On the issue of vaccinating young children for Covid, Emily Oster writes, In the adult COVID trials, the most important outcomes measured were COVID illness (serious illness, hospitalization, death). This outcome is not considered in the pediatric trials because it is too rare even among the unvaccinated group of children.
I haven't seen any evidence that the vaccines actually prevent the spread of the disease, only that they reduce the severity of infection should you get it. Even the WHO has said they are still "learning" about what vaccines do to prevent spreading.
Has anyone got any links to studies about how well the vaccines prevent transmission of COVID? It has been a little disconcerting that there doesn't seem to be much either way, but then digging up medical research online is not my forte.
You are only rational in being irrational if you can reliably distinguish those situations where the truth has consequences vs those that are consequence free. My guess is that in making that assessment most people aren't thinking beyond immediate, first order consequences. My personal approach is to always seek the truth, believing that in the long run this will best serve both myself and everyone I care about.
Seems to me, on the question of vaccinating children, a key question to answer is: "How effective are the vaccines at stopping breakthrough cases and subsequent viral spread?". Just looking at case totals in the highly vaccinated areas: Israel, Gibraltar, or in New England, how could one be enthusiastic about these inoculations? They don't seem to work well.
There's also the issue of natural selection. The virus has plenty of animal reservoirs, and the vaccines are non-sterilizing. Just a matter of time until SARS-2 evolves to totally defeat the legacy spike protein antibodies. Thus the Swedish model is preferable, and because the vaccines are so ineffective, we'll eventually get to Swedish-style, natural herd immunity anyway.
The Hanania interview of Pinker was, in key respects, a brutal hatchet job, vs. those who don't toe the line for Pinker's favorite dogmas.
On that page, part of my critique goes as follows:
< Had either scholar deigned to *specify how* the QAnon-ers, the chemtrails proponents, and "the vax deniers were being “irrational” or “not sane”, my respect for these two wouldn’t have crumbled as much as it has.
When Pinker bellows out “How could any *sane* person believe in Qanon?”, I reply with “How could any sane person *so* emphatically reject Qanon-ers (or chemtrails proponents, or "vax deniers”), before gaining above-superficial knowledge, of the case that Qanon etc. present?
For my part, I’ll *bet* that these QAnon etc. groups are very mistaken, but I’ll also quite suspect, that those who diss these groups’ *sanity* are not only mistaken on that, but are driven much by insufferably *pretentious* GroupThink.
Such GroupThink in ordinary folk is sad, but not nearly as irresponsible as, when such GroupThink is puked out by “respectable” scholars. >
Esp. seeing as Pinker is so often touted as one of the "Top 100 Global Thinkers",
for a guy of his stature to so baselessly tee off on such (small) crowds as chemtrails proponents, or "vax deniers”, is hugely suspicious.
As another commenter on that thread, Hyperdupont, puts it, people's "lack of trust in the competence and honesty of elite institutions is completely reasonable."
I haven't seen any evidence that the vaccines actually prevent the spread of the disease, only that they reduce the severity of infection should you get it. Even the WHO has said they are still "learning" about what vaccines do to prevent spreading.
Has anyone got any links to studies about how well the vaccines prevent transmission of COVID? It has been a little disconcerting that there doesn't seem to be much either way, but then digging up medical research online is not my forte.
You are only rational in being irrational if you can reliably distinguish those situations where the truth has consequences vs those that are consequence free. My guess is that in making that assessment most people aren't thinking beyond immediate, first order consequences. My personal approach is to always seek the truth, believing that in the long run this will best serve both myself and everyone I care about.
Seems to me, on the question of vaccinating children, a key question to answer is: "How effective are the vaccines at stopping breakthrough cases and subsequent viral spread?". Just looking at case totals in the highly vaccinated areas: Israel, Gibraltar, or in New England, how could one be enthusiastic about these inoculations? They don't seem to work well.
There's also the issue of natural selection. The virus has plenty of animal reservoirs, and the vaccines are non-sterilizing. Just a matter of time until SARS-2 evolves to totally defeat the legacy spike protein antibodies. Thus the Swedish model is preferable, and because the vaccines are so ineffective, we'll eventually get to Swedish-style, natural herd immunity anyway.
The Hanania interview of Pinker was, in key respects, a brutal hatchet job, vs. those who don't toe the line for Pinker's favorite dogmas.
On that page, part of my critique goes as follows:
< Had either scholar deigned to *specify how* the QAnon-ers, the chemtrails proponents, and "the vax deniers were being “irrational” or “not sane”, my respect for these two wouldn’t have crumbled as much as it has.
When Pinker bellows out “How could any *sane* person believe in Qanon?”, I reply with “How could any sane person *so* emphatically reject Qanon-ers (or chemtrails proponents, or "vax deniers”), before gaining above-superficial knowledge, of the case that Qanon etc. present?
For my part, I’ll *bet* that these QAnon etc. groups are very mistaken, but I’ll also quite suspect, that those who diss these groups’ *sanity* are not only mistaken on that, but are driven much by insufferably *pretentious* GroupThink.
Such GroupThink in ordinary folk is sad, but not nearly as irresponsible as, when such GroupThink is puked out by “respectable” scholars. >
Esp. seeing as Pinker is so often touted as one of the "Top 100 Global Thinkers",
for a guy of his stature to so baselessly tee off on such (small) crowds as chemtrails proponents, or "vax deniers”, is hugely suspicious.
As another commenter on that thread, Hyperdupont, puts it, people's "lack of trust in the competence and honesty of elite institutions is completely reasonable."