Coronavirus - potential Black Swan?

[Dr Doom]

25 minutes ago, FallingAwake said:

What's going on in Japan with Moderna? That's the FOURTH now...

Japan finds another Moderna vial suspected to contain foreign substance
https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/japan-finds-another-moderna-vial-suspected-contain-foreign-substance-2021-09-01/

TOKYO, Sept 1 (Reuters) - Japan reported a fresh contamination case involving Moderna's (MRNA.O) COVID-19 vaccine, the fourth such incident in less than a week, threatening to slow the country's sputtering inoculation campaign.

https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/japan-withdraws-16-million-moderna-doses-over-contaminant-reacts-magnets

I thought the vaccines were meant to include graphene oxide. It's just part of the secret recipe. 

[Dr Doom]

6 minutes ago, anonguest said:

The only way I can envisage lockdowns ever returning is if (when?) we ever face a genuinely dangerous pathogen, that has a mortality rate that is genuinely socially destructive (i.e. is high enough and kills indicriminately across the board rather than a minority demographic). 

What I'm hearing is that if ADE kicks in a massive way over the next few months amongst the vaccinated, it will be blamed on a new strain, which will in turn be blamed on the unvaccinated. Which will make things a bit interesting to say the least. 

[anonguest]

8 minutes ago, Dr Doom said:

What I'm hearing is that if ADE kicks in a massive way over the next few months amongst the vaccinated, it will be blamed on a new strain, which will in turn be blamed on the unvaccinated. Which will make things a bit interesting to say the least. 

IF such a thing happened, and that was what the science said was responsible, for sure you can bet that all the 'follow the science' guff will be completely ignored and forgotten.  The minority will be persecuted.  The majority and TPTB won't want to accept that they made a 'mistake'.  That will just be human nature and history repeating.  That plus the fact that nobody likes a smart ar*e!

Edited September 1, 2021 by anonguest

[anonguest]

Here's another bubble of fear that looks like getting popped.   Once again it seems that cooler, calmer heads will prevail.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-58410584

"The risk of "long Covid" in children is much lower than many had feared, leading child health experts have said."

Edited September 1, 2021 by anonguest

[scottbeard]

5 hours ago, anonguest said:

It's NOT morally more complex. You either accept the notion/concept that the young have greater 'value' to society, and the progress, development and advancement of society, than the elderly do OR you don't. It's that simple. 

AND IF you accept the former, which I do, then that means that there will inevitably be some times when the 'price' will be higher and/or harder to bear to adhere to that. But it's still a price worth paying.

It's not simple, that's the point.

EVERYONE thinks that the young have more value to society than the old than the elderly, me included.  

No-one would sacrifice a 10 year old to save one single 80 year old.

But are you truly saying such is that value of youth over the elderly you would literally sacrifice EVERY living 80+ year old on Earth today to save one child?  If not then it follows there must be a figure somewhere between 2 and 200 million at which you go "actually, at this point the total value to society of those old people is worth that sacrifice".

If you truly would sacrifice hundreds of millions of pensioners just to save one child then, well OK: I think that's mad and I won't continue this conversation. 

[Again - this is all a thought experiment and NOT what is happening with COVID vaccines]

[anonguest]

32 minutes ago, scottbeard said:

It's not simple, that's the point.

EVERYONE thinks that the young have more value to society than the old than the elderly, me included.  

No-one would sacrifice a 10 year old to save one single 80 year old.

You'd be surprised then at just how selfish some people can be!

32 minutes ago, scottbeard said:

But are you truly saying such is that value of youth over the elderly you would literally sacrifice EVERY living 80+ year old on Earth today to save one child? 

I wouldn't.  Nature and circumstances would!

BUT that doesn't mean I would make no effort to save all those 80+ year olds. On the contrary I would 'fight' for those 80+ year olds so long as the resources expended do not endanger the welfare and prospects of the children saved first.  And it does not mean I would not be saddened at the losses of said 80+ year olds any less than the next person.

In such a truly extreme hypothetical scenario there would be for sure many people lost who would have made great 'contributions' to the world in the time they have been around - whether its a Nobel prize winner or someone who kept the streets clean all their life.  But the operative words are 'have made'

32 minutes ago, scottbeard said:

If you truly would sacrifice hundreds of millions of pensioners just to save one child then, well OK: I think that's mad and I won't continue this conversation. 

It only seems mad to someone whose moral framework is able to rationalise the sacrifice of children over 80 year olds.

You cannot say that "I too would also prioritise children over elderly BUT.....".  You either prioritise or you don't.

IF there is a global famine and not enough food to feed everyone. You wouldn't say let's make sure the children get first dibs on the food BUT.....we can't let ALL the old people die?  WE 'have to' let some of the old live? So....some kids we'll have to pass over".   OR, would you really?

AND if so, WHY must we?

 

32 minutes ago, scottbeard said:

[Again - this is all a thought experiment and NOT what is happening with COVID vaccines]

Not yet. Thankfully. 

Edited September 1, 2021 by anonguest

[scottbeard]

3 minutes ago, anonguest said:

It only seems mad to someone whose morals rationalise the sacrifice of children over 80 year olds.

You cannot say that "I too would also prioritise children over elderly BUT.....".  You either prioritise or you don't.

I'm finding this conversation difficult, I admit because it goes like this:

scottbeard:  If could only save 1 child or lots of old people, who would you save?

anonguest:  I'd save the child first and then as many of the old people as I could.

scottbeard:  Yes but if you could only save either the 1 child or the old people, who would you save?

anonguest:  I'd save the child first and then as many of the old people as I could.

scottbeard:  Yes but what if it was just one or the other?  Would you really let all the old people die.

anonguest:  I'd save the child first and then as many of the old people as I could.

You're never really getting to the point of what I'm asking.  I think there's no point me adding another iteration now.

[scottbeard]

7 minutes ago, anonguest said:

IF there is a global famine and not enough food to feed everyone. You wouldn't say let's make sure the children get first dibs on the food BUT.....we can't let ALL the old people die?  WE 'have to' let some of the old live? So....some kids we'll have to pass over".   OR, would you really?

AND if so, WHY must we?

Again you just create more and more situations that aren't analgous, because ONCE AGAIN  you have created a situation where the problem (no food) affects young and old equally.  Just like your lifeboat.  Just like all your other scenarios.

In those scenarios you hand out whatever it is to children first, I agree.

Even if it's unequal ie the children are smaller so they only need less food than the adults the ration is still going to be something like 3:1 and there's no way I would let a child die to save 3 old people.  But my point that you keep ignoring is that as that ratio rises I think there should be a point at which you do let the child die.  If I were PM and someone said to me "scottbeard - you must press one of these two buttons: the red button will kill one child in the world at random, the blue button will kill 1 million old people at random." then I think I would press the blue button.  I think you would press the red one?

[scottbeard]

Sorry in that last point I got it the wrong way around and HPC wont let me edit posts:

Even if it's unequal ie the children are smaller so they only need less food than the adults the ration is still going to be something like 3:1 and there's no way I would let a child die to save 3 old people.  But my point that you keep ignoring is that as that ratio rises I think there should be a point at which you do let the child die.  If I were PM and someone said to me "scottbeard - you must press one of these two buttons: the red button will kill one child in the world at random, the blue button will kill 1 million old people at random." then I think @anonguest would press the blue button.  I think I would press the red one.  

But it's not an easy choice, and I feel very uncomfortable both ways around.

[anonguest]

12 minutes ago, scottbeard said:

Sorry in that last point I got it the wrong way around and HPC wont let me edit posts:

Even if it's unequal ie the children are smaller so they only need less food than the adults the ration is still going to be something like 3:1 and there's no way I would let a child die to save 3 old people.  But my point that you keep ignoring is that as that ratio rises I think there should be a point at which you do let the child die.  If I were PM and someone said to me "scottbeard - you must press one of these two buttons: the red button will kill one child in the world at random, the blue button will kill 1 million old people at random." then I think @anonguest would press the blue button.  I think I would press the red one.  

But it's not an easy choice, and I feel very uncomfortable both ways around.

No. It's an easy choice. 

But yes, it would very uncomfortable to say the least.  You wouldn't be normal if you didn't.

[Dr Doom]

Seems like a bit of a false analogy really given there's no solid evidence that vaccinating children is going to stop old people (or any people) from dying. A better analogy would be killing random children for no reason, which I guess you'd be in favour of. 

[anonguest]

26 minutes ago, scottbeard said:

I'm finding this conversation difficult, I admit because it goes like this:

scottbeard:  If could only save 1 child or lots of old people, who would you save?

anonguest:  I'd save the child first and then as many of the old people as I could.

scottbeard:  Yes but if you could only save either the 1 child or the old people, who would you save?

anonguest:  I'd save the child first and then as many of the old people as I could.

scottbeard:  Yes but what if it was just one or the other?  Would you really let all the old people die.

anonguest:  I'd save the child first and then as many of the old people as I could.

You're never really getting to the point of what I'm asking.  I think there's no point me adding another iteration now.

I am getting to the point. And have answered it perfectly well.  And I will wager most reader here will agree that I have answered you clearly (even if they too disagree with my stance)

 I submit that the reason you are, quite understandably, finding it difficult (as it would most others I guess) is that (a) we are not used to discussing/contemplating such awful scenarios, and (b) the thought of so many dead/lost takes us out of our 'comfort zone'.  But the fact that something is awful does not make it bad (e.g. letting elderly die over the young)

We can do this endlessly but the result is still the same.

As soon as you permit a 'BUT' and entertain the notion of 'there must be some limit', or such like,to how many elderly you can 'let die' you implicitly accept you will be killing a child in their place.

 

Edited September 1, 2021 by anonguest

[Dr Doom]

I'd be more comfortable if they round up the older non vaccine takers first and force them to take the vaccine.

Still not ideal, either way when people start dying it will be the non vaccinated that get blamed. So predictable. 

[anonguest]

20 minutes ago, scottbeard said:

Again you just create more and more situations that aren't analgous, because ONCE AGAIN  you have created a situation where the problem (no food) affects young and old equally.  Just like your lifeboat.  Just like all your other scenarios.

 

The fact that the risks are the same to both young and old, in the examples given, is irrelevant - to the moral principle being advocated.

Edited September 1, 2021 by anonguest

[Will!]

1 hour ago, Dr Doom said:

What I'm hearing is that if ADE kicks in a massive way over the next few months amongst the vaccinated, it will be blamed on a new strain, which will in turn be blamed on the unvaccinated. Which will make things a bit interesting to say the least. 

From the voices in your head?

With 78.9% of the percentage of population aged 16+ having had two doses of the vaccine and over 25k cases a day there's no sign of ADE.

Edited September 1, 2021 by Will!

[Dr Doom]

4 minutes ago, Will! said:

From the voices in your head?

Dr. Robert Malone the creator of the mRNA technology behind the COVID vaccines has warned of ADE. 

[Dr Doom]

 

[Dr Doom]

7 minutes ago, Will! said:

With 78.9% of the percentage of population aged 16+ having had two doses of the vaccine and over 25k cases a day there's no sign of ADE.

Give it time. 

[Dr Doom]

16-19 year olds 1/6000 are developing myocarditis 

how anyone can continue to defend this is really beyond me

[anonguest]

5 minutes ago, Dr Doom said:

16-19 year olds 1/6000 are developing myocarditis 

how anyone can continue to defend this is really beyond me

You mean these kind of people?

At least Isaac didn't have to worry about going to school.

Edited September 1, 2021 by anonguest

[Bruce Banner]

Has anyone thought of asking the elderly if they want their lives to be prioritised over those of their grandchildren?

[FallingAwake]

48 minutes ago, Dr Doom said:

 

Good video. Pretty terrifying statistics. Everybody should watch this.

[pig]

8 hours ago, scottbeard said:

I don't think you're really reading what I said.  Obviously one 10 year old's life is worth more than 10 80 year olds.  But what I said was:

"Now I think most of us would still say that the ten 80 year olds have already had a good innings, and the QUALITY of that remaining lifetime may not be all that good.  However, once you start talking about 100, 1,000 or 10,000 80 year olds it becomes far less clear cut."

It's not clear to me that one 10 year old will contribute more on average to society than 10,000 80 year olds, say.

Agreed.  I don't think that we should be shutting students and schoolchildren out of their universities and schools.  That has been and continues to be a mistake.

Thats an interesting thought experiment. I'm curious - what are the thoughts it elicits ?

Decisions do have to be made - NICE operates in this difficult field for example. On the other hand intuitively I sense a descent into barbarity

Perhaps the problem is you can only go so far with this 'atomic' understanding of human beings. Its a bit like claiming music does not matter, only the notes and this note is more important than those notes lol.

If you allow 10,000 people to die then you're harming the very thing that enables you to try to humanely weigh up priorities in the first place. Telling the child its more important than 10,000 other people would be harmful In itself. 

Maybe this is why the saying about the true measure of society is how it treats its weakest members.

 

[Confusion of VIs]

5 hours ago, Glenn said:

My little brain is struggling with this one.

If they are giving 16/17 year olds one shot, then why not give them both. If the risks are they could have an adverse reaction to the vaccine then wouldn't most get it at the point of the having the first jab anyway? 

One jab doesn't offer a massive amount of protection on its own if I recall, you need two jabs for the 90% protection or whatever it was initially, before it starts sliding away after 6 months. 

Given how this age group are at near zero risk from covid, if they are at all unsure I would have thought it would have been better not to vaccinate them at all, rather than do half a job then wait and see. 

Or is it just that there aren't enough vaccines for them all at the moment if they have to start giving out a new round of boosters soon?

My understanding is that the early data for the younger group indicated that reactions are several times more likely after the second dose than the first. I have no idea what the data shows about the protection they receive from the first dose.  

The younger groups are not at near zero risk from Covid, they are at a near zero risk of dying but their risk of developing long Covid symptoms is still significant.   

[anonguest]

Just now, pig said:

Thats an interesting thought experiment. I'm curious - what are the thoughts it elicits ?

Decisions do have to be made - NICE operates in this difficult field for example. On the other hand intuitively I sense a descent into barbarity

Perhaps the problem is you can only go so far with this 'atomic' understanding of human beings. Its a bit like claiming music does not matter, only the notes and this note is more important than those notes lol.

If you allow 10,000 people to die then you're harming the very thing that enables you to try to humanely weigh up priorities in the first place. Telling the child its more important than 10,000 other people would be harmful In itself. 

Maybe this is why the saying about the true measure of society is how it treats its weakest members.

 

The descent into barbarity begins when children take second place to pensioners - and society is shaped around the needs (and desires!) of the latter rather than the former.