Boyfriend announced he’s an anti vaxxer

[Gonnagetgoing]

So been seeing someone since November and he dropped the bombshell that he’s an anti vaxxer.

I’ve had both vaccines plus booster as it’s the right thing to do.

Are we doomed or should I get over this?

I couldn't date anyone that dumb.

Theoretically no, not an issue for me. If someone doesn't want to get vaccinated then fair enough.

However if he has made this decision based on nonsense (rather than personal reasons like a phobia), I would really struggle.

And if he's already parotting "my research scientist friend says vaccines take ten years to be developed, this took one" from social media, then it shows a real lack of critical thinking that I wouldn't be able to respect.

As an aside, absolutely despairing that posters are still repeating those old claims of "but mean age of COVID death is 79", and pretending the Great Barrington Declaration was a viable strategy when it has categorically been proved to not be feasible. We need better science education.

@leafyygreens

Theoretically no, not an issue for me. If someone doesn't want to get vaccinated then fair enough.

However if he has made this decision based on nonsense (rather than personal reasons like a phobia), I would really struggle.

And if he's already parotting "my research scientist friend says vaccines take ten years to be developed, this took one" from social media, then it shows a real lack of critical thinking that I wouldn't be able to respect.

As an aside, absolutely despairing that posters are still repeating those old claims of "but mean age of COVID death is 79", and pretending the Great Barrington Declaration was a viable strategy when it has categorically been proved to not be feasible. We need better science education.

The authors of The Great Barrington Declaration probably have significantly more scientific education than you. Although l suspect that to you, "scientific education" equates to ability to read the Guardian and repeat what an equally ill-qualified journalist has to say about it. You're not "scientifically educated" because you have the ability to repeat a narrative about science.

Do you claim that the mean age statistics for covid are false? If you believe the government is producing false statistics on covid deaths, why would you believe them on anything else to do with it?

If you're disputing my interpretation of it - which is that the mean age of death is very high, please explain.

@Yeahthat

That's an oddly aggressive and defensive reply @yeahthat

I'm in a pretty resonable position to evaluate scienctific evidence, being a research scientist, but it's all moot at this point because the assumptions the GBD declaration were made on turned out to be incorrect.

Their policy recommendations were based on ideas including one infection would result in immunity (so people wouldn't be reinfected again) and the mutation rate would be relatively slow. This turned out not to be the case.

Added to this was the fact that it's not possible to shield the CEV - they make up a sizeable portion of a population who we rely on (not just the retired and people who don't work), and that it was very clear that cases would overwhelm healthcare, resulting in significant non-COVID deaths - i.e., you need emergency surgery but there's no aneasthetists or ICU beds.

It's strange, based on events that actually happened, that you're acting as if it was a possible strategy.

Do you claim that the mean age statistics for covid are false? If you believe the government is producing false statistics on covid deaths, why would you believe them on anything else to do with it? If you're disputing my interpretation of it - which is that the mean age of death is very high, please explain.

I see you've ignored every reply to this (and probably all those you got in the last two years), so this is probably in vain.

But yes, mean age of death is high, no one is debating this fact or saying government statistics are incorrect. It is regularly been used to minimise or deny the impact of COVID, as you are.

This is a type of average. It does not mean that people who get COVID are living longer (as Dominic Cummings famously claimed). People in their teens to sixties still die of COVID, but the average is brought up because the majority are elderly.

Added to this - we know the death is not the only problematic outcome of coronavirus infection. We know that measures needed to be taking to reduce transmission other wise people else healthcare would be saturated with COVID positive patients. We know that even if people don't die, they require significant time in hospital, long term treatment, have preventable disability.

I just think it's crazy this is still needing to be explained.

[quote leafyygreens]@Yeahthat

That's an oddly aggressive and defensive reply @yeahthat

I'm in a pretty resonable position to evaluate scienctific evidence, being a research scientist, but it's all moot at this point because the assumptions the GBD declaration were made on turned out to be incorrect.

Their policy recommendations were based on ideas including one infection would result in immunity (so people wouldn't be reinfected again) and the mutation rate would be relatively slow. This turned out not to be the case.

Added to this was the fact that it's not possible to shield the CEV - they make up a sizeable portion of a population who we rely on (not just the retired and people who don't work), and that it was very clear that cases would overwhelm healthcare, resulting in significant non-COVID deaths - i.e., you need emergency surgery but there's no aneasthetists or ICU beds.

It's strange, based on events that actually happened, that you're acting as if it was a possible strategy.

Do you claim that the mean age statistics for covid are false? If you believe the government is producing false statistics on covid deaths, why would you believe them on anything else to do with it? If you're disputing my interpretation of it - which is that the mean age of death is very high, please explain.

I see you've ignored every reply to this (and probably all those you got in the last two years), so this is probably in vain.

But yes, mean age of death is high, no one is debating this fact or saying government statistics are incorrect. It is regularly been used to minimise or deny the impact of COVID, as you are.

This is a type of average. It does not mean that people who get COVID are living longer (as Dominic Cummings famously claimed). People in their teens to sixties still die of COVID, but the average is brought up because the majority are elderly.

Added to this - we know the death is not the only problematic outcome of coronavirus infection. We know that measures needed to be taking to reduce transmission other wise people else healthcare would be saturated with COVID positive patients. We know that even if people don't die, they require significant time in hospital, long term treatment, have preventable disability.

I just think it's crazy this is still needing to be explained.[/quote]
Right - so you're in the same position as the authors of The Great Barrington Declaration. However those particular ones are fools, but this one on the internet is the definitive authority.

I'm not sure why you bring up Dominic Cumming's claim? - I wasn't aware nor care what he had to say about it. Should every statistic now be accompanied by Dominic Cumming's analysis of it?

Neither did I say that death is the only outcome of covid.

I gave one statistic and made a very specific claim about it - that the mean age of death from it is very high.
I didn't claim that to be an exhaustive summation of every possible outcome from covid.

I do however believe that it illustrates the fact that most people have very little to worry about. I would have preferred for us to follow a strategy more akin to Sweden's.

The UK is not a technocracy - the role of our elected representatives in government during the pandemic was to balance many factors and make decisions on balance.

As for the rest of your claims; "this is clear" / "that's impossible" / "that's wrong" etc - they're very specific claims which I'd have to look into in more detail than I can be bothered doing before replying to.

Right - so you're in the same position as the authors of The Great Barrington Declaration.

I don't understand your post @Yeahthat

The GBD was based on assumptions about coronavirus that turned out to be incorrect - this has been explained to you many times.

Because of this, sticking to their policy recommendations did not make sense.

As for the rest of your claims.. "that's impossible" / "that's wrong" etc -

Eh? My post didn't contain either of the phrases. Weird thing to lie about.

It seems to be a tactic used in these kind of debates when someone doesn't have reasonable argument, so makes things up and attempts to use it as a personal attack.

As for my statement "it's clear that cases would have overwhelmed healthcare" without some kind of mititgation measure - this is a fact which is why I used the word clear. It is an evidence based statement that can be proven by looking at data from Spring 2020.

@leafyygreens

Ok, you used the phrase, "It's not possible" rather than "impossible".

Well done, a true intellectual evisceration. I lied by misquoting "impossible" rather than "not possible" .

Everything else - what you believe can be inferred from specific data etc - I'll say again, I'd have to look at in detail before replying to. That's far more effort than I can be bothered to expend debating with you.

They're very specific claims regarding your interpretation of often unspecified data.

I also find it bizarre that a scientist would claim that their interpretation or theory has now become "fact"?

Since facts are merely constructed together to make a theory which is subject to revision. A simple example would be, the data which you use (Spring 2020) could subsequently be shown to be wrong.

I also find it bizarre that a scientist would claim that their interpretation or theory has now become "fact"?

I don't how many more times it can be said - the GBD was based on assumptions that turned out to not be true. Therefore, the policy recommendations did not make sense in the context of this.

Yes, it is a fact that infection does not result in immunity in the way same it does for chickenpox, that reinfection is common within specific timescales, and that the mutation rate is not slow, hence all the new variants we have.

These are facts.

Since facts are merely constructed together to make a theory which is subject to revision. A simple example would be, the data which you use (Spring 2020) could subsequently be shown to be wrong.

Again, this makes no sense - I genuinely don't understand what you're trying to say.

We have factual evidence that healthcare would have been saturated with COVID+ positive patients in Spring 2020, had no mitigations been put in place.

These are things that happened, I find it so strange that you are attempting to state actual documented facts regarding coronavirus are not true

@leafyygreens

Your theory is that healthcare would have been swamped.

If the data that this theory is based on were subsequently shown to be incorrect, your theory would be discredited.

One possible example - as I gave above - is that data from Spring 2020 is subsequently shown to be incorrect or falsely reported.

Please revise the difference between theory and fact.

[quote Yeahthat]@leafyygreens

Your theory is that healthcare would have been swamped.

If the data that this theory is based on were subsequently shown to be incorrect, your theory would be discredited.

One possible example - as I gave above - is that data from Spring 2020 is subsequently shown to be incorrect or falsely reported.

Please revise the difference between theory and fact.[/quote]
It is not a theory @Yeahthat

is that data from Spring 2020 is subsequently shown to be incorrect or falsely reported.

You are suggesting a national conspiracy, wherby all HCPs, researchers, statisticians, members of ONS etc, have agreed to lie.

We have data from multiple, independent sources that demonstrate trajectories of cases, and how hospitals & other settings were coping.

Your posts about this are just bonkers.

@leafyygreens

I'm doing nothing of the sort, but the fact that you're accusing me of it seems rather desperate.

You still seem to be struggling with understanding the difference between theory and fact.

Strange for a "research scientist" (as you claim to be).

A theory is always subject to revision. You have interpreted specific data and came up with a theory about what would have happened to the health service if something didn't happen.

Again - revise the basics of what constitutes fact and what constitutes theory.

Until you're able to conceptualise that, I don't see the point in continuing this conversation.

@leafyygreens

Essentially what you're saying (don't take this as a quote!) is that your assumptions about what would have happened if x hadn't been done is based on government statistics, therefore can't be wrong, and you can state that it's fact.

I'm sorry, but that's not how facts work.

[quote Yeahthat]@leafyygreens

Essentially what you're saying (don't take this as a quote!) is that your assumptions about what would have happened if x hadn't been done is based on government statistics, therefore can't be wrong, and you can state that it's fact.

I'm sorry, but that's not how facts work.[/quote]
Nope, as I have said, multiple, independent sources have confirmed this - not just government data. This is not theory, it is fact.

We know that healthcare was very close to saturation in many locations, and that others were saturated. We have good data on the trajectory of cases. I just don't understand how you can possibly be debating this.

If you're not suggesting a national conspiracy by which every research group, scientist, HCP etc decided to lie, and actually cases levels were not problematic and healthcare doing just fine, then I'm not sure what you are saying.

You are crying out that black is white on this one.

Something that posters can't seem to answer on this one - Boris Johnson and the Tory government were loathe to apply any kind of mitigation measure in Spring 2020 (and ever since).

I have no idea why they would participate in a national conspiracy to apply measures that were not necessary, because cases weren't problematic, and I'm guessing you don't either @yeahthat

@leafyygreens

My point is that you seemed to be conflating fact and theory, therefore I wanted to clarify that before continuing any discussion with you. You still don't seem to get that.

It's unlikely that the data was false or incorrectly reported.
Nevertheless, that does not mean that your interpretation based on that data becomes fact, ie it's unlikely but not impossible that the data is subsequently shown to be wrong (I'm sure you'd have no problem admitting this were we talking about another country); or for example, it may be the case that other mitigation measures were possible and would have emerged etc. These are examples, don't take them as an exhaustive list of all possibilities.

You offered an interpretation of the data and your assumptions based on that; the reason we started debating fact vs theory is because I pointed that your assumptions are not fact, and one possible (hypothetical) scenario was the data being shown to be incorrect.

I didn't say that this is the case, nor suggest a vast conspiracy. I told you that the assumptions you form based on data are not facts.

An example: the data used for the influential Growth in A Time of Debt paper which the IMF and others cited in justifying austerity measures was subsequently shown to be erroneous.

Theories are always subject to revision.

An example: the data used for the influential Growth in A Time of Debt paper which the IMF and others cited in justifying austerity measures was subsequently shown to be erroneous.

This is why you do not rely on one data source to make importnat policy decisions.

It was clear from data from multiple, indepedent sources that coroanvirus cases were going to breach safe levels in Spring 2020 and that some degree of mitigation was needed - not just from a single source, as I have said, multiple times

My point is that you seemed to be conflating fact and theory, therefore I wanted to clarify that before continuing any discussion with you. You still don't seem to get that.

No - I have given you facts. These are not theories.

I keep repeating that the assumptions the GBD were made on were proven to be incorrect, but it's not going anyway. You seem to ignore anything you don't want to reply to.

@leafyygreens

I haven't disputed every point you've made because I don't disagree with every point you made.

I recognise that the GBD has been discredited. What I didn't like were the ad hominem attacks on the scientists themselves (which started prior to it actually being discredited). Particularly by hypocrites who simultaneously sought to elevate the conclusions of other, preferred, scientists to the level of dogma.

I can't stand the conceit of many people who criticise others for displaying any form of scepticism of anything covid-related as, "thick" or "uneducated", when the reality is that their own level of scientific education and knowledge doesn't extend beyond the ability to repeat a media narrative about science. They're in the same boat, but one believes they're superior to the other simply because they don't have the inclination to ask questions first. These vaccines were developed by people who required decades of knowledge and learning to be able to do so; if the average person is honest with themselves, they have nothing more than a most rudimentary understanding of what's involved. They are therefore putting their faith in (however knowledgeable, still fallible) experts. If someone shows a greater degree of hesitancy to do so, that doesn't necessarily make them thick.

Alternatively, as I put it to someone above, what if the OP's partner were young, generally healthy, and had acquired immunity due to exposure to covid? In that case his decision not to get vaccinated could be seen as entirely rational. People are very quick to condemn someone simply for contradicting a narrative.

I'm not saying that all/any of the above applies to you, but this is what I've argued against and why I found some of the assumptions made on this thread to be incredibly arrogant. And I'm vaccinated; it's not personally insulting to me. What I hate is the climate that's developed around this issue where some people, without any further context to what the OP said, feel qualified to personally attack the person in question.

I recognise that the GBD has been discredited. What I didn't like were the ad hominem attacks on the scientists themselves (which started prior to it actually being discredited). Particularly by hypocrites who simultaneously sought to elevate the conclusions of other, preferred, scientists to the level of dogma.

Yup, this why I very carefully explained the specific evidence that has discredited the statements made in the GBD, and rendered it inviable.This has nothing to do with the scientists themselves and it isn't an "ad hominen" attack.

I am not sure of the relevance of the rest of your post - someone deciding not to be vaccinated is a totally seperate point from the fact that you keep posting things about coronavirus that are not true.

As always, no one can make an informed choice regarding vaccination if they are being coerced by misinformation regarding coronavirus (i.e., the constant minimising), or vaccine safety/efficacy. This is why I find it so frustrating when it's all over various threads.

@leafyygreens

The relevance is to the original question and the responses to it.

Not sure what the, "constant minimising" refers to, unless you mean stating that the mean age of death is very high. Most people aren't worrying and have little to worry about. People can draw their own conclusions, I did, opted to get vaccinated but will not be getting further boosters. When people draw a conclusion that you don't like - crazy idea here - it doesn't mean that they're stupid, a victim of coercion etc.

We're going round in circles now in an ultimately fruitless debate, even more so as restrictions are now ending and it's likely that further rounds of booster vaccines will be limited to the most vulnerable.

@leafyygreens

Also what in particular have I posted about covid that isn't true?

It is true that the mean age of death is very high. You may not like the conclusions that people draw from that, but unless you want to dispute the statistics themselves - and therefore contradict your own previous argument - then you can't argue against that.

I have also told you that theories are not facts. That's a general point unrelated to covid.

Apart from the one specific statistic on deaths, I've made no other claims about covid itself.

My own subjective opinion that most people have little to worry about, and don't worry is just that.

You 2 still at it

The authors of The Great Barrington Declaration probably have significantly more scientific education than you.

Reply:

I'm in a pretty resonable position to evaluate scienctific evidence, being a research scientist

The end!

@milkyaqua

The authors of The Great Barrington Declaration probably have significantly more scientific education than you.

Reply:

I'm in a pretty resonable position to evaluate scienctific evidence, being a research scientist

The end!

The authors are similarly credentialed. Your point?

If we assume that this claim is true - and of course, no one ever lies on the internet - then I made an incorrect assumption about the PP's scientific credentials. Big deal.

I wasn't even advocating the Great Barrington Declaration.

My point was towards the numerous conceited individuals in this thread who have suggested that the authors aren't credible. Their critics are themselves generally wholly unqualified to question them, if that's what we're going off.

Oh, you put "The end". Sorry if I'd seen that I wouldn't have replied. We all know that this, along with END OF means that the author wins any debate

END OF