Why are health care workers refusing the vaccine at high rates?

[SKL]

27 minutes ago, frogger said:

You don't need to be defensive with me. It was simply questions. I was asking not implying.

OK, but if I said "my daughter fell off a horse," you wouldn't say "so you believe this is a widespread problem?  Do you believe all lesson barns are suspect?  Do you believe the vast majority of horses are too dangerous to ride?"

Edited February 22, 2021 by SKL

[frogger]

I will add that if you are going to test the safety of a vaccine and have a large population taking it you simply will have deaths. Period.

I guess I don't understand why the two are comparable. There are very different objectives involved. You can never develop a vaccine if you can't determine if it was actually the vaccine that caused the death. 

A death certificate doesn't have that goal in mind so it seems less important to be sure of.

Perhaps deaths were over counted in liberal states and undercounted in conservative states. 🤔🤷

[frogger]

5 minutes ago, SKL said:

OK, but if I said "my daughter fell off a horse," you wouldn't say "so do you believe this is a widespread problem?  Do you believe all lesson barns are suspect?  Do you believe the vast majority of horses are too dangerous to ride?"

But whether you meant to or not you seemed to be implying that it was a problem overall, otherwise why talk about it? So I was clarifying because your later posts said you weren't implying that. I wanted to know whether or not you were implying that and now I know that you were not implying that medical certifiers were over counting Covid in general. Thank you for the clarification.

[SKL]

1 minute ago, frogger said:

I will add that if you are going to test the safety of a vaccine and have a large population taking it you simply will have deaths. Period.

I guess I don't understand why the two are comparable. There are very different objectives involved. You can never develop a vaccine if you can't determine if it was actually the vaccine that caused the death. 

A death certificate doesn't have that goal in mind so it seems less important to be sure of.

Perhaps deaths were over counted in liberal states and undercounted in conservative states. 🤔🤷

Well if it's not comparable, then people should not make statements like "the death rate from the vax is obviously much lower than the death rate from not being vaxed."  (Putting aside the fact that such a statement, even if true on average, must be evaluated separately for different populations.)

[frogger]

1 minute ago, SKL said:

Well if it's not comparable, then people should not make statements like "the death rate from the vax is obviously much lower than the death rate from not being vaxed."  (Putting aside the fact that such a statement, even if true on average, must be evaluated separately for different populations.)

I agree. And yes, the different populations do make a difference. If you are 20 and have allergy issues but an O blood type and no extreme risk factors is very different than if you are an 80 year old diabetic. 

 

[SKL]

1 minute ago, frogger said:

But whether you meant to or not you seemed to be implying that it was a problem overall, otherwise why talk about it? So I was clarifying because your later posts said you weren't implying that. I wanted to know whether or not you were implying that and now I know that you were not implying that medical certifiers were over counting Covid in general. Thank you for the clarification.

LOL.  I am not sure why people can't just take what I said as what I said.

The CDC advice on how deaths should be coded includes putting a Covid label on certain people who did not test positive for Covid.  Last fall, my family member saw that happen.  So it happens. 

If the CDC were consistent, it would be logical to put vax reaction on death certificates where vax reaction is suspected to have contributed to the death.  But that isn't happening.

[Melissa Louise]

1 hour ago, SKL said:

My observations are different - I don't get the feeling people dislike being honestly told "we don't know for sure yet."  I think most people prefer that to "absolute" statements that so often turn out to be wrong or incomplete.  For example:  "this vaccine is safe."  "But what about the deaths and serious reactions?"  "Oh yeah, we are still investigating those."  There goes trust.  I think it would be better to say "this vaccine has minimal side effects for most people, and the rare adverse events post-vaccine are currently under investigation to determine whether or not they are vaccine related."  People who know these facts are still getting the vaccine, so I don't think knowledge of rare reactions will cause more reluctance than the lack of straightforward transparency.  When you find out they aren't going to tell you until you confront them, you wonder what else they are holding back.

That's an education thing. People who have received a good vaccine education have the above as a starting point. There's a (tiny) risk to being vaccinated - I think yesterday I heard 5 per million anaphylaxis responses. 

I feel like I did all this weighing up of risk the first time I had a baby about to get a vaccination. Tiny risk of harm from the shot, small risk of harm from disease, social and individual benefit likely from taking tiny risk. 

But that's not because I'm so smart. It's because I've spent my whole life being delivered trustworthy public health information. 

Idk. I'm not going to blame nurses and other staff who 1. aren't recipients of trustworthy education and 2. may have genuine concerns. 

Me, I'm projected to be in the first quarter of people vaccinated in AU, but we only started this week. Cannot wait, despite knowing that like all vaccines, it comes with a tiny element of risk.

[Drama Llama]

2 minutes ago, SKL said:

 

If the CDC were consistent, it would be logical to put vax reaction on death certificates where vax reaction is suspected to have contributed to the death.  But that isn't happening.

Do you have a link that shows that this isn't happening?  

[SKL]

7 minutes ago, BaseballandHockey said:

Do you have a link that shows that this isn't happening?  

The CDC website states (as of a day or two ago) that there are no deaths attributed to the Covid vaxes.

[Drama Llama]

Just now, SKL said:

The CDC website states (as of a day or two ago) that there are no deaths attributed to the Covid vaxes.

Do you have a link that shows that there have been cases that should have been attributed, and that the reason they weren't is covid related?  

That's the part that I meant to ask about. 

[Laura Corin]

1 hour ago, Lanny said:

WOW.   Before, when I saw the title of this thread I was puzzled.  If that is the case in the USA I am sad. I don't think that is the case here in Colombia and I pray that it is not the  case here.

NOW, I am a believer. One of the six (6) vaccines the Colombian government purchased is the AstraZeneca vaccine.  Several days ago I read that the South Korean government decided not to use that vaccine and I wondered why. The main reason seems to be that there is no evidence it is effective for people older than 64. There may be other issues with it too.

If when they offer me the vaccine they are giving AstraZeneca I will politely refuse.

This article is among the first that popped up when I googled for AstraZeneca and it shows how many countries in Europe are troubled by AstraZeneca:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jemimamcevoy/2021/02/21/european-healthcare-workers-are-refusing-astrazeneca-vaccine-over-efficacy-concerns/?sh=5bdfe97b6520

Hi Lanny. It's highly effective in older people, who are most of the people in this study. After only one dose even. New real-world data.

BBC News - Covid vaccines - 'spectacular' impact on serious illness
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-56153617

[SKL]

5 minutes ago, BaseballandHockey said:

Do you have a link that shows that there have been cases that should have been attributed, and that the reason they weren't is covid related?  

That's the part that I meant to ask about. 

No, and that is not what I said.

[Drama Llama]

2 minutes ago, SKL said:

No, and that is not what I said.

I'm confused.  

You said this:

26 minutes ago, SKL said:

 

If the CDC were consistent, it would be logical to put vax reaction on death certificates where vax reaction is suspected to have contributed to the death.  But that isn't happening.

Which made me think that you think there are cases of people who have died where it was suspected that there was a vax reaction, and that the CDC in some way prevented that from being recorded on their death certificate.  

If that's not what you mean, can you clarify what you do mean by the above?  

[Melissa Louise]

11 minutes ago, Laura Corin said:

Hi Lanny. It's highly effective in older people, who are most of the people in this study. After only one dose even. New real-world data.

BBC News - Covid vaccines - 'spectacular' impact on serious illness
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-56153617

Such good news. Pretty sure I'll be getting this and not Pfizer. 

[SKL]

10 minutes ago, BaseballandHockey said:

I'm confused.  

You said this:

Which made me think that you think there are cases of people who have died where it was suspected that there was a vax reaction, and that the CDC in some way prevented that from being recorded on their death certificate.  

If that's not what you mean, can you clarify what you do mean by the above?  

I meant what I said.

It is widely reported and admitted by the CDC that there have been deaths post-vax, some of which are under investigation because they are not explained by obvious non-vax causes.

However, the CDC reports zero deaths from the vax.  Time will tell whether they ever admit a given death was caused by the vax, or if so, when that will happen.  I have found no CDC advice that death certificates should cite Covid vax reactions if that is suspected.  Have you?

If there is in fact CDC advice that death certificates should cite Covid vax reaction as a suspected cause of death if the deceased's doctor / coronor suspects it, then please direct me to where the CDC advises that.

Edited February 22, 2021 by SKL

[Laura Corin]

5 minutes ago, Melissa Louise said:

Such good news. Pretty sure I'll be getting this and not Pfizer. 

Those two are still both being used here.

[Drama Llama]

Just now, SKL said:

I meant what I said.

It is widely reported and admitted by the CDC that there have been deaths post-vax, some of which are under investigation because they are not explained by obvious non-vax causes.

 

But when I asked you to provide a link that supports that you said that wasn't what you said.  

It's hard to have a conversation when we aren't seeing the same media.  So, I'm asking to see the media where you are seeing this "widely reported" and "admitted" 

Can you share a link?

[SKL]

Just now, BaseballandHockey said:

But when I asked you to provide a link that supports that you said that wasn't what you said.  

It's hard to have a conversation when we aren't seeing the same media.  So, I'm asking to see the media where you are seeing this "widely reported" and "admitted" 

Can you share a link?

I would think the best source would be the CDC's own website.  I don't think a link is needed.

As for the "I didn't mean that" stuff, it seems you and I have different understandings of language.  You paraphrased my words inaccurately.  Moving on.

[frogger]

I will say that implying and inferring are an important part of communication. It sometimes feels like you are trying to be obtuse about this which makes me question whether you actually want clear communication. You seem to like to imply things and then take them back because you didn't state them outright.

 

I haven't seen anywhere that specifically stated that suspected vaccination fatalities shouldn't be put on death certificates. I'm sure at some point there will be some.

Can you imagine if apples had to have drug warning labels. Apples can cause indigestion, itchy mouths, rashes, diarrhea, or death. 

Strangely enough, I still call apples healthy. I'm weird that way.

[Corraleno]

3 minutes ago, SKL said:

I meant what I said.

It is widely reported and admitted by the CDC that there have been deaths post-vax, some of which are under investigation because they are not explained by obvious non-vax causes.

However, the CDC reports zero deaths from the vax.  Time will tell whether they ever admit a given death was caused by the vax, or if so, when that will happen.  I have found no CDC advice that death certificates should cite Covid vax reactions if that is suspected.  Have you?

If there is in fact CDC advice that death certificates should cite Covid vax reaction as a suspected cause of death if the deceased's doctor / coronor suspects it, then please direct me to where the CDC advises that.

You appear to be confused about the roll of the CDC wrt death certificates.

The CDC does not determine what gets listed on the death certificate as the cause of death. That's determined by a medical professional (doctor, ME, etc). The CDC did not order doctors and MEs to start putting covid on death certificates where the person did not have a positive covid test, they simply told states to report to the CDC all deaths that listed covid even if there had not been a positive test. Only half the states even complied with this directive — 24 states, including FL and TX, do not report probable covid deaths.

It is not up to the CDC to decide whether a doctor or ME lists a vaccine reaction as a cause of death. The claim that unless there is a document where the CDC tells doctors to list vaccine reactions on deaths certificates, then the CDC must be hiding the deaths, or is being inconsistent in how it treats the deaths of covid victims and vaccine victims, is based on a false premise. 

[Not_a_Number]

6 minutes ago, frogger said:

Can you imagine if apples had to have drug warning labels. Apples can cause indigestion, itchy mouths, rashes, diarrhea, or death. 

Strangely enough, I still call apples healthy. I'm weird that way.

Oooh. I love the idea of an "apple insert"! Perhaps it could be stuck in the core through the stem? 😉 

[Corraleno]

1 hour ago, SKL said:

I remember a heated Covid discussion here where people kept accusing other people of saying "well they were going to die anyway."  (I don't think anyone actually said what was implied, FWIW.)  "They were going to die anyway" suddenly seems OK to say about folks who may have been too weak to survive the vax's side effects.

You are conflating two completely different things. I don't know if you're being willfully obtuse here, or you don't understand statistics, or what. 

NO ONE has said it doesn't matter if the elderly die from a vaccine reaction because "they were going to die anyway." Not. One. Person. has even remotely implied that. What people are saying is that the vaccine rollout has not increased the number of deaths in nursing homes beyond the level that would normally be expected given the age and medical status of that population.

That is a statistical fact. Why are you trying to reframe a statistical fact as the personal opinion of a bunch of people who don't care if old people die of vaccine reactions?

The fact that we have no verified vaccine deaths right now, a mere two months into the vaccine rollout, doesn't mean there is some nefarious plot to hide them. It is statistically likely that by the time 200+ million Americans have been vaccinated there will be a small number of cases where the vaccine was determined to have contributed to serious injury or death, just like every other vaccine. But there have been more than 64 million vaccine doses administered so far, with no verified deaths, versus 28 million confirmed covid cases with more than 500,000 deaths.

[SKL]

56 minutes ago, frogger said:

I will say that implying and inferring are an important part of communication. It sometimes feels like you are trying to be obtuse about this which makes me question whether you actually want clear communication. You seem to like to imply things and then take them back because you didn't state them outright.

 

I haven't seen anywhere that specifically stated that suspected vaccination fatalities shouldn't be put on death certificates. I'm sure at some point there will be some.

Can you imagine if apples had to have drug warning labels. Apples can cause indigestion, itchy mouths, rashes, diarrhea, or death. 

Strangely enough, I still call apples healthy. I'm weird that way.

I think people try too hard to read into what others say - especially people they have never even met.  When in doubt, take the words at face value.

My personality is such that I like to break things down into elements and look at the elements separately when that seems useful to me.  Maybe that is unusual.

As for the rest of your post - do you not see the difference between:

• CDC advises X to be put on death certificates when A, B, or C happen.
• I can't find proof that CDC stops people from putting Y on death certificates when Z happens.

Let's take the MMR and Varicella vaxes as an example.  Is there a difference between:

• CDC recommends most kids get the MMR vax before school age.
• I can't find proof that CDC is preventing people from giving children the varicella vax.

[SKL]

1 hour ago, Corraleno said:

You appear to be confused about the roll of the CDC wrt death certificates.

The CDC does not determine what gets listed on the death certificate as the cause of death. That's determined by a medical professional (doctor, ME, etc). The CDC did not order doctors and MEs to start putting covid on death certificates where the person did not have a positive covid test, they simply told states to report to the CDC all deaths that listed covid even if there had not been a positive test. Only half the states even complied with this directive — 24 states, including FL and TX, do not report probable covid deaths.

The CDC does have a detailed document on its website advising how to fill out a death certificate if Covid is proven or suspected.

I used the word "advise," not "order."

[Not_a_Number]

@SKL -- I'd be happy to have a discussion with you. However, to be honest, I never feel like you listen to what I say. I get the feeling that you think that the reason some people on here agree is because of politics, and not because we've tried our best to understand the data and have come to the same conclusions. 

So, for the record, if vaccinations cause increased deaths, I'm going to be horrified and regret that we vaccinated those nursing home residents. I don't expect that to happen, but that's what I'll feel if it does. 

Here's what people are saying about the vaccinated nursing home residents. I'm going to make a good faith effort to explain, and I'd appreciate it if you engaged with what I'm actually saying. 

Say you had 200 nursing home residents, 100 of whom got vaccinated and 100 of whom didn't. In next 2 months, 20 residents in the first group died. You might think it's due to the vaccination... but as it turns out, 23 residents in the non-vaccinated group died as well. What would you do with this data? How would you figure out which of the 20 in the first group died "because of" the vaccination? What would you test? 

If you actually want to have a good discussion, could you try to answer my questions and not, say, turn the conversation back to how it's totally different for COVID deaths? That's a separate discussion and I can't really deal with many questions all at once. 

Edited February 22, 2021 by Not_a_Number

[SKL]

Not_a_Number, I am not focused on what you think I am focused on.  My comments related to the general public's trust in the sources of information, and what does and doesn't build such trust.

I am NOT anti vax.  I dearly hope that elderly and vulnerable people get safely vaccinated.

I think people are making assumptions that are clouding what I say as they read my words.

I am trying to be done with this conversation because I have no hope of objectivity here.

[frogger]

38 minutes ago, SKL said:

I think people try too hard to read into what others say - especially people they have never even met.  When in doubt, take the words at face value.

My personality is such that I like to break things down into elements and look at the elements separately when that seems useful to me.  Maybe that is unusual.

As for the rest of your post - do you not see the difference between:

• CDC advises X to be put on death certificates when A, B, or C happen.
• I can't find proof that CDC stops people from putting Y on death certificates when Z happens.

Let's take the MMR and Varicella vaxes as an example.  Is there a difference between:

• CDC recommends most kids get the MMR vax before school age.
• I can't find proof that CDC is preventing people from giving children the varicella vax.

Actually, I responded to the difference earlier.

I can see how those two statements are different. I don't see how they apply. 

If the medical certifier believes that a reaction from a vaccine did cause death, yes it should go on the death certificate just as if a medical certifier believes Covid did cause death it should go on a medical certificate. You have not shown me that something other than that is happening. 

Yes, there should be MORE scrutiny on vaccine deaths because they NEED to know whether to continue to give vaccines so there is more investigation than when lots of people are dying and there isn't enough tests to go around and the medical examiner does the best they can.

 

Edited due to strange word auto correct helped me with.

 

 

 

 

Edited February 22, 2021 by frogger

[Not_a_Number]

13 minutes ago, SKL said:

Not_a_Number, I am not focused on what you think I am focused on.  My comments related to the general public's trust in the sources of information, and what does and doesn't build such trust.

I'm not understanding here. I'm honestly not. What are we supposed to build trust in? What steps would build this trust? 

I feel like the vaccine rollout, as usual, has had PLENTY of data released for skeptics to peruse. Could you tell me why that's insufficient for building trust? 

Again, if you want to engage in a conversation, could you answer my questions? I can't figure out where you're coming from or what you're trying to say, and since I'm generally very interested in successful communication (as opposed to just hurling words at each other), this bothers me. 

Edited February 22, 2021 by Not_a_Number

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, kand said:

I think you vastly underestimate the amount of objectivity among the participants here. I've been around long enough to know a decent amount about the perspectives of many of the people participating in this thread. I happen to know we come from a pretty diverse range of political and religious perspectives.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure I don't agree on LOTS of things with half the people on this thread. Probably more than half. 

 

Just now, kand said:

The uniting characteristic is that many of us place a very high value on facts, science and truth. I know for example that there are some topics not in the realm of facts and truth where @Corraleno and I have drastically different opinions. Yet, I find that when it comes to discussions of facts and truth, we tend to be uncannily aligned. It's actually quite interesting to me. I don't think it's fair or accurate to try to claim the issue in this conversation is one of people who are arguing on the basis facts being unwilling to be objective.

I agree. I think people are trying as hard as possible to be rational and objective, and that they would engage in good faith with any rational arguments. And that is high praise! Most corners of the Internet are not like that. Most corners of the internet are much less thoughtful and much more knee-jerk reactive. 

[AbcdeDooDah]

49 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

.I agree. I think people are trying as hard as possible to be rational and objective, and that they would engage in good faith with any rational arguments. And that is high praise! Most corners of the Internet are not like that. Most corners of the internet are much less thoughtful and much more knee-jerk reactive. 

Serious question: Do these terms (from just the first two pages) foster good faith discussion?

Emotions, not fact       Low education      Misinformed Provocative garbage     Microchips        Propaganda

                              

Edited February 22, 2021 by AbcdeDooDah

[Not_a_Number]

4 minutes ago, AbcdeDooDah said:

Serious question: Do these terms foster good faith discussion?

Emotions, not fact   Low education      Misinformed Provocative garbage     Microchips   Propaganda

Those are out of context. I don't think anyone shut down anyone's point of view by saying "I won't listen to you because you're only paying attention to emotions and not facts." Rather, people ask for facts, and when they don't get any facts back, they sound frustrated. These terms were also sometimes applied to people not actually participating in the thread.

I'm painfully rational. I really am. I will listen to an actual data-based argument from absolutely anyone at almost any time. At the end of the day, it's not even a virtue: it's because I really, really, really care about being RIGHT, and if someone has information I don't, listening to it may make me right when before I was WRONG. And I find being wrong really embarrassing. I have a specific feeling of intense shame about getting things wrong that I've associated with it since childhood. I don't know why I feel that way, and no one shamed me for being wrong in general; it's just a personal quirk.  

Anyway, I don't think I started any of the rabbit trails with those terms. I really do try to engage in a good faith way when I have the energy. But because I'm sincerely trying to listen, I also find stonewalling exhausting.  

Edited February 23, 2021 by Not_a_Number

[AbcdeDooDah]

11 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

Those are out of context. I don't think anyone shut down anyone's point of view by saying "I won't listen to you because you're only paying attention to emotions and not facts." Rather, people ask for facts, and when they don't get any facts back, they sound frustrated. These terms were also sometimes applied to people not actually participating in the thread.

I'm painfully rational. I really am. I will listen to an actual data-based argument from absolutely anyone at almost any time. At the end of the day, it's not even a virtue: it's because I really, really, really care about being RIGHT, and if someone has information I don't, listening to it may make me right when before I was WRONG. And I find being wrong really embarrassing. 

Anyway, I don't think I started any of the rabbit trails with those terms. I really do try to engage in a good faith way when I have the energy. But because I'm sincerely trying to listen, I also find stonewalling exhausting.  

I wasn’t saying you specifically used those terms. I saw several posts from people that listed many reasons why people might not get the vax. Instead, people want to talk about those not even on this board who fit the narrative of the conspiracy antivax conspiracy  nut jobs. Saw that one, too.

From someone on the outside of either “side” it looks a lot like those who complain about a lack of critical thinking from the other side can’t get past lumping all people into one category.

 

 

Edited February 23, 2021 by AbcdeDooDah
Antivax, not antibacterial lol

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, AbcdeDooDah said:

I wasn’t saying you specifically used those terms. I saw several posts from people that listed many reasons why people might not get the vax. Instead, people want to talk about those not even on this board who fit the narrative some want to further of the conspiracy antibacterial conspiracy  nut jobs. Saw that one, too.

Well, there are definitely some nut jobs not getting the vaccine. There are also people with allergic reactions and others who have good reasons not to get the vaccine. 

I think it's reasonable to be frustrated about people who are using bad reasoning to avoid the vaccine, especially when those people put one's loved ones at risk. I don't think that requires thinking that EVERYONE who avoids the vaccine is crazy. 

 

Just now, AbcdeDooDah said:

From someone on the outside of either “side” it looks a lot like those who complain about a lack of critical thinking from the other side can’t get past lumping all people into one category.

I haven't seen most people lump everyone together. 

[AbcdeDooDah]

4 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

Well, there are definitely some nut jobs not getting the vaccine. There are also people with allergic reactions and others who have good reasons not to get the vaccine. 

I think it's reasonable to be frustrated about people who are using bad reasoning to avoid the vaccine, especially when those people put one's loved ones at risk. I don't think that requires thinking that EVERYONE who avoids the vaccine is crazy. 

 

I haven't seen most people lump everyone together. 

Okay. And there are nut-jobs getting the vaccine.  😁

But yeah, it’s futile to continue. One side throws in perjoratives and shuts it down.

 

Edited February 23, 2021 by AbcdeDooDah
Forgot my emoji.

[Not_a_Number]

8 minutes ago, AbcdeDooDah said:

Okay. And there are nut-jobs getting the vaccine.

Sure. There are probably people who are convinced that the COVID vaccine keeps the aliens from taking over their brains, so they are all for it. 

What does that have to do with feeling frustrated about people who care for your father not getting the vaccine? Statistically, if the uptake is 50%, some people are probably avoiding the vaccine for bad reasons. Although they aren't actually nut jobs -- it's likely that they don't have the training to look at the data themselves and they have justified suspicions of the government, given their community's experiences. 

Edited February 23, 2021 by Not_a_Number

[frogger]

8 minutes ago, AbcdeDooDah said:

Serious question: Do these terms (from just the first two pages) foster good faith discussion?

Emotions, not fact       Low education      Misinformed Provocative garbage     Microchips        Propaganda

                              

To be fair, I am asking for facts and never got them and I agreed with SKL on some points.

 

When Not_a_# was told by me of the vast number of mild cases I personally knew (first hand) and how deaths and severe cases looked vastly different in places with a lot more testing she took that as new information. She didn't get mad at me.

 

I am actually in a different place than her when it comes to an understanding of risk of severe illness with Covid. My main concern is simply hospital capacity for those that are at high risk but we can still typically have a decent conversation and honestly, I'm no longer concerned as much about that as we have so many vaccinated where I live and numbers are dropping pretty quickly.  I think you are mistaking real questions with attacks because the questions are simply not answered and it appears we are not supposed to question anyone for evidence.

 

[AbcdeDooDah]

Just now, Not_a_Number said:

Sure. There are probably people who are convinced that the COVID vaccine keeps the aliens from taking over their brains, so they are all for it. 

What does that have to do with feeling frustrated about people who care for your father not getting the vaccine? Statistically, if the uptake is 50%, some people are probably avoiding the vaccine for bad reasons. Although they aren't actually nut jobs -- it's likely that they don't have the training to look at the data themselves and justified suspicions of the government, given their community's experiences. 

We don’t know if it prevents transmission. 

[Not_a_Number]

3 minutes ago, AbcdeDooDah said:

We don’t know if it prevents transmission. 

Well, that's a factual question. And there are now studies coming that show that it at the very least seriously decreases viral load, which you would expect to decrease transmission. And if you don't find that compelling, I'd want to know why. 

 

4 minutes ago, frogger said:

When Not_a_# was told by me of the vast number of mild cases I personally knew (first hand) and how deaths and severe cases looked vastly different in places with a lot more testing she took that as new information. She didn't get mad at me.

I am always interested in information. I know people say that and don't mean it but I sincerely do mean it. I try to keep my confirmation biases in check. I was very interested to hear about all the mild cases you've heard about. 

I know someone on FB from (I think) your state who also had COVID... I've been meaning to ask her about her experiences and I've been forgetting! Thanks for the inadvertent reminder. 

Edited February 23, 2021 by Not_a_Number

[AbcdeDooDah]

3 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

Well, that's a factual question. And there are now studies coming that show that it at the very least seriously decreases viral load, which you would expect to decrease transmission. And if you don't find that compelling, I'd want to know why. 

If i had a dollar for every time someone on this board dismissed a source because it wasn’t peer-reviewed . . .

But now, it’s fine. 

And I’d love for those that do this to be honest about it.

ETA: That will be fantastic news if it does. We don’t know yet.

Edited February 23, 2021 by AbcdeDooDah

[Not_a_Number]

1 minute ago, AbcdeDooDah said:

If i had a dollar for every time someone on this board dismissed a source because it wasn’t peer-reviewed . . .

But now, it’s fine. 

Yeah, but that wasn't ME. I don't insist on peer review particularly. I do insist on something not being BS or flawed, which frankly the peer review process doesn't always deal with adequately. 

So, what's wrong with the viral load data? Where are the flaws in the reasoning? If we're supposed to be having an objective discussion, we should stick to actual facts. 

Edited February 23, 2021 by Not_a_Number

[PeterPan]

30 minutes ago, AbcdeDooDah said:

foster good faith discussion?

Maybe that's why you're offended? Apparently I intended to vent and then calm down and listen. Not quite the same as a calm rational debate and probably not a good faith discussion. If I start off by saying I'm really pissed that my father has been locked down in his AL for a year and that I'd like to throw some blame around, that's probably a vent, even if I don't say it. And I later did say it, iirc. 

But since I'm now having vertigo from toppling twice down a ridiculous hill, what do I know? I do know I don't debate on the level y'all do. But vent plus calm down to listen, that was helpful to me.

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, PeterPan said:

Maybe that's why you're offended? Apparently I intended to vent and then calm down and listen. Not quite the same as a calm rational debate and probably not a good faith discussion. If I start off by saying I'm really pissed that my father has been locked down in his AL for a year and that I'd like to throw some blame around, that's probably a vent, even if I don't say it. And I later did say it, iirc. 

But since I'm now having vertigo from toppling twice down a ridiculous hill, what do I know? I do know I don't debate on the level y'all do. But vent plus calm down to listen, that was helpful to me.

Well, and it's hard to blame you for venting. That's a frustrating situation. 

Perhaps you should make a JAWM thread next time 😄 

[AbcdeDooDah]

Just now, PeterPan said:

Maybe that's why you're offended? Apparently I intended to vent and then calm down and listen. Not quite the same as a calm rational debate and probably not a good faith discussion. If I start off by saying I'm really pissed that my father has been locked down in his AL for a year and that I'd like to throw some blame around, that's probably a vent, even if I don't say it. And I later did say it, iirc. 

But since I'm now having vertigo from toppling twice down a ridiculous hill, what do I know? I do know I don't debate on the level y'all do. But vent plus calm down to listen, that was helpful to me.

I’m not offended. I was just musing about why people disengage from the conversations.  

I get why you’re pissed and I would be, too. Like I said before, I hope things get worked out at his home.

Ive had vertigo for several days and I don’t know why? Get some rest, Peter Pan.

 

 

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, AbcdeDooDah said:

I’m not offended. I was just musing about why people disengage from the conversations. 

In my experience, people disengage from conversations both because they feel piled on and because they aren't actually interested in updating their opinions. I would guess both of those happened in this thread. 

A more interesting question is when people actually engage in honest, productive conversations 😛 . Because I think that's rarer. 

[AbcdeDooDah]

14 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

 

So, what's wrong with the viral load data? Where are the flaws in the reasoning? If we're supposed to be having an objective discussion, we should stick to actual facts. 

I haven’t looked at it closely yet. Like I said, that would be fantastic because a vaccine for a pandemic that does nothing to even slow the spread seems kind of lame lol

My beef is with the “It’s not peer-reviewed-ers” who change their tune when it’s something they agree with.

 

Edited February 23, 2021 by AbcdeDooDah

[AbcdeDooDah]

2 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

In my experience, people disengage from conversations both because they feel piled on and because they aren't actually interested in updating their opinions. I would guess both of those happened in this thread. 

A more interesting question is when people actually engage in honest, productive conversations 😛 . Because I think that's rarer. 

Throwing out rhetoric that does not remotely look like the reasons some of us shared is not conducive to dialogue. 

My reasons for not getting the vax are not opinions and don’t need updating.

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, AbcdeDooDah said:

Throwing out rhetoric that does not remotely look like the reasons some of us shared is not conducive to dialogue. 

My reasons for not getting the vax are not opinions and don’t need updating.

I'm not trying to convince you about the vaccine. I didn't even remember that you didn't get it. That was totally random musing. 

And your reasons are certainly opinions. So are mine. So are everyone else's. And most conversations I have certainly don't result in me updating them, but I'm open to it. 

[Not_a_Number]

5 minutes ago, AbcdeDooDah said:

I haven’t looked at yet. Like I said, that would be fantastic because a vaccine for a pandemic does nothing to even slow the spread seems kind of lame lol

Well, then maybe take a look before you say there's no data? Because it's hard to have a discussion if someone hasn't looked at the provided evidence. 

 

5 minutes ago, AbcdeDooDah said:

My beef is with the “It’s not peer-reviewed-ers” who I change their tune when it’s something they agree with.

I mean, everyone tends to spin things the direction they want. Confirmation bias is a powerful thing. 

[AbcdeDooDah]

Just now, Not_a_Number said:

I'm not trying to convince you about the vaccine. I didn't even remember that you didn't get it. That was totally random musing. 

And your reasons are certainly opinions. So are mine. So are everyone else's. And most conversations I have certainly don't result in me updating them, but I'm open to it. 

Well, no, some things are immutable factors.

[AbcdeDooDah]

5 hours ago, Not_a_Number said:

Well, then maybe take a look before you say there's no data? Because it's hard to have a discussion if someone hasn't looked at the provided evidence. 

 

I mean, everyone tends to spin things the direction they want. Confirmation bias is a powerful thing. 

I did not say there is no data. I said we don’t know yet., I also said “closely.”  Maybe read what people actually say. Seems SKL just said something similar. 

Some here think their confirmation bias don’t stink.

Edited February 23, 2021 by AbcdeDooDah