Vaccine

espola said:
No, the question is your refusal to admit your error in your statement. Do you think anyone is fooled by your attempt at distraction?

Why do you do this, day after day?
Click to expand...

Again: the "Why do you do this day after day". You always start it.

Re the statement it's because we have different definitions of when the job is done. Dad4's definition is shots in arms (like a parent telling a child to clean the dishes or set the table). Mine is serving the meal (you don't watch for everyone to finish their food).

But then, either: a) you know this and are just doing it to troll, or b) can't follow it and are pulling a Magoo.


Why do YOU do this day after day. Well, I answered that question....you just didn't like the answer.
 
dad4 said:
You’re actually defending #6. It’s the worst on the list.

Recap:

Me: A higher level of adult vaccinations would reduce pediatric covid cases.

You: It is impossible to vaccinate a 1 year old.

Look at it. Your statement is not even on topic.
Click to expand...

Even you recap is wrong. You weren't talking about "cases" (see espola: quotes!)...you were talking about "hospitalizations" and how they were soaring. But now you've been caught backsided and are trying to change the subject.

I already told you the point about 1 year olds is that they are going to be vulnerable for a long time since they are a huge chunk of the hospitalizations. There is no pediatric vaccine on the horizon for the under 6 months. So "think of the children" is going to be a problem for a very long time to come. You have no off ramp...if you believe your argument, it is for one of indefinite restriction due to the vulnerability of this group and the more severe vulnerability of children to flu and RSV....if you really believe that come out and say it, but you won't because you know what people's reaction will be.

So all you are left with is "think of the children" and an appeal to emotion instead of to reason.
 
dad4 said:
how we get to herd immunity. It matters.
Click to expand...

I obviously agree with you. But that's the whole thing, does it matter? Or, more accurately, what matters, how much and for whom? How do I perceive (not calculate, perceive) the risk of damage? What kind of damage? What sort of collateral am I willing to place on the table to mitigate those perceived risks, even it is unlikely to affect me directly? The thread is sort of an exegesis of those voicing opinions on that whole thing. Ironically, the only reason it's even an issue is because, from a technological standpoint, we have a certain ability to choose this time around. It would be one thing if people were dropping like flies and this virus produced the typical U-shaped mortality profile as a function of age. But CoV-2 instead offers a kind of bargain. It says "Here I am. New kid on the block. Nice to meet you. Yum. Success for me is to reach steady state propagation in as big a population as possible. BTW thanks for inventing the whole rapid global travel network. Love the interconnectivity. So I'll tell you what I do. I'm going to mow through you like a lawnmower but I'm mostly going to kill your parents but not your kids. I mean by and large. Of course just by accident. I'll try and play nice. At any rate it should not be too bad. Not in the grand scheme of things. At the worst, a few extra refrigerator trucks (if you have them) tucked discretely behind the morgue and you should be good. Drop in the bucket really. Odds are you won't even notice. Well, except for all the videos on the internet of granny hacking up syntiated aveolar tissue against plastic sheeting while she waves bye bye on a nurse's cell phone. There is that. People like Gupta want to hold me up as the real Leviathan. I'm cold reality in a Darwinian kind of way. But that's so 17th century thinking. I'm here to tell you that your internet is the real new Leviathan. Anyway, the bottom line question becomes how much does all that matter to you. And if your answer is "meh, fits in the natural order" or you can't collectively get your shit together about figuring it out, that works for me. How does that sound?"
 
Grace T. said:
Again: the "Why do you do this day after day". You always start it.

Re the statement it's because we have different definitions of when the job is done. Dad4's definition is shots in arms (like a parent telling a child to clean the dishes or set the table). Mine is serving the meal (you don't watch for everyone to finish their food).

But then, either: a) you know this and are just doing it to troll, or b) can't follow it and are pulling a Magoo.


Why do YOU do this day after day. Well, I answered that question....you just didn't like the answer.
Click to expand...
What is "pulling a Magoo"? Is it more than your way to weasel out of an issue?
 
Grace T. said:
Even you recap is wrong. You weren't talking about "cases" (see espola: quotes!)...you were talking about "hospitalizations" and how they were soaring. But now you've been caught backsided and are trying to change the subject.

I already told you the point about 1 year olds is that they are going to be vulnerable for a long time since they are a huge chunk of the hospitalizations. There is no pediatric vaccine on the horizon for the under 6 months. So "think of the children" is going to be a problem for a very long time to come. You have no off ramp...if you believe your argument, it is for one of indefinite restriction due to the vulnerability of this group and the more severe vulnerability of children to flu and RSV....if you really believe that come out and say it, but you won't because you know what people's reaction will be.

So all you are left with is "think of the children" and an appeal to emotion instead of to reason.
Click to expand...

Wasn't it you that brought up the "stealing their childhoods" complaint?
 
espola said:
What is "pulling a Magoo"? Is it more than your way to weasel out of an issue?
Click to expand...

If you don't know why folks call you Magoo at this point then you are truly hopeless. It again begs the question: 1) is this an act you put on just to troll, or 2) are you truly that lost?
 
Grace T. said:
If you don't know why folks call you Magoo at this point then you are truly hopeless. It again begs the question: 1) is this an act you put on just to troll, or 2) are you truly that lost?
Click to expand...

Mr. Magoo is old, short, bald, fat, and nearsighted. I am old.

Who is lost?
 
espola said:
Wasn't it you that brought up the "stealing their childhoods" complaint?
Click to expand...

Now you are just making non sequiturs hoping something sticks, and can't even articulate your argument...you are just hoping it somehow sticks even though you can't formulate an articulated response.
 
Grace T. said:
Now you are just making non sequiturs hoping something sticks, and can't even articulate your argument...you are just hoping it somehow sticks even though you can't formulate an articulated response.
Click to expand...

non sequitur? That responds to your comment about appeals to emotion.
 
Desert Hound said:
@dad4 is worried about pediatric cases. Just gave him the cdc link that shows not many are actually in hospitals.

Those who don't want to be have made their choice. A good portion of those probably has natural immunity. Question? Why isn't our gov doing more studies on this.
Click to expand...
Track down a Pharma sales rep, they'll give you AN answer. Naturaly immunity isn't profitable. There are a few EUAs that could be coming our way by end of fall that will cover all of pediatric population. In the meantime, Drs COULD vaccinate those under 16 "off label" with the Pfizer vaccine. I doubt any physician would do it, but some parents will ask. The FDA will certainly discourage the practice and hopefully doctors follow the federal guidelines. Covid has caused significant chaoes in medical treatment.
 
Now claiming a misquote? ok. We can use direct quotes.

Me: “Put another way, pediatric covid hospitalizations are both real and somewhat common. Vaccinating adults appears to prevent more than 3/4 of these cases.”

You: “30% of the hospitalizations were for under 1s…no shot on the horizon for them”. (No deletion. The ellipsis is part of the original quote.)

Read it. Your response is completely off topic. I’m talking about adult shots, and your response is to point out that we don’t have a shot for infants.
 
espola said:
non sequitur? That responds to your comment about appeals to emotion.
Click to expand...
You can't even fully articulate the argument here....hoping that I'll tie off the end for you.

No, that wasn't an appeal to emotion. It's a fact that we've taken several years of normalcy away from children. That's a cost. We can argue about the value of such cost and it's balance against benefits, but it is a cost (not an appeal to emotion).

Dad4's hospitalization claim is an appeal to emotion because it's a fall back once the arguments have failed (such as the previously articulated point that he's really talking about vaccinating the unvaccinated to protect the vaccinated). It's factually inaccurate (or at least exaggerated), it from a relative risk point of view simply isn't a concern, and it contains no articulated offrap for when in fact such danger will be said to have passed. It's an appeal to fear.
 
dad4 said:
Now claiming a misquote? ok. We can use direct quotes.

Me: “Put another way, pediatric covid hospitalizations are both real and somewhat common. Vaccinating adults appears to prevent more than 3/4 of these cases.”

You: “30% of the hospitalizations were for under 1s…no shot on the horizon for them”. (No deletion. The ellipsis is part of the original quote.)

Read it. Your response is completely off topic. I’m talking about adult shots, and your response is to point out that we don’t have a shot for infants.
Click to expand...


Again, you got slapped and have no answer for all the other points so you are focused on the last.

It's the last point on the list for a reason. There is a structure in logic to the list: 1. point out the obvious tactic about what's going on here (you aren't the only one to do it), 2. point out why the argument is wrong, 3. point out that even if your assumptions are true, there is no limiting principle to what you are arguing.

The reason is that it's a danger that is always going to exist. So your prescribed solution has no limiting principle. You have no offramp. But if you admit that, you lose everyone, so you don't want to say it.
 
EvilGoalie 21 said:
I obviously agree with you. But that's the whole thing, does it matter? Or, more accurately, what matters, how much and for whom? How do I perceive (not calculate, perceive) the risk of damage? What kind of damage? What sort of collateral am I willing to place on the table to mitigate those perceived risks, even it is unlikely to affect me directly? The thread is sort of an exegesis of those voicing opinions on that whole thing. Ironically, the only reason it's even an issue is because, from a technological standpoint, we have a certain ability to choose this time around. It would be one thing if people were dropping like flies and this virus produced the typical U-shaped mortality profile as a function of age. But CoV-2 instead offers a kind of bargain. It says "Here I am. New kid on the block. Nice to meet you. Yum. Success for me is to reach steady state propagation in as big a population as possible. BTW thanks for inventing the whole rapid global travel network. Love the interconnectivity. So I'll tell you what I do. I'm going to mow through you like a lawnmower but I'm mostly going to kill your parents but not your kids. I mean by and large. Of course just by accident. I'll try and play nice. At any rate it should not be too bad. Not in the grand scheme of things. At the worst, a few extra refrigerator trucks (if you have them) tucked discretely behind the morgue and you should be good. Drop in the bucket really. Odds are you won't even notice. Well, except for all the videos on the internet of granny hacking up syntiated aveolar tissue against plastic sheeting while she waves bye bye on a nurse's cell phone. There is that. People like Gupta want to hold me up as the real Leviathan. I'm cold reality in a Darwinian kind of way. But that's so 17th century thinking. I'm here to tell you that your internet is the real new Leviathan. Anyway, the bottom line question becomes how much does all that matter to you. And if your answer is "meh, fits in the natural order" or you can't collectively get your shit together about figuring it out, that works for me. How does that sound?"
Click to expand...
I think our decision to open up before widespread vaccination will cost us about 100,000 lives. Most of those will be among the unvaccinated, but some will be people whose surgeries were delayed. Other people probably have better estimates.

We can say “that’s the natural order”. The logical conclusion of that argument is to limit ICU bed use for unvaccinated covid patients. After all, it’s their choice. The fact that Bob believes in internet vaccine conspiracies is no reason to delay Sam’s heart bypass.

Howard Stern went there. It doesn’t work for me. I prefer a world where we look out after each other.
 
Grace T. said:
You can't even fully articulate the argument here....hoping that I'll tie off the end for you.

No, that wasn't an appeal to emotion. It's a fact that we've taken several years of normalcy away from children. That's a cost. We can argue about the value of such cost and it's balance against benefits, but it is a cost (not an appeal to emotion).

Dad4's hospitalization claim is an appeal to emotion because it's a fall back once the arguments have failed (such as the previously articulated point that he's really talking about vaccinating the unvaccinated to protect the vaccinated). It's factually inaccurate (or at least exaggerated), it from a relative risk point of view simply isn't a concern, and it contains no articulated offrap for when in fact such danger will be said to have passed. It's an appeal to fear.
Click to expand...

No, it's not.
 
dad4 said:
I think our decision to open up before widespread vaccination will cost us about 100,000 lives. Most of those will be among the unvaccinated, but some will be people whose surgeries were delayed. Other people probably have better estimates.

We can say “that’s the natural order”. The logical conclusion of that argument is to limit ICU bed use for unvaccinated covid patients. After all, it’s their choice. The fact that Bob believes in internet vaccine conspiracies is no reason to delay Sam’s heart bypass.

Howard Stern went there. It doesn’t work for me. I prefer a world where we look out after each other.
Click to expand...

The tragedy of the unvaccinated is how many people are doing it just for the politics.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top