ilovecurry wrote: ↑Fri Jul 23, 2021 1:49 pm Would love some input here if anyone could give a view. My wife and I are motivated to throw a summer party to celebrate my 40th which happened mid lockdown however we seem to be stuck at the first hurdle, the guest list. My wife's friendship group are quite free spirited and I know that several of them haven't had the vaccine. My wife herself did contemplate abstaining but thankfully (to my mind) stepped forward.
I don't want to throw a covid party and would prefer not to invite those who aren't vaccinated. We have had to isolate a couple of times over the last lockdown period and I don't want to do it again if it can be avoided.
She says that I am being ridiculous.
I think it should be perfectly reasonable to choose not to invite those who have decided against having the vaccine. There aren't hundreds of these friends, probably only 3 so I don't think it is such a big deal at all. Please help me get her to see sense?

Oh dear @hal ! I don’t want to work you up any further than it appears I have, but per the entire point of my post, having second hand opinions (even from “a CDC epidemiologist on payroll”) doesn’t qualify you to know anything more than a second hand opinion. But as a legal Professional, I trust you know that. Or do “second hand opinions” count as evidence of expertise these days?

Morning Chichi!

Hope all well. Glad you took some time to respond. I think we can deal with your latest outpouring quite quickly given that it's more sound than substance (although not, sadly, briefly given there is a fair bit of chaff that needs addressing). In no particular order, given that, despite all that text (and a bit of random latin thrown in as an attempt to show some law knowledge, bless), you somehow managed to fail to engage with any of the key points in my post:

- the first and most fundamental point that you skate over is that you claim to have had both vaccinations. Having banged on about how you are an expert in this field, collating all this data on COVID, understanding more about vaccines than I could, taking issue with everything that I have said etc etc -- after all that, you had both vaccines. So allowing for "value all opinions/vaccine scepticism" garbage (which I will touch on below), the person who claims to have read all the studies and considered them in their capacity as an apparent expert has, in fact, concluded that the right thing to do is to have the vaccines. Presumably you did so because you assessed that they were likely to be safe short and long-term and that on balance it was the right thing to do, at least for you if not for wider society. Presumably you also did so because you have faith in your assessment of the institutions and processes that led to their development and deployment (which is why the whole "let's be sceptical cos of Purdue" rubbish below is so particularly inapposite and hypocritical). You say that "if you do decide to read the research, you’ll see there’s an argument for BOTH pro- and anti- Vaxxing" - As I have said, there are some categories of people who can't and shouldn't take vaccines and they are not suitable for everyone. No-one is saying otherwise -- the pro-vaccination argument is that once a vaccine is approved as safe and effective against the virus, it's advisable (but not compulsory) that as many people who can take it so as to protect themselves and those within the population who cannot vaccinate; I am not aware of any argument for "anti-vaccination" but I am sure you can point me to the arguments against vaccination.

On the other stuff you've mind-dumped:

- You still haven't addressed my point: I asked you to point out what I had said that was medically incorrect. You didn't. I made an observation about how vaccines work -- they reduce instances of a virus in population; which in turn reduces transmission; which in turn reduces opportunities for mutation. That is why otherwise low risk, perfectly healthy people take a vaccine -- it's for them (in case they are an outlier) and for wider society. Nothing in that is incorrect, nor have you attempted to prove otherwise. That is not a second hand opinion.

- The second part of what I said is also correct -- if you are unvaccinated, "your ability to carry and transmit COVID is greater" -- baffling you take issue with that. Please point out what's incorrect about that.

- The third part of what I said is also correct -- "Vaccination programmes also reduce the potential mutation of viruses like COVID into more virulent forms" -- please point out exactly what's incorrect about that. I didn't say that there is long-term data that demonstrates that these vaccines could curb or have successfully curbed COVID mutation because that's impossible to say at this juncture, in part because it depends on the success of the uptake of the vaccine programme! But the point I have made about the theory about vaccination programmes and mutation is correct.

- You've not engaged with any of that -- you've just deflected with irrelevant examples of medical scandals to show that everyone should be very sceptical of everything they're told. Just for starters: none of these are vaccines, none of these have been produced to meet an international public health crisis of this type with cross-institutional and cross-border collaboration, the regulation and testing process of those products is very different, their purpose and monetisation is totally different, and the instances of medical scandal of this nature are vastly (vastly) outweighed by all the treatments that are out there (including vaccines) that are serving public health interests in their intended and beneficial way. As a big money lawyer (*cough*) I can confirm that I will have considerably more expertise and knowledge in at least one of those matters than you will, so your bedtime story isn't necessary, but ta. 

- Your suggestion that your average anti-vaxxer is well-researched is frankly rubbish. Most of them will not have sufficient inclination, access or experience to read and understand source material studies (peer reviewed or not) and then form a considered view on vaccination. Many will not have had training, discipline or self-awareness about the effects of confirmation bias, and will be simply seeking out google searches of snippets of articles, FB posts, YouTube links and forums that confirm their instincts about vaccines. It was the same with MMR and is the same with many things. Maybe not all of them but a large proportion of them, and outliers are not statistically significant. It is not for nothing that there are massive correlations between anti-vaxxers and conspiracy theorists. Funnily enough, you don't get that correlation the other way. Gosh.

- Not all opinions or observations are equal. You as a medical researcher collating peer reviewed data should understand and value that. You apparently don't. I shouldn't have to say this but individual anecdotes, put forward on the internet encouraging people to be vaccine sceptic, about a relative being crippled after having the first shot of a vaccine, or their arm turning into a topographical map of Ukraine after their second shot are the very definition of pseudoscience: they are unverifiable, the data set is tiny, there is no adjustment for confirmation bias, correlation doesn't equal causation, and so on. This is primary school science. These opinions don't carry equal weight to public health statements and it's irresponsible of you in your profession to suggest that "their beliefs", based upon "personal experience with vaccines, beliefs about medical doctors, family upbringing, religion or something else" which may cause them to "look at “medical” opinion as a version of pseudo-science" should be accorded equal respect. 

- By contrast, the "second hand" opinions that I trust and am apparently "spreading", and which you put on an equal footing with pseudo-science, are accredited, verifiable respected experts in their fields - people who have taken the time to read all the studies, who have decades of clinical and laboratory experience treating patience, field experience in the control and treatment of epidemics, vaccine development. When you have a very large number of those professionals pointing in a particular way, you might want to accord their opinion a bit more weight in your medical decision-making than your aunt who gets a funny feeling at the doctors or who has been listening to the Joe Rogan podcast. What I am expert in is assessing and collating evidence (and the credibility and evidence of experts, including yes hubristic medical experts), and then testing it forensically. What you've done is engage in a logical fallacy -- "let people choose their own version of science until we actually have something conclusive": on the one hand, it assumes people are carefully and forensically weighing up differing bodies of expert opinion to arrive at a measured conclusion; on the other you are acknowledging that what you mean by "their own version of science" is "their beliefs", based upon "personal experience with vaccines, beliefs about medical doctors, family upbringing, religion or something else". That's not how science works -- you don't get your "own version", based on beliefs. You are doing nobody any favours by suggesting your average person is right to be vaccine sceptical -- which is exactly what your posts are suggesting.

- And, not that it's at all relevant to any of the points I am making but seeing as you seem to be taking an interest in legal processes (and I am all for encouraging people to educate themselves and take an interest in the law), you've misunderstood how proof works in a (civil) Court of law -- you don't need to prove truth. You need to demonstrate that you're right on "a balance of probabilities", i.e. more likely to be right than wrong. The preponderance of evidence on the effectiveness of vaccine programmes in limiting spread and mutation of viruses meets that threshold by a country mile. (I'm fairly sure, even though it's even less relevant, it would meet the criminal standard too.)

- And, finally (phew), you say this: "You’re not judgemental, you just think that others posting pseudoscience “deprives others of their own autonomy and consent.”" Actually, nope, that's rubbish. I didn't say that. What I did in fact say was the following (thought it might help if you read it this time, so I've reproduced it below):

"it’s that people should make their own decision based on actual medical advice, not poorly researched internet searches and random strangers on the internet saying their uncle’s head exploded after being in the same room as the vaccine for 5 mins, and - most importantly - not actively lie to others about their choices to vaccinate or not, so that others can act accordingly. It’s the latter bit that draws my judgement, not the former (which is down to the individual). It deprives others of their own autonomy and consent which, as a medical researcher, you should be astute to. That’s the only so-called “Big Shot” I am firing at others..."

I've highlighted the point I did make so perhaps you will understand it this time and engage with it, rather than coming up with more convenient straw arguments. I will say it again, (1) people can and make their own decisions on vaccination, as we all should have bodily autonomy and the right to make choices; (2) anyone has the right to enquire about someone's vaccination choices; (3) no-one is or should be obliged to answer that question; and (4), which is the point and the only judgement I was making to that person, is that by actively choosing to lie to others about your own vaccination status, you are interfering with the autonomy of others and vitiating their consent. Let me give you an example to illustrate: if I cannot vaccinate because I am immunocompromised, I have to make choices and risk assessments about who I see and what situations I can put myself in. If a friend falsely tells me that they are vaccinated and I consent to spend time with them because I have made my own risk assessment based on my friend's lie, they have manipulated my autonomy and vitiated my consent. This is ethically not much different to giving a patient a placebo drug and telling them they are now immune to Ebola - their consent has been obtained under false pretenses. I'm assuming you don't take issue with "it's bad to lie about vaccination" as a judgement.

Toodle pip.