevent you from contracting COVID? Does it prevent you from transmitting it? If a vaccinated person can also threaten the life of one's daughter... well, you see the problem.

That's not the topic though. A government mandating 100% vaccination, in the context of Utilitarian ethical theory, is. If it is truly mandated, with no exceptions (otherwise it's not really a mandate) a specific amount of deaths will occur. The government is making its citizens participate in something that will assuredly kill some of them. They have no choice but to play a government-mandated lottery of death. Could a mandatory vaccine threaten the life of one's daughter?

Rhetoric doesn't get you out of the dilemma.

[TSherbs]

Rhetoric doesn't get you out of the dilemma.

Nor do all your questions. Making a decision resolves the dilemma. Are you unable to chose? Is this a difficult decision for you, or are you saying that the decision is impossible (an impasse)? Or is this whole thread a rhetorical exercise in purposefully stalling? I don't understand your purpose.

[welch]

In February, the Alpine republic [Austria] will join Turkmenistan, Tajikistan and Indonesia in mandating Covid-19 vaccination for all adults. In the West, only the Vatican, with roughly 800 residents, has so far imposed such a mandate.

WSJ Article (https://www.wsj.com/articles/austrias-return-to-covid-19-lockdown-is-met-with-anger-resignation-11637578887)

One study (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34055843/) estimates the mortality rate for the vaccine is roughly 8 per million. The population of Austria is roughly 9 million. Back of the napkin math comes up with 72. There's lots of room for argument with that calculation and the study's estimate, but the specific number isn't that important.

What is important that there will certainly be some citizen deaths caused directly by their government. Have we given this right to them? Is there a debt or obligation incurred? How do you pay? What currency will compensate a family for a love one lost. Spouse, parent, sibling, child?

This is Utilitarianism. The "greatest happiness" principle, for realz. Some people will be condemned to death by their government. They just don't know who it is yet. A mandatory lottery of death, of sorts. All must play, orders the elected officials.

Yes, the other side of the scale is whatever it is. Anti-vaxxers dying or spreading (but both of those are also possible with/from the vaccinated). Fine, do the math (that's utilitarianism). But the reality remains that there will be death on the other side - due to a direct decree from one's government. Is that simply an obligation owed by the individual to society? Is that being free? Does one's intrinsic value weigh more heavily? Every man for himself, come what may?

Again, none of this is hypothetical. Real world. Real countries. Real people.

The article does not raise an issue of utilitarian ethics.

I read the article. It reports on people in elder care homes and some younger people who were not in care. Some died after being vaccinated, but the article does not say that they died because they were vaccinated. It pays special attention to people over 85, and it lists about two dozen conditions they had. Also, notice that the article depends on data through January 8, 2021, by which time few people had been vaccinated.


Adults aged 85 years and over accounted for half of the reported deaths (N = 25, 45.5%). Those vaccinated at long-term care facilities were more likely to be older and females than at other locations. A total of 14 individuals (25.5%) died on the same day and 45 individuals (81.8%) died within 1 week following vaccination. Top reported comorbidities associated with deaths were hypertension, dementia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), diabetes, and heart failure (Table 2). Dementia was more likely to be associated with deaths at long-term care facilities. Top medications associated with deaths were pain relievers, fever reducers, and antihypertensives.

The authors conclude:


COVID-19 vaccine is safe in younger groups. The majority of the reported deaths were in people aged 85 and older and vaccinated at long-term care facilities; these patients are frail older people with serious underlying health conditions such as dementia, hypertension, heart failure, COPD, diabetes, anemia, and fall. In addition, these vulnerable patients are polypharmacy users. Certain vaccine-disease and vaccine-drug interactions might have contributed to or have worsened health outcomes of those already vulnerable populations. It is essential to monitor the allergic reactions following the vaccination that mainly occur within a short period of time for preventable risks (5). However, the mortality rate of 53.4 per million following COVID-19 vaccination among long-term care facility residents during the study period was much lower compared to the 2019 monthly all-cause mortality rate of 0.3% among adults aged 65 years or older (6), or the 30-day all-cause mortality rate of 21.5% among US nursing home residents with COVID-19 (7). Therefore, our data suggest that the benefits of COVID-19 vaccines far outweigh the potential risks in older frail populations (e.g., long-term care facilities), and our findings do not support actions to exclude older adults from being vaccinated as the Norwegian government did. Continued monitoring of COVID-19 vaccination among the older population, particularly those with comorbidities and medications reported in this study, however, is warranted.

That is, research should continue in case there might be something in one of the vaccines that could be harmful to the frail elderly, but the number of deaths, from all causes, n elder-care homes after Covid vaccines is less than the number of deaths in the same period in 2019. The article does not talk about the social ethics of mandating Covid vaccinations for every human being in a country. Note this sentence in the conclusion: "Therefore, our data suggest that the benefits of COVID-19 vaccines far outweigh the potential risks in older frail populations (e.g., long-term care facilities), and our findings do not support actions to exclude older adults from being vaccinated as the Norwegian government did".

Direct link to the study mentioned in the original post: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8160119/

[Chuck Naill]

The statement was could an anti-vaxxer threaten you daughter. I'll wait for the member to respond.

As to dilemmas, an unvaccinatied person could be a threat to others, particularly children who have not been able to receive the vaccine. With 1000 people per day dying, I'd think getting a free vaccine is the least amount of effort one could provide for themselves and the people they're around.

I agree, if the decision is a difficult one, you have to say why. I know you've promoted Ivermectrin with your posts, so, what's the draw in using an improven drug.

[dneal]

The article does not raise an issue of utilitarian ethics.

I read the article. It reports on people in elder care homes... etc

I cited the portion of the article I was referring to (Austria joining other countries in mandating vaccination), and I cited the link.

Then, I explained how that creates an ethical dilemma based on the utilitarian theory.

So you have used semantics to create a quite lengthy straw man to argue against a point no one made.

[dneal]

Rhetoric doesn't get you out of the dilemma.

Nor do all your questions. Making a decision resolves the dilemma. Are you unable to chose? Is this a difficult decision for you, or are you saying that the decision is impossible (an impasse)? Or is this whole thread a rhetorical exercise in purposefully stalling? I don't understand your purpose.

I thought you bowed out of this thread (see post #15).

I'm becoming hesitant to bother responding to you, because you seem to not be interested in anything other than just saying whatever you want to get off your chest at the moment. You ask a question, I answer, and you're no longer interested... until you are again.

[dneal]

The statement was could an anti-vaxxer threaten you daughter. I'll wait for the member to respond.

As to dilemmas, an unvaccinatied person could be a threat to others, particularly children who have not been able to receive the vaccine. With 1000 people per day dying, I'd think getting a free vaccine is the least amount of effort one could provide for themselves and the people they're around.

I agree, if the decision is a difficult one, you have to say why. I know you've promoted Ivermectrin with your posts, so, what's the draw in using an improven drug.

Chuck, the dilemma is government mandates when there is a certainty of it causing death.

An unvaccinated person could be a threat. So could a drunk driver. That's not the point of the OP.

Ivermectin is also not the point, so I don't know why you've introduced that. If you would like to discuss ivermectin, feel free to post a new thread or comment in one of many where it is raised in the OP. "Interesting Video" is one, off the top of my head.

[Chuck Naill]

The statement was could an anti-vaxxer threaten you daughter. I'll wait for the member to respond.

As to dilemmas, an unvaccinatied person could be a threat to others, particularly children who have not been able to receive the vaccine. With 1000 people per day dying, I'd think getting a free vaccine is the least amount of effort one could provide for themselves and the people they're around.

I agree, if the decision is a difficult one, you have to say why. I know you've promoted Ivermectrin with your posts, so, what's the draw in using an improven drug.

Chuck, the dilemma is government mandates when there is a certainty of it causing death.

An unvaccinated person could be a threat. So could a drunk driver. That's not the point of the OP.

Ivermectin is also not the point, so I don't know why you've introduced that. If you would like to discuss ivermectin, feel free to post a new thread or comment in one of many where it is raised in the OP. "Interesting Video" is one, off the top of my head.

What role if any does the government play when 1000 Americans are dying each day? If you were in charge, would you encouage a approved treatment even with side effects. All medications have the potential to interact with other meds or food. Hypersensitivies are common for many or most pharmaceutials.

I know you don't like mandates and I appreciate your position, however, the member did accuse "anti-vaxxers".

[dneal]

You have the other part of the Utilitarian dilemma that I already pointed out in the OP. That's the problem with the "greatest happiness principle". It condemns a smaller number of people with the assertion that it is saving more. The "you want people to die" rhetorical finger is pointed right back at the accuser now.

[Chuck Naill]

I am listening to reports of hospital workers who are saying people are dying who didn't have to die, and we are talking about vaccines which has a relative safety profile.
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/different-vaccines/Moderna.html

[Chuck Naill]

You have the other part of the Utilitarian dilemma that I already pointed out in the OP. That's the problem with the "greatest happiness principle". It condemns a smaller number of people with the assertion that it is saving more. The "you want people to die" rhetorical finger is pointed right back at the accuser now.

You didn't answer. Are you intentionally avoiding? What would you propose if 1000 people per day in the US were dying? What if 1000 people per day were dying from vaccines?

[dneal]

I'm not intentionally avoiding. I posed the question in my OP.


Yes, the other side of the scale is whatever it is. Anti-vaxxers dying or spreading (but both of those are also possible with/from the vaccinated). Fine, do the math (that's utilitarianism). But the reality remains that there will be death on the other side - due to a direct decree from one's government. Is that simply an obligation owed by the individual to society? Is that being free? Does one's intrinsic value weigh more heavily? Every man for himself, come what may?

You are avoiding the question. Is it moral for the government to mandate something that will assuredly kill a portion of its citizenship, for the benefit of a larger portion of its citizenship?

[Chuck Naill]

I'm not intentionally avoiding. I posed the question in my OP.


Yes, the other side of the scale is whatever it is. Anti-vaxxers dying or spreading (but both of those are also possible with/from the vaccinated). Fine, do the math (that's utilitarianism). But the reality remains that there will be death on the other side - due to a direct decree from one's government. Is that simply an obligation owed by the individual to society? Is that being free? Does one's intrinsic value weigh more heavily? Every man for himself, come what may?

You are avoiding the question. Is it moral for the government to mandate something that will assuredly kill a portion of its citizenship, for the benefit of a larger portion of its citizenship?

So, I am the only one that must answer? This is why you don't get the "chuck" you prefer @dneal . That said, if I were in charge and given the daily mortality rate, yes, I would mandate a proven response over nothing. That said, those with hypersensitives would not be required.

You did write on my abortion thread that the taking of life is justified in your mind in certain circumstances.

[dneal]

No, you are not the only one who must answer; but it seems you incur an obligation to "return the favor" if someone is going to bother with answering your questions. Ignoring your turn to answer and posing more questions as a response is hardly fair if one is going to engage in reasonable discussion.

In the case of this topic, I already posed the question you are asking. You are simply asking me the same question I asked.

I do acknowledge that the taking of human life is justified in certain circumstances. I also acknowledge that risk is inherent in life. I am not ok with the government mandating a lottery of death. Does that answer your question?

[welch]

The article does not raise an issue of utilitarian ethics.

I read the article. It reports on people in elder care homes... etc

I cited the portion of the article I was referring to (Austria joining other countries in mandating vaccination), and I cited the link.

Then, I explained how that creates an ethical dilemma based on the utilitarian theory.

So you have used semantics to create a quite lengthy straw man to argue against a point no one made.

I read the article you cited. It has nothing to do with utilitarianism. It is a straight-forward study in medical statistics. It does not even support your claim about the number of deaths with or without vaccination. That seems, at best, an extrapolation from this data. Read the study carefully: it counts the people who died after vaccination, but not those who died because they were vaccinated. It does not claim, even, that people died from Covid.

The study does not, to be clear, support an argument that tries to balance the danger from anti-Covid vaccines against the danger from Covid to the unvaccinated. It just talks about deaths some time after a patient was vaccinated. From that it concludes that medicine should be careful when vaccinating people older than 85 in nursing homes, but that vaccinating the frail elderly is much safer than leaving them unvaccinated.

That is not a base from which to leap into a discussion of utilitarian ethics. I think utilitarianism is too fuzzy to be useful except at some gods-eye level: sure, try to make most people happy, but "happy" is a fuzz-ball word, and practically meaningless. Same with "most". I think utilitarianism fails, so it's not an interesting argument, nor does utilitarianism seem to be the basis for vaccine mandates of any sort.

Maybe the data-question should be whether people run a higher risk of getting sick from Covid, and dying, if they are vaccinated rather than unvaccinated. We can total up the numbers from the people going into hospitals.

[Chuck Naill]

No, you are not the only one who must answer; but it seems you incur an obligation to "return the favor" if someone is going to bother with answering your questions. Ignoring your turn to answer and posing more questions as a response is hardly fair if one is going to engage in reasonable discussion.

In the case of this topic, I already posed the question you are asking. You are simply asking me the same question I asked.

I do acknowledge that the taking of human life is justified in certain circumstances. I also acknowledge that risk is inherent in life. I am not ok with the government mandating a lottery of death. Does that answer your question?

Okay. :)

[dneal]

I read the article you cited. It has nothing to do with utilitarianism.

A true vaccine mandate raises the question. It is a logical consequence. It is utilitarian ethical theory.

Your argument is a straw man, and a deflection.

-edit-

Here are the logical propositions derived:

A - The COVID vaccine has a mortality rate of eight in one million (according to one study).
B - Some governments are imposing a vaccine mandate.
C - A true and complete mandate has no exceptions.
D - The purpose of a vaccine mandate is to protect as many as possible (Utilitarian ethical theory).

[Chuck Naill]

I read the article you cited. It has nothing to do with utilitarianism.

A true vaccine mandate raises the question. It is a logical consequence. It is utilitarian ethical theory.

Your argument is a straw man, and a deflection.

-edit-

Here are the logical propositions derived:

A - The COVID vaccine has a mortality rate of eight in one million (according to one study).
B - Some governments are imposing a vaccine mandate.
C - A true and complete mandate has no exceptions.
D - The purpose of a vaccine mandate is to protect as many as possible (Utilitarian ethical theory).

This is why no one can have a reasonable discussion with you. His or her post was not attacking you , but pointing out that your conclusions could be inaccurate.

[dneal]

Nope. He is arguing that the WSJ article didn't say anything about utilitarian ethics. I agree. But that's not the argument of the OP. It's a diversion - a straw man. He's "winning" an argument of his own making, and ignoring the point - a deflection. A red herring. I'm not playing that game.

I made no conclusions. I derived logical propositions, and asked questions. If the propositions are wrong, fine. Point it out. If the logic is flawed, fine. Point it out.

The reason you guys can't have a reasonable discussion is because you don't like the consequences of the rhetoric you advocate.

Still no answers to these questions, for example; because you already know where it leads.

Can a vaccinated person contract COVID?
Can a vaccinated person transmit COVID?

Here, I'll add another one.

Is the primary purpose of a vaccine to protect the individual vaccinated?

[Chuck Naill]

Vaccines protect both.

You’re the only one here who consistently struggles with discussing.

[TSherbs]

Rhetoric doesn't get you out of the dilemma.

Nor do all your questions. Making a decision resolves the dilemma. Are you unable to chose? Is this a difficult decision for you, or are you saying that the decision is impossible (an impasse)? Or is this whole thread a rhetorical exercise in purposefully stalling? I don't understand your purpose.

I thought you bowed out of this thread (see post #15).

I'm becoming hesitant to bother responding to you, because you seem to not be interested in anything other than just saying whatever you want to get off your chest at the moment. You ask a question, I answer, and you're no longer interested... until you are again.

Dude, you're really something.

I said "nevermind" AFTER and in response to what YOU said you were not interested in. *YOU* said that you were not interested in an exchange of "facts" and "opinions." Since that is all that is ever done here, I took it as a signal that you were no longer interested in the exchange. So I said nevermind.

There are aspects of the thread that I am interested in and participate in, same as you do.

But you are free to reply to our not reply to whatever you want. And even change your mind. As am I.

[TSherbs]

I derived logical propositions, and asked questions. If the propositions are wrong, fine. Point it out...

Welch seems to show that your first (primary) premise is a misrepresentation of the study results that you cite. He quoted the relevant passages.

[dneal]

Vaccines protect both.

You’re the only one here who consistently struggles with discussing.

Who initiates rhetoric and insult? Who dodges the issue? Not me. The only thing I struggle with is keeping you on topic.

[Chuck Naill]

Vaccines protect both.

You’re the only one here who consistently struggles with discussing.

Who initiates rhetoric and insult? Who dodges the issue? Not me. The only thing I struggle with is keeping you on topic.

Just review the various posts and the reaction of others with your rhetoric . I don’t need to defend my posts. If you can show me I’m wrong, I admit it.

[Chuck Naill]

You did say the taking of human lives were justified and here your arguing about government mandate that are trying to slow the 1000 deaths per day. Which is it? See the double standard? I do.

[dneal]

@TSherbs - Not trying to be snarky, but you pop in and make superficial statements. Then you proclaim how you're not interested in a discussion. Then you pop back in with more superficial statements. You do this often enough for me to make this comment on it. You seem to dismiss it as "we're just chatting, right?"

But let's not use this section as an example. Let's point out your thread-shitting (https://fpgeeks.com/forum/showthread.php/35705-Pelikan-Souveran-M800-quot-Limited-Edition-quot-(brown)-18K-Broad?p=342569&viewfull=1#post342569) in some guy's Pelikan M800 for sale thread.

Why would you be compelled to post something like that? You took a shit in the guy's thread, and then you denied any culpability. You seem kind of bitter, to be honest.

But back on topic (somewhat). Welch went to great lengths to formulate an article that was not relevant. What premise did he show I misrepresented? It's quite clear that it was back of the envelope math. I said that. I said the numbers were arguable, but that it wasn't relevant to the salient point. How dense do you have to be to not get that? (that's a rhetorical question, by the way).

Pick the study. Pick the number. I don't care what it is. If it's one or more, then the point still stands. Utilitarian ethics. If you don't know anything about that, and aren't interesting in learning; maybe this isn't the thread for you. Just sayin'...

I'm not really interested in entertaining your drive-by, bitter, thread-shitting.

[dneal]

You did say the taking of human lives were justified and here your arguing about government mandate that are trying to slow the 1000 deaths per day. Which is it? See the double standard? I do.

Strawman. I said taking of human life was acceptable to society in certain circumstance.

I'm asking that again, given these circumstances.

If your answer is "yes", just say so. It's ok.

[TFarnon]

It's true that fewer people die in motor vehicle accidents if they wear their seatbelts, and it's true that fewer people involved in motorcycle crashes die if they wear helmets. But I tell you--the cost to health care personnel, emergency response personnel, and the taxpayer cost to provide the infrastructure for those who survive if they didn't wear seatbelts or helmets is huge. I never even see those patients, but it's all asses and elbows to test their blood, issue emergency blood for transfusion and perform some specialized coagulation testing on these idiots often leaves me exhausted even before my shift ends. There's a huge ripple effect among the survivors, to the point that I'm actually relieved if the only fatalities are victims found at the site of the accident. There's a whole lot that doesn't need to happen if the victim is found dead. I know that's kind of grim, but there you have it.

I'm even more bitter about preventable infectious diseases. I got all my COVID shots (2 plus a booster), but viruses being viruses and humans being morons and selfish jerks, I know that I'm only less at risk than an unvaccinated individual. I know that should I be infected, I'll probably feel like shit warmed over for a couple of weeks and then be mostly done with it. But it could also kill me. A fully vaccinated local virologist did contract COVID and died quite quickly. He should never have been put at risk because others won't moderate their behavior. 4 years ago, I came down with H3N2 type A influenza because one of my jackass coworkers didn't get vaccinated and came into work sick. I would rather have worked without him even on one of his best days, because he was basically useless even healthy. I'd been vaccinated for flu, just as I always am. The flu was a poor match for the circulating strain, and it was a nasty, sometimes lethal strain. Between the vaccine and getting to the doctor for tamiflu within hours of symptom onset, I wasn't so ill I couldn't get out of bed for two weeks. And more importantly, I lived. Not everyone did. I truly believe that had I not been vaccinated, my jackass coworker would have killed me with his choice not to get the vaccine.

Bottom line: I don't give a damn about philosophy or human rights when it comes to vaccine-preventable diseases. Get the damn shot(s).

[dneal]

So you're ok with a government mandating something that will assuredly kill some of its citizens?

[Empty_of_Clouds]

Can a vaccinated person contract COVID?
Can a vaccinated person transmit COVID?

Yes in both cases. The odds of the first and subsequently the second are both lower than for unvaccinated people and thus the population risk is lower.

[Chuck Naill]

So you're ok with a government mandating something that will assuredly kill some of its citizens?

Yes, and you are as well apparently. Why is is okay in the situation you discribed but not here?

[TSherbs]

So you're ok with a government mandating something that will assuredly kill some of its citizens?

yep, it's like mandating seatbelts for car passengers: the wearing of them will, statistically, result in the deaths of a few individuals.

[welch]

I read the article you cited. It has nothing to do with utilitarianism.

A true vaccine mandate raises the question. It is a logical consequence. It is utilitarian ethical theory.

Your argument is a straw man, and a deflection.

-edit-

Here are the logical propositions derived:

A - The COVID vaccine has a mortality rate of eight in one million (according to one study).
B - Some governments are imposing a vaccine mandate.
C - A true and complete mandate has no exceptions.
D - The purpose of a vaccine mandate is to protect as many as possible (Utilitarian ethical theory).

The study you cited did not say this. It did not say that "the vaccine has a mortality rate of 8 in one million". The study you cited said that some number of frail elderly had died after taking the vaccine. The study you cite did not draw a link between the vaccine and those deaths. That is why I posted what the study actually says. This is not semantics, nor is it mere words. You have made up a foundation from which to slide into a discussion of utilitarian ethics.

Countries, states, counties, and cities off Covid vaccines as a solution to a public health problem. You might claim that this is an exercise in "utilitarian ethics", but no one I've read has defended vaccine mandates as allowable under utilitarianism. In the US, communities have often quarantined to defend public health. About 1791, Philadelphia quarantined neighborhoods and maybe even the brand new State of New Jersey as a way to stop an outbreak of Yellow Fever. That was at the suggestion of Dr. Benjamin Rush. Massachusetts town meetings shut down brothels as a nuisance to public morals and a risk to public health.

Did you read your own article before leaping to claim something or other about utilitarianism?


So you're ok with a government mandating something that will assuredly kill some of its citizens?

How do you know that vaccines "will assuredly kill some"? That is not what your own study says.

[TSherbs]

@TSherbs - Not trying to be snarky, but you pop in and make superficial statements. Then you proclaim how you're not interested in a discussion. Then you pop back in with more superficial statements. You do this often enough for me to make this comment on it. You seem to dismiss it as "we're just chatting, right?"

But let's not use this section as an example. Let's point out your thread-shitting (https://fpgeeks.com/forum/showthread.php/35705-Pelikan-Souveran-M800-quot-Limited-Edition-quot-(brown)-18K-Broad?p=342569&viewfull=1#post342569) in some guy's Pelikan M800 for sale thread.

Why would you be compelled to post something like that? You took a shit in the guy's thread, and then you denied any culpability. You seem kind of bitter, to be honest.

But back on topic (somewhat). Welch went to great lengths to formulate an article that was not relevant. What premise did he show I misrepresented? It's quite clear that it was back of the envelope math. I said that. I said the numbers were arguable, but that it wasn't relevant to the salient point. How dense do you have to be to not get that? (that's a rhetorical question, by the way).

Pick the study. Pick the number. I don't care what it is. If it's one or more, then the point still stands. Utilitarian ethics. If you don't know anything about that, and aren't interesting in learning; maybe this isn't the thread for you. Just sayin'...

I'm not really interested in entertaining your drive-by, bitter, thread-shitting.

So, is this some of your unbiased, untriggered posting that you laud while you denigrate others for their subjectivity and "triggered" responses. I don't claim to have not been an asshole on some threads. And we are all free to enter and leave a thread anytime we feel like it, including you (what the hell is a "drive-by" post in a back page of a discussion forum? I post here dozens and dozens of times, and I start threads. It's a ridiculous charge, dneal, born of some other grievance of yours). All I take from this is that you are angry getting the question from me (that is called a subjective, triggered response).

You invited us to critique a premise if we saw fault. Welch had clearly posted a critique already that you had not responded to, and I thought that he had made a thorough and clear point--exactly what you usually call for and did in fact call for in this case.

[TSherbs]

Vaccines protect both.

You’re the only one here who consistently struggles with discussing.

Who initiates rhetoric and insult? ...

A fair question for reflection.

[dneal]

Can a vaccinated person contract COVID?
Can a vaccinated person transmit COVID?

Yes in both cases. The odds of the first and subsequently the second are both lower than for unvaccinated people and thus the population risk is lower.

Thank you for addressing the questions, and I agree with your second sentence.

[dneal]

The study you cited did not say this. It did not say that "the vaccine has a mortality rate of 8 in one million". The study you cited said that some number of frail elderly had died after taking the vaccine. The study you cite did not draw a link between the vaccine and those deaths. That is why I posted what the study actually says. This is not semantics, nor is it mere words. You have made up a foundation from which to slide into a discussion of utilitarian ethics.

From the study:

We aimed to estimate the mortality rate of COVID-19 vaccination. They're using VAERS. The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System.

Results: As of January 8, 2021, 55 deaths were reported, and the mortality rate of COVID-19 vaccination was 8.2 per million population.


How do you know that vaccines "will assuredly kill some"? That is not what your own study says.

See above. 8.2 per million. Eight point two deaths per one million population. This is not something peculiar to the COVID vaccine. Many vaccines have a small probability of death as an "adverse event"

Now go back and look at my OP. See this sentence?

"One study estimates the mortality rate for the vaccine is roughly 8 per million. The population of Austria is roughly 9 million. Back of the napkin math comes up with 72. There's lots of room for argument with that calculation and the study's estimate, but the specific number isn't that important."

So again: If a government mandates all citizens have a vaccine administered that has death as an "adverse event" - pick the number, but it would have to be 1 or greater - then that government is directly and unequivocally responsible for that death.

Why would a government do that? Presumably in an effort to save more lives than would be lost otherwise.

That is precisely what utilitarian ethics are.

That is precisely the hypothetical this thread addresses.

This is not difficult to understand. It is difficult to accept, which is perhaps why so much mental masturbation has been taking place to get out of the dilemma.

[dneal]

Vaccines protect both.

You’re the only one here who consistently struggles with discussing.

Who initiates rhetoric and insult? ...

A fair question for reflection.

But irrelevant if you're never going to actually reflect on it.

[TSherbs]

It is difficult to accept, which is perhaps why so much mental masturbation has been taking place to get out of the dilemma.

Does this "difficulty" speak for you, and not for those of us who answered your question easily and directly above?

Several of us answered simply "yes, we would make the choice to have a very few statistically likely adverse effects, including death, in order to save the lives of tens of thousands of others." We don't see the dilemma as impassible, as you apparently do. Especially since we already, as a nation and members of States, accept other forms of regulation that occasionally--and predictably--cause adverse events, including death, as part of saving many thousands of others and their families and the society as a whole from the burden of managing the repercussions of large-scale illness or death.

Take toll barriers on highways. We accept these because we accept the idea that usage tolls are a worthwhile form of payment to help maintain roads and keep them maintained and safe(r) for drivers. Yet we know that those barriers sometimes are involved in crashes and injury and/or death. Fortunately, the number of deaths and injuries is low enough that we don't become stuck in the dilemma of whether a state toll system can ONLY be utilized if we can guarantee that it will NEVER result in an injury or death.

Even the government "mandate" that children attend schools, in some cases, and perhaps this is statistically predictable now, will result in additional child injuries or deaths. They may be injured on the way to school or in or on the school grounds (with another tragic case in the national news now).

I don't know if these comparisons are the "masturbations" that you are referring to (rather pejoratively), but people here have been giving you their straight up answers without much being stuck in the "dilemma" that you are describing. Of course, governements must be mindful of the consequences of their mandates; no one is suggesting otherwise.

[welch]

Read your article, dneal.

It counts deaths after a vaccination, but not by, or because of, or even linked to vaccination. Event_B might have happened after Event_A, but that does not prove that Event_A [I]caused Event_B. Further, the researchers provide about two dozen "comorbidities" found in each of the dead. "Top reported comorbidities associated with deaths included hypertension, dementia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), diabetes, and heart failure. In addition, dementia was more likely to be associated with deaths vaccinated at long-term care facilities than at other locations. Top medications associated with deaths were pain relievers, fever reducers, and antihypertensives."

Their deaths might have come from any one or a combination of the comorbidities, or from Covid itself. Were they dying when vaccinated? The numbers do not say. The study only confirms that older people are more likely to die, for whatever reason, than younger people.

Here is the researchers' discussion:


COVID-19 vaccine is [I]safe in younger groups. The majority of the reported deaths were in people aged 85 and older and vaccinated at long-term care facilities; these patients are frail older people with serious underlying health conditions such as dementia, hypertension, heart failure, COPD, diabetes, anemia, and fall. In addition, these vulnerable patients are polypharmacy users. Certain vaccine-disease and vaccine-drug interactions might have contributed to or have worsened health outcomes of those already vulnerable populations. It is essential to monitor the allergic reactions following the vaccination that mainly occur within a short period of time for preventable risks (5). However, the mortality rate of 53.4 per million following COVID-19 vaccination among long-term care facility residents during the study period was much lower compared to the 2019 monthly all-cause mortality rate of 0.3% among adults aged 65 years or older (6), or the 30-day all-cause mortality rate of 21.5% among US nursing home residents with COVID-19 (7). Therefore, our data suggest that the benefits of COVID-19 vaccines far outweigh the potential risks in older frail populations (e.g., long-term care facilities), and our findings do not support actions to exclude older adults from being vaccinated as the Norwegian government did. Continued monitoring of COVID-19 vaccination among the older population, particularly those with comorbidities and medications reported in this study, however, is warranted.

Note "Certain vaccine-disease and vaccine-drug interactions might have contributed to or have worsened health outcomes of those already vulnerable populations." Read that again, because it is closest the researchers come to your flat assertion that vaccines will kill people. Have you read your study, or just the abstract? If not, go read the study you cite. It is here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8160119/

[dneal]

Read the OP, welch. You’re completely missing the point of this thread.

[dneal]

Does this "difficulty" speak for you, and not for those of us who answered your question easily and directly above?

No difficulty on my part, but perhaps for those who insist on presenting false analogies.

[welch]

Read the OP, welch. You’re completely missing the point of this thread.

You have asserted but not demonstrated that the vaccines kill people. You keep repeating your assertion, and then leaping into a discussion of utilitarian social ethics, as if the world is parading behind Jeremy Bentham, James and John Stuart Mill, or Henry Sidgwick.

[TSherbs]

It is here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8160119/

Thanks, Welch. I read it. It is interesting how the report uses different language in the summary from in the body itself. It's actually not a study of cause and effect at all. They simply count how many persons died either the same day as the vaccine dose or the same week. There is no suggestion that the death is caused by the vaccine. They are only associating the deaths to the vaccine by proximity in time. Yet, then, in the summary, they call it an "estimation" of a Covid vaccine "death rate," which has a whole different implication.

Curiously ambiguous and ambivalent.

[dneal]

You have asserted but not demonstrated that the vaccines kill people.

Holy shit. Seriously? How do you want me to "demonstrate" it? Get a bunch of the vaccine and administer it until one dies?

Here it is though. The "demonstration" from my own link that you keep saying I need to read. The link I quoted, bolded, underlined and italicized; with you still missing it. If this isn't sufficient, then nothing is.

65367


...leaping into a discussion of utilitarian social ethics, as if the world is parading behind Jeremy Bentham, James and John Stuart Mill, or Henry Sidgwick.

"Leaping"? It's the point of my OP. It's why I posted it. It's a perfect example of utilitarian ethics, put into practice. Of course no politician has the nuts to actually do this, but the bone-headed morons will certainly claim it in some irrational virtue-signal of "compassion", "follow the science" and other nonsense. Then, like their bullshit "lockdowns", they'll start listing the exemptions/exceptions.

I'm just pointing out the ethical theory behind it, and the logical consequences. Again, this isn't hard to understand - although you seem awfully challenged with it.


--edit--

So my wife just pointed out the possibility that you're being a pedant to the point of asserting that there is no proof of a causal relationship between the vaccination and the deaths reported in VAERS after vaccination. Enter David Hume and his argument against causation, but ok. I will then point out that you can't prove that COVID killed anyone. It was the pneumonia, blood clot, etc... that killed them. COVID would be, by those pedantic standards, completely non-lethal. A mortality rate of zero. It never killed anyone because you can't show the causal relationship.

If that is how asinine of an argument you intend to make, I might have to take a page out of TSherbs' playbook and stop discussing it with you.

[Chuck Naill]

@dneal, we have responded and others have read your document to point out that what you think is flawed regarding vaccines.

I suspect the reason you chose to avoid a free vaccine is not because you're biased against the science, but maybe the scientists and a government you think is over reaching. While you didn't vote for Trump, given your listening to Bannon et al, I suspect you've allowed yourself to buy into the divison these people have accomplished. I don't fault you for this because I bought into Rush decades ago because he sounded like he had the answers. He was a fraud, a do nothing, a "shit stirer".

No one is forcing you to do anything regarding the virus. If you look up the Moderna vaccine on the CDC website, you'll notice a hypersensitivity profile and ingrediants profile. If a person is suseptible, they would be excused from receiving the vaccine. There are opt out provisions for the Biden mandate. Don't let yourself make Fauci and Biden bad people for trying to help. They might be bad for other reasons, but not this time.

[welch]

dneal, it appears that you have still not read the article you cited, or that you misunderstand what you read. You have repeatedly selected a sentence from its abstract, but have you read the details? Have you read the researchers' discussion?

They do not claim that the vaccines kill people. They report data. They do not report a diagnosis. You slipped your own assumptions onto their data, and misrepresent what they reported.

I have read Hume, and like him. Hume's point about cause is irrelevant to what medical doctors routinely do when they diagnose a malady and prescribe a treatment. Hume does not claim that we, in ordinary life, should jump off the George Washington Bridge on the expectation that the fall will not cause us to be flattened when we hit the water. Hume is simply challenging something inside a tradition of philosophy. We assume cause in all sorts of things, and we have to.

[Chuck Naill]

Reading the “discussion “ section is essential.

[dneal]

Reading the “discussion “ section is essential.

So is reading the title of this thread, and the OP.

[Chuck Naill]

Reading the “discussion “ section is essential.

So is reading the title of this thread, and the OP.

If you post a scientific article, the discussion is more important.

[dneal]

dneal, it appears that you have still not read the article you cited, or that you misunderstand what you read. You have repeatedly selected a sentence from its abstract, but have you read the details? Have you read the researchers' discussion?

They do not claim that the vaccines kill people. They report data. They do not report a diagnosis. You slipped your own assumptions onto their data, and misrepresent what they reported.

I have read Hume, and like him. Hume's point about cause is irrelevant to what medical doctors routinely do when they diagnose a malady and prescribe a treatment. Hume does not claim that we, in ordinary life, should jump off the George Washington Bridge on the expectation that the fall will not cause us to be flattened when we hit the water. Hume is simply challenging something inside a tradition of philosophy. We assume cause in all sorts of things, and we have to.

It appears you have still not read the OP, or you misunderstand what you read.

--edit--

Is your claim that the article asserts that zero deaths resulted from the COVID vaccine?

[dneal]

Reading the “discussion “ section is essential.

So is reading the title of this thread, and the OP.

If you post a scientific article, the discussion is more important.

Not when the scientific article is an example, and not the main point.

[Chuck Naill]

@dneal, are you familiar with reading a scientific article?

[dneal]

@dneal, are you familiar with reading a scientific article?

Are you familiar with what the "Results" section in the abstract is for?

Are you familiar with the concepts of "Original Post" and "Original Poster"?

Because it doesn't seem to be the case.

[Chuck Naill]

@dneal, are you familiar with reading a scientific article?

Are you familiar with what the "Results" section in the abstract is for?

Are you familiar with the concepts of "Original Post" and "Original Poster"?

Because it doesn't seem to be the case.

I’ll take that as a no.

[kazoolaw]

We both know you haven't finished the question: "What would you do (about ________?)

But I'll take your question as a free pass: I propose that Autocrat Joe, who claimed to graduate in the top half of his law school class when he was actually 76th out of 85, be questioned by someone with the skills of Trey Gowdy regarding the interplay of the presidential oath, the Constitutional separation of powers, and Biden's theory of ruling by edict.

[kazoolaw]

Sorry wrong topic.

[dneal]

@dneal, are you familiar with reading a scientific article?

Are you familiar with what the "Results" section in the abstract is for?

Are you familiar with the concepts of "Original Post" and "Original Poster"?

Because it doesn't seem to be the case.

I’ll take that as a no.

Ok Chuck, let's play.

Yes, I'm familiar with reading a scientific article.

Now my turn.

Are you familiar with what the "Results" section in the abstract is for?

Are you familiar with the concepts of "Original Post" and "Original Poster"?

[dneal]

@ welch

You "thanked" Chuck's post #106, which is time-stamped after my post #105. Perhaps you missed it, so I'll ask again:

Is your claim that the article asserts that zero deaths resulted from the COVID vaccine?

You know what? I'll make it even easier for you since you are so well versed on the article.

What did the article conclude the mortality rate of covid-19 vaccination to be?

[TSherbs]

We should also note that the 8.2 per 1M death rate is primarily driven by the deaths among 85+ year olds in assisted care residences with several co-morbidities, and in an early time period when the vaccine was only available to the very old and the most vulnerable of the rest of the population.

A better figure would be found by doing this kind of study, again, and looking at a truer cross-section of the age-and health-demographics of the country. We might find that the vaccine "death rate" is actually much lower in the general population, especially now that we are vaccinating everyone, including the healthy, all the way down to 5 years old. I would hope that someone is re-looking at this. Data is important to have for future decisions.

[dneal]

I have no problem with challenging the precise number, and I wouldn't be surprised if it isn't 8.2 per million. The abstract also lists the vaccination mortality rate in long-term facilities as 53.4 per million. The particular number isn't important, as long as it is one or greater. If it is zero, a fundamental premise is false and the conclusion is false. Waiting on welch for that one...

The point of the is thread is simply a questioning of the "vaccine mandate" argument, what it's based on, and what the consequences would be.

In particular, it confronts the "you want people to die" side of the argument with the same rhetoric. Many of those people are unable to reconcile their compassion with the fact that a true mandate would indeed cause the death of some. It would likely be fewer than those whose death was caused by the virus. Those same compassionate folks seem unable to simply say: "yes, that (causing the death of some, to save the lives of others) is acceptable to me".

"Leaping" to Utilitarianism, this is the ethical theory that the argument falls under. It is a flaw of Utilitarian theory. Kantian theory is also flawed, and so is every other ethical theory. It's just the way it is, and why ethical dilemmas exist.

As an aside, the "mandate" argument also fails in light of the fact that the vaccine is not a perfect solution. It doesn't prevent you from contracting. It doesn't prevent you from transmitting, and it doesn't prevent you from dying. It does appear to reduce the probabilities.

[welch]

@ welch

You "thanked" Chuck's post #106, which is time-stamped after my post #105. Perhaps you missed it, so I'll ask again:

Is your claim that the article asserts that zero deaths resulted from the COVID vaccine?

You know what? I'll make it even easier for you since you are so well versed on the article.

What did the article conclude the mortality rate of covid-19 vaccination to be?

Your article's contention is not that the Covid vaccines killed anyone. The researchers do not find that the vaccines "are responsible for any deaths". You still haven't read anything but the abstract, and you mis-read that. Read the data. Then show us how the data shows more than that some people died after being vaccinated. That's all. The only diagnoses the researchers mention are the comorbidities from which the very old people suffered.

Are you sure you know what they mean by "mortality rate"? You seem to believe that you can extrapolate from this "mortality rate" to arrive at 8 deaths per million people vaccinated. Since the researchers never claim that the vaccine caused people to die, are you so certain? Against your certainty, all I can say is that I have casually read that some researchers think that there might be some risky side effects to some women with particular conditions, but that the researchers aren't sure, and that the bad reaction has happened to just a few women. I haven't read of a death to anyone anywhere caused by the vaccines.

As best I understand the article: it suggests that people who got the vaccine died, from whatever causes, at a lower rate than did people of the same ages a year or two earlier. That is, in 2019. That's why the researchers suggest that Norway made a mistake by with-holding the vaccine from the frail elderly. That is in their discussion.

[dneal]

Semantics. What's the mortality rate of covid vaccination? Should be an easy answer, since you studied the article so thoroughly.

[welch]

I have no problem with challenging the precise number, and I wouldn't be surprised if it isn't 8.2 per million. The abstract also lists the vaccination mortality rate in long-term facilities as 53.4 per million. The particular number isn't important, as long as it is one or greater. If it is zero, a fundamental premise is false and the conclusion is false. Waiting on welch for that one...

The point of the is thread is simply a questioning of the "vaccine mandate" argument, what it's based on, and what the consequences would be.

In particular, it confronts the "you want people to die" side of the argument with the same rhetoric. Many of those people are unable to reconcile their compassion with the fact that a true mandate would indeed cause the death of some. It would likely be fewer than those whose death was caused by the virus. Those same compassionate folks seem unable to simply say: "yes, that (causing the death of some, to save the lives of others) is acceptable to me".

"Leaping" to Utilitarianism, this is the ethical theory that the argument falls under. It is a flaw of Utilitarian theory. Kantian theory is also flawed, and so is every other ethical theory. It's just the way it is, and why ethical dilemmas exist.

As an aside, the "mandate" argument also fails in light of the fact that the vaccine is not a perfect solution. It doesn't prevent you from contracting. It doesn't prevent you from transmitting, and it doesn't prevent you from dying. It does appear to reduce the probabilities.

dneal, you extrapolated from a sentence you picked out of the abstract without pausing to consider the possibility that the details, meaning the study itself, might say something different than your understanding. Yet you assume that this study demonstrates that the vaccines kill people. Why, then, don't the researchers say so? That would be a shock. It would bring attention to them. Why, then, do they bother talking about decisions in Norway?

You assert, without evidence, that vaccine mandates are applied utilitarianism. How do you know? Might they simply be the way that public health people try to limit the spread of a virus that has killed about 5 million people world-wide? A virus that is on its third or fourth mutation?

If you really want to discuss utilitarianism, why not just raise that?

[dneal]

Like trying to nail jello to a tree.

What’s the mortality rate of Covid vaccination, per the study?

[Empty_of_Clouds]

Article may not be accessible to everyone, so here is the entire discussion quoted.


Discussion
COVID-19 vaccine is safe in younger groups. The majority of the reported deaths were in people aged 85 and older and vaccinated at long-term care facilities; these patients are frail older people with serious underlying health conditions such as dementia, hypertension, heart failure, COPD, diabetes, anemia, and fall. In addition, these vulnerable patients are polypharmacy users. Certain vaccine-disease and vaccine-drug interactions might have contributed to or have worsened health outcomes of those already vulnerable populations. It is essential to monitor the allergic reactions following the vaccination that mainly occur within a short period of time for preventable risks (5). However, the mortality rate of 53.4 per million following COVID-19 vaccination among long-term care facility residents during the study period was much lower compared to the 2019 monthly all-cause mortality rate of 0.3% among adults aged 65 years or older (6), or the 30-day all-cause mortality rate of 21.5% among US nursing home residents with COVID-19 (7). Therefore, our data suggest that the benefits of COVID-19 vaccines far outweigh the potential risks in older frail populations (e.g., long-term care facilities), and our findings do not support actions to exclude older adults from being vaccinated as the Norwegian government did. Continued monitoring of COVID-19 vaccination among the older population, particularly those with comorbidities and medications reported in this study, however, is warranted.


Here are some points to consider.


In the abstract and the results section the researchers talk about a mortality rate of 8.2 per million among those who were vaccinated as part of this trial.
In the abstract, results and discussion sections the researchers talk about a mortality rate or 53.4 per million (during the trial period) among those in long-term care (not in this study) who were vaccinated
In neither of the above statements do the researchers attribute deaths directly to the vaccination.
The researchers note that the patients had one or more co-morbidities (which significantly raise odds of dying) and/or were taking more than one type of medicine (polypharmacy = multiple drugs, another significant raiser of odds of dying).*
The researchers acknowledge that the vaccines 'might have contributed to or have worsened health outcomes of those already vulnerable populations', and that close monitoring is recommended.



When considering the mortality rates reported by this particular study, it should be noted that monthly all-cause mortality rate among adults over 65 years is 0.3%, and the mortality rate among the vaccinated patients in long term-care during the period of but not specifically in the study is 0.005%.

Essentially, as I understand it, while vaccination in this population retains a significantly lower mortality rate than all other causes of death, it is should not be taken in isolation. My interpretation is that vaccinating this population increases the mortality rate by 0.005%, not necessarily by direct cause (that has yet to be established) but by contributing to already existing poor health states.

Hopefully that helps some in clearing up confusions. Taking number by themselves tends to lead to loss of meaning.




*Note about point 4 above. You will have to go to other literature to find supporting evidence that co-morbidities and polypharmacy raises odds of death. Plenty of stuff out there. Or you could accept it as written. :)

[dneal]

There is no confusion. There's a lot of weaseling. There is a complete ignoring of the plain language in the abstract.

A recent study demonstrated that peanut allergy mortality of x% is not due to peanuts, but the anaphylaxis... Another study demonstrated that the mortality rate from drowning was not from the water, but that hemoglobin ceased to transport oxygen. Guns don't kill people, death results because of all the blood loss. It's not the fall that kills you, it's the sudden stop.

That's how silly the line of arguing is, made a little more obvious.

From the abstract:

1. EUA for COVID vaccines brought concerns
2. We aimed to estimate the mortality rate of COVID vaccination
3. Data on deaths following COVID vaccination were obtained from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS)
4. the mortality rate of COVID vaccination was 8.2 per million population

But some would argue that if we dig a little deeper in the paper, then we would discover that the deaths resulted from the comorbidities, and the vaccine or vaccination had absolutely nothing to do with it. Right? It was the dementia. It was the hypertension. It was the COPD. It was certainly not the perfectly harmless and safe and not potentially mortal vaccine, that we'll continue to monitor because it's warranted for some reason... I wonder why they didn't just say that in the abstract, and particularly the "results" portion of it.

Dear god the levels of disingenuity has reached heights I never thought possible. Even more scary is that some of you might truly believe the nonsense you're peddling.

[welch]

dneal, your study does NOT say that the vaccines killed anyone. Therefore you have no basis for using it to claim that vaccines will kill people and then using that claim as ground for arguing that a vaccine mandate is an example of utilitarianiam.

[dneal]

Cool. What's the mortality rate of covid vaccination, per the study?

[Chuck Naill]

Let says that’s ten die for every million who receive the only proven preventative measure, would that be enough?

Apparently, 1.1 million received the vaccine in the US yesterday. People are beginning to accept the risk.

Do generals accept that 10 out of million soldiers killed would be acceptable?

[dneal]

Let says that’s ten die for every million who receive the only proven preventative measure, would that be enough?

Apparently, 1.1 million received the vaccine in the US yesterday. People are beginning to accept the risk.

Do generals accept that 10 out of million soldiers killed would be acceptable?

Thank you Chuck. That is the point, not the specific number.

I suspect that a general would find that more than acceptable, and even favorable (assuming the ratio in your hypothetical is the result of a successful battle, campaign or war).

Now let me ask a question in return:

Is the vaccine the only proven preventative measure? By "proven", to what level of effectiveness? and by "preventative", preventing what?

[Chuck Naill]

Let says that’s ten die for every million who receive the only proven preventative measure, would that be enough?

Apparently, 1.1 million received the vaccine in the US yesterday. People are beginning to accept the risk.

Do generals accept that 10 out of million soldiers killed would be acceptable?

Thank you Chuck. That is the point, not the specific number.

I suspect that a general would find that more than acceptable, and even favorable (assuming the ratio in your hypothetical is the result of a successful battle, campaign or war).

Now let me ask a question in return:

Is the vaccine the only proven preventative measure?

No. Staying far enough apart to prevent spread of an aerosol and masking is a proven measure.

[dneal]

Sorry, I edited on you; but I'll just make the argument for clarity.

If the vaccine were 100% proven to prevent death from COVID, and COVID was 100% lethal to every human; I would tend to agree with mandatory vaccination to prevent the spread.

However, neither of those are the case.

[Chuck Naill]

Sorry, I edited on you; but I'll just make the argument for clarity.

If the vaccine were 100% proven to prevent death from COVID, and COVID was 100% lethal to every human; I would tend to agree with mandatory vaccination to prevent the spread.

However, neither of those are the case.

Another variable to consider, 800k US citizens have died. Billions of dollars lost to the economy and millions out of work.

A strategy to prevent further deaths and economic loss would be to consider a less than 100 percent proven prevention program which includes masks and distance.

A poorer strategy would be wait and see while depending on monoclonal antibodies, etc. while risking overpowering the health care facilities.

[welch]

dneal, you carelessly misread your study only to pick out a sentence from the abstract. Your study never says that a Covid vaccine caused people to die. You keep pushing your misreading as an excuse to discuss a non-problem.

[Chuck Naill]

My publix radio includes Science Friday featuring Ralph Nader today. He related vaccines and seat belts. He said the government didn’t empathize “contagion” enough. He said some don’t trust pharma and other have a fear of needles .

[Empty_of_Clouds]

Mortality rate among vaccinated members of the population in the study was 0.0008%
Mortality rate among vaccinated members of the population NOT in the study but in long-term care elsewhere was 0.005%

While it was not explicitly stated in the published study I have to conclude that this represents additional risk because it is so much lower than the existing risk of death for the unvaccinated population in long-term care.


That's what the study says, no weaseling here.

[Chuck Naill]

Mortality rate among vaccinated members of the population in the study was 0.0008%
Mortality rate among vaccinated members of the population NOT in the study but in long-term care elsewhere was 0.005%

While it was not explicitly stated in the published study I have to conclude that this represents additional risk because it is so much lower than the existing risk of death for the unvaccinated population in long-term care.


That's what the study says, no weaseling here.

Mortality amount long term care would be expected to be greater than general population.

[dneal]

dneal, you carelessly misread your study only to pick out a sentence from the abstract. Your study never says that a Covid vaccine caused people to die. You keep pushing your misreading as an excuse to discuss a non-problem.

Feel free to move on to a different thread absent of “non-problems”. This one has you stuck in a loop that apparently can’t be debugged.

[dneal]

Mortality rate among vaccinated members of the population in the study was 0.0008%
Mortality rate among vaccinated members of the population NOT in the study but in long-term care elsewhere was 0.005%

While it was not explicitly stated in the published study I have to conclude that this represents additional risk because it is so much lower than the existing risk of death for the unvaccinated population in long-term care.


That's what the study says, no weaseling here.

Ok, but that’s still not the point of the thread.

[Chuck Naill]

Mortality rate among vaccinated members of the population in the study was 0.0008%
Mortality rate among vaccinated members of the population NOT in the study but in long-term care elsewhere was 0.005%

While it was not explicitly stated in the published study I have to conclude that this represents additional risk because it is so much lower than the existing risk of death for the unvaccinated population in long-term care.


That's what the study says, no weaseling here.

Ok, but that’s still not the point of the thread.

It’s a reasonable response, @dneal.

[Empty_of_Clouds]

Mortality rate among vaccinated members of the population in the study was 0.0008%
Mortality rate among vaccinated members of the population NOT in the study but in long-term care elsewhere was 0.005%

While it was not explicitly stated in the published study I have to conclude that this represents additional risk because it is so much lower than the existing risk of death for the unvaccinated population in long-term care.


That's what the study says, no weaseling here.

Ok, but that’s still not the point of the thread.

No, it's not the point of the thread, but it is a response to your request for the numbers. So it satisfies on that part.

I think I stated my position on the ethics earlier in the thread.

[dneal]

Mortality rate among vaccinated members of the population in the study was 0.0008%
Mortality rate among vaccinated members of the population NOT in the study but in long-term care elsewhere was 0.005%

While it was not explicitly stated in the published study I have to conclude that this represents additional risk because it is so much lower than the existing risk of death for the unvaccinated population in long-term care.


That's what the study says, no weaseling here.

Ok, but that’s still not the point of the thread.

No, it's not the point of the thread, but it is a response to your request for the numbers. So it satisfies on that part.

I think I stated my position on the ethics earlier in the thread.

Oh, the request for numbers was for the guy who could only assert what the study “didn’t say”.

[Chuck Naill]

Mortality rate among vaccinated members of the population in the study was 0.0008%
Mortality rate among vaccinated members of the population NOT in the study but in long-term care elsewhere was 0.005%

While it was not explicitly stated in the published study I have to conclude that this represents additional risk because it is so much lower than the existing risk of death for the unvaccinated population in long-term care.


That's what the study says, no weaseling here.

Ok, but that’s still not the point of the thread.

No, it's not the point of the thread, but it is a response to your request for the numbers. So it satisfies on that part.

I think I stated my position on the ethics earlier in the thread.

Oh, the request for numbers was for the guy who could only assert what the study “didn’t say”.

I don't get it @dneal. You say you want a discussion and all you do is drama. If you feel your interpretation is correct, your're going about it the wrong way.

[dneal]

Chuck - I would like to discuss the topic in my OP. One poster has made a great effort to derail the topic with a straw man. I've clarified twice what the thesis is, and laid out the position. I'm done with the pedantry and disingenuous argument. Maybe I'll change my mind, but I doubt it. That poster will first have to plainly state what he understands the mortality rate of covid vaccination to be (according to the study). No drama, just an impasse.

[Chuck Naill]

Chuck - I would like to discuss the topic in my OP. One poster has made a great effort to derail the topic with a straw man. I've clarified twice what the thesis is, and laid out the position. I'm done with the pedantry and disingenuous argument. Maybe I'll change my mind, but I doubt it. That poster will first have to plainly state what he understands the mortality rate of covid vaccination to be (according to the study). No drama, just an impasse.

I went back and read the abstract. I do not access to the full study. I pulled this information.
"As of January 8, 2021, 55 deaths were reported, and the mortality rate of COVID-19 vaccination was 8.2 per million population. A total of 37 deaths were reported among long-term care facility residents, and the mortality rate was 53.4 per million population. Top reported comorbidities associated with deaths included hypertension, dementia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), diabetes, and heart failure. In addition, dementia was more likely to be associated with deaths vaccinated at long-term care facilities than at other locations."

I noticed again the VAERS reporting system was used. I think we've discussed this system being subjective before, but even if accurate, the patients cited were at long term care facilities with the typical co-morbidities we'd expect with dementa being more likely to be associated with vaccine death which should not be a surprise.

The conclusion stated the researcher felt the benefits outweighed the risks. You had asked and I responded did I feel vaccine mandates should be imposed and I think by reading the conclusion on the abstract you posted, they are practical and necessary. That said, if you read the Moderna Vaccine information on the CDC website you will have access to precautions for certain groups. So, someone would be able to opt out if at risk, which would reduce potential harm by any mandate.

All this said, I am not convinced the reason you are not chosing to recieve the vaccine is because you are afraid of dying. Is this a valid appraisal?

[dneal]

Chuck,

- I know in the results section the authors estimate the mortality rate at 8.2 per million. welch keeps insisting that I need to read the paper, suggesting that it does not say that. Well, it doesn't if you ignore the part that does (namely, the results). So I am simply giving him the opportunity to go on the record on what he thinks the paper says. Zero? 16 per million? I don't really care what the number is. He hasn't done it so far. The point isn't an accurate number, which I note in the OP, as well as the fact that the number is debatable.

I am not afraid of dying. Don't want to, but I'm not afraid of it. I could have died in Iraq or Afghanistan on several occasions, but particularly when the suicide bomber detonated in the room next to me, during a tour in Afghanistan. My choice on vaccination is a long discussion on risk assessment, which I'm not inclined to engage in here. It would just lead to the internet hyenas shouting "YOU'RE WRONG!!!" in some fashion. Maybe I am, but maybe I'm not. My body, my choice; and all that...

[Chuck Naill]

My choice on vaccination is a long discussion on risk assessment, which I'm not inclined to engage in here. It would just lead to the internet hyenas shouting "YOU'RE WRONG!!!" in some fashion. Maybe I am, but maybe I'm not. My body, my choice; and all that...

You don't need to say, but I just suspected it has nothing to do with this thread's topic. While I may not be afraid to die, I have family that I for whom I would like to be engaged. Plus, economically, having a hosptical stay and long term health problems is not something for which I want to owe.

I might have said before I had a tick bite in July 2015 with similar symptoms to "long COVID" until the Spring of '19. And I have friends who chose to not get the vaccine who are continueing to be symptomatic.

Yeah, it is your choice, but the authors clearly stated their position given the death rate. I think your taking a risky path.

[dneal]

It indeed has nothing to do with the thread title. I got Lyme disease at Fort Chaffee in ‘96, btw

[Chuck Naill]

Marcus Lamb has died of COVID-19
"Instead of getting vaccinated, “we can pray, we can get ivermectin and budesonide and hydroxychloroquine,” he said, referring to several drugs that have not been approved for Covid treatment by the Food and Drug Administration. He denounced vaccination"
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/01/us/marcus-lamb-dead.html

[Chuck Naill]

Apparently Lamb had been taking Ivermectin.

[dneal]

Chuck, honest question. Why are you so anti-ivermectin? If it works, and there is growing evidence it does; then that should be a good thing. If it doesn't, and does little to no harm; what's the problem with experimenting with it?

I'm talking about formulation and dose rates intended for humans - not "horse dewormer".

Every article or discussion I post on that seems to prompt you toward harshly negative comments. Have you really examined it objectively? Your "rebuttal" in a different thread (I can go dig it up if you want) was a journal article actually supporting further examination of ivermectin as a treatment.

I'm not trying to play "gotcha". I'm genuinely curious and genuinely think this might be a "blind spot" for you.

--edit--

I'll even throw this olive branch out. I'm not an "anti-vaxxer". I think those populations most vulnerable should get it. I'm a little gun-shy on vaccines because of the Army. I got my tetanus booster a few months ago. I got this season's flu-shot. My main issue with the covid vaccine is simply there is no long-term data on it. When I look at the mortality rate of covid, and do the risk assessment for me, it doesn't outweigh the lack of data for the vaccine.

I don't see a problem developing treatment protocols. Not for me "so I don't have to get the shot", but because it would save lives. Breakthrough cases included.

[Chuck Naill]

Chuck, honest question. Why are you so anti-ivermectin? If it works, and there is growing evidence it does; then that should be a good thing. If it doesn't, and does little to no harm; what's the problem with experimenting with it?

I'm talking about formulation and dose rates intended for humans - not "horse dewormer".

Every article or discussion I post on that seems to prompt you toward harshly negative comments. Have you really examined it objectively? Your "rebuttal" in a different thread (I can go dig it up if you want) was a journal article actually supporting further examination of ivermectin as a treatment.

I'm not trying to play "gotcha". I'm genuinely curious and genuinely think this might be a "blind spot" for you.

--edit--

I'll even throw this olive branch out. I'm not an "anti-vaxxer". I think those populations most vulnerable should get it. I'm a little gun-shy on vaccines because of the Army. I got my tetanus booster a few months ago. I got this season's flu-shot. My main issue with the covid vaccine is simply there is no long-term data on it. When I look at the mortality rate of covid, and do the risk assessment for me, it doesn't outweigh the lack of data for the vaccine.

I don't see a problem developing treatment protocols. Not for me "so I don't have to get the shot", but because it would save lives. Breakthrough cases included.

Since we are flying by the seat of our pants......LOL!!

What dosage of invermetin would you recommend? Would the dosage vary with age or co-morbidity? Would there be a need to do liver tests prior to taking? What precautions and adverse events were noted in clinical trial? Is there a pregnancy catagory? Should reliable contraception be known beforehand? What does for children under 12? What are the contraindications and drug interactions?

No way to say it works beyond anecdotal, @dneal. https://emergency.cdc.gov/han/2021/pdf/CDC_HAN_449.pdf

As yoiu'll notice there are side effects and I know that matters to you.
"Clinical effects of ivermectin overdose include gastrointestinal symptoms such as nausea, vomiting, and
diarrhea. Overdoses are associated with hypotension and neurologic effects such as decreased
consciousness, confusion, hallucinations, seizures, coma, and death. Ivermectin may potentiate the
effects of other drugs that cause central nervous system depression such as benzodiazepines and
barbiturates"

Since no known therapeutic dose is known, overdose is possible.
"Examples of recent significant adverse effects reported to U.S. poison control centers include the
following:
• An adult drank an injectable ivermectin formulation intended for use in cattle in an attempt to
prevent COVID-19 infection. This patient presented to a hospital with confusion, drowsiness,
visual hallucinations, tachypnea, and tremors. The patient recovered after being hospitalized for
nine days.
• An adult patient presented with altered mental status after taking ivermectin tablets of unknown
strength purchased on the internet. The patient reportedly took five tablets a day for five days to
treat COVID-19. The patient was disoriented and had difficulty answering questions and following
commands. Symptoms improved with discontinuation of ivermectin after hospital admission.
Recommendations for Clinicians and Public Health Practitioners
• Be aware that ivermectin is not currently authorized or approved by FDA for treatment of COVID"

If I take Tylenol at the beginning of a cold and get better overnight I might recommend it to you, but there is no evidence the drug cures the common cold. Ivermetic was suggested as was other drugs by Donald Trump. Had he not suggested the use, it would have never been considered. Can you see how you have been influenced. Some people even drank bleach!!!

The military apparently has greatly influenced you in many ways, some positive and some negative I suspect. I have never been against vaccines. When I traveled out of the states, it was required and I got them at the health department.

Over 700 Americans have died of COVID-19. The preacher who died was an antivaxxer who took Trump's recommended chances and lost. He could have received a free option that has FDA approval yet he chose an untested and unknown therapeutic dose of those drugs and paid dearly not to mention the grief and suffere from those for whom depended on him and loved him. Franklin Graham said he is now with Jesus.


So, in summary, if I am going to do something or recommend something I want evidence to support the practice and advice. You've ask why I am not advocating ivermetin and it is because I have no basis. If I did follow your advice it would be, "go ahead and give it a try". I don't really think that's the practice of the Army or any business venture.

[Chuck Naill]

"Since May 2021, people living in counties that voted heavily for Donald Trump during the 2020 presidential election have been nearly three times as likely to die from COVID-19 as those who live in areas that went for now-President Biden. That's according to a new analysis by NPR that examines how political polarization and misinformation are now driving a significant share of the deaths in the pandemic.

NPR looked at deaths per 100,000 people in roughly 3,000 counties across the U.S. from May 2021, the point at which vaccinations widely became available. People living in counties that went 60% or higher for Trump in November 2020 had 2.7 times the death rates of those that went for Biden. Counties with an even higher share of the vote for Trump saw higher COVID-19 mortality rates."
https://northcountrypublicradio.org/news/npr/1059828993/pro-trump-counties-now-have-far-higher-covid-death-rates-misinformation-is-to-blame

Of course this might just be fake news since NPR is liberal.

[TSherbs]

I just posted this on the other thread.

[dneal]

Chuck, that is precisely what I'm talking about. I asked you a genuine question, and your response started out with "Since we are flying by the seat of our pants......LOL!!"

That's the "other" Chuck, not the one I'm interested with talking to.

Then you post selective articles "proving" ivermectin is "bad". Then you post some article about Trump.

This is not dissimilar to the "Interesting Video" thread (https://fpgeeks.com/forum/showthread.php/35784-Interesting-Video). I shared an expert's current understanding of where we're at with covid, namely that 3CL protease inhibitors appeared effective. There are several NIH and other credible links supporting it, and that ivermectin does a good job at inhibiting 3CL protease.

You responded with a portion of and link to another article, and concluded with a sarcastic remark (https://fpgeeks.com/forum/showthread.php/35784-Interesting-Video?p=344637&viewfull=1#post344637). But the link and text you cited demonstrates the opposite of your claim. You read the first sentence, bolded it, and ignored the second sentence that contradicts what your understanding of the article appeared to be. The first sentence does too, for that matter. This is what I mean by "blind spot".

Here's the post I'm referring to.


"Conclusion
Previous experimental studies demonstrated that IVM could inhibit SARS-CoV-2 replication in vitro; however, IVM's molecular mechanism inhibits binding to importin-α, and other SARS-CoV-2 receptors have not yet been elucidated. Recently, docking studies suggested the possible molecular mechanism through which IVM could inhibit mouse importin-α and some key SARS-CoV-2 targets (Nsp9 replicase, RdRp, and Nsp13 helicase), paving the way to the development of more robust studies. In this research, we explored the ability of IVM to inhibit human importin-α and five SARS-CoV-2 targets: dimeric 3CLpro, Nsp9 replicase, Nsp13 helicase, RdRp, and RBD-spike protein, using docking analysis, MD simulations coupled to the MMGBSA approach, and per-residue decomposition analysis. Hydrophobic and hydrophilic interactions guided interactions between IVM and importin-α, dimeric 3CLpro, and Nsp9, hydrophilic interactions being more critical for IVM binding at the central binding groove of importin-α. Per-residue free energy analysis let us identify hot-spot residues for importin-α-IVM (Trp184, Asn188, Arg227, and Trp231), 3CLpro-IVM (His41, Met49, Leu50, Leu141, Asn142, Met165, Glu166, and Gln189), and Nsp9-IVM (Leu4, Pro6, Leu97, Arg99, Gly100, Met101, Leu103, and Gly104), which contribute significantly to the affinity. MMGBSA results revealed that dimeric 3CLpro has the highest relationship among the different COVID-19 targets, followed by importin-α and Nsp9, which showed similar IVM affinity. This result indicates that the inhibitory activity of IVM maybe by targeting IMP and two essential targets of SARS-CoV2 (dimeric 3CLpro and Nsp9).

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8054936/


For @dneal, elucidate means to make clear.

So to ask again, why are you so anti-ivermectin (or any other treatment for Covid infection, for that matter)? Developing effective treatment for infection seems to me to be critical, particularly when new variants are more able to get around the vaccine.

[Chuck Naill]

Do you know what flying by the seat of your pants means? It means figuring it out as you go. Sorry if it was offensive. You've a little overly sensitive here latley....LOL!! I suspect you're playing the roll of a troll now. So, I may be wasting my time looking up resouces for you to read. Like others have said, we just come here for fun. After answering your question and then to have to ask it again tells me something.

I answered your question completly with documentaion. Why didn't you answer the questions?

What other treatment are you referring? Other oral medication are being developed.

[dneal]

Not oversensitive at all. We both know your first sentence was intended to be dismissive and mocking.

Your questions are ones I wouldn't know the answers to. "What dosage?" for example. I'm not making an argument on what we should or shouldn't prescribe. I'm pointing out that the people who are experts are trying to figure that out, but there is a narrative attempting to shut them down. That seems insane to me. You seem to have bought into that narrative.

Your typical responses to "ivermectin" appear to be knee-jerk, and appear to cause you to become irrational. A "science-denier", if you will. Maybe ivermectin will be a key component to saving lives, maybe not. I don't advocate its use. I advocate the research into it, among other treatments.

--edit--


Ivermetic was suggested as was other drugs by Donald Trump. Had he not suggested the use, it would have never been considered. Can you see how you have been influenced. Some people even drank bleach!!!

I forgot to comment on this. Do you think Trump just came up with using ivermectin? Or do you think someone in the medical profession suggested it to him? If the former, can you see how you have been influenced?

[Chuck Naill]

Not oversensitive at all. We both know your first sentence was intended to be dismissive and mocking.

Your questions are ones I wouldn't know the answers to. "What dosage?" for example. I'm not making an argument on what we should or shouldn't prescribe. I'm pointing out that the people who are experts are trying to figure that out, but there is a narrative attempting to shut them down. That seems insane to me. You seem to have bought into that narrative.

Your typical responses to "ivermectin" appear to be knee-jerk, and appear to cause you to become irrational. A "science-denier", if you will. Maybe ivermectin will be a key component to saving lives, maybe not. I don't advocate its use. I advocate the research into it, among other treatments.

Good grief @dneal. Others have to be laughing at you sudden concern for my satire given you own vernacular. You don't advocate its use....LOL!!

Well, bro, educate yourself if you're going to suggest a treatment because that's what occurs with an FDA approval. You get a dosage and all the rest.

What experts do you refer?

If I were a science denier, I would not be posting evidence based resouces. Wanna try again?

[dneal]

Wanna try again?

Not until you regain your composure.

[Chuck Naill]

I am good. Have a nice day.......:boink:

[dneal]

Ok Chuck, let's try again.

Understanding Unapproved Use of Approved Drugs "Off Label" (https://www.fda.gov/patients/learn-about-expanded-access-and-other-treatment-options/understanding-unapproved-use-approved-drugs-label)


Why might an approved drug be used for an unapproved use?

From the FDA perspective, once the FDA approves a drug, healthcare providers generally may prescribe the drug for an unapproved use when they judge that it is medically appropriate for their patient.
You may be asking yourself why your healthcare provider would want to prescribe a drug to treat a disease or medical condition that the drug is not approved for. One reason is that there might not be an approved drug to treat your disease or medical condition. Another is that you may have tried all approved treatments without seeing any benefits. In situations like these, you and your healthcare provider may talk about using an approved drug for an unapproved use to treat your disease or medical condition.

What are examples of unapproved uses of approved drugs?

Unapproved use of an approved drug is often called “off-label” use. This term can mean that the drug is:

Used for a disease or medical condition that it is not approved to treat, such as when a chemotherapy is approved to treat one type of cancer, but healthcare providers use it to treat a different type of cancer.
Given in a different way, such as when a drug is approved as a capsule, but it is given instead in an oral solution.
Given in a different dose, such as when a drug is approved at a dose of one tablet every day, but a patient is told by their healthcare provider to take two tablets every day.
If you and your healthcare provider decide to use an approved drug for an unapproved use to treat your disease or medical condition, remember that FDA has not determined that the drug is safe and effective for the unapproved use.

Ivermectin is an FDA approved drug. It is also won a Nobel Prize. It also has been used in many "off-label" instances as an anti-viral.

From the "Interesting Video" thread. The discussion summary and links to the journal articles.

3CL protease inhibitors show effectiveness at blocking covid. Ivermectin is increasingly shown to be an effective 3CL protease inhibitor. Again, drugs do not have to be approved by the FDA for "off-label" use, to be used "off-label".




From the description:



New Pfizer antiviral and ivermectin, a pharmacodynamic analysis

New Pfizer antiviral, PF-07321332, C₂₃H₃₂F₃N₅O₄

PF-07321332 is designed to block the activity of the SARS-CoV-2-3CL protease (https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-detail/pfizers-novel-covid-19-oral-antiviral-treatment-candidate)

So, what is a protease?

So what is a protease inhibitor?

And, what is 3CL?

Chymotrypsin-like protease (3CL main protease, or 3CL Mpro)

Identification of SARS-CoV‑2 3CL Protease Inhibitors by a Quantitative High-Throughput Screening (3rd September 2020) (https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acsptsci.0c00108#)

The activity of the anti-SARS-CoV-2 viral infection was confirmed in 7 of 23 compounds

Microscopic interactions between ivermectin and key human and viral proteins involved in SARS-CoV-2 infection (https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2021/cp/d1cp02967c)

the strength and persistency of the interaction between IVE and the binding site of 3CLpro indicate that a partial inhibition of the catalytic activity could have place as the drug interacts with the main subdomains that define the enzyme binding pocket:

Identification of 3-chymotrypsin like protease (3CLPro) inhibitors as potential anti-SARS-CoV-2 agents (https://www.nature.com/articles/s42003-020-01577-x)

as shown in Fig. 4, out of 13 OTDs only ivermectin completely blocked ( more than 80%) the 3CLpro activity at 50 µM concentration.

Development, validation, and approval of COVID-19 specific drugs takes years. Therefore, the idea of drug repositioning, also known as repurposing, is an important strategy to control the sudden outbreak of life-threatening infectious agents that spread rapidly.

Ilimaquinone (marine sponge metabolite) as a novel inhibitor of SARS-CoV-2 key target proteins in comparison with suggested COVID-19 drugs: designing, docking and molecular dynamics simulation study (https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2020/ra/d0ra06379g)

From the docking analysis, ivermectin showed the highest docking score with an average energy of −8.5 kcal mol−1 among all the compounds. Remdesivir showed the lowest binding energy and highest docking score of −9.9 kcal mol−1 (https://www.nice.org.uk/bnf-uk-only)

Ritonavir, C37H48N6O5S2

Ivermectin, C48H74O14

Exploring the binding efficacy of ivermectin against the key proteins of SARS-CoV-2 pathogenesis: an in silico approach (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7996102/)

We have documented an intense binding of both ivermectin B1a and B1b isomer to the main protease with subsequent energy (ETot-) values of -384.56 and -408.6.

PF-07321332 is designed to block the activity of the SARS-CoV-2-3CL protease (https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-detail/pfizers-novel-covid-19-oral-antiviral-treatment-candidate)

Risk of virus developing resistance to PF-07321332

Molecular Docking Reveals Ivermectin and Remdesivir as Potential Repurposed Drugs Against SARS-CoV-2 (https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmicb.2020.592908/full)

With SARS-CoV-2 S Spike protein

Ivermectin showed high binding affinity to the viral S protein as well as the human cell surface receptors ACE-2 and TMPRSS2.

In agreement to our findings, ivermectin was found to be docked between the viral spike and the ACE2 receptor

Binding Interactions of Selected Drugs With Human TMPRSS2 Protein (ACE2 protein)

The docking results revealed that ivermectin showed the highest binding affinity to the active site of the protein (MolDock score −174.971) and protein–ligand interactions

Binding Interactions of Selected Drugs With Human ACE-2 Protein

that ivermectin showed the highest binding affinity to the active site of the protein (MolDock score −159.754) and protein–ligand interactions

With SARS-CoV-2 S Glycoprotein

Ivermectin showed the highest binding affinity to the predicted active site of the protein

With SARS-CoV-2 Nsp14 Protein

ivermectin showed the highest binding affinity (MolDock score −212.265) and protein–ligand interactions

Binding Interactions of Selected Drugs With SARS-CoV-2 PLpro

Ivermectin showed the highest binding affinity to the predicted active site of the protein (MolDock score −180.765) and protein–ligand interactions


Layman's summary:
- Pfizer (and others) are developing new molecules that inhibit the 3CL protease.
- 3CL inhibitors already exist - one of them being ivermectin.
- Ivermectin is out of patent, and costs pennies per dose.
- Drugs still in patent (e.g.: Remdesivir) are exponentially expensive, with costs varying by country.

[Chuck Naill]

Okay I am game.


Off label use:
"https://www.utsouthwestern.edu/research/hrpp/assets/sis_guidance_offlabel_drug.pdf#:~:text=Good%20medi cal%20practice%20and%20patient%20interests%20requi re%20that,New%20Drug%20%28IND%29%20application%20o r%20review%20by%20the"

Another resource:
https://www.fda.gov/patients/learn-about-expanded-access-and-other-treatment-options/understanding-unapproved-use-approved-drugs-label

Again, no answers to the questions I asked. What you postd doesn't answer.

[dneal]

I'm not going to answer those questions, and I already said that there's no way that I could.

Your "another resource" is the FDA page I posted and quoted. It reinforces my point (you have a blind spot), not yours (whatever that is...).

So let's go back to the original question on your "blind spot", exhibited in your mis-citing of the ivermectin study I quoted in post #149, your unsubstantiated assertion that no one would be looking at ivermectin had Trump not mentioned it, and your continued refusal to consider the cited evidence presented in Dr. Campbell's video on the potentially promising off-label use of ivermectin.

[Chuck Naill]

I'm not going to answer those questions, and I already said that there's no way that I could.

Your "another resource" is the FDA page I posted and quoted. It reinforces my point (you have a blind spot), not yours (whatever that is...).

So let's go back to the original question on your "blind spot", exhibited in your mis-citing of the ivermectin study I quoted in post #149, your unsubstantiated assertion that no one would be looking at ivermectin had Trump not mentioned it, and your continued refusal to consider the cited evidence presented in Dr. Campbell's video on the potentially promising off-label use of ivermectin.

Oh, so it is your thread and you don't have to answer those questions? Let's not discuss blind spots if you are unable to answer prescribing information while promoting a cure. Don't embarrass yourself further than you already have.

[dneal]

You're still dodging. That and your earlier responses that basically consist of "It doesn't work, here's a link", "The idiot Trump is who suggested it", and the incorrect statements of FDA approval and off-label use all seem to reinforce my hypothesis that you have a blind spot.

[Chuck Naill]

You're still dodging. That and your earlier responses that basically consist of "It doesn't work, here's a link", "The idiot Trump is who suggested it", and the incorrect statements of FDA approval and off-label use all seem to reinforce my hypothesis that you have a blind spot.

You just demonstrated you aren't reading my posts. None of that is a valid response.

[Chuck Naill]

Perhaps it is time to provide full disclosure. If I post something here I attempt to be factual/evidenced based or admit I have no idea and that it is purely anecdotal. While options exist for treating COVID-19, one should only consider those which have been tested. And, in the spirit of freedom, it is your body, do whatever is best for you. I have no personal need to sell you on something.

[dneal]

Chuck, perhaps you should revisit post #145.


Chuck, honest question. Why are you so anti-ivermectin? If it works, and there is growing evidence it does; then that should be a good thing. If it doesn't, and does little to no harm; what's the problem with experimenting with it?

And your response in #146.

Did you answer the question?

I am reading your posts. I'll summarize your non-answer of #146:

- "flying by seat of pants" and "lol"
- Questions in bold on what dosage I would recommend, and others not answering my question.
- No way to say it works beyond anecdotal. (Not accurate, ignores studies we both have posted; but at least it's a semblance of an answer)
- Side effects (maybe an answer, but is about overdoses and not clinical prescription from a doctor. A variation of the "horse-dewormer" hyperbole argument).
- No known therapeutic doses (patently false, and more hyperbolic type argument)
- Tylenol metaphor and bleach-drinking. (More hyperbole.)
- The military influenced...
- 700 Americans died of covid, anti-vaxxer preacher, Trump and more hyperbole.
- A summary that is a misrepresentation of my "advice" (I gave none), and a claim that you want evidence (of which I've posted plenty of but you ignore - perhaps because of a "blind-spot").

Chuck, that all demonstrates precisely my point. Whenever "ivermectin" is mentioned, it triggers you into a hyperbolic rant.

I tried to ask why this is, and suggested you have a blind-spot with regard to it. I read your post, and you reinforced my supposition.

Whether vaccines, Trump, ivermectin or other topics you have a strong opinion on; your responses remind me of Bloom County's "Bill the Cat", and a very lengthy version of "Ack!". Yes, that characterization is not flattering; but it's not written as some internet insult. It's what prompts me to ask why you do that. I hoped the reasonable Chuck could answer reasonably. I was wrong, I suppose; and it seemed to have triggered the "other" Chuck. That's unfortunate.

[Chuck Naill]

Your question was more an responded toward. You dodged my questions, being central to issue of using an unapproved medication.

So, if you got COVID, what dose of ivermectin would you take? Maybe I was too academic for you .

[dneal]

You still continue to dodge, but that's par for the course.

I would take whatever dose my doctor recommended, if he recommended it.

Hypothetical for you then:

You contract a breakthrough case of Covid, and your doctor (based on recent studies) tells you that his prescribed dosage of ivermectin will save your life. Do you take it? or do you shout "TRUMPIST" and "HORSE-DEWORMER" at him?

[Chuck Naill]

You still continue to dodge, but that's par for the course.

I would take whatever dose my doctor recommended, if he recommended it.

Hypothetical for you then:

You contract a breakthrough case of Covid, and your doctor (based on recent studies) tells you that his prescribed dosage of ivermectin will save your life. Do you take it? or do you shout "TRUMPIST" and "HORSE-DEWORMER" at him?

My posts are a testament that I didn’t dodge, but if it makes you feel special…..

Would your doctor recommend? She or he pays malpractice insurance, BTW. There is a penalty for prescribing off label with no clear path toward a pathology. Just saying.

Monoclonal antibodies would most likely be prescribed.

[dneal]

Your dodging of my hypothetical is yet more evidence that you do, in fact, dodge.

My doctor would recommend, and the "penalties" originate from political hysteria - not science. Feel free to cite the law that penalizes off-label prescription of ivermectin for treatment of covid though.

Monoclonal antibodies have an EUA for prophylaxis post-exposure. Practicing physicians who have successfully treated covid infections and contributed to successful treatment protocols note that monoclonal antibodies are helpful within the first 7 days of symptoms, but harmful in later stages. Ivermectin is recommended throughout infection. Neither are approved by the FDA for treatment of COVID, so monoclonal antibodies being used for treatment is "off-label" too.

[Chuck Naill]

You demonstrate again your total ignorance, my friend. Please stop embarrassing yourself.

[dneal]

So your answer to my ivermectin hypothetical is...?

You can't even say you would take the i-medicine if your doctor said it would save your life, in a simple hypothetical.

Blind-spot.

[Chuck Naill]

So your answer to my ivermectin hypothetical is...?

You can't even say you would take the i-medicine if your doctor said it would save your life, in a simple hypothetical.

Blind-spot.

Dr. Johnson would never prescribe. I knew him as a resident in the ‘90’s. He’s always practiced evidenced based medicine.

[dneal]

Still dodging. You are presented with a hypothetical that most people would simply answer "yes" to.

You can't, for some reason. Must be that Emersonian "foolish consistency" Chip correctly quoted in a different thread. Your hobgoblins are perhaps indicative of a little mind. Just sayin'...

[Chuck Naill]

What dose?

[Chuck Naill]

What’s the ivermectin dose for active covid? If your on hypertension meds, what precautions exist?

[dneal]

Ask your hypothetical doctor.

[Empty_of_Clouds]

Actually there exists a residual harm from trying something that is untested or unproven to work. It may deflect a person or persons away from legitimate known treatments (if there are any, or if any become known in due course). This is one of the issues that dogged the pseudo-science of homeopathy.

[Chuck Naill]

True EOC.

[dneal]

Actually there exists a residual harm from trying something that is untested or unproven to work. It may deflect a person or persons away from legitimate known treatments (if there are any, or if any become known in due course). This is one of the issues that dogged the pseudo-science of homeopathy.

Like a Covid vaccine? Do we know the residual harm? The knife cuts both ways.

Ivermectin has a very thorough set of safety data. It has been used as an antiviral.

Doctors prescribe various medications to treat symptoms, regardless of cause. Steroids for inflammation, for example. Antihistamines are used to inhibit the body’s response to allergens, whether ragweed pollen to food allergy reactions.

You imply that the selection is haphazard, which I don’t believe to be the case.

[Empty_of_Clouds]

I appreciate that doctors do this, and I have no problem with drugs being used (under prescription from a qualified HCP) for purposes other than what the FDA approved them for. Happens all the time, and when a HCP prescribes it is not haphazard. The problem is when people who are patently unqualified take it upon themselves to make a decision on taking a drug, a decision that may well be based on information that will later lead them to reject a proven treatment. Then it is haphazard.

Yes, the knife cuts both ways. There will be deaths among both the vaccinated and unvaccinated, and for the most part these will not be directly due to the vaccine itself.

Note that I am not saying the ivermectin is not useful, but I think it would be foolish for anyone to stake their life on it alone.

[Chuck Naill]

Is there anyone reading besides me and GI Joe? If so, I’d appreciate your constructive comments.

[dneal]

I appreciate that doctors do this, and I have no problem with drugs being used (under prescription from a qualified HCP) for purposes other than what the FDA approved them for. Happens all the time, and when a HCP prescribes it is not haphazard. The problem is when people who are patently unqualified take it upon themselves to make a decision on taking a drug, a decision that may well be based on information that will later lead them to reject a proven treatment. Then it is haphazard.

Yes, the knife cuts both ways. There will be deaths among both the vaccinated and unvaccinated, and for the most part these will not be directly due to the vaccine itself.

Note that I am not saying the ivermectin is not useful, but I think it would be foolish for anyone to stake their life on it alone.

This will trigger Chuck to post something that should be entertaining, but you might find This Document (https://covid19criticalcare.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/FLCCC-Protocols-–-A-Guide-to-the-Management-of-COVID-19.pdf) interesting, specifically the treatment protocols.

For Chuck - the site links to an international cabal of nefarious physicians spreading disinformation to kill people with "horse-dewormer" and other "off-label" / illegal use of drugs. Their efforts have seemed to backfire, unfortunately.

[Chuck Naill]

I appreciate that doctors do this, and I have no problem with drugs being used (under prescription from a qualified HCP) for purposes other than what the FDA approved them for. Happens all the time, and when a HCP prescribes it is not haphazard. The problem is when people who are patently unqualified take it upon themselves to make a decision on taking a drug, a decision that may well be based on information that will later lead them to reject a proven treatment. Then it is haphazard.

Yes, the knife cuts both ways. There will be deaths among both the vaccinated and unvaccinated, and for the most part these will not be directly due to the vaccine itself.

Note that I am not saying the ivermectin is not useful, but I think it would be foolish for anyone to stake their life on it alone.

I would be surprised to here ivermetin is being prescribed for anything other than worms and parasites. Off label prescribing has to follow a reasonable pharmacologic path and not because a patient is making a requiest. There is a legal liabilty attached to off label use.

For example the h2 blocker Tagamet is used for wart in pediatric patients. The drug is know to stimulate t-lymphocytes which can cause the warts to disappear.

And, other medications like monoclonial antibodies have been successfully use to treat the virus.

However, the overarching question is to reasonably ask why anyone would opt out on a free preventative innoculation and experiment with medications which have not been studied and shown to be effective. I believe there is a psyshosocal explaination for why people are avoiding vaccines.

[dneal]

Ivermectin has a robust history as an anti-viral.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7129059/


Ivermectin is an FDA-approved broad spectrum anti-parasitic agent (Gonzalez Canga et al., 2008) that in recent years we, along with other groups, have shown to have anti-viral activity against a broad range of viruses (Gotz et al., 2016; Lundberg et al., 2013; Tay et al., 2013; Wagstaff et al., 2012) in vitro. Originally identified as an inhibitor of interaction between the human immunodeficiency virus-1 (HIV-1) integrase protein (IN) and the importin (IMP) α/β1 heterodimer responsible for IN nuclear import (Wagstaff et al., 2011), Ivermectin has since been confirmed to inhibit IN nuclear import and HIV-1 replication (Wagstaff et al., 2012). Other actions of ivermectin have been reported (Mastrangelo et al., 2012), but ivermectin has been shown to inhibit nuclear import of host (eg. (Kosyna et al., 2015; van der Watt et al., 2016)) and viral proteins, including simian virus SV40 large tumour antigen (T-ag) and dengue virus (DENV) non-structural protein 5 (Wagstaff et al., 2012, Wagstaff et al., 2011). Importantly, it has been demonstrated to limit infection by RNA viruses such as DENV 1-4 (Tay et al., 2013), West Nile Virus (Yang et al., 2020), Venezuelan equine encephalitis virus (VEEV) (Lundberg et al., 2013) and influenza (Gotz et al., 2016), with this broad spectrum activity believed to be due to the reliance by many different RNA viruses on IMPα/β1 during infection (Caly et al., 2012; Jans et al., 2019). Ivermectin has similarly been shown to be effective against the DNA virus pseudorabies virus (PRV) both in vitro and in vivo, with ivermectin treatment shown to increase survival in PRV-infected mice (Lv et al., 2018). Efficacy was not observed for ivermectin against Zika virus (ZIKV) in mice, but the authors acknowledged that study limitations justified re-evaluation of ivermectin's anti-ZIKV activity (Ketkar et al., 2019). Finally, ivermectin was the focus of a phase III clinical trial in Thailand in 2014–2017, against DENV infection, in which a single daily oral dose was observed to be safe and resulted in a significant reduction in serum levels of viral NS1 protein, but no change in viremia or clinical benefit was observed (see below) (Yamasmith et al., 2018).

[Chuck Naill]

I am not opposed to repurposing any agent that could help. The hypothesis needs to be considered so that the correct dose and other normal approval requirements addressed. Obviously Marcus Lamb didn't benefit nor did he get vaccinated, a needless and tragic loss for himself and those who needed and loved him.

[dneal]

Jacob Clynick died in his sleep after receiving his second shot. He was 13. A needless and tragic loss for himself and those who needed and loved him.

Are we just going to trade anecdotes?

[Chuck Naill]

Since over 700,000 people have died from COVID-19 in the US, many from those who are unvaccinated, or like Lamb took a drug not shown to date to be effective, that is rationally where the focus needs to stay. Or, focus on those Trumpian counties who have suffered the most deaths.

To date no cause of death has been attributed for the 13 boy. Very sad for whatever reason even if the vaccine.

[dneal]

Kamala and Joe’s fault, obviously; spreading misinformation about the “Trump vaccine” they wouldn’t take. Right?

See, political pot-shots are easy; and it’s that type of tribalism that undermines confidence.

“Trumpian” counties, indeed. I’m surprised you aren’t celebrating it. Wait, you kind of are…

[Chuck Naill]

Like everything you post, it must be fact checked. “ Let me be clear: I trust vaccines,” Mr. Biden said. “I trust scientists. But I don’t trust Donald Trump, and at this moment, the American people can’t either.”

Tribalism stems from people believing people who want to win something, not inform. That’s why Trump and Bannon are so dangerous. Bannon continues to divide and you continue to post vitriol. Therefore, your type would not be able to be trusted to tell the truth. You are better off being ignored or laughed at, but never taken seriously.

[dneal]

I wasn’t stating it as fact. Take off your blue colored lenses and try again.

[Chuck Naill]

I wasn’t stating it as fact. Take off your blue colored lenses and try again.

You posted "Kamala and Joe’s fault, obviously; spreading misinformation about the “Trump vaccine” they wouldn’t take. Right?" They didn't and nothing is obvious. Is the study you misinterpreted also not stated as factual? Well, thanks to @welch we know it wasn't and was never intended to do anything other than troll. Not that it matters.:crazy:

[dneal]

I was being sarcastic, giving an example of bs narratives that degrade conversation and reinforce tribal mentality.

See the sentence that follows “Right?”

[ethernautrix]

Let's bring the discussion from the way-off-topic thread that Chip started on hactivism.

Quick recap: the question is about the ethics of a government mandating citizens take a certain risk of death, however minimal that risk might be.

In the case of pandemic, EOC is the only one who unequivocally stated that, in such circumstances, he supports government mandates for vaccination.

As far as I've been following the various threads (which I haven't done on a palatable daily basis but in near-weekly gulps which deplete my willingness to participate, but here I am, so), no one has disputed the number of deaths.

It's about 10:55 on Tuesday morning, and I'm in a hurry for an appointment, so I'm distracted, but I just checked worldometers.info for the latest figures:

Worldwide: 266,836,253 confirmed cases with 5,280,902 deaths resulting.
In the USA: 50,149,325 confirmed cases with 810,254 deaths resulting.

As I understand it, these statistics cover the time period since the beginning of the pandemic, which officially is (I'm not confirming, correct me if I'm wrong) December 2019 (thus COVID-19).

As I recall, fears abounded that COVID-19 was the new Spanish Flu of 1918, which lasted from February 1918 to April 1920 and resulted in 50,000,000 deaths.

I am not disparaging the deaths resulting from COVID-19 when I point out the huge disparity between 50,000,000 and 5,280,902 in roughly the same time period. I'm pointing out only that COVID-19 hasn't been the influenza we were perhaps panicking about back in early 2020.

810,254 deaths (or approximately .16 of confirmed cases) is terrible.

So I looked up the number one killer in the USA. It is heart disease, which (the latest figure from the CDC is from 2019) killed 659,041 in one year (2019), followed by cancer with 599,601 deaths.

The easy argument is that heart disease and cancer aren't infectious diseases. No, but to some extent they are preventable.

So, if we're arguing (and let me know if we are not) that government mandates in the interest of public health are desirable, why do we not mandate exercise, nutritional diets, and other habits that lower the risk for heart disease and cancer? Why do we not demand that, for instance, morbidly obese diabetics pay for their own health care or are barred from medical care since they (many of them, the type 2s (although not all type 2s)) behaved irresponsibly and thus caused their own dire health conditions?

Listen, I'm blurting this out in a hurry, cos it's 11:11 and I have to leave in a few minutes and I still have to change into outside clothes (where it is 0 degrees Celsius).

My other question quickly then is, why is it so hard to convince the (American) public to get vaccinated?

[Empty_of_Clouds]

Fair points there.

One problem with looking at heart disease, cancer, diabetes and so on is that these diseases are closely linked with increased longevity. Basically the longer you live the more likely your chances of developing one or more of these. That's not to say that the risk couldn't be somewhat reduced, but not eliminated, by eating more healthily or exercising diligently. And you are right, these preventative measures are not mandated. It's particularly frustrating for me as I am diabetic, don't smoke, am active, hardly ever drink, eat reasonably healthy and so on. Seems unfair, yes? Am I at fault somehow? Should I be made to pay for my misfortune? A mandate on healthy living practices wouldn't help me. Should I be punished in some other way for what appears to be a genetic fault?

Problematic stuff.

However, these are all what are called non-communicable diseases, and there are (at least in New Zealand, and I am reasonably certain elsewhere) public health programmes and policies that are attempting to mitigate that burden, either through education or the provision of self-help groups in the form of reinventive institutions (Scott S. (2011) Reinventive Institutions. In: Total Institutions and Reinvented Identities. Identity Studies in the Social Sciences. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230348608_3)

In my opinion it is the communicable factor that plays most heavily into the need for a mandate on vaccines. Long-term conditions may rise over time, because we are living longer, but a pandemic can sweep through populations much more quickly and put the health system under acute strain to the point that it becomes unsustainable for any healthcare.

That's kind of how I see it at least.

[Chuck Naill]

Let's bring the discussion from the way-off-topic thread that Chip started on hactivism.

Quick recap: the question is about the ethics of a government mandating citizens take a certain risk of death, however minimal that risk might be.

In the case of pandemic, EOC is the only one who unequivocally stated that, in such circumstances, he supports government mandates for vaccination.

As far as I've been following the various threads (which I haven't done on a palatable daily basis but in near-weekly gulps which deplete my willingness to participate, but here I am, so), no one has disputed the number of deaths.

It's about 10:55 on Tuesday morning, and I'm in a hurry for an appointment, so I'm distracted, but I just checked worldometers.info for the latest figures:

Worldwide: 266,836,253 confirmed cases with 5,280,902 deaths resulting.
In the USA: 50,149,325 confirmed cases with 810,254 deaths resulting.

As I understand it, these statistics cover the time period since the beginning of the pandemic, which officially is (I'm not confirming, correct me if I'm wrong) December 2019 (thus COVID-19).

As I recall, fears abounded that COVID-19 was the new Spanish Flu of 1918, which lasted from February 1918 to April 1920 and resulted in 50,000,000 deaths.

I am not disparaging the deaths resulting from COVID-19 when I point out the huge disparity between 50,000,000 and 5,280,902 in roughly the same time period. I'm pointing out only that COVID-19 hasn't been the influenza we were perhaps panicking about back in early 2020.

810,254 deaths (or approximately .16 of confirmed cases) is terrible.

So I looked up the number one killer in the USA. It is heart disease, which (the latest figure from the CDC is from 2019) killed 659,041 in one year (2019), followed by cancer with 599,601 deaths.

The easy argument is that heart disease and cancer aren't infectious diseases. No, but to some extent they are preventable.

So, if we're arguing (and let me know if we are not) that government mandates in the interest of public health are desirable, why do we not mandate exercise, nutritional diets, and other habits that lower the risk for heart disease and cancer? Why do we not demand that, for instance, morbidly obese diabetics pay for their own health care or are barred from medical care since they (many of them, the type 2s (although not all type 2s)) behaved irresponsibly and thus caused their own dire health conditions?

Listen, I'm blurting this out in a hurry, cos it's 11:11 and I have to leave in a few minutes and I still have to change into outside clothes (where it is 0 degrees Celsius).

My other question quickly then is, why is it so hard to convince the (American) public to get vaccinated?

@ethernautrix, I did say I would use the mandate even if some recipients would die earlier in the thread.

It is more practical to mandate a one or two time action than mandate a life style.

There are people who are genetically predisposed to heart disease and Type 2 diabetes.

There a communities, tending to be poor, which have no where to purchase anything but fast food which increase obesity and poor health.

No vaccines in 1918. Infectious Disease science is more advanced now. The first antibiotic was developed in 1930's, I think.

[Chuck Naill]

I was being sarcastic, giving an example of bs narratives that degrade conversation and reinforce tribal mentality.

See the sentence that follows “Right?”

I see a pattern. You ask a question, the question is answered, but you disagree with the information, I guess, then suggest it hasn't been answered or members are dodging.

For all the concern for vaccine deaths, it seems you are ignoring 800,000 deaths from the virus. 1000 people per day die in the US. ICU beds are full to overflowing with unvaccinated people. Therefore, your concern for vaccine safety, while important, seems more of a means to justify your own choices than rational concern or need for information or curiousity.

@welch responded well and you argued and then got personal. Yes, I can get sarcastic as well as anyone, but I try to stay engaged on some level.

My experience has been than people are not going to mask even if it means they will contract the virus. People are going to take the risk of infection rather than get an approved prevention. Even if the vaccine is not 100 percent, it is the best option besides monoclonial antibodies, but why would anyone risk hospitalization and the costs of medical service if a free vaccine is available?

Last weekend I attended an indoor even with 500 plus people in an auditorium. To my great surprise, I was the only one present with a mask. It reminded me of going to a sports event in the early months of the pandemic and I was the only person with a mask. So, why did I and still do wear a mask. Basically, I am a real mizer. If I had gotten sick I would have lost a paycheck and incurred medical expenses. Plus, I was selling property and buying another place. So, being sick would have been inconvenient. Emotiionally, I want to be around my family. If I get sick or die, I miss out. I have a reason to live. However, this may not resonate with you at all.

[dneal]

Ok Chuck, I'll try again.


Kamala and Joe’s fault, obviously; spreading misinformation about the “Trump vaccine” they wouldn’t take. Right?

This is a flippant remark. Sarcasm. The intent is to provide an example of the level of discourse often seen her, but with a right-wing perspective you would disagree with instead of a left-wing one you with which you would agree.


See, political pot-shots are easy; and it’s that type of tribalism that undermines confidence.

Here, I reinforce the point of what precedes it. That the sort of comment it references is a "pot-shot". An example of political tribalism and one problem it creates.


“Trumpian” counties, indeed. I’m surprised you aren’t celebrating it. Wait, you kind of are…

This is to point out to you, quite sarcastically I admit; that your post exhibits the problem I am demonstrating in the example that precedes it.

[Chuck Naill]

I have to say that had I not responded, you would never have admitted your Joe and Kamala comment was false. I remember you posting it before. I don't believe you posted it as sarcasm. I believe you thought no one would check it out.

Of course I am not celebrating Trump counties death rate, but you accused me of such without cause. Those death demonstrate the psychosocial component of vaccine resistance. Group Think is a powerful means of control for which some are paying with their health and lives.

[dneal]

Here I'll answer you specifically.



I was being sarcastic, giving an example of bs narratives that degrade conversation and reinforce tribal mentality.

See the sentence that follows “Right?”

I see a pattern. You ask a question, the question is answered, but you disagree with the information, I guess, then suggest it hasn't been answered or members are dodging.

See post #194


For all the concern for vaccine deaths, it seems you are ignoring 800,000 deaths from the virus. 1000 people per day die in the US. ICU beds are full to overflowing with unvaccinated people. Therefore, your concern for vaccine safety, while important, seems more of a means to justify your own choices than rational concern or need for information or curiousity.

Who is making what personal? Anyway, this thread was about an ethical dilemma, not vaccine safety. Government forcing you to do something that could very well kill you. It also acknowledged that death was a possibility, whether from the disease or the vaccine. It acknowledged that statistically the death from the vaccine was a lower percentage.

It simply forced confrontation of the reality of the proposal to "mandate" vaccines. That some would die, as a direct result of government decree; for the "greater good". That is utilitarian ethical theory, and the dilemma it creates at the extreme end.


@welch responded well and you argued and then got personal. Yes, I can get sarcastic as well as anyone, but I try to stay engaged on some level.

welch responded with a pedantic argument, and kept reiterating it. I quit playing and simply continued to ask what the number was, since he was disputing the number used in the hypothetical. Note that I stated in the OP that the study referenced was debatable. welch's point remains ridiculous, due to two main problems:

- If the argument is that there is only correlational data, and no causal demonstration of vaccination leading to death (because death was caused by comorbidity); then the same problem exists with "deaths from covid". It is also the comorbidity.

- It relies on ignoring the stated purpose of the study (estimating deaths from vaccination) and the result (an estimated 8.2 per million). It is as ridiculous as saying AC/DC's song "Highway to Hell" never says "Highway to Hell", if you read the verses (and ignore the title and chorus).


My experience has been than people are not going to mask even if it means they will contract the virus. People are going to take the risk of infection rather than get an approved prevention. Even if the vaccine is not 100 percent, it is the best option besides monoclonial antibodies, but why would anyone risk hospitalization and the costs of medical service if a free vaccine is available?

Each person should be free to evaluate their risk. The mortality of covid is higher than vaccination, but still statistically very low outside of certain populations (elderly and immunocompromised). The vaccine was rushed (with good reason), but that also means there is little to no record of safety or side effect. People are free to make decisions on what risk they prefer to accept. The point of the thread is that a true government mandate removes that agency from an individual.


Last weekend I attended an indoor even with 500 plus people in an auditorium. To my great surprise, I was the only one present with a mask. It reminded me of going to a sports event in the early months of the pandemic and I was the only person with a mask. So, why did I and still do wear a mask. Basically, I am a real mizer. If I had gotten sick I would have lost a paycheck and incurred medical expenses. Plus, I was selling property and buying another place. So, being sick would have been inconvenient. Emotiionally, I want to be around my family. If I get sick or die, I miss out. I have a reason to live. However, this may not resonate with you at all.

That is all you exercising agency after considering your personal risk. Hypothetically, consider if the government mandated that no one wear a mask; in order to increase the spread to faster develop "herd immunity". Sure, some of you older folks would be sacrificed; but the younger generations would be spared. The "greater good". Utilitarianism

Your snide last sentence aside, you are demonstrating my point of agency and individual choice. You have reached a different conclusion based on your specific set of values and circumstances. Perhaps you should do others the same courtesy? Respect their choices? If your vaccine and mask works, you have nothing to fear, right? Mortality rate differences aside, the same problem exists with influenza for you. You are at a higher risk of death from influenza. You have imperfect options to reduce that risk.

Perhaps we should apply the same sense of urgency and experimentation with treatment options (particularly since we know the vaccine isn't 100% effective), instead of dismissing or mocking "educated guesses" that doctors are making in the search for effective treatment (e.g.: ivermectin / "horse dewormer"). Since I suspect you will jump on that, I am not suggesting that ivermectin is the sole solution. Neither is monoclonal antibodies nor other drugs currently being developed. If you would listen to Dr. Campbell (for example) instead of mocking me for sharing his videos, you might be more aware of developments. Dr. Bhattacharya might have the credentials to offer a more effective policy. The "Great Barrington Declaration" might have a point or two.

To come full circle, your attitudes toward alternate professional opinions are an example of the problem of "tribalism" I was trying to point out (again, see post #194).

[Chuck Naill]

I am not tribalistic, @dneal. Nothing that I have ever posted represents a form of tribalism. I don't refer to miltary experience, riding Harley Davidsons, religion, or anything else. It is something you imagine because of my posts regarding Trump. I didn't even vote for Biden because I am a Democrat. Same with Clinton. I've made it clear about my voting.

I have never posted anything regarding Trump that any other member could not verify. Nor have I ever posted anything about COVID-19 or the vaccine that anyone could not verify.

Tribalism is just something you choose to attack rather than rational discussions with anyone here.

[dneal]

I have to say that had I not responded, you would never have admitted your Joe and Kamala comment was false. I remember you posting it before. I don't believe you posted it as sarcasm. I believe you thought no one would check it out.

Of course I am not celebrating Trump counties death rate, but you accused me of such without cause. Those death demonstrate the psychosocial component of vaccine resistance. Group Think is a powerful means of control for which some are paying with their health and lives.

Since you seem to be stuck on this point, let's look at it.



- "The way he (Trump) talks about the vaccine is not particularly rational. He’s talking about it being ready, he’s going to talk about moving it quicker than the scientists think it should be moved … . People don’t believe that he’s telling the truth, therefore they’re not at all certain they’re going to take the vaccine. And one more thing: If and when the vaccine comes, it’s not likely to go through all the tests that need to be done, and the trials that are needed to be done."

- "Look at what’s happened. Enormous pressure put on the CDC not to put out the detailed guidelines. The enormous pressure being put on the FDA to say they’re going, that the following protocol will in fact reduce, it will have a giant impact on COVID. All these things turn out not to be true, and when a president continues to mislead and lie, when we finally do, God willing, get a vaccine, who’s going to take the shot? Who’s going to take the shot? You going to be the first one to say, ‘Put me — sign me up, they now say it’s OK’? I’m not being facetious."

- "How are you going to distribute the vaccine when it arrives, when it arrives, when it’s there? And the question of whether it’s real, when it’s there, that requires enormous transparency. You’ve got to make all of it available to other experts across the nation, so they can look and see, so there’s consensus this is a safe vaccine. Because already you have, what percent is American people saying if the vaccine were there tomorrow, they wouldn’t take it? And it’s not the usual anti-vaccine crowd. It’s beyond that because people are losing faith in what the president says. Think about it."

- "Charting a clear path of science-based vaccines, free from politics. I get asked the question: ‘If the president announced tomorrow we have a vaccine, would you take it?’ Only if it was completely transparent, that other experts in the country could look at it, only if we knew all of what went into it. Because so far, nothing he’s told us has been true."

- "Americans have had to endure President Trump’s incompetence and dishonesty, when it comes to testing and personal protective equipment. We can’t afford to repeat those fiascos when it comes to a vaccine. … Let me be clear: I trust vaccines, I trust scientists, but I don’t trust Donald Trump, and at this moment, the American people can’t either. Last week, Senator Harris and I laid out three questions this administration’s going to have to answer to assure the American people that politics will not play a role whatsoever in the vaccine process. If Donald Trump can’t give answers and the administration can’t give answers to these three questions, the American people should not have confidence."

All those points were for political purposes. They all are rhetoric that undermined trust in the government and vaccine. There are thousands of examples of journalists and politico's tweeting they would not take the "Trump vaccine", and then tweeting "I got the shot" and/or "Get the shot" (all paraphrased), after Biden won the 2020 election.

So returning to my actual point, it is this political tribalism and rhetoric that is undermining confidence. "Pot-shots" to score political points. It's not just disingenuous, it's dangerous; and we are where we are.

[dneal]

I am not tribalistic, @dneal. Nothing that I have ever posted represents a form of tribalism. I don't refer to miltary experience, riding Harley Davidsons, religion, or anything else. It is something you imagine because of my posts regarding Trump. I didn't even vote for Biden because I am a Democrat. Same with Clinton. I've made it clear about my voting.

I have never posted anything regarding Trump that any other member could not verify. Nor have I ever posted anything about COVID-19 or the vaccine that anyone could not verify.

Tribalism is just something you choose to attack rather than rational discussions with anyone here.

Chuck, have you ever called ivermectin "Horse-dewormer" in a mocking tone? If so, why? It appears to follow a narrative seen in the left leaning media - representatives of one tribe.

Have you ever called a Slovenian a "Trumpist", simply because they advocated a position you disagree with? Why?

Are those responses indicative of a person interested or capable of rational discussion? or are they indicative of political tribalism?

I refer to my military experience when relevant. Operational planning, for example. Other times it is in response to your mockery "You don't vote!!!, LOL!!!", to explain why. You seem strangely stuck on that. You introduce General Ham's opinion. You make an unfounded assertion of PTSD. Who is focused on my military experience?

[Chuck Naill]

I am not tribalistic, @dneal. Nothing that I have ever posted represents a form of tribalism. I don't refer to miltary experience, riding Harley Davidsons, religion, or anything else. It is something you imagine because of my posts regarding Trump. I didn't even vote for Biden because I am a Democrat. Same with Clinton. I've made it clear about my voting.

I have never posted anything regarding Trump that any other member could not verify. Nor have I ever posted anything about COVID-19 or the vaccine that anyone could not verify.

Tribalism is just something you choose to attack rather than rational discussions with anyone here.

Chuck, have you ever called ivermectin "Horse-dewormer" in a mocking tone? If so, why? It appears to follow a narrative seen in the left leaning media - representatives of one tribe.

Have you ever called a Slovenian a "Trumpist", simply because they advocated a position you disagree with? Why?

Are those responses indicative of a person interested or capable of rational discussion? or are they indicative of political tribalism?

I refer to my military experience when relevant. Operational planning, for example. Other times it is in response to your mockery "You don't vote!!!, LOL!!!", to explain why. You seem strangely stuck on that. You introduce General Ham's opinion. You make an unfounded assertion of PTSD. Who is focused on my military experience?

Ivermetin paste is a horse wormer. https://www.tractorsupply.com/tsc/product/durvet-ivermectin-paste-187-608-g

I don't recall a Slovenian. A Trumpian is one who is a disciple of the Trump mentality. It is a discriptive term that could apply to anyone supporting his veiws. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trumpism

You use your military experience as justification for your actions. I know military vets and they have never done the same as you do here.

[dneal]

RE: ivermectin. I asked if you ever used it in a mocking tone, not whether or not it was used in veterinarian medicine.

adhoc is a Slovenian. You called him a Trumpist. I'll cite the post if you like.

You keep bringing up my military service, disparagingly. If you don't want to talk about it, maybe you should quit talking about it. Do you want me to cite your "G.I. Joe" post?

Is there anything else you want to derail this topic with?

[dneal]

Back on topic, with ethernautrix's post:


Let's bring the discussion from the way-off-topic thread that Chip started on hactivism.

Quick recap: the question is about the ethics of a government mandating citizens take a certain risk of death, however minimal that risk might be.

In the case of pandemic, EOC is the only one who unequivocally stated that, in such circumstances, he supports government mandates for vaccination.

As far as I've been following the various threads (which I haven't done on a palatable daily basis but in near-weekly gulps which deplete my willingness to participate, but here I am, so), no one has disputed the number of deaths.

It's about 10:55 on Tuesday morning, and I'm in a hurry for an appointment, so I'm distracted, but I just checked worldometers.info for the latest figures:

Worldwide: 266,836,253 confirmed cases with 5,280,902 deaths resulting.
In the USA: 50,149,325 confirmed cases with 810,254 deaths resulting.

As I understand it, these statistics cover the time period since the beginning of the pandemic, which officially is (I'm not confirming, correct me if I'm wrong) December 2019 (thus COVID-19).

As I recall, fears abounded that COVID-19 was the new Spanish Flu of 1918, which lasted from February 1918 to April 1920 and resulted in 50,000,000 deaths.

I am not disparaging the deaths resulting from COVID-19 when I point out the huge disparity between 50,000,000 and 5,280,902 in roughly the same time period. I'm pointing out only that COVID-19 hasn't been the influenza we were perhaps panicking about back in early 2020.

810,254 deaths (or approximately .16 of confirmed cases) is terrible.

So I looked up the number one killer in the USA. It is heart disease, which (the latest figure from the CDC is from 2019) killed 659,041 in one year (2019), followed by cancer with 599,601 deaths.

The easy argument is that heart disease and cancer aren't infectious diseases. No, but to some extent they are preventable.

So, if we're arguing (and let me know if we are not) that government mandates in the interest of public health are desirable, why do we not mandate exercise, nutritional diets, and other habits that lower the risk for heart disease and cancer? Why do we not demand that, for instance, morbidly obese diabetics pay for their own health care or are barred from medical care since they (many of them, the type 2s (although not all type 2s)) behaved irresponsibly and thus caused their own dire health conditions?

Listen, I'm blurting this out in a hurry, cos it's 11:11 and I have to leave in a few minutes and I still have to change into outside clothes (where it is 0 degrees Celsius).

My other question quickly then is, why is it so hard to convince the (American) public to get vaccinated?

[Chuck Naill]

It is a horse wormer, @dneal. Are you aware that people are buying horse wormer and taking it themselves to combat COVID-19?

I can post foreign leaders who are Trumpian if you want. It's become common.

You can bring up your experiences all you want and use them as excuses all you want.

[dneal]

Chuck, the point (again) is whether or not you have used it mockingly, not what it is used for.

The point (again) is whether or not you called a non-American a "Trumpist", simply because he advocated concern over one formulation of vaccine that his wife reacted negatively to.

You can continue to dodge, and continue to disrupt; but those facts remain. You are in an echo-chamber. Well, one of the "Chuck's" is.

[dneal]

Now back on topic:


Let's bring the discussion from the way-off-topic thread that Chip started on hactivism.

Quick recap: the question is about the ethics of a government mandating citizens take a certain risk of death, however minimal that risk might be.

In the case of pandemic, EOC is the only one who unequivocally stated that, in such circumstances, he supports government mandates for vaccination.

As far as I've been following the various threads (which I haven't done on a palatable daily basis but in near-weekly gulps which deplete my willingness to participate, but here I am, so), no one has disputed the number of deaths.

It's about 10:55 on Tuesday morning, and I'm in a hurry for an appointment, so I'm distracted, but I just checked worldometers.info for the latest figures:

Worldwide: 266,836,253 confirmed cases with 5,280,902 deaths resulting.
In the USA: 50,149,325 confirmed cases with 810,254 deaths resulting.

As I understand it, these statistics cover the time period since the beginning of the pandemic, which officially is (I'm not confirming, correct me if I'm wrong) December 2019 (thus COVID-19).

As I recall, fears abounded that COVID-19 was the new Spanish Flu of 1918, which lasted from February 1918 to April 1920 and resulted in 50,000,000 deaths.

I am not disparaging the deaths resulting from COVID-19 when I point out the huge disparity between 50,000,000 and 5,280,902 in roughly the same time period. I'm pointing out only that COVID-19 hasn't been the influenza we were perhaps panicking about back in early 2020.

810,254 deaths (or approximately .16 of confirmed cases) is terrible.

So I looked up the number one killer in the USA. It is heart disease, which (the latest figure from the CDC is from 2019) killed 659,041 in one year (2019), followed by cancer with 599,601 deaths.

The easy argument is that heart disease and cancer aren't infectious diseases. No, but to some extent they are preventable.

So, if we're arguing (and let me know if we are not) that government mandates in the interest of public health are desirable, why do we not mandate exercise, nutritional diets, and other habits that lower the risk for heart disease and cancer? Why do we not demand that, for instance, morbidly obese diabetics pay for their own health care or are barred from medical care since they (many of them, the type 2s (although not all type 2s)) behaved irresponsibly and thus caused their own dire health conditions?

Listen, I'm blurting this out in a hurry, cos it's 11:11 and I have to leave in a few minutes and I still have to change into outside clothes (where it is 0 degrees Celsius).

My other question quickly then is, why is it so hard to convince the (American) public to get vaccinated?

[welch]

dneal writes


Government forcing you to do something that could very well kill you.

This is misleading, which is why I disagreed with dneal's mis-reading of the study he originally posted as reason to leap into a discussion of utilitarianism. I have posted a CDC report from late November that says the vaccines are safe and effective. Go read it for a more precise notion of something "that could very well kill you".

- Some people have had allergic reactions to this vaccine, just as people have allergic reactions to other injections. These have been rare, and, nearly always, doctors have effectively treated the bad reactions.

- Two people might have died from receiving the Johnson & Johnson vaccine. CDC doctors are searching for the a link, because that's what the CDC does.

- In general, a reaction AFTER a vaccination does NOT mean that the vaccination CAUSED the reaction. That is a mistake so simple and widespread that logicians call it a "fallacy" and have a name for it.

To say that a vaccine "could very well kill you" is to say "let's IMAGINE" that a vaccine kills people. In the same way, an essay might begin "Let's imagine a street car barreling toward ten people who have been tied to the tracks. There is a branch-off to which the conductor might switch, but one person is tied to the branch tracks. It is too late to stop, so what should the conductor do?"

dneal has posed an imaginary dilemma. That is fine, as long as everyone understands that this is imaginary.

In the real world, people face something like this:


Europe is experiencing a menacing fourth wave of the coronavirus, with soaring rates of infection. While Austria may be the first European country to respond with a nationwide lockdown, it may not be the last. That prospect, along with increasingly stringent vaccine mandates, is setting off a backlash here and elsewhere, with mass demonstrations in Vienna, Brussels and the Dutch city of Rotterdam over the weekend, sometimes punctuated with violent outbreaks.

But European leaders may feel they have little choice, despite the spread of vaccines that were seen a year ago as a fail-proof way out of the pandemic. Austria, where 66 percent of the population is fully vaccinated, reported more than 14,000 new cases of the virus within 24 hours on Sunday. Over the past week the Netherlands has been averaging more than 20,000, while Germany has seen roughly double that number.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/21/world/europe/austria-covid-lockdown-vaccine-mandates.html

The real-world poses a different question than the imaginary world.

[Chuck Naill]

Chuck, the point (again) is whether or not you have used it mockingly, not what it is used for.

The point (again) is whether or not you called a non-American a "Trumpist", simply because he advocated concern over one formulation of vaccine that his wife reacted negatively to.

You can continue to dodge, and continue to disrupt; but those facts remain. You are in an echo-chamber. Well, one of the "Chuck's" is.

Okay.

[dneal]

@welch

Not an imaginary dilemma, but a hypothetical for discussion about the limits of government power using covid-mandates as an example. ethernautrix gets it, perhaps ask yourself why you don't.

Now, what is the mortality rate of covid vaccination, per the article?

[welch]

@welch

Not an imaginary dilemma, but a hypothetical for discussion about the limits of government power using covid-mandates as an example. ethernautrix gets it, perhaps ask yourself why you don't.

Now, what is the mortality rate of covid vaccination, per the article?

Nonsense. I gave you an example of famous article in ethics. It's normally called "The Trolley Problem". That one. Go ahead. Argue it out, while admitting that you have posed an imaginary problem. Here is the real world, from CDC. Among the 16.4 million people who received the J&J vaccine, six people might have died from a bad reaction to it. That is one out of 2.7 million. One simple fix: avoid the J&J vaccine. Or apply that risk to Austria, because you based your original post on an article in the Wall Street Journal reporting on demonstrations against mandates and a lockdown there.

Given that Austria's population is a shade less than 9 million, how many might die if Austria vaccinates its entire population with J&J? Three? Maybe four?


Reports of death after COVID-19 vaccination are rare. More than 459 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines were administered in the United States from December 14, 2020, through November 29, 2021. During this time, VAERS received 10,128 reports of death (0.0022%) among people who received a COVID-19 vaccine. FDA requires healthcare providers to report any death after COVID-19 vaccination to VAERS, even if it’s unclear whether the vaccine was the cause. Reports of adverse events to VAERS following vaccination, including deaths, do not necessarily mean that a vaccine caused a health problem. CDC clinicians review reports of death to VAERS including death certificates, autopsy, and medical records. A review of reports indicates a causal relationship between the J&J/Janssen COVID-19 Vaccine and TTS, a rare and serious adverse event—that causes blood clots with low platelets—which has caused or directly contributed to six confirmed deaths.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/adverse-events.html

It is the "Post hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy, dneal.

[dneal]

I'm pretty sure I know what I posted and why. You can of course differ, but it's a distraction and doesn't further the discussion; much like debating a study I clearly stated was debatable. "For the sake of argument". You know, like ethernautrix clarified but you still seem unable to process.

post hoc ergo propter hoc also applies to mortality from COVID itself, using your pedantic standard of causality. It's all correlational. I'm ok with that, but apparently you aren't. I didn't make the argument of what the estimated mortality rate of vaccination was, by the way; I just shared a study that did as an example, for the sake of argument; that argument being an ethical dilemma (as noted in the title of the thread I started) and that ethical dilemma being one of utilitarian ethics (as noted in the original post).

I'm not going to argue new problems you introduce that are not relevant to the thread I started. Want to argue your trolley problem? Start a thread on it. I didn't bother to read it, by the way; because your argument is a straw man. It misrepresents the OP. It makes assertions that aren't present. I make my point, and you say that's not the point I made. I clarify my point, and you say that's not the point I made. Pointing that out to you just results in you reiterating or reformulating your straw man.

Here's a potentially false dichotomy for you. Either you do not possess the intelligence to get the point, or you choose not to address it. Either way, continued entertaining of your random assertions is pointless from my end. I've certainly given you plenty of chances.

p.s.: Speaking of plenty of chances, you still haven't answered what the mortality rate of covid vaccination is estimated by the study. I wonder why that is... (actually, I don't. I'm pretty sure why that is).

[TSherbs]

...why is it so hard to convince the (American) public to get vaccinated?

Mostly ignorance and fear and political tribalism.

[welch]

So dneal says he argued the Trolley Problem without knowing it, hugs the "post hoc" fallacy, avoids the evidence in any of the statements posted by the CDC about risk from different anti-Covid vaccines, and repeats that his post is all about Covid and vaccines but not really about data from Covid.

dneal still has not noticed that the one and only study he claims to have read based itself on VAERS data that ended on January 8, 2021. That is about a month after anyone began getting the vaccines.

To save dneal the bother of doing arithmetic, the CDC says that six (6) people might have died because of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, out of nearly 15 million who have received it. That looks like one death for every 2.7 million doses. That looks like a death rate of 0.0000004.

[dneal]

"So dneal says..."

No, you are saying what I says.

Make your own argument without straw-manning mine.

p.s.: What does the "one study" I cited in the OP estimate as the mortality rate of vaccination? The one you said I didn't read? Is it zero? Is it 6 people? Or is it 8.2 per million?

--edit for those that like the memes--

65519

[Chuck Naill]

So dneal says he argued the Trolley Problem without knowing it, hugs the "post hoc" fallacy, avoids the evidence in any of the statements posted by the CDC about risk from different anti-Covid vaccines, and repeats that his post is all about Covid and vaccines but not really about data from Covid.

dneal still has not noticed that the one and only study he claims to have read based itself on VAERS data that ended on January 8, 2021. That is about a month after anyone began getting the vaccines.

To save dneal the bother of doing arithmetic, the CDC says that six (6) people might have died because of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, out of nearly 15 million who have received it. That looks like one death for every 2.7 million doses. That looks like a death rate of 0.0000004.

We discussed the chalanges using the US VAERS a few months ago. The study was posted by a member and was not aware of the self reporting nature of the system.

[Chuck Naill]

...why is it so hard to convince the (American) public to get vaccinated?

Mostly ignorance and fear and political tribalism.

And just to be clear, tribalism is not encouraging vaccines plus masks and distancing.

[TSherbs]

...why is it so hard to convince the (American) public to get vaccinated?

Mostly ignorance and fear and political tribalism.

This was in my AP News feed today: a worsening crisis in Poland, too.

https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-health-ukraine-poland-warsaw-2f631e3b51446af1aef39c8bf96955e8

[Chip]

This was in my AP News feed today: a worsening crisis in Poland, too.

https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-health-ukraine-poland-warsaw-2f631e3b51446af1aef39c8bf96955e8

The home of Truth and Justice. Maybe Freedom as well.

Good luck with that. . .

[Bold2013]

Here is my short take. It is not right to force vaccination for Covid.

Covid on the individual can be really bad but based on population statistics it doesn’t have the teeth too explain this authoritarian widespread mandate. Moreover the vaccine does a very very very good job at keeping people for getting seriously ill. So if your conscious requires you to vaccinate because you are convinced it’s for your neighbor, good do it. If you only care about your own health, fine do it. But please let others make their own informed decisions not to be vaccinated and be happy you live in a country where we still can.

[welch]

This was in my AP News feed today: a worsening crisis in Poland, too.

https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-health-ukraine-poland-warsaw-2f631e3b51446af1aef39c8bf96955e8

The home of Truth and Justice. Maybe Freedom as well.

Good luck with that. . .

"Law and Justice". Meaning dictatorship.

[dneal]

Funny how the same folks that chimp-screamed Trump being an authoritarian seem to turn a blind eye to the current authoritarian state of affairs. Covid camps in Australia, for example. You're lending credence to Alex Jones and other crack-pots. Congratulations.

And next up from the ministry of truth: Poland is a dictatorship. All that remains is to actually demonstrate it, rather than make wild accusations...

[Bold2013]

Also my stance doesn’t change even if no one dies from the vaccine.

[TSherbs]

This was in my AP News feed today: a worsening crisis in Poland, too.

https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-health-ukraine-poland-warsaw-2f631e3b51446af1aef39c8bf96955e8

The home of Truth and Justice. Maybe Freedom as well.

Good luck with that. . .

Really, I just hope that ethernautrix and others in that country are ok.

[Chuck Naill]

Also my stance doesn’t change even if no one dies from the vaccine.

Perhaps you've explained before, and if so, I apologize for asking again. How did you come to formulate your position and decision no to receive the vaccine? Do you get any vaccines? I spoke to an old friend yesterday who is in her 80's who said he had no plans to receive the vaccine. I didn't try to pursuade and she didn't elaborate.

[Bold2013]

I am a fully vaccinated physician. I see Covid most days at work. The vaccine statistically protects people from the worst outcomes (might not entirely for the very frail/immunocompromised). So I think the best protection comes with focus on individual behavior rather than another’s. For example: if I am immunocompromised I would be vaccinated, wear a mask and wouldn’t go to Walmart. I’m not worried about strangers and internet opponents being vaccinated.

But there will be very very rare instances where an asymptomatic non vax person infects a vaxed person and it leads to their death. But I deal with this as a cost of freedom. Freedom is a war we fight every generation.

Don’t get me wrong I think we can and must fight for freedom and against the pandemic simultaneously. It’s starts with giving others the benefit of the doubt while maintain personal responsibility.

[Chuck Naill]

I am a fully vaccinated physician. I see Covid most days at work. The vaccine statistically protects people from the worst outcomes (might not entirely for the very frail/immunocompromised). So I think the best protection comes with focus on individual behavior rather than another’s. For example: if I am immunocompromised I would be vaccinated, wear a mask and wouldn’t go to Walmart. I’m not worried about strangers and internet opponents being vaccinated.

But there will be very very rare instances where an asymptomatic non vax person infects a vaxed person and it leads to their death. But I deal with this as a cost of freedom. Freedom is a war we fight every generation.

Don’t get me wrong I think we can and must fight for freedom and against the pandemic simultaneously. It’s starts with giving others the benefit of the doubt while maintain personal responsibility.

My concern has been, being fully three does vaccinated, is with my grandchildren or other children who were not able to get a vaccine earlier in the year. If I can carry the virus and still be fully vaccinated, I would continue to mask and distance. For me it is similar to being prepared. I try to be consistant with all aspects of my actions. To use a silly analogy, I wear Gortex boots whether it rains or not. Or, I wear a personal flotation device paddling white water all the time and not just if I think I might need one.

I agree we must want to be free and act accordingly. As the saying goes, "I might not agree with you, but I would fight for your right to say it". That said, it is not ethical for me to not tell the truth or to not fully inform even if it disagrees with what I want to think.

I am a retired pharma rep with 25 years experience. Doctors always wanted an evidenced based presentation and not slick company leave pieces. So, this have come to how I form ideas and concepts about how to think and act. When Michael Osterholm said the virus was an aerolyized type, I understood masking was going to be important.

[Bold2013]

I think that stats are far more positive for outcomes in children. Maybe the less kids without other health issues are vaxed maybe the faster they will spread it to each other for us to reach herd immunity.

[Bold2013]

Really antibodies are what will get us through. Natural and/or engineered. Time will get us there. Have faith and relax.

[Chuck Naill]

800k dead, hospitals overflowing, and 1000 dying per day says it’s not a time to relax. Can’t imagine a doctor suggesting

[Bold2013]

We don’t have as much control over this as we think. So control what you can control. Find joy regardless.

[Chuck Naill]

Nuts lol

[Chip]

Starting a book recommended by someone or other—Rationality by Stephen Pinker— I found this bit, perhaps pertinent to our discussion. (Couldn't copy the text, so I highlighted it and did screenshots.)

https://i.imgur.com/jPm5GmS.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/hAVN9ZS.jpg

On another thread, I asked if anyone else had taken statistics, quantitative analysis, or the like. Pinker suggests that as a vital and frequently neglected part of rationality.

[dneal]

Let me know when you finish the book, and perhaps we can come back to that post.

[TSherbs]

...why is it so hard to convince the (American) public to get vaccinated?

Mostly ignorance and fear and political tribalism.
And another partial answer: from NPR: 1 in 10 Americans say the COVID-19 vaccine conflicts with their religious beliefs.

https://www.npr.org/2021/12/09/1062655300/survey-religion-vaccine-hesitancy-exemptions

[Chuck Naill]

...why is it so hard to convince the (American) public to get vaccinated?

Mostly ignorance and fear and political tribalism.
And another partial answer: from NPR: 1 in 10 Americans say the COVID-19 vaccine conflicts with their religious beliefs.

https://www.npr.org/2021/12/09/1062655300/survey-religion-vaccine-hesitancy-exemptions

Another reason is being too “relaxed “.

[Chuck Naill]

I am hearing this morning of the unvaccinated pouring into Bethleham, PA hosptial systems. While some say we can't beat the virus and that I should relax, from a doctor no less, perhaps some are too relaxed for their own welfare.

[dneal]

I am hearing from a former Pharma salesman, no less, that we should contribute to their coffers by taking a vaccine with no long-term data and effectiveness that is proving to be much lower that we were "sold" on.

Does that sort of language persuade? Does it further the conversation (which incidentally continues to ignore the actual topic)?

[Chuck Naill]

I am hearing from a former Pharma salesman, no less, that we should contribute to their coffers by taking a vaccine with no long-term data and effectiveness that is proving to be much lower that we were "sold" on.

Does that sort of language persuade? Does it further the conversation (which incidentally continues to ignore the actual topic)?

Maybe more accurately contribute to their coffins. Maybe some former army people are immune to death and destruction.

You can decide based on other members comments to you whether conversations are furthered.

[dneal]

None of us is immune to death. It comes for us all, and we can only "enjoy the interval" as Seneca says.

But since you want to go with silly, personally-oriented rhetoric, ok.

Covid-19: Researcher blows the whistle on data integrity issues in Pfizer’s vaccine trial (https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n2635)

Surely this is just a one-off incident, in the hurry to get the vaccine out. Right?

Well, maybe not. From 2016:

Physician whistleblower is awarded $59m in Pfizer settlement (https://www.bmj.com/content/352/bmj.i1195.full)

So yes, let's take medical advice from a former pharma-rep who brags that he was "fortunate" enough to pay cash for his children's college educations. I wonder how that "fortune" came about?

See how that works, Chuck?

[Chuck Naill]

Maybe heed your own advice, @dneal and see if you can come off others ignore list. I doubt it.

[dneal]

My own advice? I think you misread my post.

I don't take advice from folks who profited greatly pushing overpriced drugs for big pharma. At least I know now why you hate the ivermectin topic so much though, it's not profitable now that it's out of patent. Explains a lot, and makes one wonder what investments are paying for Chuck's retirement. Merck? Pfizer?

Is this the invective you prefer, Chuck?

p.s.: folks that put me on their ignore list are actually doing me a favor.

[Chuck Naill]

My own advice? I think you misread my post.

I don't take advice from folks who profited greatly pushing overpriced drugs for big pharma. At least I know now why you hate the ivermectin topic so much though, it's not profitable now that it's out of patent. Explains a lot, and makes one wonder what investments are paying for Chuck's retirement. Merck? Pfizer?

Is this the invective you prefer, Chuck?

p.s.: folks that put me on their ignore list are actually doing me a favor.

You shouldn't take your advice from me. I once had a neonatal specialist say my antibiotic saved a baby's life. That's all I need. I need nothing from a vet hiding behind the flag.

That said, if people are ignoring you, its a statement of something.

[dneal]

Oh, I don't take any advice from you.

The people who ignore me (although they don't, really, as we both know) are usually those who become enraged that their hyperbolic rhetoric isn't persuasive; or those - like you - who like to trot out personal attacks in an admittance that their argument failed.

I'd comment on the "vet" thing, but you already let us know how you don't like hearing about my Army experience. Curious how often you manage to bring it up, though. I don't really think anything of it, because my sense of self-worth isn't dictated by it; but I notice that those like yourself usually arrive at your animosity from some sense of self-loathing. Jealousy? Self-conscience and guilt getting the best of you? Who knows...

I'm happy to crank up the vitriol if that's what you prefer. We both know you can't trigger me, but I can reduce you to a babbling, incoherent mess. You can dish it out, but you can't take it.

Choice is yours, Chuck (or the "other" Chuck, which is who seems to be on your computer today). Reasonable discussion or name-calling? I'd recommend you "ignore" me, but we both know you'll peek. You can't help yourself.

[Chuck Naill]

Oh, I don't take any advice from you.

The people who ignore me (although they don't, really, as we both know) are usually those who become enraged that their hyperbolic rhetoric isn't persuasive; or those - like you - who like to trot out personal attacks in an admittance that their argument failed.

I'd comment on the "vet" thing, but you already let us know how you don't like hearing about my Army experience. Curious how often you manage to bring it up, though. I don't really think anything of it, because my sense of self-worth isn't dictated by it; but I notice that those like yourself usually arrive at your animosity from some sense of self-loathing. Jealousy? Self-conscience and guilt getting the best of you? Who knows...

I'm happy to crank up the vitriol if that's what you prefer. We both know you can't trigger me, but I can reduce you to a babbling, incoherent mess. You can dish it out, but you can't take it.

Choice is yours, Chuck (or the "other" Chuck, which is who seems to be on your computer today). Reasonable discussion or name-calling? I'd recommend you "ignore" me, but we both know you'll peek. You can't help yourself.

You do a dis-service to veterans.

Everyone has to vet your sources and quotes due to lying and context.

[dneal]

You're really grasping now. Try again.

[Chuck Naill]

I'm your best way out of stupid, @denial. Sorry, misspelled.

[dneal]

Hmmm...

Point out the Freudian slip? Nah, typos and auto-correct happens.

Go with "stupid", and remark on expertise or experience? How about asking about the journey "out of stupid", since it seems to be still ongoing? Nah...

Yeah Chuck, you're going to have to try again. That one is too easy.

[Chuck Naill]

Keep trying to keep up...lOl!!

[dneal]

Yes, we know you keep trying to keep up, Chuck.

p.s.: you forgot the emoticon.

[Chuck Naill]

Yes, we know you keep trying to keep up, Chuck.

p.s.: you forgot the emoticon.

Who is "we" white man?

[kazoolaw]

Yes, we know you keep trying to keep up, Chuck.

p.s.: you forgot the emoticon.

Who is "we" white man?

Now with the racism: well done Chuck.