Tag Archives: vaccines

By the numbers

It’s staggering to look at the hospitalization numbers coming in, now that millions of people have been vaccinated. It’s simple: get vaccinated and you are extremely unlikely to end up in the hospital even if you still catch the Delta variant. But what are the motivations of the unvaccinated to change their minds? Travel. Not safety, not protecting others in the community, but the fear of travel restrictions without proof of vaccination.

I don’t watch TV but I’ve been going on TikTok for a 1/2 hour or less, (I keep a time limit in this addictive app), and I follow a lot of doctors and epidemiologists on the site. What I find is that about 1/2 of their posts are about research results and the other half tend to be responsive to comments they get on previous posts. Some of these questions are good, even if they question the results. Some are responses to asinine ignorance.

Many people don’t know how to do, or understand, the necessary math. Here is a fictitious example of a deceiving headline: “50% of new cases are vaccinated“. That sounds like the vaccine isn’t working. But later in the article it says that 80% of the population is vaccinated. Making the math simple, if there were 100 people and 4 got covid, that would mean two non-vaccinated and two vaccinated people contracted the virus (50% each). But the population was 20 unvaccinated and 80 vaccinated, so while the cases were 50-50, the chances of getting covid work out like this:

Unvaccinated: 2/20 = 10%

Vaccinated: 2/80 = 2.5%

While the headline makes it seem like the vaccine isn’t working, the unvaccinated are four times more likely to contract the virus in this example. This doesn’t even factor in the significant increase of risk of hospitalization/death for the non-vaccinated.

Right now two things are causing headlines like this to proliferate:

1. A balance of ignorance and desire to get clicks and views: Reporters not understanding the math themselves and rushing to get the attention-gaining headline out.

2. Deliberate malice: People who know exactly what they are doing and want to promote an anti-vax narrative.

As we move forward and the numbers will start to be more available as well as more obvious. Will that make a difference? Probably not for those that are entrenched. It’s not the numbers that will change people’s minds, it will be the (proclaimed) limitations on their liberties, like travel… and buckle up because this isn’t going to happen without a lot of whining and complaints.

—

Related: I’d rather be a sheep than a lemming

Is it just me?

I know I’ve been writing a lot recently about QAnon, anti-makers, and anti-vaxxers. I’m going to continue that today with a bit of a rant:

Is it just me that thinks these conspiracy theory spinners are just idiots? I mean one crazy idea leads to another, which leads to another. They tie so many BS ideas together that you can’t keep track. And when one idea is debunked or one deadline for catastrophe is missed, it doesn’t diminish their fervour for the next conspiracy… debunking one idea does not phase their beliefs on the topic or any other topic, despite the fact that they are the ones making the connections. What’s worse, they seem to always want evidence, but refuse to believe any evidence provided is real.

Is it just me that thinks police should take water guns filled with blue food colouring to anti-mask protests and spray it all over them? If protesters are going to endanger themselves, let’s paint their faces blue for a couple weeks so that we can keep our distance from them when they return to normal society. That way when they come back from the protest and put masks on, and we usually can’t tell they were participating in risky behaviour, we would still know to keep very clear from them.

Is it just me that thinks we should enforce travel bans on people that refuse the vaccine? And while we are at it, if they end up in a hospital with expensive covid related issues after refusing the vaccine, they should have to pay medical bills for being stupid and adding an unnecessary burden to the Canadian economy.

Is it just me that wonders how in an age of unlimited information, stupidity can travel faster than intelligence? What is it about the human brain that makes not just dimwits, but also otherwise smart people too, believe that every government leader can be absolutely corrupt and yet only a single whistleblower is brave enough to come forward? The news is filled with scandals all the time. Humans don’t know how to keep a secret, but somehow there are cabals filled with rich people who live lives surrounded by servants, who can keep global conspiracies a secret for decades.

Is it just me that wonders if the threat of terrorism is greater from within our borders than from outside? That anti-common sense, extreme nationalist, and hate groups pose more of a threat to our societies than fundamentalist religious wing-nuts? The internal threat of stupidity is greater than the external threat of tyranny.

Is it just me that is fed up with cliff jumping lemmings calling me a sheep? I feel like I’m calling out the morons the same way they call out people who actually care about things like actual research and scientific facts. I know that this little rant won’t change anyone’s ridiculous beliefs in conspiracy theories, and will do nothing more than convince these delusional idiots that I’m somehow lost, or blind to some fantasy land reality they live in. But I feel good getting this little rant off my chest, and I’ll work on more convincing arguments again after today.

Here is the thing… it feels good to rant sometimes, but is it just me that thinks dialogue is the only way forward? That we actually have to engage and try to convince people that their loony ideas are wrong? Am I the only one that thinks it’s not good enough to roll your eyes and let these people believe their baseless theories without providing counter arguments? The answer to the spread of bad ideas is to counter them with good ideas. It’s painful to engage, but if we don’t have dialogue, if we don’t provide counter arguments, then we really are sheep, or lemmings… Then we are allowing a small group of small minded people to influence and engage with more people likely to follow them down a path of poor thinking. Is it just me that thinks this?

Bad arguments

First of all, let me get a couple things out in the open.

1. Yes, I’m getting the vaccine. Vaccines are a proven technology that saves lives.

2. And yes, I’m pro-choice. Women have a right to choose if they want to bring a life into the world or not, and religious beliefs shouldn’t be imposed on others that do not have those beliefs. (Ie, if your religion tells you differently, you can choose to follow those beliefs.)

Given these points, I think there are people that agree with me, who are choosing bad arguments to justify these points.

Bad argument #1: “I don’t care what’s in that vaccine, I’d do anything to get out of these lockdowns.”

This argument takes all the science and care people have done to study the vaccine and ensure it is safe and lumps it into a category of, “Anything is better than this.” With the word ‘anything’ including all kinds of fear and misinformation about what could happen after taking the vaccine. This argument says nothing of the efficacy of this vaccine, or any vaccine. This doesn’t focus on how many millions of flu vaccines have been taken yearly for decades, and the lack of any statistically harmful effects, juxtaposed to how many people die from flus each year… or how many people have already died, and will continue to die, or have lifelong adverse effects from covid-19.

Bad argument #2: “If you really are pro-life, then why are you against social programs that would support single moms, and why aren’t you willing to adopt a child that a mother isn’t ready or able to raise?”

This argument suggests there could be a perfect world, where every expectant mother could have choices to have the baby, and thus not need the choice to not have it. Absolutely, there should be better social programs to give expectant mothers more choice when faced with an unwanted child. But the idea that if those external choices are all there, the mother will then no longer have a choice to not have the child… this is no longer a pro-choice argument.

Both of these arguments are examples of taking positions unhelpful towards making a valid intended point or choice. Both do not convince anyone with opposing views that they should change their minds. They are bad arguments that do not help support the very points they are making.

Want to argue with someone that disagrees with you? Start with a valid argument that actually supports what you are saying.