Compulsory Vaccination?

[trastrick 866]

2 hours ago, Carbuncle said:

We already have 4th vaccines for the immuno-suppressed in the UK. And although I am pleased to hear you are doing your bit to protect yourself and others I would note that over 21 million Britons have already had a third jab. Do try and keep up and maybe save the bold for things that deserve it.

And how was my spelling today, Pops?

Edited December 9, 2021 by trastrick

[onewheeldave 22]

2 hours ago, fools said:

You can post it until the cows come home if you like, it doesn't make you look good though. Every time I see your stats splattered all over the thread (for the 5th 6th 7th time!), I scroll past and ignore the whole post.

 

the data isn't convenient for my "pro-mask agenda", there is no link to mask use and you know it.

You missed something important out- it should be- 'You can post it until the cows come home if you like, it doesn't make you look good to me though'

 

as presumably you're not claiming everyone views things like you? 

If you were you're manifestly wrong as I'm happy to see it posted, repeatedly, because-

1. it makes a very good point

2. on the few occasions the opposition has tackled it in a rational matter, it has been well defended and sometimes, consolidated [eg pointing out that unlike similar comparisons between different countries, these stats are unusual in that the regions used the same testing criteria]

3. Generally it is only posted again in response to claims that masks are ore effective than there is evidence for- and those claims are constantly being posted and reposted themselves [for whatever reason you don't seem to complain about repeat postings of stuff you agree with]

 

[trastrick 866]

Just now, onewheeldave said:

You missed something important out- it should be- 'You can post it until the cows come home if you like, it doesn't make you look good to me though'

 

as presumably you're not claiming everyone views things like you? 

If you were you're manifestly wrong as I'm happy to see it posted, repeatedly, because-

1. it makes a very good point

2. on the few occasions the opposition has tackled it in a rational matter, it has been well defended and sometimes, consolidated [eg pointing out that unlike similar comparisons between different countries, these stats are unusual in that the regions used the same testing criteria]

3. Generally it is only posted again in response to claims that masks are ore effective than there is evidence for- and those claims are constantly being posted and reposted themselves [for whatever reason you don't seem to complain about repeat postings of stuff you agree with]

 

Thumbs up!

 

He's posting his responses to criticism he's getting and that  seems to upset some.

 

But we already have a moderator!

 

 

Edited December 9, 2021 by trastrick

[top4718 838]

16 hours ago, Longcol said:

Wales - used to go there a lot - Cardiff(near where my parents lived) and for example the Lleyn peninsula (where we used to camp) - two very different places. And that's before we get on to the valleys eg Ebbw, Merthyr. Or the Gower, Brecon Beacons etc

 

So where in Wales did you go?

Conwy, Lladudno and Rhos on Sea, nice enough places particularly Conwy.

[Chekhov 488]

13 minutes ago, top4718 said:

Conwy, Lladudno and Rhos on Sea, nice enough places particularly Conwy.

Defninitely Conwy. We have done quite a bit of travelling round the world (won't be doing so much is we have to wear masks and **** about with vaccine passports etc) and Conwy is one of my favourite places in the world.

[fools 447]

48 minutes ago, onewheeldave said:

You missed something important out- it should be- 'You can post it until the cows come home if you like, it doesn't make you look good to me though'

Nope,

 

My criticism is simple, and would apply to anyone regardless of matching views.

 

1). The stats don't need to be repeated. We've seen them. We don't need them quoting 15 times, it looks ridiculous and spoils the thread. If they were 2 lines of text, maybe, but no, they go on and on and on.

2). They are misleading, because correlation isn't causation.

 

To repeatedly ignore point 2, is not a good look. Every answer I get repeats this same line.

 

For what it's worth, I'm far closer to your point of view regarding these matters, than you may think. I'm rather bored of seeing this misleading stats crap though, whoever is the source. (which is why I said it's undermining your credibility).

 

Edited December 9, 2021 by fools

[Chekhov 488]

7 minutes ago, fools said:

Nope,

 

My criticism is simple, and would apply to anyone regardless of matching views.

 

1). The stats don't need to be repeated. We've seen them. We don't need them quoting 15 times, it looks ridiculous and spoils the thread. If they were 2 lines of text, maybe, but no, they go on and on and on.

2). They are misleading, because correlation isn't causation.

 

To repeatedly ignore point 2, is not a good look. Every answer I get repeats this same line.

 

For what it's worth, I'm far closer to your point of view regarding these matters, than you may think. I'm rather bored of seeing this misleading stats crap though, whoever is the source.

 

Correlation might not be causation but it is evidence for it.

[fools 447]

I wear a mask in the shops, I'm still here. There you go, masks work. 100% effective.

Edited December 9, 2021 by fools

[Carbuncle 0]

A comparison of rates of covid hospitalisation and death at a fixed point in time for England, Scotland and Wales is a very weak means of establishing or refuting the effectiveness of mask wearing and vaccine passes.

 

1. As has been pointed out correlation does not imply causation. For example, it may be that higher case rates are actually the cause of more restrictive measures rather than the reverse.

 

2. If one is confident of causation and therefore uses this data then one should note that the wrong thing is being compared across these locations. If you change your non-pharmaceuticals interventions (NPIs) they do not instantly change the levels of infection but rather the way that this level of infection will evolve going forward. Perhaps an example would help. Suppose a location magically chose sufficient NPIs to keep levels of infection constant. The comparison proposed ends up scoring that location at it's level of infection prior to the imposition of the NPIs and the performance of NPIs themselves are not measured. [Technically, if you really want to do this (I think) the comparison should be on the basis of the derivative of the log of the rate of hospitalisation (or death) with respect to time, ie the gradient of the relevant curve.]

 

3. Once one begins to use this correct measure one can bring in data from all over the World because this gradient is not dependant on minor variations on for example what constitutes a 'death with covid'. It is then far more principled to use the whole data set than a cherry picked subset.

 

4. There remains a huge problem, however. Mask wearing and the presence of vaccine passes are not the only things that impact the data. One has to account for varying levels of prior immunity, how much time is being spent indoors, how good compliance is, when school holidays fall, population density, ... and so on and so forth. These other relevant variables vary across the UK or indeed the World.

Edited December 9, 2021 by Carbuncle

[Chekhov 488]

3 minutes ago, Carbuncle said:

A comparison of rates of covid hospitalisation and death at a fixed point in time for England, Scotland and Wales is a very weak means of establishing or refuting the effectiveness of mask wearing and vaccine passes.

 

1. As has been pointed out correlation does not imply causation. For example, it may be that higher case rates are actually the cause of more restrictive measures rather than the reverse.

 

2. If one is confident of causation and therefore uses this data then one should note that the wrong thing is being compared across these locations. If you change your non-pharmaceuticals interventions (NPIs) they do not instantly change the levels of infection but rather the way that this level of infection will evolve going forward. Perhaps an example would help. Suppose a location magically chose sufficient NPIs to keep levels of infection constant. The comparison proposed ends up scoring that location at it's level of infection prior to the imposition of the NPIs and the performance of NPIs themselves are not measured. [Technically, if you really want to do this (I think) the comparison should be on the basis of the derivative of the log of the rate of hospitalisation (or death) with respect to time, ie the gradient of the relevant curve.]

 

3. Once one begins to use this correct measure one can being in data from all over the World because this gradient is not dependant on minor variations on for example what constitutes a 'death with covid'. It is then far more principled to use the whole data set than a cherry picked subset.

 

4. There remains a huge problem, however. Mask wearing and the presence of vaccine passes are not the only things that impact the data. One has to account for varying levels of prior immunity, how much time is being spent indoors, how good compliance is, when school holidays fall, population density, ... and so on and so forth. These other relevant variables vary across the UK or indeed the World.

It's stronger than most of the "evidence" for either masks or vaccine passports....

[fools 447]

34 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

Correlation might not be causation but it is evidence for it.

There isn't even a correlation, you have no data on masks, nothing. nada

 

You are posting arbitrary facts, and concluding masks masks masks

Edited December 9, 2021 by fools

[petemcewan 27]

https://jme.bmj.com/content/47/2/78

 

I've put this link on the Forum  for the ethicists who have the patience 

to read through it.

For those people against "Compulsory Cov 19 Vaccination", the moral imperatives-in the article- supporting compulsion  are  what you will have  to engage with. The philosophy driving the proposition is the most repugnant 

brand of Utilitarianism.  Utilitarianism is the last resort of scoundrels.

 

I'm against compulsion.

 

I attribute a greater degree of altruism  to people than the article credits people with.

 

And good luck to everybody on the Forum, as you engage with the State :in the struggle to  have control over what medical interventions you may be compelled to undertake.

 

Note: bodily autonomy trumps any obligations  to support the imperatives expressed  by government.

 

Next ,it will be everybody has to give a kidney-or else!

Or mandated vasectomy-aaarrrrg !

 

Edited December 9, 2021 by petemcewan