What Happened: Dr. Jay Bhattacharya on 19 Months of COVID

[TSherbs]

Would you agree that calling people selfish is unlikely to win friends, influence people, and get them vaccinated?[/B][/SIZE][/FONT]

[/QUOTE]

Is the purpose of this thread to suggest methods of persuading vax_reluctant people to get vaxxed? If so, I missed that request.



Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[dneal]

@TSherbs - The thread is about a conversation with a man who is an M.D., Ph.D. (Economics), and professor of health policy at Stanford. One of the topics in the conversation is indeed how to persuade people to comply with public health recommendations, and how not to do it.

--edit--

I didn't see your last post on the preceding page.

Although the first sentence is a question, or more specifically a request that was obviously ignored; I didn't ask a specific question because I was curious what people would take away from the interview. It is similar to the thread linked in the OP, where a discussion between rational people took place. I was hoping we could bring that sort of decorum back. Apparently not.

[Chuck Naill]

The thread had but one purpose, to justify Darrell’s inaction. It was never to discuss anything.

The people on the video didn’t have professional responsibility for protecting people. Hindsight is 20/20.

The foremost issue is, now that you know millions have died, what action will you take? Each of answers that question for ourselves.

[dneal]

Chuck, my name isn't Darrell, but if it makes you happy or helps with your frequent confusion; I'm fine with it.

--edit--

Addressing TSherbs' post below, it really doesn't bother me. If it's a cheap-shot, it's too obtuse to be witty.

Anyway Chuck, if you could spell it "Dar-El", I would appreciate it. I already changed my avatar in anticipation.

[TSherbs]

@TSherbs - The thread is about a conversation with a man who is an M.D., Ph.D. (Economics), and professor of health policy at Stanford. One of the topics in the conversation is indeed how to persuade people to comply with public health recommendations, and how not to do it.

--edit--

I didn't see your last post on the preceding page.

Although the first sentence is a question, or more specifically a request that was obviously ignored; I didn't ask a specific question because I was curious what people would take away from the interview. It is similar to the thread linked in the OP, where a discussion between rational people took place. I was hoping we could bring that sort of decorum back. Apparently not.

The interview was an hour long. You need to focus the discussion on just a few topics (one or two) with a question that asks for advice or help or recommendation, etc. Otherwise, as I said, you will likely end up with disputation.



Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[TSherbs]

I'll watch any 3-minute segment of this that you choose as long as you ask a question more specific than "What do you think of that?"

You can pick the 3 minute segment (that's about a page of text). I can't stand video interviews and I don't watch them. But in this case, if you want, I'll watch if you pick it. If you notice, I never respond to video clips. Really not my jam...

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[Empty_of_Clouds]

The fundamental thrust of this kind of thread - based on the posts of a couple of prominent participants - is: My appeal to authority is better than your appeal to authority.

[TSherbs]

The thread had but one purpose, to justify Darrell’s inaction. It was never to discuss anything.

....

Chuck, I have backed you up a lot. And I have called dneal aspersions to his face. But this name thing of yours seems like a petty cheap shot. It comes out of nowhere at times. Anyway, I even have to remind myself who you mean. It's kind of confusing.



Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

[dneal]

The fundamental thrust of this kind of thread - based on the posts of a couple of prominent participants - is: My appeal to authority is better than your appeal to authority.

While that is an argument one could advance, the linked thread demonstrates the counter argument. Also, an appeal to authority isn't a logical fallacy when the authority is an actual authority on the topic. It is a credible competing viewpoint. Listening and discussing competing viewpoints rationally and respectfully is simply a variation of the Socratic method, Hegelian synthesis, etc...

[kazoolaw]

@kazoolaw, I offered my opinion, it is what it is and I feel no need to pick it apart for discussion or to defend it. The tone of your responses is poor, and inclines me not to engage with posts of that ilk other than to point out your boorish behaviour.

This is just a conversation not a forensic clinic.

Never seen a person so anxious to disassociate from his own posts as you are.

[Empty_of_Clouds]

Never seen a person so keen to pick fights on a forum as you.

[Chip]

You can't follow a topic, you can't grasp basic logic nor distinguish two different principles at play. But you can assert that someone you have never met is a psychopath.

That I don't quite get a lot of what you post is not the result of any deficiency on my part. Simply put, you spew a lot of loony BS.

I do recall posting some characteristic symptoms shown by psychopaths. I don't remember calling you one.

But if the shoe fits. . .

[ethernautrix]

Do you have the freedom to avoid your taxes?

Do you have the freedom to drive drunk and/or not use a seatbelt?

Do folks in the military have the freedom to disobey orders they don't like or that are inconvenient?

Do you have the freedom to build a bonfire and shoot off fireworks where there's a red flag fire ban?

Do bankers have the freedom to use the deposits of their customers to buy yachts, drugs, fast cars, and hookers?

Yes, one has all those freedoms. However, there are consequences for exercising them because there are laws that make them illegal.

This is almost exactly my knee-jerk response word for word when I read Chip's questions. Of course, people can do what they want, but there are theoretical consequences (one has to be caught first and then be held accountable (which doesn't always follow)).

So, the question is, then, what are the potential consequences for not getting vaccinated?

But also! what are the potential consequences of getting vaccinated? Since becoming fully vaccinated does not necessarily mean "fully protected," as Heather and Bret of DarkHorse Podcast discuss in this 15-minute clip (YouTube):



Heather cites a couple of studies about the efficacy of being fully vaccinated (in a Singapore study, the Delta variant was found in only 8% of unvaccinated covid cases; 92% presumably spread amongst the vaccinated to varying degrees (after one shot, after both, after two weeks thereof, which is when one is considered fully vaccinated). Within two-to-three months after being fully vaccinated, protection wanes.

I've heard the proposition that getting vaccinated prevents worse effects of covid, but that's presuming that most people will suffer worse effects when the percentage is actually very low. (Of course, no one wants to be in that end of the bell curve.)

Should free citizens in free countries "be allowed" to assess the risk for themselves (while showing good etiquette by wearing masks and maintaining physical distance and frequently washing their hands)?

I, for instance, analogically, always buckle up in a car and keep my seatbelt fastened on an airplane but I don't usually wear a bicycle helmet. In the latter case, I observed that drivers seemed to view my helmet as a dome of protection and would pass me with less space than when I didn't wear a helmet. Not a scientific study, and I understand that drivers aren't the only hazard that could topple me over my handlebar, but I weigh the potential risk and consequence and accept the responsibility, which I don't say lightly.

Of course, head injuries and broken collar bones aren't contagious, so how is the responsible citizen to make good decisions for him- or herself in light of potential consequences to him- or herself or others, probably both?

What is the risk?

Can anyone say for certain what is the risk?

Did it not raise anyone else's eyebrows that politicians demanded of citizens stringent restrictions that they themselves did not follow? Did anyone else think, "Huh, what do they know? They have much more information than I do, so...maybe this isn't as bad as they're spinning it." (Are we allowed to have such thoughts in an environment of [cue scene of Donald Sutherland in Invasion of the Body Snatchers at the end, spoiler alert]?)

Does anyone else wonder, in light of (as mentioned in this or other threads) Tuskegee? Or how the government instructed servicemen to observe atomic bomb testing in the Nevada desert? Did the government know what the consequences of that would be? I'll say, No. No, they did not. EXACTLY. The government didn't know... and how did they find out? Did all the decision-makers stand in the desert and see the retina-searing flash of explosion and feel the heat of that radiation winds?

Nope!

Is it immoral to ask, Follow the money (question implied)?

Anyway, I only started to watch (listen to) the video Not-Darrell (and Not-Dave/David, haha) linked to in his OP, and now Łapa is crying for a walk, so I'll have to listen to it later.

But I want to know, is it possible to ask questions without the knee-jerk, chest-thumping, righteous indignation beat-down that tries to pass for discourse these days? Cos "You're stupid" is not a convincing point.

Also, I'll concede that I don't know what Heather and Bret's collective reputation is and I didn't look up the studies they cited (which is more important than reputation, as that seems to be dictated by mob rule rather than conscientious inquiry), and if there are studies that contradict these findings, for sure link to them (or studies that support them!).

[dneal]

I'll watch any 3-minute segment of this that you choose as long as you ask a question more specific than "What do you think of that?"

You can pick the 3 minute segment (that's about a page of text). I can't stand video interviews and I don't watch them. But in this case, if you want, I'll watch if you pick it. If you notice, I never respond to video clips. Really not my jam...

I'll type the pertinent text from YouTube's transcription (editing as best I can for clarity), but the portion begins at approximately 30:37 and goes to 32:45 (less than 3 min!) if you want to watch.

Dr. Bhattacharya is cited from a presentation he gave last year:

"In the last 20 years we've lifted one billion people worldwide out of poverty. This year we are reversing that progress and an estimated 130 million people will starve. Another result of the lockdowns is that people stopped bringing their children in for immunizations against diseases like diphtheria, whooping cough, and polio. Eighty million children worldwide are now at risk of these diseases."

He continues: 100 million people have been thrown into poverty. Tens of millions of people have been thrown into starvation, dire food insecurity as a consequence of the lockdowns worldwide, especially in Africa.

Peter Robinson: So meaning that when the western world - which is the rich world - contracts its economy, when we shut down our economy, you're ok if you live in Pacific Palisades but if you live somewhere in Africa, when the world economy shrinks; the poor and very poor are exposed and in the rudest way their lives themselves become at risk.

Dr. B.: We spent the last two decades or more developing systems of trade and globalization that effectively were promises to poor countries, that changed their economies to rely on these systems; and overnight we violated those promises so it's not surprising that the greatest harm from lockdowns have happened in poor countries around the world. I'll just give you another statistic about children. It was estimated in March of this past year - the UN put out reports estimating that nearly 250,000 children had died of starvation as a consequence of the economic dislocation from lockdowns in South Asia alone. The harm to children is incalculable from this.

This is not merely conjecture, and links to the WHO and UNICEF are at the bottom of this post. The UNICEF site is particularly diverse and informative.

So my question is essentially the same as the one I asked a year and a half ago: Is “shut everything down” necessarily the only reasonable method of mitigating risk?

We have the benefit of hindsight now. While it may be 20/20 (and it's certainly not in this case), the virus and "lockdown" policies remain. These are true moral dilemmas, and won't go away with glib rhetorical dismissal. People are going to die. How do we minimize that? or maybe how do we not exacerbate it?

UNICEF COVID-19 and Children Data Hub
UN Report: Pandemic year marked by spike in world hunger.

[dneal]

@Ethernautrix - Heather Heying and Bret Weinstein are biologists with a focus on evolutionary biology. Bret was the victim of the "Evergreen College" issue. They are both now visiting professors at Princeton. Bret's brother is Eric Weinstein, mathematical physicist.

[dneal]

You can't follow a topic, you can't grasp basic logic nor distinguish two different principles at play. But you can assert that someone you have never met is a psychopath.

That I don't quite get a lot of what you post is not the result of any deficiency on my part. Simply put, you spew a lot of loony BS.

See last third of quote in signature.

I do recall posting some characteristic symptoms shown by psychopaths. I don't remember calling you one.

But if the shoe fits. . .

Implied or insinuated then, if you prefer; not that it matters to me really.

What I do find curious is that a self-proclaimed "writer" merely regurgitates the same material. That's not a particularly beneficial trait in that career field, I suspect. I am sure that it is boring.

[TSherbs]

So my question is essentially the same as the one I asked a year and a half ago: Is “shut everything down” necessarily the only reasonable method of mitigating risk?



UNICEF COVID-19 and Children Data Hub
UN Report: Pandemic year marked by spike in world hunger.

My guess is that we will not due similar total lockdowns (to the extent that they actually were "total": my town in Maine kept nearly all of its stores open except for a week or so). We'll likely keep schools open, too, but we gamble with children's lives less (and this ethic I agree with).

So, yes, there are likely other reasonable approaches to lockdowns, which I think is why we did not undergo them as the D-variant peaked.

[TSherbs]

Can anyone say for certain what is the risk?

Of vaccination? Yes, these statistics, generally speaking, are known.

But "for certain"? No, of course not. Risk is a generalized statistical pattern over a population, not a guarantee of accuracy for each individual. There is a "risk," also generally calculable, for a population if it chooses not to vaccinate. This risk isn't precise, but it is somewhat predictable.

[Chuck Naill]

Authors of "I Alone Can Fix It" interviewed on Fresh Air today. FYI.

[Chuck Naill]

A shut down is a reasonable strategy in 2020. Over time we saw thousands die from going to church services and ignoring science. Not being flippant. but you can't prevent free people from performing acts that will kill them. It is sad, but not really. If someone chooses to take the chance, you don't mourn the same as when people die from pancreatic CA.