Coronavirus in the United States - news and thoughts

So we're only allowed to whine about draconian protocols that we, personally, are directly subjected to?

Care to respond to that?

 

My views on covid have nothing to do with political party.

 

But they happen to agree with a political party. And you're doing all sorts of gymnastics to defend the points of that party.

Again, you're not special just because you're to the right on some issues and to the left on others.

 

Why would I have an answer to what your metric is? I asked you to define your metric. You asked me to define your metric. That seems ridiculous. And it seems to display that for all of your requests for specific numbers, you had none in your decision making.

 

I've given you a Hell of a lot more than anyone from the other side has given me.

I defined the standard. I've spent plenty of time on this thread. I used fairly plain language. Tell me why you would disagree.

I'm not in the mood for your semantic games today. If you want to have a conversation, let's have a conversation.

I'm not interested in you poking holes in my Merriam-Webster definitions of "effective" and "opportunity."

I'm also not interested the following game you seem to really want to play:

MD: Define Highly Effective.

715: You think the vaccine isn't highly effective?

MD: I didn't say that.

 

Translation: I wanted to attack others for not defining their thresholds in any sort of falsifiable manner. I didn't want anybody to turn that same standard around on me!

You kept hitting people for not providing a specific threshold. You haven't either. You provided a generalized but non-falsifiable standard. Same as others have done for you.

 

People haven't even given me a generalized standard! They're just saying too many people are unvaccinated and we're putting too much pressure on our healthcare system. If someone has given a generalized standard, by all means, tell me what that standard is.

If you think the vaccine is highly effective, I'm not going to waste my time defining what "highly effective" means only for you to poke holes in my definition while dancing around the fact that you actually agree that it's highly effective.

If you want me to define highly effective. First, tell me that you don't think it's highly effective, then I'll call you a science-denier. I'll call you a hypocrite for demanding people to take a vaccine that isn't highly effective. Then, I'll give you what number I would say means highly effective.

 

So what exactly was your question, and what format of answer are you looking for?

 

Of course they have. You just didn't like it. Here is the answer you rated as "not good enough"

Now, I will agree that this isn't a hard, falsifiable divide. But it is certainly a generalized standard.

I think the issue is that you are trying to turn a continuous variable into a discrete variable in your generalized standard, especially given that you aren't even willing to say how that divide happens. It makes your argument subject to the exact same criticism that you leveled to I_boy's standards.

 

You said Pfizer is 77% effective at preventing hospitalization after 4 months... You said that's not 90% or even 100%.

Obviously you brought this up because this number matters.

Tell me, what percentage of effectiveness at preventing hospitalization would be enough for you?

 

With all of those qualifiers, that is not a generalized standard. "Personally," "my guess," "that is a wild guess." That is not a binding standard in any sense of the word. I_boy can shift on a dime tomorrow with that sort of language.

Perhaps it would be if there were reasonable doubt regarding my characterizations.

To which you would have to rebut:
1. That the vaccine is highly effective.
2. That everyone barring few exceptions have had the opportunity to take the vaccine.

By all means. Have at it.

 

And neither is your's. If it came out that it was 40% effective tomorrow, it certainly would allow you to shift on a dime and claim that is "highly effective."

 

If there were reasonable disagreement about whether the vaccine is effective, then you would be correct.

Are you suggesting there's reasonable disagreement, now?

 

Effective and highly effective would seem to be different standards. That seems like a rhetorical shift. But certainly, if it comes out that Pfizer is down to 60%, I could reasonably see an argument for that being effective but not highly effective. Now, maybe with a booster pushing it back up, it moves into the highly effective category, but, again, the issue is that you can easily shift those categories around as well.

BTW, I reject much of this discussion simply because of the math that shows that vaccine effectiveness is not exogenous of but is instead dependent on vaccination rates. More highly vaccinated populations for vaccines between 0-100% effective (non-inclusive) increase the effectiveness of vaccines.

Just pointing out that your standards are prone to the same issues that you are using to reject other's views.

 

I don't know what that means - "enough for you". Enough for what?

 

Enough to end the mandates and protocols.

 

The % effectiveness agsinst hospitalization is just one variable re masking. If the vaccine is 90%, and only 25% are vaxed, that's not good enough. If the vaccine is 90% and 80% are vaxed, that is likely good enough.

I will say I personally feel a lot better about 90% effectiveness than 77% effectiveness, but that is neither here nor there. At 77% I'd still take precautions in certain situations. At 90% I probably wouldn't worry too much.

 

That's what I was looking for. Thank you.

 

That would work if the sailor was my father. In WW2 he thought he spotted a submarine. Sounded general quarters. It turned out to be a whale. Nobody complained that he said it was a sub.

 

Those are just guesses. If the disease was Ebola, the answer would likely be different.