Lol, circular thinking. We all rely on our instincts to decide if a piece of information is correct.Your gut instinct is biased by definition. It's nothing more than an emotional affirmation of what you already think, it has nothing to do with being correct, you just think it does because you already believe you are correct in your views.
Why change what works?
Lol, circular thinking. We all rely on our instincts to decide if a piece of information is correct.
Lol, circular thinking. We all rely on our instincts to decide if a piece of information is correct.
Sure, let's look at Israel - Unvaxxed 10% of Israelis are 73% of serious cases, 65% of deaths
Yes, a lot of people in Israel are vaccinated. And a good number of people in Israel are getting covid. But those two groups don't seem to have a lot of overlap.
Unvaccinated adults now account for the majority of severe COVID-19 cases and fatalities in Israel, with over six of every 10 new severe cases recorded on Tuesday linked to this group.
Around 15 percent of eligible Israelis over the age of 12 (some 1,105,000 people) are still unvaccinated. Of this group, 10 percent (755,000 people) are over the age of 20 and constitute nearly all of the country’s serious cases and deaths.
So now that we've looked at Israel and learned this fact, what's the appropriate action to take here in the US?
You don't understand what I'm saying then. Thinking about something and then going with intuition has served me well. It's not perfect, but nothing in this world is. If you think it means not thinking, you are incorrect. For everything in life, we choose who to believe. Even if I do something as a trade, I can never live long enough to figure out everything on my own. So I take everyone's ideas into account and end up forming my own opinions on what works. That's the same thing we do with almost any subject if we are honest about it.If you don't employ System 2 thinking - that is, a conscious and logical appraisal of all the relevant available information, then you won't know if you are right or wrong. If you just go with System 1 (your 'gut instinct' - as you said you do quite often and as you have in this case) then it will always give you what you will consider to be the right answer. By definition. That's what it's for. You only discover if you are wrong by consciously thinking about it later
I strongly recommend going with your gut instinct if you think someone has just taken a shot at you. Thinking about whether you should duck is a bad idea. Use System 1. If it was a car backfiring then you just look stupid. If it was a gunshot, then you live to fight on. But decisions on what should be and should not be taught in schools? Well, let's say that you've just told everyone you haven't really thought about it.
To be clear, you've moved from talking about spread of infection to hospitalization data from Covid.
It's abundantly clear that vaccination doesn't seriously mitigate spread.
99.7% of all adults in the county have been fully vaccinated against the virus, but according to figures released by the HSE, Waterford’s 14-day incidence rate per 100,000 of population currently stands at 404.6.
This is topped only by Co. Carlow, with an incidence rate of 405.7 per 100,000 of population.
Co. Waterford has recorded 470 new cases of Covid-19 in the last week, accounting for nearly 5% of the adult population.
I was going to respond yesterday regarding your question about "(what one doctor's testimony) say about vaccine safety specifically?"
Weird how none of these show up when actual research is done on the topic. Maybe the answer to anecdotes isn't more anecdotes?“I have never in my 32-years of practicing medicine seen such a high rate of sudden heart attacks, strokes, neurological issues and patients who’ve never had a problem or risk factors associated with this. And so I just felt that I needed to do something more,” he said.
So, the reliable approach is to do every experiment on you own to find out what you believe about every subject? Good luck with that. Life isn't long enough. We all look at the data presented and decide for ourselves who and what to believe.It’s not a reliable approach.
So, the reliable approach is to do every experiment on you own to find out what you believe about every subject? Good luck with that. Life isn't long enough. We all look at the data presented and decide for ourselves who and what to believe.
No, the Cornell community was one example of someone drawing unjustified conclusions from an invalid comparison. You measure the effectiveness of vaccines at preventing infection by comparing infection rates for vaccinated and unvaccinated people under the same conditions, preferably by comparing them in the same population at the same time. Conditions in September 2020 and September 2021 weren't remotely similar: besides whatever (unknown) differences there were in behavior, the virus was roughly twice as infectious in 2021 and infection rates throughout the country were far higher then. Higher infection rates means more virus coming into Cornell in the later period, and therefore more people exposed.The Cornell community was one example of a highly vaccinated community having significantly higher spread than a similarly unvaccinated community.
Statements like this? Maybe?
People are skeptical. The more hype some people see, the less interested they are. The media has had to walk back almost everything it has told us / assumed about the virus and the vaccines from day one. A lot of folks simply are not very interested in jumping on board with this.
Some are skeptical of how useful / necessary the vaccines are, some have religious or ethical concerns, some are creeped out by mandates and would like to not even step on the train. Others have had and recovered from covid, and don’t see a need. The reasons are diverse. They should be respected.
Let people make up their own minds about this.
That's your choice also. See how that works,? You don't get to tell other people how to make their decisions.
Maybe this is the problem: Are we talking about "Transmission" or "spread"? I mean, I'm not even totally sure I'm using them right but to me:The study demonstrates that. And that is why they state that a plan that relies heavily on vaccination is not going to be sufficient to limit spread.
I indicated that the vaccines were still performing in hospitalization. The issue discussed here was transmission. And you seem to concede that it won't make much difference until you get nearly to 100 percent, which was the point the study was making. Other measures are needed.
That's true. But hospital populations can be viewed that way; seperated by vaccine status. So why not use that data to address the spread through either population of vaccine COMPARED to unvaccinated?Because real-world populations don't come in vaccinated and unvaccinated. So the strategies have to address mixed populations.
Lol, circular thinking. We all rely on our instincts to decide if a piece of information is correct.
Sorry, but that is not being skeptical. You should have said: "Some people are science deniers". All of the evidence points towards the safety and efficacy of vaccines. People go out of their way to misunderstand how they work. The right wing sites are openly lying since many of them do understand the math involved.Statements like this? Maybe?
People are skeptical. The more hype some people see, the less interested they are. The media has had to walk back almost everything it has told us / assumed about the virus and the vaccines from day one. A lot of folks simply are not very interested in jumping on board with this.
Some are skeptical of how useful / necessary the vaccines are, some have religious or ethical concerns, some are creeped out by mandates and would like to not even step on the train. Others have had and recovered from covid, and don’t see a need. The reasons are diverse. They should be respected.
Let people make up their own minds about this.
If a person is inhabited by the Holy Spirit, wouldn't his gut instinct be to do what the Spirit nudges him to? Or to believe what the Spirit tells him has merit?Is that the right way to decide if a piece of information is correct?
I mean, even Scripture tells us that our instincts and feelings aren't reliable. The Prophet Jeremiah wrote "The heart is deceitful above all else, and desperately sick, who can understand it?" (Jeremiah 17:9)
So why would you trust your own sinful, carnal belly to decide what is and isn't true?
The Apostle says that those who live as enemies of the cross serve their instincts, their appetites, "their god is their belly" (Philippians 3:19).
I pray that you do not take your gut-driven approach to matters of faith, as there are fewer things that will absolutely shipwreck our faith as to trust and rely on our own sinful, carnal, animal feelings and instincts.
"The soulish* person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned." - 1 Corinthians 2:14
*ψυχικὸς (psychikos), relating to the "soul", "soulish". The animal instincts, the passions and appetites, and ways of thinking in accordance with "the old Adam" as Paul describes it elsewhere.
-CryptoLutheran
Maybe this is the problem: Are we talking about "Transmission" or "spread"? I mean, I'm not even totally sure I'm using them right but to me:
Transmisison: From person to person
Spread: Throughout a population
But has that point ever been argued? I'm pretty sure most vaccinations experts have always said we need a pretty significant portion of the population (like WELL over 90%).
That's true. But hospital populations can be viewed that way; seperated by vaccine status. So why not use that data to address the spread through either population of vaccine COMPARED to unvaccinated?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?