Total posts: 6,549
I certainly appreciate the circumstances that led to MisterChris stepping down. I know that during my time on both this site and DDO, there were times when I couldn't put the amount of time and attention into the site that I felt I needed to provide to fulfill my position in moderation. Thankfully, these days I'm more available, hence my willingness to step into this role.
To be clear, while my role is changing (for those who didn't know, I've been the voting moderator), this isn't a dramatic shift for the site. I plan to carry forward the rules and standards that we have in place, and I will obviously continue working with the moderation team to apply and improve what we do.
Created:
-->
@Athias
No, they cannot predict what will happen to me; they can guess what could happen to me.
The word "guess" implies a stab in the dark, so let's work with a middle ground. They can estimate what could happen to you. I would argue that that's predictive, but I'll take your point that it's not certain.
I agree. But that is not what I'm referring to when I state that an ecological inference fallacy has been imputed. If across a very large swath of patients, it is observed that a vaccine has induced an antibody response in the vast majority of those who received said vaccine, and the argument is, "among those who've received the vaccine (thus far,) an antibody response has been induced in the vast majority of them," that's all well and good. However, if from that very same observation, it is argued, "person X should receive a vaccine, and since the vast majority of those who've received the vaccine have produced an antibody response, it is highly likely that person X will produce either the same antibody response or a sufficient antibody response to the virus, the chances of which are equal to the proportion which the vast majority represents," then that isn't all well and good. That is fallacious. It is an ecological intference fallacy--akin to the Division fallacy. The latter conclusion, no matter how extensive or meticulous the report/study is, will be based on an assumption which uses fallacious reasoning.
I think narrowing down the argument to a given "person X" isn't exactly what the general argument has been for increasing vaccination. The argument has been that a broad swath of the population has benefited in these specific ways and imparts greater degrees of protection from the virus to those around them, therefore a larger swath of the population should also be vaccinated to similarly protect themselves and those around them. I wouldn't call that a fallacious argument, and if it is, then I don't see how we apply any treatment or prevention to any population without engaging in fallacy.
My question on its being quantifiable was not based on the antibody count, but specifically your reference to the "strength" of an immune response, which you've relented relies on a variety of factors which presumably complicate its capacity to be quantified. So let me just ask this: is it possible that an unvaccinated person can produce a sufficient immune response to this COVID-19 virus?
Of course. It's not just possible, but highly likely that an unvaccinated individual will mount a sufficient immune response to eliminate the SARS-CoV-2 virus from their system, eventually. It's less likely that said unvaccinated person will mount an immune response as quickly as someone who is vaccinated. That has been tested. It is therefore more likely that the virus will spread further and cause more harm in an unvaccinated patient than in a vaccinated patient. I'm not arguing that it's the difference between having an immune response and having none, I'm arguing that it's the difference between a weaker, slower immune response (in the unvaccinated) and a stronger, faster immune response (in the vaccinated). The absence of an early antibody-based adaptive immune response in patients who have not seen the virus or vaccine before is a known deficit in patients who have not been vaccinated or infected.
So this begs the question: what would you need to see in order for it to be damning? And what benchmarks would it need to satisfy?
Another instance where I'm not entirely sure what you're asking. If you're asking what evidence would be required for me to buy that this is a lab-engineered strain with inserted genes, then I would expect to see the hallmarks of such genes. From what I've read, those hallmarks are absent. So, in lieu of that and under the assumption that scientists may have added genes without these hallmarks, I would have to see evidence that those scientists planned this out and executed it. Scientists keep lab notebooks and notes on what they do. It's plausible that they could have gotten rid of that evidence as well, in which case I will always find it difficult to accept this as damning. This is hardly the first time that a deadly new version of an existing virus suddenly got into and spread through the human population, and the kinds of changes to a virus that would lead to this exist in nature. I would have reason to be upset with researchers who didn't respect this facet of viral evolution and either chose to actively modify a virus to become more dangerous or, as I would consider more likely, simply did basic experiments with it in their lab and didn't take adequate precautions to prevent its escape from the facility.
Created:
Can mRNA be manipulated to create long-term functional changes where the mRNA message doesn't degrade within a short time frame?
I can't fathom how that could be done. If it was possible, it would be common practice in the laboratory where it is a lot more laborious to make permanent changes to the genome or to regularly make short-term functional changes. mRNA messages are, by their very nature, built to be used and discarded. You would have to change how loose, single-stranded RNA functions within a cell to achieve long-term functional changes.
The vaccine's efficacy cannot be (reasonably/logically/scientifically) controlled. Hence, the statement "covid vaccine prevents covid death" cannot be substantiated.
Proven =/= substantiated. A strong correlation among a very large population over a long period of time provides substantiation. It's not definitive proof, but claiming there is no substantiation for a claim backed up by massive amounts of correlative data (as well as a great deal of causational investigation into how the vaccine provides protection from the worst that COVID-19 has to offer) seems absurd to me, especially when you aren't offering any alternate causality.
Vaccination requires inoculation among 70% of the population (some have pushed for 90% with Covid) to be "effective" and attain herd immunity. What is the significance in the 30% differential?
I disagree. Vaccination imparts maximum effectiveness when a population reaches herd immunity. That doesn't mean that vaccination requires herd immunity to be at all effective. I'm not sure I understand the follow-up question.
I was referencing a previous statement of mine to DoubleR in response to your point about the hospitalization and death statistics. Even if we were to place significance on the total number infected and the total deaths, it would still render a 98.4% "survival rate." I put survival rate in quotes because it's ecological and fallacious. The point I'm making is not to give validity to these statistics; it's to demonstrate that even if we are to indulge these fallacious reasons, it would still not favor vaccination.
I really don't understand how noting a survival rate among people who have been infected is fallacious, especially since your argument regarding how the ecological fallacy works is applying it to subsequent populations and we're talking about the actual population of infected. As for the latter statement, again, that seems like a statement with regards to the death rate from infections not being high enough to justify vaccination, which implies that there is some threshold at which such a number would be sufficient to favor vaccination. I'm not sure what that number is, and any choice seems arbitrary.
Any focus on the mandate would require moral analysis; therefore, to avoid discussions on the morality of the subject, we have to drop the point about the mandate. I'm against it; you have mixed feelings. That alone should suffice.
I believe we agree that dropping the mandate from this discussion is warranted at this point.
And to what extent is the scope of this evidence considered? The side effects (allegedly) aren't the only things "limited to a narrow window of time."
Again, not really sure I'm understanding your point. Traces of the mRNA and translated spike protein are absent from the body after a few days. Patients were monitored for weeks and months and that remained the case. If there is something that isn't limited to a narrow window of time that is worth considering, please, elaborate.
How are long-term side effects supposed to be observed absent of a long-term?
This doesn't seem to be responsive to the point you're addressing, since the point of that argument was addressing the likelihood of such long-term side effects rather than excluding any possibility of their existence. It's possible that long-term side effects could occur. It's implausible that they would based on the established evidence.
The population data isn't relevant. It was referenced in an attempt to explain away what I presume they're concluding is a coincidence. But that's not scientific. And their investigation was influenced by the very producers of that vaccine. But you're right: I can no more say that death immediately after covid vaccine means that covid vaccine produced death, than you can say taking a covid vaccine and experiencing persistent survival afterwards mean covid vaccine prevented death.
I disagree that it's irrelevant. When a population is dying at a rapid clip due to a myriad of health issues, and a segment of that population also dies following an injection (I'll push back on the characterization that this was immediate), then there must necessarily be reason to question the causality of the injection in their deaths because alternate causality is pretty blatant. You're right that it's not scientific to say that this could easily be correlation absent causation, hence the requirement for investigation into their causes of death, regardless of who is involved. And I also disagree with your comparison to my position for reasons I've already stated.
This is part and parcel the reason "seem/appear" shouldn't be present in an argument: I am not at all stating that the studies are deficient because they're not "perfect." I'm stating the conclusions from these studies are logically inconsistent/unsound and based on fallacious reasoning. And, as I've mentioned above, even if were to indulge this fallacious reasoning, it still wouldn't favor vaccination, much less a mandate.
I include "appear" specifically for this purpose, since I recognized that I could be misstating your position and invited you to correct me. I'm not going to straw man you just because it's convenient to make a point. And, again, I think the difference here is between supporting a conclusion and proving said conclusion. You're right that the existing data is not definitive proof, but not providing complete evidence of causality does not mean that the evidence in no way supports their conclusions.
I never said Doctors couldn't monitor my personal antibody production; I said that the antibody production of another cannot inform on my own antibody production.
I believe it was your argument that the research in no way derives conclusions from the health of individuals. I'm saying that an integral element of your immune response is capable of being monitored and has been for a great deal of those who have received the vaccine. Those are individual assessments, and those assessments can be carried forward into new patients to demonstrate the positive effects of the vaccine in those patients. As for saying that looking at the antibodies of one person "cannot inform on my own antibody production", in some sense, you are correct. It can't provide 100% certainty on how your immune system will respond to the vaccine. However, the multitude of studies monitoring antibody production certainly do inform how you're likely to respond. You may not see that as valuable, but that's literally how every drug study is conducted: monitoring how many people respond to it in order to build the case that more of the population will also respond in the same manner. You clearly don't like that kind of study design, but that doesn't make it worthless.
Created:
Posted in:
Anime and Manga in 2017
Manga
New Manga
Dr. Stone (7.5/10)
The only actual new manga on this list, I'd say Dr. Stone is a strong entry. It builds a lot of material out of what is, effectively, a global apocalypse that turns every human and a great deal of animals to stone. It finds interesting ways to explain scientific concepts as the characters work to rebuild a civilization that has deteriorated over thousands of years, and while the characters are a little bombastic, it's a new direction for Shonen manga that worked out well, especially given the success of the anime.
Robot x Laserbeam (5.5/10)
Unfortunately, this one both started and ended in the same year due to cancellation. It’s about a young, bookish boy nicknamed Robot who finds out he has a talent for golf and proceeds to foster it after some cajoling. Especially for a manga about golf (don’t have much interest in the sport, personally), I was enthralled by it. The series did a great job amping up the tension, but clearly didn’t have much staying power, and its sudden ending really drags down what could have been a solid sports manga.
Finishing Manga
Fairy Tail (6/10)
The series wrapped during this season, and while it wasn't at its best during the time, it's still worth recognizing that its decently long run came to an end here with some solid fights. A series that sets a guild of mages, rather than any individual, as its central cast can do a lot with character dynamics than others that I’ve seen, though I wouldn’t say that it’s anything special in other regards.
Anime Movies
There were some pretty big movie releases this year, though I can't say I got much experience with them. It certainly wasn't up to the high standards set by 2016, but Sword Art Online The Movie: Ordinal Scale got a lot of hype, as did the first Fate/stay night: Heaven's Feel movie. That coupled with films for Monogatari, Black Butler, Detective Conan and Doraemon meant that this year was largely just expanding on existing series with large fanbases. I didn’t see any of these.
Anime Series
Several big releases weren't on my watchlist for this season but deserve some note. Little Witch Academia was a cute and well animated series that dropped here, as did Kemono Friends, a series that was not at all well animated (some really janky 3D rendering) but I'm told had a lot of heart (until the second season, which I've been told did not stack up). Probably the strongest entry that I missed was Miss Kobayashi's Dragon Maid, which is still going strong today and has another season currently airing. On the other end of the spectrum, Hand Shakers is a truly heinous series with awful 3D effects and, I'm told, was poorly written. It's more of a hate watch, which I tend not to do.
Saga of Tonya the Evil (8/10)
This is the only series I picked up this season, and with an upcoming second season, it's worthy of your time. Basic premise isn't anything special: Isekai series where a guy dies and is reborn in a fantasy world. What separates it are two important factors. First, as the title suggests, this guy (now little girl) is pretty scummy. He wasn't a good person in our world, and she is not a good person in the new one, so no hero complex here. Second, and more interesting, the entity (referred to as god) that transported him and put him in a new body speaks to him and is the central antagonist of the series, yet Tonya is forced to pray to him in order to utilize her full power. The dynamic between them is probably the most interesting facet of the series, especially as Tonya is not the only character that this entity interacts with, and Tonya's aim is to kill him at the first available opportunity. Tonya's interactions with other characters certainly gets interesting, particularly with her trying to gain power within the military following big victories, but the central conflict never changes. One of the better twists on Isekai that I've seen and one with a central story that keeps me intrigued.
Spring 2017:
I don't think I missed much of note this season. If you want some trashy, incest-y anime, Eromanga Sensei was a nice little dumpster fire from what I've been told. There is also Is It Wrong to Try to Pick Up Girls in a Dungeon?, which I've been told is fun for those looking for a nice harem anime with some decent action. It's still going, so clearly they did something right. The anime for Boruto: Naruto Next Generations started during this season. I’ve only caught bits and pieces, but the sakuga is strong, even if the story meanders for a while before getting to what the manga was covering around this time. Finally, Attack on Titan S2 aired after a long hiatus. While this isn’t the most highly regarded of the seasons, the entire series has strong writing and animation. I haven’t caught up on the anime series yet, though I did finish the manga. I’ll address that in my list for 2021.
As for what I did see, I picked up quite a bit this season. It was stacked with sequels and sequel series but had a couple of other interesting entries worth discussing. I'll keep most of these short.
My Hero Academia S2 (7/10)
My Hero Academia has a long-established story that's told well and continues to thrill. There are incredible moments from this one, particularly during the tournament arc that is so characteristic of Shonen series. I wouldn't say that it's a massive standout even among those, but it's certainly got the animation chops, and watching how different Quirks clash in individual fights was enough to keep me interested. I wouldn't say it had the kind of bombastic hero moments of S1, but in terms of character and relationship building, it's a solid entry.
Kado: The Right Answer (5/10)
A weird anime in a lot of ways, this one's a real thinker with a lot of interesting concepts put into it up front. Basically, two guys on a business trip witness the appearance of a giant cube, which houses a being that seeks to advance the world with new technologies. I thought this was fascinating to watch early on, but it doesn't stick the landing and just ends up a confusing mess.
Re: Creators (8/10)
A divisive series among anime fans, I rather enjoyed the one. It's a reverse isekai where characters from all manner of manga come into our world and fight it out for various reasons. Really interesting to see how powers from those different worlds clash, particularly as this contains JoJo-esque characters with Stand equivalents, a magical girl, a mecha, and a huge mess of swords. It goes to some really interesting places and I was enthralled throughout, though not everyone agrees on it, so take my opinion with a grain of salt.
Summer 2017
I missed only one series that I want to go back to watch. Kakegurui - Compulsive Gambler is a series I've heard quite a bit about that keeps you on your toes throughout. Though it's usually problematic when you know the main character will dominate in the end, it’s apparently just fun to experience.
Made in Abyss (9.5/10)
One of my favorite series of all time, Made in Abyss deserves attention. Basic premise is simple enough: town surrounding a giant abyss that was created by some unknown means and goes incredibly deep. People venture into the abyss to get relics that sell well, some of which have special abilities, though those tend to be incredibly deep in. The main character has a driving urge to venture deep within it to find her mother, who is a seasoned traveler of the abyss, though she doesn't even know if her mother is still alive. She finds her opportunity after a humanoid robot comes out of the abyss, apparently one of the rare relics from its depths. The series contains a lot of thrills, as well as both physical and psychological horror, even though it's animated in a rather cutesy style. Particularly important is the factor that the deeper you go into the abyss, the more dangerous (or, at a certain point, utterly impossible) it is to climb back out again, ensuring that some trips come with a point of no return. It's excellent.
Fall 2017
A lot more I missed that I'm still planning to go back to here. Land of the Lustrous is an example of exceptionally well-rendered 3D effects in anime, and from what I've heard an intriguing story of action and fantasy involving jewel/human hybrids. Inuyashiki is a Seinen series involving a good deal of body horror that follows on two random people (one a kind old man and the other a teenage psychopath) getting turned into beings that retain their appearance, but are inwardly mechanical and incredibly powerful. Cool premise, disturbing execution from what I've seen. Finally, Black Clover has become a new Shonen juggernaut, and while I haven’t seen much of it, I’ve read a good deal of the manga. The start of the series is a bit infamous for certain… voice acting choices… but its action scenes are strong and, from what I’ve been told, the series takes a lot of big swings as it builds out its world and its anti-magic wielding protagonist.
Ancient Magus' Bride (8/10)
This is an inspiring bit of fantasy anime involving a young girl who has basically given up on life, sells herself into slavery, and is purchased by a mage who wants to make her his bride. Yeah, it's a pretty problematic start, but it does go to some interesting places, particularly as you watch that young girl become immersed in that fantasy and learn magic for herself. For all its fantastic elements, it's really about the character moments for her and the mage she attends, and watching their growth is fascinating. I felt the series was a little slow and meandering in places, but as a character study, it's very affecting, and with the beautiful animation it is one to watch.
Anime of the Year: Another easy choice. Made in Abyss. Honorable mention to Saga of Tonya the Evil.
Manga
New Manga
Dr. Stone (7.5/10)
The only actual new manga on this list, I'd say Dr. Stone is a strong entry. It builds a lot of material out of what is, effectively, a global apocalypse that turns every human and a great deal of animals to stone. It finds interesting ways to explain scientific concepts as the characters work to rebuild a civilization that has deteriorated over thousands of years, and while the characters are a little bombastic, it's a new direction for Shonen manga that worked out well, especially given the success of the anime.
Robot x Laserbeam (5.5/10)
Unfortunately, this one both started and ended in the same year due to cancellation. It’s about a young, bookish boy nicknamed Robot who finds out he has a talent for golf and proceeds to foster it after some cajoling. Especially for a manga about golf (don’t have much interest in the sport, personally), I was enthralled by it. The series did a great job amping up the tension, but clearly didn’t have much staying power, and its sudden ending really drags down what could have been a solid sports manga.
Finishing Manga
Fairy Tail (6/10)
The series wrapped during this season, and while it wasn't at its best during the time, it's still worth recognizing that its decently long run came to an end here with some solid fights. A series that sets a guild of mages, rather than any individual, as its central cast can do a lot with character dynamics than others that I’ve seen, though I wouldn’t say that it’s anything special in other regards.
Anime Movies
There were some pretty big movie releases this year, though I can't say I got much experience with them. It certainly wasn't up to the high standards set by 2016, but Sword Art Online The Movie: Ordinal Scale got a lot of hype, as did the first Fate/stay night: Heaven's Feel movie. That coupled with films for Monogatari, Black Butler, Detective Conan and Doraemon meant that this year was largely just expanding on existing series with large fanbases. I didn’t see any of these.
Anime Series
Several big releases weren't on my watchlist for this season but deserve some note. Little Witch Academia was a cute and well animated series that dropped here, as did Kemono Friends, a series that was not at all well animated (some really janky 3D rendering) but I'm told had a lot of heart (until the second season, which I've been told did not stack up). Probably the strongest entry that I missed was Miss Kobayashi's Dragon Maid, which is still going strong today and has another season currently airing. On the other end of the spectrum, Hand Shakers is a truly heinous series with awful 3D effects and, I'm told, was poorly written. It's more of a hate watch, which I tend not to do.
Saga of Tonya the Evil (8/10)
This is the only series I picked up this season, and with an upcoming second season, it's worthy of your time. Basic premise isn't anything special: Isekai series where a guy dies and is reborn in a fantasy world. What separates it are two important factors. First, as the title suggests, this guy (now little girl) is pretty scummy. He wasn't a good person in our world, and she is not a good person in the new one, so no hero complex here. Second, and more interesting, the entity (referred to as god) that transported him and put him in a new body speaks to him and is the central antagonist of the series, yet Tonya is forced to pray to him in order to utilize her full power. The dynamic between them is probably the most interesting facet of the series, especially as Tonya is not the only character that this entity interacts with, and Tonya's aim is to kill him at the first available opportunity. Tonya's interactions with other characters certainly gets interesting, particularly with her trying to gain power within the military following big victories, but the central conflict never changes. One of the better twists on Isekai that I've seen and one with a central story that keeps me intrigued.
Spring 2017:
I don't think I missed much of note this season. If you want some trashy, incest-y anime, Eromanga Sensei was a nice little dumpster fire from what I've been told. There is also Is It Wrong to Try to Pick Up Girls in a Dungeon?, which I've been told is fun for those looking for a nice harem anime with some decent action. It's still going, so clearly they did something right. The anime for Boruto: Naruto Next Generations started during this season. I’ve only caught bits and pieces, but the sakuga is strong, even if the story meanders for a while before getting to what the manga was covering around this time. Finally, Attack on Titan S2 aired after a long hiatus. While this isn’t the most highly regarded of the seasons, the entire series has strong writing and animation. I haven’t caught up on the anime series yet, though I did finish the manga. I’ll address that in my list for 2021.
As for what I did see, I picked up quite a bit this season. It was stacked with sequels and sequel series but had a couple of other interesting entries worth discussing. I'll keep most of these short.
My Hero Academia S2 (7/10)
My Hero Academia has a long-established story that's told well and continues to thrill. There are incredible moments from this one, particularly during the tournament arc that is so characteristic of Shonen series. I wouldn't say that it's a massive standout even among those, but it's certainly got the animation chops, and watching how different Quirks clash in individual fights was enough to keep me interested. I wouldn't say it had the kind of bombastic hero moments of S1, but in terms of character and relationship building, it's a solid entry.
Kado: The Right Answer (5/10)
A weird anime in a lot of ways, this one's a real thinker with a lot of interesting concepts put into it up front. Basically, two guys on a business trip witness the appearance of a giant cube, which houses a being that seeks to advance the world with new technologies. I thought this was fascinating to watch early on, but it doesn't stick the landing and just ends up a confusing mess.
Re: Creators (8/10)
A divisive series among anime fans, I rather enjoyed the one. It's a reverse isekai where characters from all manner of manga come into our world and fight it out for various reasons. Really interesting to see how powers from those different worlds clash, particularly as this contains JoJo-esque characters with Stand equivalents, a magical girl, a mecha, and a huge mess of swords. It goes to some really interesting places and I was enthralled throughout, though not everyone agrees on it, so take my opinion with a grain of salt.
Summer 2017
I missed only one series that I want to go back to watch. Kakegurui - Compulsive Gambler is a series I've heard quite a bit about that keeps you on your toes throughout. Though it's usually problematic when you know the main character will dominate in the end, it’s apparently just fun to experience.
Made in Abyss (9.5/10)
One of my favorite series of all time, Made in Abyss deserves attention. Basic premise is simple enough: town surrounding a giant abyss that was created by some unknown means and goes incredibly deep. People venture into the abyss to get relics that sell well, some of which have special abilities, though those tend to be incredibly deep in. The main character has a driving urge to venture deep within it to find her mother, who is a seasoned traveler of the abyss, though she doesn't even know if her mother is still alive. She finds her opportunity after a humanoid robot comes out of the abyss, apparently one of the rare relics from its depths. The series contains a lot of thrills, as well as both physical and psychological horror, even though it's animated in a rather cutesy style. Particularly important is the factor that the deeper you go into the abyss, the more dangerous (or, at a certain point, utterly impossible) it is to climb back out again, ensuring that some trips come with a point of no return. It's excellent.
Fall 2017
A lot more I missed that I'm still planning to go back to here. Land of the Lustrous is an example of exceptionally well-rendered 3D effects in anime, and from what I've heard an intriguing story of action and fantasy involving jewel/human hybrids. Inuyashiki is a Seinen series involving a good deal of body horror that follows on two random people (one a kind old man and the other a teenage psychopath) getting turned into beings that retain their appearance, but are inwardly mechanical and incredibly powerful. Cool premise, disturbing execution from what I've seen. Finally, Black Clover has become a new Shonen juggernaut, and while I haven’t seen much of it, I’ve read a good deal of the manga. The start of the series is a bit infamous for certain… voice acting choices… but its action scenes are strong and, from what I’ve been told, the series takes a lot of big swings as it builds out its world and its anti-magic wielding protagonist.
Ancient Magus' Bride (8/10)
This is an inspiring bit of fantasy anime involving a young girl who has basically given up on life, sells herself into slavery, and is purchased by a mage who wants to make her his bride. Yeah, it's a pretty problematic start, but it does go to some interesting places, particularly as you watch that young girl become immersed in that fantasy and learn magic for herself. For all its fantastic elements, it's really about the character moments for her and the mage she attends, and watching their growth is fascinating. I felt the series was a little slow and meandering in places, but as a character study, it's very affecting, and with the beautiful animation it is one to watch.
Anime of the Year: Another easy choice. Made in Abyss. Honorable mention to Saga of Tonya the Evil.
Created:
-->
@Athias
What about the vaccine's function in "teaching" cells to produce covid spike proteins as means to develop an immune-response?
That doesn't impart long-term functional changes. mRNA is required for a cell to actually produce a given protein. If those mRNA messages aren't available, then the cell cannot make the associated protein. What the vaccine does is introduce that messaging molecule to cells, giving them instructions on how to make the protein. That message degrades within a short timeframe, and the cells can no longer make the spike protein afterward.
You're appealing to emotion; you can no more gauge the value I place on these lost lives anymore than I can yours. Hence, there's no point in bringing it up, especially considering the argument, "covid vaccine prevents covid death," hasn't been substantiated.
If emphasizing the value of those lives is emotional, then so is deemphasizing it. Your argument was that "the urgency of the vaccine's necessity is grossly exaggerated." How do you determine that if you're not basing it on the value of lives lost? Isn't that statement predicated on the view that the number of lives being lost to the virus does not impart a sense of urgency?
And clearly, we disagree that the statement you've put into quotes hasn't been substantiated.
Arguing it's moral integrity depends on which moral philosophy we use as a metric. I am however certain that I can argue its immorality consistent with any metric that's worth while.
Again, not something I want to get into here. It's a digression from the rest of our discussion.
No, it is. The conditions you propose qualify this measure no more than it does the others. Here, for example: "vaccination 'could be' extremely effective if everyone does it, not so much if they don't." Good hygiene would still be the primary countermeasure.
I still disagree. Good hygiene must be practiced consistently across the board to be effective, and every individual must do it because, failing that, every individual remains vulnerable to infection through any number of interactions with airborne particles. Vaccination must be practiced for the number of required shots across a sufficient population to dramatically restrict the spread of the virus, not for every individual.
Your conclusion from these statistics are based on a post hoc fallacy. You're claiming an efficacy of vaccination simply by counting after the fact
I don't see how counting after the fact is problematic. You can compare the population of unvaccinated with the population of vaccinated and determine, based on that, the propensity for death from COVID-19 among those populations. Vaccines are inherently a preventative measure, so this is literally the only means we have for determining whether a vaccination was effective. You can argue that it's imperfect all you want because it's not a direct test, but it's also a very large test spread across a very wide population with a very large group of unvaccinated to compare with.
As for the rest of this, which largely amounts to responses to DoubleR rather than responses to me, it seems like your goal with this argument is to point out that the actual numbers of deaths doesn't suggest a very high death toll for the virus. I'm not particularly great with statistics, and it's not my goal to dig up numbers to make my case for a certain number of deaths (though I think the comparison should be between total numbers of infected and total deaths, rather than comparing total deaths to the overall population). I also think that's besides the point, because it seems to me like the case you're making is entirely numerical in nature, i.e. some unknown number of deaths "demand, require, necessitate, or even justify a mandate" whereas a smaller number (presumably the one you just derived), does not. I've already said I'm not interested in getting into the morality or immorality of a mandate, and I think focusing on the total numbers of dead as a means of either justifying or dismissing a mandate falls into that camp. What you find to be a sufficient number to be moral may differ from mine. I've also said that I personally have mixed feelings about the mandate (I never said I supported it), so I don't know why you're continuing to argue this point.
I can no more assert that "such and such" effect will happen than you can assert that "such and such" effect won't happen because of the extremely short-lived nature of the vaccine an its product.
I'm not asserting when I'm basing it on known elements of the vaccine and how long they stick around in the body. The weight of existing evidence about what the vaccine does and how long it lasts suggests that its side effects are limited to a narrow window of time. Long-term side effects can only occur when some lasting change is made. There is no evidence that I am aware of that suggests a lasting change, apart from the production of an immune response and resultant memory cells that stick around. I acknowledge that a possibility exists, but given the complete absence of evidence suggesting that the vaccine either sticks around in the body or causes long-term changes to the body that could yield substantial side-effects, the plausibility of that concern is another matter.
You have a "public statement." That is not a fact-check. (Especially considering Pfizer's involvement in the investigation.)
I also have population data, which you haven't addressed, that suggests that this death toll does not exceed the normal death toll in this population and has not been linked to their receipt of the vaccine. For someone who has been very quick to pounce on the correlation vs. causation fallacy, you're pretty quick to accept causation in this instance.
Since we cannot control for the effects of the vaccine as it pertains to its capacity to prevent death, the prospect of which would necessitate observation of both the survival and death of the same individuals, then any "survival rate" attributed to the vaccine would be chiefly based on a post hoc fallacy. Unless you can substantiate that a person would have died with certainty absent of being inoculated with this vaccine, the survival rates are moot, especially considering, as I demonstrated above that, absent of vaccination, the U.S. unvaccinated have a 99.426% "survival rate."
Your argument appears to be the following: because we cannot perform the perfect study to demonstrate vaccine effectiveness, we must dismiss any claims to a reduced infection, hospitalization or survival rate. I strongly disagree. Again, getting correlational data across multiple surveys in multiple populations is indicative of an effect, even if it comes after the fact. I don't understand why the perfect study must be performed in order to demonstrate what is actively happening for billions of people worldwide right now. We know how many people become infected. We can determine what percentage of those that are infected become hospitalized and how many die. We can compare those rates between the two populations. Is every comparison of this sort perfect? Of course not. There are too many differences in behaviors among these populations to say that this was the only affecting factor. That being said, it's not impossible to control for behaviors in these studies, and many do just that. To say that they're all functionally invalid seems incredibly dismissive without being justified.
The antibody production of another individual, for example, cannot inform on my antibody production.
Your point was that none of these studies "has anything to do with one's own individual health." Doctors can monitor that. And yes, that includes your personal antibody production. Antibody titers are common practice. Beyond that, to say that the antibody production of another individual in no way informs your own doesn't make sense to me. If production is monitored across a broad set of people over a long period of time and found to be largely consistent, then yes, doctors can actually predict what will happen in you.
And the conclusions from such a method would produce an ecological inference fallacy. That is not science; that is mere assumption.
I don't see how this is so, since a study like this necessarily must look at individuals. If I'm monitoring the production of antibodies after the administration of a vaccine and comparing it with an individual who receives a placebo, I'm looking at two individuals, not a population. If I continue to expand that outward and see this individual dynamic is true across a very large swath of patients, then saying that the vaccine induces an antibody response in the vast majority of patients receiving it is not an ecological inference fallacy. It's absolutely not an assumption.
And to what extent can this be quantified? "How strong" does one's immune response have to be?
Antibody titers can be quantified. The rate of production of B cells with those antibodies when challenged with the virus can be quantified. The immune response to the virus following the initial and subsequently increased production of antibodies can be quantified. As for "How strong" it would have to be, that depends on a variety of factors, including the infectious dose received and how quickly the innate immune response is recruited. That certainly complicates things to a degree, but I don't think it invalidates the value of this specific immune response being effective against the virus.
If I had the evidence you seek, I would have either been murdered, or the subject of both morning and evening news for years to come.
A bit overdramatic.
I'm banking on the idea that you're a fairly intelligent individual, at least from what I have observed during my time in this forum, who can put two and two together, especially considering your expertise on the subject of microbiology with the particular focus on viruses.
Well, I appreciate that. I will say that I appreciate the thought you're putting into your responses, even when I personally disagree with what you're saying. Not sure what your background is, but you seem well read.
But I will ask this: is it conceivable, plausible, or even possible that the COVID-19 virus could have been a strain developed from a manipulated SARS-Cov base?
I concede the possibility of it. It's also entirely possible that this is a natural strain. I have yet to see substantive evidence that leads me in either direction. The link you provided tells me that there are certainly human-modified pieces of coronaviruses that have been patented. That's true of basically any virus of note, as well as a great deal of bacteria, fungi and other organisms. I don't find that this tells much of a story, personally, especially since these weren't all functional viruses that could be released into the world and actively replicate in humans. I see amino acid sequences, various protein production methods and certain modified proteins, antivirals, protein complexes, antibodies, specific RNA interference methods, and some early vaccine stuff, much of which is likely directed at other coronaviruses that were coming up around that time. Several of those, including SARS-CoV-1 and MERS, are specifically mentioned. None of this looks particularly damning to me.
Created:
-->
@Athias
That's my point, observations of the long-term effects cannot have been ascertained at this point in time, and the urgency of the vaccine's necessity is grossly exaggerated.
I agree with the former statement to a point. If the argument is that there could be long-term effects, then I'd like to know where those potential effects could be derived from if not the material from the vaccine or the resultant products of its expression.
As for the latter statement, I disagree. I guess it depends on how much you value of the lives lost in the process of trying to contain this pandemic, but from my perspective, its necessity isn't exaggerated.
The mandate isn't just a subject of agreement; it's a matter of morality as well. Coercing the populace into taking a vaccine they have no intention of taking out of concerns which need only be valid to them is immoral. Arbitrarily deciding on which "religious exemption" suffices is the prerogative of neither the State nor physicians' association.
I've got mixed feelings about the mandate, but suffice it to say that I don't see it as inherently immoral, particularly if it gives various exemptions. Not going to get into the morality of a mandate here, though.
Because good hygiene is still the primary countermeasure to the spread and contraction of infection, generally speaking.
I think it could be the primary countermeasure, assuming that everyone behaves accordingly. It's extremely effective if everyone does it, not so much if they don't.
Where in this reference is it expressed that the vaccinated have a tendency to do much better than the unvaccinated?
In the hospitalization and death statistics. If they're getting hospitalized in far fewer numbers and dying in far fewer numbers than the unvaccinated, they tend to do much better than the unvaccinated.
That is a perfectly legitimate inquiry. We cannot know yet is double edged in that it modifies arguments both in favor and against the administration of this vaccine. One cannot expect conclusions about the long-term, when the long-term has not been observed or sufficiently mirrored.
The difference here is that your argument is based in the view that there could be something that happens in the long term, but lacks any analysis of the vaccine or other vaccines that provides a meaningful basis for believing that such long terms effects are more than just faint possibilities. It's possible, I grant that, but I don't grant the plausibility of long-term harms because of the extremely short-lived nature of the vaccine and its product.
There was a bit of a fact check by Reuters on this one. Apparently, no causal link between their vaccinations and their deaths were discovered. Also, considering the already substantial death toll among the elderly in nursing homes (an estimated 45 each day), attributing these deaths to vaccination solely because they happened to receive the vaccine the day they died is a bit problematic.
This is another reference from when I was discussing the issue with DoubleR:Of more than 18,000 people who died from COVID-19, for example, only about 150 were fully vaccinated. That's less than 1%.
My argument wasn't that the vaccine affords absolute protection from death, though I think these numbers are similar to those in my link. Saying that they aren't attributable to the vaccine only begs the question of what you could attribute this high survival rate to among the vaccinated population.
I don't think the data is fallacious. The conclusions drawn from the data are fallacious, specifically the ones I already mentioned.
Pretty thoroughly disagree with you there. The lack of direct data doesn't mean that every conclusion that can be drawn is inherently fallacious. You can argue that it's not as good as a direct study, but given that such a study would be inherently unethical and that this data still provides clear trends that can be used to make strong correlative conclusions that repeat with subsequent studies, I would say that they are not inherently fallacious. It might be if you took one study out of context and said that correlation = causation, but that's not what is happening here.
None of which has anything to do with one's own individual health. And I'm not stating that these studies are "worthless," only the arguments based on these studies which propose logically inconsistent/fallacious reasoning.
...I'm sorry, does antibody production have nothing to do with individual health? We can look at individual patients and monitor differences between a vaccinated and unvaccinated person in terms of what they produce with regards to immune defenses and provide a pretty clear picture of how they're likely to respond to the virus. There is always going to be variation in how people respond to the virus, but having a head start on an immune response provides a pretty clear picture of how likely they are to mount a strong immune response to the virus before it has time to replicate and spread.
My reference to the two year mark is intended to pile on to the notion of how novice and limited the conclusions have been. Vaccines typically undertake 10-15 years in trials, the length of which provides at least a medically sufficient basis to make conclusions about the "long-term." The CDC "expedited" this process and set a two year mark. It's been little more than a year, and demagogues have been either pandering or outright lying about a vaccine, the long term effects for which they could not have possibly ascertained.
I'd say that the rushed schedule was justifiable given the existence of the ongoing and, in some cases, worsening pandemic. I'd also say that a lot of the studies were done before this that paved the way for these to be produced in both a safe and efficacious manner. You clearly don't agree with either assessment.
No, the patents are verifiable.
Yes, it's verifiable that they exist. It's not verifiable that their existence is meaningful.
A patented virus which causes a global pandemic isn't relevant?
Again, would really love to see that patented virus. I haven't been able to find it. Assuming that it was patented, I'd like to see some evidence that it's the same coronavirus. Coronaviruses existed before the patent, they existed afterward, and they have been worked on in many labs. If you can provide some link between that patented virus (not really sure it exists, but I'll assume it does) and the current pandemic, be my guest.
Created:
-->
@Athias
How is it odd? I'll ask what I asked earlier: how can one speak to "long term" when the spans of trials have been limited at best?
It's odd because political pandering doesn't modify the long term effects of the vaccine. As for speaking to those effects, as I already said, there can't have been studies going on for long enough to make that possible, but that doesn't mean that there's substantive reasons to be concerned.
Would it not then be more prudent to promote good hygiene as was done earlier during this "pandemic" (which by the way saw record lows in flu contractions) than to promote the administration of a vaccine--which will virtually be mandated--the long-term effects of which have not been ascertained?
I don't think it has to be one or the other. You can disagree with the mandate if you wish, I'm not going to argue that, but I don't think there's substantive reasons to be concerned about the long-term effects of the vaccine, and I also don't see efforts to push people to be more hygienic as sufficient to quell the pandemic on their own.
By steroid boosted vaccines, I'm referring to the corticosteriod that is claimed to boost the efficacy of the mRNA vaccines. And if fewer infections lead to fewer number of mutants, then vaccines aren't necessary, correct? One could apply what has been consistently the primary counter to the spread and contraction of infection, which is good hygiene, correct?
Alright, thanks for the clarity. I'm not sure how you derive that conclusion from my statement about fewer infections leading to fewer mutants. Again, I see supporting improved hygiene as additive to supporting more widespread vaccination.
What data?
This, as a start.
This reference should suffice:
It doesn't mention the coronavirus vaccines. I'm not doubting that there are adverse events that occur with vaccines, though I'll also note that the vast majority of what's listed here happens within a 30 day period. That's generally because vaccines tend to last in the body for a short time before being eliminated. I mentioned that later because I feel that if you're going to argue that there are major long-term concerns regarding adverse events, then there should rationally be some basis for that belief, as opposed to just a statement that we cannot know yet.
I'm not suggesting that this demonstrative of vaccination "failure." Only that the argument "vaccine = health/protection" has not provided sufficient controls, especially considering that there have been a number of people who have died immediately after vaccination.
Haven't seen evidence of what you've bolded here, at least not with these vaccines. Maybe you're talking about the broader set of all vaccines, but I'd rather keep this focused on this set for now if you don't mind.
No they don't. Because there's one thing that the data can never prove: vaccination works. In order for a study to prove vaccination works, it would have to control for the survival and death as a result of the COVID-19 virus within the same sample. The data that both you and I have presumably seen do nothing more than produce ecological inference and post hoc fallacy arguments. That is, it renders conclusions both after the fact, and based on observations of other people. Those fallacious arguments are not based on sufficient controls.
If you think the data is fallacious, then I don't see us having a friendly discussion over this. You can argue that the kinds of studies that they can do are limited, which is partially true because they cannot actively challenge vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals with the virus to see what happens. That being said, they can actively monitor the differences between vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals in terms of antibody production, incidence of illness, severity of illness, and numerous other factors. It's never going to be perfectly controlled, but that doesn't mean that the studies are functionally worthless and in no way demonstrate any effectiveness of vaccination. The vaccination of large populations produces some pretty impressive datasets that can be used to make the case as well. If you don't agree, I guess that's your opinion, but this is a pretty hard line of difference between us if so.
But they are incredibly limited, and part of that is by reason of the limitation of the trials, which the CDC had set for the two years. And two years has not passed since the beginning of these trials. We just passed one year a couple of months ago.
It strikes me that that two year timeframe was pretty arbitrary to begin with. You can argue that they haven't met it anyway, but I'm not clear on why that specific length of time is what makes the data sufficient, especially if you're talking about long-term data.
I'm not against vaccination, believe it or not. I am however against this COVID-19 vaccination and its variants. Its spread and the promotion of its vaccination are far too suspicious especially considering that patents for the coronavirus span as far back as 1984 (and this is verifiable.)
Well, I disagree on multiple fronts, but your suspicions aren't actually verifiable. I'm not sure what patents you're talking about, or why they're relevant here, but it seems to me that when you're dealing with a pandemic, particularly one responsible for as many deaths as this one, responding with vaccination on a wide scale seems entirely appropriate.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
The first thing you misrepresented was that I don't know what mRNA is or does, it's something you have misrepresented throughout appealing to authority constantly (that authority being your actual self).
I did not say that you don't know what mRNA does. Please, feel free to go back through any of these posts and find where I asserted anything with regards to your personal knowledge on the subject.
Meanwhile, you said:
I recommend researching what a vaccine does
That pretty clearly insinuated that I don't know what a vaccine does. I'm appealing to my extensive experience with virus research to show you that, yes, I am quite well read when it comes to how a vaccine works and why it is effective. I researched stuff like this over the course of an extensive PhD and have continued to read up on it as this new technology comes to the fore. So yes, when you say that I'm missing some research into the subject, it frustrates me a bit, especially when you don't present anything that indicates that I'm actually missing some pertinent information.
I don't need to respect or care about your PhD and achievements in mRNA research. You told me you research plants, not people. mRNA messing to colour a plant differently or manipulate its growth is fine because it's a plant. Once we get to animals and then humans it suddenly isn't so funny to say one is crazy to oppose the research or worry where it's headed.
You don't have to respect my work (though arguing that my doing it in plants somehow makes it invalid for me to apply it here is pretty ridiculous, especially since mRNA functions the same in plants and animals). I'm not expecting you to do so. At the same time, it would be great if you could treat me as someone who actually has done the research and disagree with me on the substance of it instead of telling me to do more research. If you want to argue that there are ethical issues at play, be my guest, but that's not what you were saying here.
You can deny what it's capable of, I know what it's capable of and am not misrepresenting you when I say that the skepticism about it is well-founded and the defense against it is extremely rhetoric and peer pressured amongst doctors and scientists. If you're in the field, you'd know what it's capable of. Do not downplay how much it can alter in DNA. Any article denying it can change DNA is lying. All of the journalists are delivering misinformation because they believe it's a greater good to defend the vaccine than admit the capabilities which may be a correct call to make but it absolutely can alter DNA, especially in a slight way that we'd not notice at first. mRNA is to cells what selecting 'yes' to 'allow this program to change my computer' is when you give a program administrator access to install it and/or update it.
It's fine to be skeptical. I didn't argue that skepticism of the vaccine is inherently problematic. I don't think what you've presented as skepticism is particularly well-founded, and that's why I posted in response to you in the first place. So, yes, I will deny that it can alter DNA because that's not what mRNA does. You can say it's lying, but that's basic molecular biology, dude. We've had this discussion before, and you dropped off after I presented responses to you. As for what mRNA does, I'd say that characterization is only partly accurate. Changes from mRNA are inherently impermanent. That's part of what makes them a really good choice for expression work. To argue that these molecules can make permanent changes flies in the face of what I know them to be capable of doing.
Created:
-->
@Athias
Neither is a vaccine. The selling point of practicing, for example, good hygiene is that it's non-invasive, and its long-term effects aren't manipulated by political pandering.
I didn't say that it was, though to say that the long term effects of vaccines are somehow manipulated by political pandering seems a bit odd. I have no problem with practicing good hygiene. I have a problem with the argument that vaccines should be a distant second to something that many individuals don't practice as well as they should.
So, is it your argument that failure to receive an mRNA vaccine or some steroid-boosted vaccine is a cause of mutation? Please expand.
Don't know what you mean by a "steroid-boosted vaccine", but my argument is that more infections = increased numbers of mutants. Fewer infections = fewer mutants. Vaccines reduce the number of total infections, their duration, and their spread.
And this is based on what? That is, the tendency to "do much better" than the unvaccinated?
Actual data? I'm not sure what you're asking here, but it's a pretty easily demonstrable fact that vaccinated people are less likely to get the virus, far less likely to be hospitalized if they do get it, and far far less likely to die if they get it.
Yes, they do. As well as produce adverse effects which undermine the intent of one's inoculation. Hence, the argument "vaccination = health/protection" is one that has not been substantiated with sufficient controls.
Mind detailing those adverse effects? A minority of cases in which the vaccine fails to elicit strong immune responses is not demonstrative of overall vaccination failure. Similarly, incidence of adverse effects does not "undermine the intent of one's inoculation", since in the vast majority of cases, even people who suffer from adverse effects are still protected. And I disagree wholeheartedly that "vaccination = health/protection" has not been substantiated by the data. With over a billion people vaccinated, there is more than sufficient data to make that conclusion, and I would argue that the studies undergone by the companies that produced these vaccines had sufficient controls to reach that conclusion.
And this conclusion has been rendered after how many years of trials? How can one speak to "long-term" effects when trials which barely pass for rigorous have spanned only for a year and a half?
You are more than welcome to discuss any data you've seen that indicates that the vaccine remains in the body beyond a few days after the administration of the vaccine. Yes, there isn't data for it because none of the vaccines have been around long enough to make those conclusions. That doesn't mean that there is good reason to suspect that such long-term effects are likely, or that they outstrip the long-term effects of the virus.
Then I suggest researching further into the subject, and to pay particular mind to their methodologies and the limitations of their experiments/trials/studies etc. Most of the studies which state that the mRNA vaccines do not "seem" to produce autoimmune diseases are incredibly limited.
I read quite a bit into the subject. I disagree that the research into it is "incredibly limited" and I disagree that there is something wrong with their methodologies. Not every study is perfect, but quite a few of them have demonstrated this very effectively from where I'm sitting. If you have data to the contrary, by all means, present it.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Politicians disagree with you, they fancy reintroducing lockdowns due to the delta and future variants, a constant threat in the News.
That doesn't disagree with the statement you quoted. They're threatening to reintroduce lockdowns because the virus is not under control in those populations. The number of vaccinated in those areas hasn't reached herd immunity, so to claim that this is demonstrative of vaccine failure is absurd. It's demonstrative of what happens when vaccination rates stagnate, not of the existence of variants that the vaccines do not work against. Also, what politicians are doing in certain parts of the country doesn't tell me anything substantive except that SARS-CoV-2 is still very common and pushing for behavioral changes hasn't been effective. If anything, this just demonstrates a greater need for vaccination.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
I didn't misrespresent anything. You on the other hand have done precisely what you say I am doing to you, to me.
You did. I explained what you misrepresented. If I misrepresented something from what you said, point it out.
There will be many variants, if the vaccine is futile against them then it is futile to force on an age group that basically are de facto immune to it symptomatically to get vaccinated.
Again, it's inevitable that there will be variants. It's not inevitable that the vaccine will be futile against them. That will become futile if we maintain a consistently large group of individuals who have limited or no protection against them because, eventually, variants will develop that can get around various barriers, including the immune responses of younger people (especially if they are the only population that are being consistently infected) and those who are vaccinated. And I think calling them "de facto immune" is pretty absurd. They are far less likely to get serious symptoms and die, though even that is not 100%. It can still get the virus. It can still replicate in them. It can still mutate in them. It can still spread from them. Vaccinated people can get the virus from them.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
I recommend researching what a vaccine does before telling me 'oh there will be a delta, episolon through to sigma and theta variant and we can't vaccinate against them all'. A vaccine is meant to prevent against the virus and how severely even the mutations can affect you because your body is prepped for the type of body/shape that the virus has (that's what immunity is based around).
A) I have a PhD in Microbiology with an emphasis in viruses. My thesis focused on mRNA expression and the negative effects that small RNAs can have on viral replication and activity in general. I could detail most if not all of the molecular mechanisms of the mRNA viruses from memory, including how the RNA gets into the cell, how protein is translated from it, where that protein goes, what immune responses it activates, and give you a rough timeframe of how long that immunity lasts. So yes, I know what a vaccine does. I know what RNA vaccines, specifically, do.
B) I don't appreciate your actively misrepresenting my point to suit your narrative, nor do I appreciate your misrepresenting the facts. There IS a Delta variant. There are many more variants that exist. The vaccine works against those variants. That does not mean that no variant will ever develop that could escape vaccination. Moreover, the Delta variant is actually demonstrative of a different way that variants can partially circumvent immunity: overwhelming numbers. The Delta variant produces titers much greater than other variants. Those can overwhelm immune responses and lead to active infections in patients who are vaccinated. These patients still tend to do much better than the unvaccinated even when they are infected, but that doesn't mean that a vaccinated individual is perfectly protected, which is particularly problematic for those with weak immune responses.
Beyond that, nothing is guaranteed and indeed it can hurt people after a while anyway as the white blood cells lose the shaping and memory of the previous virus after some time. There's no severe gain against the newer variants with vaccinating. This virus mutates extremely fast.
I'm not sure what you mean that "nothing is guaranteed", but I agree with the rest of this... except the part about "los[ing] the shaping", which doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. The vaccine works well against the new variants we've gotten so far, even with the fast mutation rate.
If new variants are inevitable and each seems to be gentle to the youth without severe underlying conditions, it implies we should only be pressuring adults to get vaccinated. Much more important than vaccination is practises/habits of people in their daily life and how they interact with surfaces and other people.
I would say that it's inevitable that there will be new variants. It is not at all certain that those variants will always be "gentle to the youth" or will be consistently and effectively targeted by the immune responses generated in response to the vaccines, and the more opportunities that we give this virus to mutate, the greater the odds that a mutation may actually cause great harm to children or circumvent immune responses.
I agree that our "practises/habits" with respect to preventing infections matter quite a bit, but a) not everyone is consistent in those and we shouldn't expect that they will be, meaning that the bad habits of a large number of actors can continue to keep the virus active and thriving in the population, b) this means that having good habits is not a guarantee of protection, since unless those habits involve distancing yourself from all human contact, it's virtually inevitable that you will come into contact with someone who has the virus and/or a surface on which it resides, and c) the vaccine provides a layer of protection that can provide protections to someone regardless of their habits - pointing out that you could also be doing something else doesn't tell me why this isn't valuable.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
The vulnerable are responsible for taking the vaccines or not, not the children.I was pro-isolation for schoolchildren before the vaccines existed exactly because they could infect older people they live with. I understood that then. Now, if they infect someone living with them and that person suffers due to it as they're unvaccinated themselves, it's that person's fault not the child's.The problem with your stance is you don't realise the risk vs reward here. We literally don't know wtf Pfizer/Moderna can do further down the line with mRNA aftereffects and we've already seen blood clotting and other issues associated with the covid-based vaccines.
It strikes me that we're arguing two different things. The vulnerable should take vaccines. The vulnerable are not and cannot be fully protected by vaccines, with or without boosters. Breakthrough cases happen. Vaccination failing to produce strong immune responses happen. Variants, particularly ones that produce larger amounts of virus or increased virulence factors, happen. It is not beyond the realm of plausibility for the virus to develop in such a way that it makes children more vulnerable, and nor is it implausible for the virus to completely escape vaccination-derived immune responses, particularly given a high enough incidence rate. Reducing that incidence rate by reducing the number of people who get infected is an important step in preventing either of those outcomes, and while you could argue that some mutation is inevitable, I don't think it makes a whole lot of sense to argue that that inevitability means that we should ignore opportunities to restrict it by restricting cases.
As for the risk vs reward situation, I disagree that there's substantial reason to be concerned over the Pfizer/Moderna mRNA vaccines and their long-term side effects. The blood clotting has not been linked to either vaccine, nor has there been any substantially dangerous vaccine side-effects linked to these vaccines. You can point to the shorter term pain and difficulties that some have experienced, but nothing deadly nor anything terribly risky aside from allergic reactions have happened. If we're concerned about longer term effects, then the long haul issues with COVID-19 are already becoming clear, whereas no such effects have been detected in patients receiving these vaccines, and there is no indication that such effects will be detected since all traces of the vaccine are gone from the bodies of people who have received the vaccinations. So far, the only longer haul explanation I've seen for why people might see side effects is the potential for autoimmunity in the generated antibodies, though to my knowledge, no cases of that happening exist.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
For everyone else, especially schoolchildren, I loathe, literally abhor, the pro-vaccine stance being taken regarding them. They don't die from it, clearly the psychopaths who designed this virus didn't want to kill them (there's never ever been a virus that is so gentle on youth while simultaneously being so brutal on the elderly, proportional to age in how harsh it attacks).
This is the only part of your post that I disagree with. Especially given that you apparently understand the risk to other populations, it's surprising that you take such a strong stance against vaccinating school children when those very same children would keep viral populations alive and thriving, from whom this disease can continue to perpetuate and evolve as it spreads back into more vulnerable populations. As for risks to the children themselves, while it is rare for a child to die of COVID-19, that that risk is still substantially higher than anything posed by the vaccine, and the risk of hospitalization far higher than that.
Also, I disagree that "there's never ever been a virus that is so gentle on youth while simultaneously being so brutal on the elderly" - youthful populations tend to have far stronger immune responses than the elderly, and that yields a lot of diseases that cause far more harm among the elderly than among youthful populations.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Covid vaccine is unique, stop pooling in anti-all-vaccine people with those skeptical specifically about Covid's origins and the vaccine(s) associated with it.
At once, I understand that there's an important distinction here and I also think this only furthers Ramshutu's point.
You're right that it's a unique circumstance, but not for the origins of SARS-CoV-2. The question of where the virus originated has nothing to do with the method of prevention, and if it is somehow factoring into an individual's decision to get vaccinated, then that's an issue of not being able to compartmentalize these issues appropriately. You can believe that there's something fishy about the origins of the disease and still recognize that it's necessary to prevent it to the best of our ability. The only reasoning I can come up with that shows some cross-pollination between these ideas is that someone believes that the same people who supposedly unleashed the virus on the unsuspecting populace were also involved in developing the vaccine, which seems like flawed logic designed to find distrust in all scientists over a potential failure (I guess you could call it success if they actively tried to do it) of a few.
However, skepticism over the vaccine being put out there with limited testing seemed appropriate to some extent. I can at least understand why there was some hesitancy on the basis that the vaccine was approved via EUA, which did make it distinct from other vaccines. Given that it is also a new type of vaccine, it also has some unique elements in its design. That being said, I think that hesitation comes down to the same exact issues that you would see with other vaccines. You're putting some of them in your response here, including concerns about what else could be in these vaccines and general mistrust of what scientists are producing and encouraging billions of people to use. In that sense, the issues are virtually identical to other vaccines, as they come down to basic trust in the scientists producing them. Particularly when that lack of trust is juxtaposed with a common theme of dismissiveness about the effects of the virus, it's interesting to see what people trust in the face of active outbreaks.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Setting aside the China, Illuminati and "top secret science" stuff, all of which is inherently unverifiable, I'm having a hard time understanding what makes many so nervous about the supposed long-term side-effects. We know how mRNA works. We know how cells process it, we know how long it stays in the body, we know how long its products stay in the body. Those are widely verified with this vaccine. So the question becomes: what could cause long term side effects? I'm honestly at a complete loss to determine what that is.
As for SARS-CoV-2 "alter[ing] us once it's infected, permanently", there is actual evidence that some people have long term harm that results from the virus, so wouldn't that be a reason to get vaccinated? The vaccine doesn't contain the virus, so it can't behave in the same way.
Created:
Posted in:
I'll be entirely reliant on what other people know about this theme. Should be fun.
/in
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Agreed on Naruto.
I’ve got a lot of issues with what motivates Ichigo, but generally agreed on Bleach.
You’re right about what is the ethos of One Piece, you’re wrong that the central crew is motivated by honor. They commit honorable acts, but they’re motivations are usually not honorable. They’re very much individualistic or crew/friends > others. The end result is often good for more than just them, but that doesn’t mean that that was their aim from the start.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Suffice it to say that I've seen a lot of variation, particularly in the quality of fan art, within these series. Each series has their highes and their lows, and I guess which one(s) you jive with are based on what type of animation you appreciate most. I'd say that Bleach was probably the best of these when it was at its best, but I'd also view all 3 as pretty solid series on the whole. I think each has their advantages, but I don't mind if you disagree.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
I was kicking myself 10 minutes later for denying BELOVED PRINCESS. You handed me an excellent claim with some credibility to it that would have assured the lynch. I guess I was distracted by the remarkable coincidences that you could pretty much do get BELOVED PRINCESS out of "Enjoy Branson's Plain Pioneer's syrup plus Vitamin D" but also VIRGIN is sort of the pro-TOWN inverse of BELOVED PRINCESS. Branson's VIRGIN airlines is what I was thinking and Pioneers+syrup +d anagrams to Serpenoid Pyrus. I should played your guess.
Lol, wow. I would probably have sussed you a bit for taking it, but it wouldn't have lasted since just about every behavior I could see was solid town. I agree, would've been a good move, though clearly not taking it paid off since they NK'd you immediately. But man, I never would've gotten that anagram.
Created:
Posted in:
...Alright, so I'm not going to step in the middle of this.
I give Luna props, I did not sus him until pretty late in DP2 and even then he had me second-guessing it. Wasn't until DP3 that POE put him squarely in the crosshairs.
Will say that the actual participation in this game was pretty garbage. I appreciated Oro's participation in DP1 and actually thought that Poly was contributing a good deal by the end, though perhaps that had more to do with being the only active role left beyond Wylted. Wylted did participate a lot, but goddamn man, learn to lay low when appropriate. Actively trying to get yourself lynched after I gave you the Lover town confirmed you and would have fucked over both of us if not for Oro's role.
GP was uninterested and tried to get himself modkilled early on before spending a little time sparring with Luna in DP3. Supa, you can say what you want about why we lynched you, but we waited virtually all day for you to peek in, and with an hour left and no word from you, it was pretty likely that you would be lynched. Don't know what you expected to happen. Bron, you voted for yourself as town. Seriously, why? Evil was clearly being sussed at the same time, you could have pushed the lynch to him if you did more than just ask questions on issues that weren't really pertinent. Just pointing out that he was online and could have claimed was a start, but voting for yourself made it look like you were giving up as scum. It was the nail in the coffin for you, dude. I will say that I appreciated seeing more participation from you in DP2, just wish you'd put it to better use.
And yeah, Evil just generally played this absurdly passively. So many obvious errors, especially with you constantly coming online and not posting anything after saying that you were reading. Honestly, if you were any other player, you would have been a likely lynch in DP1 and an immediate lynch in DP2. It's just because we've gotten so used to second guessing our behavioral reads of you that you survived as long as you did. None of us needed the Cop on you to figure it out by DP3.
Created:
Posted in:
One last note on Luna. He hinted in DP2 that his role gave him some indication that Bron’s didn’t make sense. Whoever survives, press him on that.
Created:
Posted in:
Well, given that Luna's being helpful here, I'm going to go with the group and lynch Evil.
VTL Evil
Given that this may well be my last post, as I suspect I'll be NK'd, I'll just be as clear as I can about my reads.
Wylted is confirmed town. His response to my making him my Lover (yep, that happened) was about as anti-scum as it gets and I have no reason to suspect him. If this is him playing some incredible gambit, then more power to him, but I buy the claim and the result he got on Evil.
I'd put both GP and Poly as strong town-leans. I'll note that both GP and Poly posted about their missing wincons before I said anything about townreading its absence. The fact that there was no RB last night lends credence to Poly being town because he's the only one who could have interfered with it. The Ascetic role doesn't come with any means of verification, but the more the game goes on, the less reason I'm seeing for continuing to sus him, especially after seeing him actually participate in this DP. GP’s intransigence aside, I think he’s still town.
That just leaves Luna, and I think he's most likely scum. Like I said earlier, the only way that no one was RB'd last night is if Poly's Redirect was successful or if scum decided not to use it, and the latter seems incredibly unlikely to me. So, unless I think Poly's pulling an incredible gambit here or that scum just held back knowing that this would happen, neither of which I think are likely, I have to believe that Luna is scum. The only reason I have against that is the Oro lynch, and that could just be a WIFOM situation. He might just have been willing to take the risk if he could sell the narrative, or he might have simply predicted a different role based on Oro's first post.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Yeah, I can hammer. I wanted to find out why you don’t sus Evil, but apparently that’s not happening. I’m also waiting on a claim from Luna, but I guess that’s unnecessary. He can always provide his fake claim the next DP. And, yes, considering that I believe he is scum and he is on the lynch, your POE makes sense.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
If it's hard, that means a mislynch is likely.It's like that in every game.
I'm not understanding this. Are you saying that the increasing difficulty of the lynch is proportional to the increased likelihood of the lynch being correct?
I think it's very clear that Evil is scum. I think it's slightly less clear that Luna is scum. Based on what both Wylted and Poly have said, I believe that lynching Evil will yield a lynch on Luna. That's should be an easy lynch in the next DP. Does that make it less likely to be correct there, but somehow more likely to be correct here?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Why are you opposed to the Evil lynch?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
I'd like to end this DP, but I'd also like your claim before that happens. Currently, you're the only holdout.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
It's pretty clear that the consensus is against Evil. We have Cop results against Evil. POE's against Evil. I'm not sure why you're so dead set on lynching Luna in this DP, but it's going to be hard to get enough people to vote him off the island, and he's pretty clearly the target in the next DP.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Go back and look at Luna's games as town. Every 6th post starting from DP1 and continuing on till his usual early death says EXPLICITLY that he doesn't expect to live and makes his analysis early and often knowing this. Where's a single post like that in this game?This really doesn't smell like a Town Luna.
I don't know why you're telling me this. I already believe Luna is scum, and pointing this out specifically doesn't tell me anything substantial. I have other reasons to sus him that I've already given in this DP.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Why are you deflecting.
...I'm not deflecting. I'm trying to ensure that we can get the votes necessary to lynch both of them, not just one.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Even with the promise that Luna will be the target next DP?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
@Wylted
@Polyglot
At this point, it seems like waiting is pretty pointless. If the only question is whether we're lynching Luna or Evil, I'm good with either one.
Poly and Wylted, you're both clearly on board for the Evil lynch. Would you prefer him first? Would either of you be willing to shift to Luna in this DP?
GP, you're clearly on board for the Luna lynch. Would you be willing to shift to Evil in this DP?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Evilgenius
i just quoted Poly but i was addressing everyone. . . and about me being online, i don’t know if leaving my page open is gonna count me as being online..
What I said was that you didn't address the fact that Wylted Copped you guilty. It doesn't matter if you're addressing everyone in the post, especially if you choose to ignore the most important elements of why we're sussing you. You haven't addressed Wylted's result on you. You haven't addressed basic process of elimination (POE), since you have yet to actually try to explain who among the remaining players is a likely scum pairing. I've done that. Wylted has done that. Poly has done that. Hell, even GP is sussing Luna. Addressing a single source of sussing from Poly doesn't address the multitude of reasons why there's a wagon on you right now.
As for leaving your page open... seriously? It's not like you're continuously online, dude. You appear online and then pop offline. These are things we can see. You could have the page open, but your computer or phone isn't constantly connected to it. Every time you open up the page again, you're reconnecting to it. If you aren't refreshing the page, that's on you, but don't try to tell me that you've just left the page open.
Created:
Posted in:
For some reason, I forgot to mention it entirely, but Evil also hasn't responded to being Copped guilty. Interesting that he chose to put his attention squarely on Poly rather than address the most substantial reason why he's being sussed. Also, he was on 20 minutes ago and, again, didn't post.
Created:
Posted in:
As I see it, at this point, Evil is either scum or he's playing this way worse than he ever has before. I'll note as well that in previous games in which he gained a wagon that was aiming for a lynch, he had given up by now and was just depressed in response to the series of VTLs that were going against him. His attitude is usually more defeatist and pleading. What he's done this time is deflecting. He seems more interested in pushing a narrative on Poly than anything else, and even when it comes to his behavior, he hasn't done much to defend it beyond saying that he's been busy.
I think it's pretty clear, and at this point with GP aiming squarely at Luna for the next DP, we've got a pretty secure pair of lynches in hand. I do think we'd be a bit better off lynching Luna at this stage, given that I suspect him of being the RB and there's some non-zero (read: still low) chance that the NK won't be on Wylted or me in order to make me look sus. In that case, I would prefer having Wylted use his Tracker on me or Evil to double-check. Luna would RB him, Evil couldn't, so much as Evil is more confirmed, I'd say that lynching Luna is the slightly better choice. Nonetheless, if we wish to eliminate Evil here, I won't stand in the way.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Evilgenius
Poly, I see you leading this wagon on me but your reasons are just not solid. I wasn’t participating because I was busy, that alone is no reason for you to put me up on the vote. Wish you had some real solid reasons for my ouster. You led to Bron lynching and now you are gunning for me …
It's not that I don't trust that you were busy, but you were online many times over the course of the DP and did not post, despite acknowledging that there were votes on you. Like I said during that DP, I don't want to sus you over behavioral stuff, but this was beyond what was normal for you, and the delay was particularly notable when all we were seeking was a claim, something that you could have provided (given that you could just copy/paste it) in less time than it took you to post that first response to it. So, yes, that alone is more than good enough reason to vote for you. It was enough that I agonized over voting for Bron when I scumread him (wrong as that was, though I'll note that Poly was not on that wagon, so blaming him for the Bron lynch is inaccurate). It's also not the only reason why people are voting for you. Basic POE tells us that you're on a scum team, so the only real question is who is your partner. I suspect we've already answered that as well.
Also, word to the wise: you claimed a PR, you know you're sus, but you haven't said who you Strengthened during NP2. I'm quite certain that I'll get a response from Luna to my post involving your Strengthener potentially playing a role in how the NP went down. That will be too little too late at this point, despite being a decent explanation for why both Wylted's and Poly's actions went through. If you had played that substantial a role, you would have made that clear by now. Your silence on the issue doesn't help your case.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
@Polyglot
Polyglot - Subterra Centipoid - You are encountered various times by the Bakugan Battle Brawlers throughout the show. As Jewels’ and Akira’s main Bakugan, your ability Attractor allows you to transport an ally to battle with you even if they are on another Gate Card. You are the 2x Redirector. Each night you may choose two players. All actions performed by the first player will be redirected to the second.Here is my role. Last night I redirected Lunatic’s actions onto Evil. And since my ability is only 2 times I’m basically vanilla at this point.I’m pretty sure Evil and Lunatic are the scum team.
Alright, this is pretty important.
We know that neither you nor Wylted were RB'd. We know that Wylted was RB'd during NP1.
Wylted, while you might think that your tactic of declaring that your Watcher was suddenly gone convinced scum that you weren't an appetizing target for an RB, I know that you were the obvious target for an RB during NP2. A role that erases other roles doesn't exist, and I can say for sure that both Luna and I (at least us, Poly and GP may have as well) noticed that your claim to not have a role any longer was BS. You would have been the target of the RB. Even if you weren't, I'm not 100% on this, but it's entirely possible that the Redirect takes precedence over the RB (Poly, you can ask Pie about that if you want, though it's not crucial).
However, it really doesn't matter who was targeted. Scum would have used their RB. They wouldn't have RB'd GP or me because they knew we didn't have a PR. They would have RB'd one of you two, and they didn't. Even if I assume that Poly is lying, the lack of an RB'd role in this NP is glaring since we know that Wylted was RB'd previously. It makes much more sense if Poly is telling the truth and his Redirect is the reason why there was no RB during NP2.
Which means that Luna is confirmed scum and has the RB.
All that being said, it really doesn't matter who we target for the lynch. Poly used his second shot and Wylted or I will be the target of the NK tonight, so an RB is functionally useless at this point. The only thing I'll say is that, if we somehow survive this NP, don't buy into Wylted's view that this somehow confirms me as scum. That is still a game ending decision that will cost town dearly.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polyglot
redirect whiteflame to me, or luna to himself tonight.
I don't know why Wylted thinks these are the choices. It's absolutely clear that he and I are going to die during NP3 unless something is done to prevent it. If you're going to Redirect, your only choice is Luna, and since everyone else is town, you don't have any good options. I don't think Luna can NK himself, but maybe I'm wrong.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
Also, I still think there’s value in a full claim from Poly and Luna. Not sure why you don’t.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I agree that Luna is almost certainly the other scum at this point, but given the Cop result and what we already suspected about Evil, I’d say he’s the better choice.
That being said, you’ll be in the driver’s seat next DP with Poly, so feel free to act on your intuition then.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
Me and whiteflame are also lovers (I have dreamed about this for a while ;))
...Not really sure why you'd decide to out this. Don't get me wrong, at this point, I'd be shocked if no one else had figured it out. The fact that Luna hasn't discussed it much is part of the reason I'm leaning towards him as the second scum. That being said, you do know that saying this means that you and I are dead tonight, right? Like, I get that part of your idea here was to determine between me and Luna, but I can't recall ever seeing a scum Lover.
Anyway, since the cat's out of the bag, I'm just going to full claim.
Whiteflame - Haos Saurus - As a humanoid dinosaur, you are one of Runo’s most used Bakugan (one that actually talks), you act alongside Tigrerra to defeat powerful enemies and at one point even get replaced by her in battle to defeat an enemy. You are the Lover. At the end of DP1, you must select another player to love, thus connecting your life with them and vice versa. They will be notified that their life is intertwined with that of your character.
Created:
Posted in:
POE leaves us with 3.
Can’t be Wylted
I still think GP is as close to confirmed town as anyone else gets
So the rest of the pool is Luna, Evil and Poly. There are two scum in there. Based on Luna’s sussing of Poly, I’m inclined to believe that only one of them is scum. That being said, I wouldn’t put it past Luna to sus his scum partner. It stood out that Poly did not respond to what was Luna was saying about him, though admittedly, Poly didn’t post at all towards the end of the DP.
Long story short, I woke up sold on the Evil lynch, still leaning that way but not sold yet. I straight up don’t buy his claim, and yes, his behavior looks bad. The fact that he claimed to choose Luna looked pretty safe to me, though Luna’s response seemed natural.
That being said, neither Poly nor Luna have given full claims, and yes guys, this is the DP to post them. Unless someone has really good reason to see mine, I’ll refrain from posting it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drlebronski
just get it over withvtl meee
You admitting you're scum?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
Just so we don't keep digging down into this, I'll just say that I'm willing to consider him in future lynches. I don't think I would do so for this DP, but I think a lynch on Bron would be telling.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
I mean if he roleblocked him and knew he was roleblocked he could knowingly say he used his action however he wants since there is no way for the action to be proven or disproven. Wylted claimed he was a watcher in post 27 before poly even claimed redirector in post 56
I mean, it's entirely possible that he was the one who RB'd Wylted, since he claimed that he targeted him and, given the Watcher role, was aware that it was possible for him to be tracked. However, that would move away from the explanation that he just straight up claimed the scum role he was given. What's bugging me isn't so much the timing of his post, though I can see how that's odd, but rather that he spent so long under the impression that Wylted's Watcher had gone through. Maybe this is a somewhat subtle play to make him look like he didn't know what was going on, but I don't see a scum Poly being as effective at deception.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
I do not. I don't know if one of the 3 or r people who visited me have a hidden mechanic or what. This is not a trick, you won't see me coming back with watcher results next dp or anything like that. The watcher role is gone.
I have no clue what that would be, but fine. I don't know what reason you would have to lie.
Created:
Posted in:
Why don't you see poly doing that? I mean scum roles can be town roles, it happens all the time. But I can see how rather than trying to come up with a fake claim and be potentially counter claimed someone like poly might just use their real role since it is technically verifiable. The only time poly has been scum to my knowledge was the game he played with me, and he wasn't particularly active and trying to mastermind plans or anything. While he is technically a vet, I think I would still put him among the lower eschalon of current players (no offense to him of course, I am basing that mostly on the effort he puts in the game).
I guess you could call it a hunch based on what I've seen him do before. If we're assuming that scum got full claims with associated justifications, I guess I could see him just being lazy and full-claiming the whole thing. Here's what's bugging me about it, though: he was under the misapprehension from early on, even after Wylted said that his role failed, that Wylted had Watched Bron. As scum, you would think that he'd know that Wylted was RB'd and just acknowledge that the attempt to use the role failed. I have a hard time believing that he would keep pushing the narrative that it went through and Wylted just didn't understand the response he got from Pie.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
I used to have a watcher role so dr lebronsky does make town over powered.
Alright, this is frustrating me like crazy. Wylted, could you just ask Pie if you still have the Watcher role or not?
Created: