Will you get vaccinated against COVID once it's available?

G1911 · #1 05-19-2021, 07:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Well for one you're in the middle of an active pandemic, pretty hard to set up an RCT for masks on a global basis.

I'll even assume that this is true and it is now impossible to use controls. Does it not still suggest that the earlier studies are better, because they use controls? Why should I ignore the science before March, 2020 and just accept whatever the CDC says after March 2020?

Peter_Spaeth · #2 05-19-2021, 07:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by G1911

I'll even assume that this is true and it is now impossible to use controls. Does it not still suggest that the earlier studies are better, because they use controls? Why should I ignore the science before March, 2020 and just accept whatever the CDC says after March 2020?

See my addendum quoting what they said about RCTs. And I am relying at the moment on this article, not the CDC.

I'll repeat the quote so it's in one place with your question.

"The standard RCT paradigm is well suited to medical interventions in which a treatment has a measurable effect at the individual level and, furthermore, interventions and their outcomes are independent across persons comprising a target population.

By contrast, the effect of masks on a pandemic is a population-level outcome where individual-level interventions have an aggregate effect on their community as a system."

Peter_Spaeth · #3 05-19-2021, 07:57 PM

By the way:

Exception: Be very careful not to confuse "deferring to an authority on the issue" with the appeal to authority fallacy. Remember, a fallacy is an error in reasoning. Dismissing the council of legitimate experts and authorities turns good skepticism into denialism. The appeal to authority is a fallacy in argumentation, but deferring to an authority is a reliable heuristic that we all use virtually every day on issues of relatively little importance. There is always a chance that any authority can be wrong, that�s why the critical thinker accepts facts provisionally. It is not at all unreasonable (or an error in reasoning) to accept information as provisionally true by credible authorities. Of course, the reasonableness is moderated by the claim being made (i.e., how extraordinary, how important) and the authority (how credible, how relevant to the claim).

G1911 · #4 05-19-2021, 08:04 PM

.

Peter_Spaeth · #5 05-19-2021, 08:09 PM

So what's your explanation (speculation, whatever) as to why this particular group of scientists and statisticians, obviously representing a broad swath of institutions around the world, and not obviously biased or beholden to anyone, came to the conclusions they did and concluded that the prior studies did not apply to the COVID-19 pandemic?

I need to understand that, I think, before simply rejecting this study out of hand for the sole reason it disagreed with prior studies.

I am not by the way merely assuming they are right, for better or worse I found their exposition fairly persuasive. Now granted this science is above my pay grade, but in my chosen profession I have had to learn a lot of complex subject matters and think for a layperson I am pretty good at it. (Must be a logical fallacy there lol.)

G1911 · #6 05-19-2021, 08:37 PM

.

Eric72 · #7 05-19-2021, 08:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by G1911

...the months of abuse and hostility have certainly made me refuse to participate...

Has this abuse occurred on Net54, in real life, or a blend of the two?

Peter_Spaeth · #8 05-19-2021, 09:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by G1911

I do not know, I cannot disparage the motive of people I do not know. If I have to give a reason, and I don't think I should as it is pure speculation and I do not personally like to engage in pure speculation, it is because people find what they want to find when it becomes a highly emotional issue. In 2019, masks were not emotional. It was almost universally understood that they did not do anything to stop airborne transmission of viruses, and this was borne out in numerous studies, which was not surprising as they have large gaps and were not designed for this purpose whatsoever. In January 2021 when this appears to have been done, masks were and are a highly emotional (I think this thread can be used as evidence there) issue, and those who don't go with the narrative can expect a torrent of hostility directed there way, while those who do use them generally are heavily invested in it as a signal of virtue and morality.

I am not a scientist, I am not an expert in viruses, nor a doctor of any kind. I run an analytics department in a medtech company. I trust statistical data, good data used appropriately. I have to trust good old common sense (why would a mask with large gaps be expected to stop transmission of an airborne disease?) when I have nothing better to go off of. Science pronounces many things that are wrong (if we accept these studies now, then science before late March 2020 was wildly incorrect). I think the tendency we have drifted towards in recent years of treating "science" almost as a religion never to be questioned is foolish. I love the Socratic, I like the Scientific Method, I do not like this new "ignore what we said before, and do not question what we say now", especially when it flies in the face of the available data. I certainly will not be avoiding family and friends, wearing a mask that statistically does nothing to prevent a risk that is almost non-existant and injecting experimental drugs into myself because so many have brought into the fear flavor of the month. The narrative simply does not align with the evidence, and the anger and castigation I face on a daily basis for simply not partaking in the popular panic (I have never told anyone else that they should make the same choice I do, or that they can't wear a mask or get a vaccine, I simply am not participating along with you and disagree) only makes me want to have even less to do with this. I came to my conclusion on evidentiary grounds, but the months of abuse and hostility have certainly made me refuse to participate even moreso. All of us compromise what we know to be to get along sometimes (No, my girlfriend is not a good cook, but yes I tell her she is for the sake of harmony), but when the demand is that I reshape my life and pretend to be terrified of a statistically insignificant fear and never question the narrative of the state and the vocal part of the public, I think it reaches a level of absurdity in which the right thing is to refuse to be party to it.

I read some of the evidence differently than you do, and would take issue with some of your characterizations, but I respect the position you have articulated and find it more engaging to discuss than someone who simply comes in with a conspiratorial, denialistic perspective.

G1911 · #9 05-19-2021, 08:00 PM

.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
At least 14 Florida Marlins test + covid	Snapolit1	Watercooler Talk- ALL sports talk	177	12-12-2022 01:53 PM
OK, today this COVID crap finally bummed me out some	Exhibitman	WaterCooler Talk- Off Topics	9	07-27-2020 10:12 AM
COVID-19 Sales Slowing Down?	samosa4u	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	26	06-29-2020 03:41 AM
Autographs and Covid	theshleps	Autograph Forum- Primarily Sports	3	04-11-2020 01:33 PM