Philosophy Discussion Forums

RJG wrote: ↑January 25th, 2022, 9:28 am It is not "me" making claim #1, this is a well known, established fact of science.

[Refer to the Mosquito Analogy to understand the mechanics of this protection].

Again, it is not "me" making this claim. This is a well known scientific fact.

Okay, you say it is not you making these claims (though my searching on the internet tells me that the "mosquito analogy' is your own invention and not even proposed by a scientist, much less verified).

Certainly you can see the folly of saying what you just said (repeatedly) and not being able to back it up. So, put up or shut up, maybe?

RJG wrote:1. What is the ONLY thing that all legitimate scientists and medical experts agree on that stops the continuous perpetuation (mutations) of this virus?
- Answer: herd immunity.

2. What is herd immunity?
- Answer: Herd immunity is the protective effect resulting from immune people surrounding vulnerable people, so as to prevent the transmission of the virus from infecting the vulnerable population. If enough immune people "participate" in achieving herd immunity this will effectively eradicate the virus (and its future mutations).

3. How does one "participate" in herd immunity?
- Answer: firstly one must be immune (healthy and preferably vaccinated/or acquired natural immunity). Secondly, they must socialize unmasked around vulnerable people. To help better understand the mechanism of herd immunity, refer to the famous Mosquito Analogy.

4. What is the role of 'vaccination' in achieving herd immunity protection?
- Answer: vaccination helps give us immune people. And immune people that "participate" in achieving herd immunity give us herd immunity protection.

chewybrian wrote:Okay, you say it is not you making these claims (though my searching on the internet tells me that the "mosquito analogy' is your own invention and not even proposed by a scientist, much less verified).

Now you are being intentionally disingenuous. Claim #1, #2, #3, and #4 claim NOTHING about the Mosquito Analogy. The claims revealed in #1 through #4 above are SCIENTIFIC FACTS. Again, these are not "my" facts, these are facts of science. The Mosquito Analogy (mentioned in Claim 3) is just an "analogy" (not a claim!) written by me to help those (like yourself) that struggle with understanding the mechanism behind the protective effect of herd immunity.

Your refusal to accept the well known facts of science should be a tip-off to yourself that maybe you have been led astray by some Bad Science.

RJG wrote: ↑January 25th, 2022, 1:53 pm Your refusal to accept the well known facts of science should be a tip-off to yourself that maybe you have been led astray by some Bad Science.

Your trumpeting "BASIC FACTS OF SCIENCE!" without being able to quote an actual scientist having said any of them is very telling.

Again, if I said that motorcycle helmets caused more fatalities than they prevented, I would certainly expect people to challenge me and ask me to give some kind of source for my belief. I can't simply state that I alone have discovered that we riders endanger ourselves if we wear a helmet. I should cite a study that backs up my belief, or at least be able to quote an alleged authority on the subject who says I might be right. If I can't, why should anyone take me seriously?

Chewy, are you seriously doubting these 4 well known facts of science? Check the science yourself if you don't believe me. I'm sure there are lots of great references out there.

Here is a video that might help https://youtu.be/8BUCi5Tuzms

RJG wrote: ↑January 25th, 2022, 9:28 am

stevie wrote:Ok but then you have to specify "logic" and based on that specification define "logically sound".

"Logic" refers to deductive logic.
"Logically sound" refers to logical conclusion drawn from true premise statements with a valid argument structure.

To say ""Logic" refers to deductive logic."" does not define the logic referred to by you.

The context is:

RJG wrote: ↑January 24th, 2022, 1:32 pm

stevie wrote:To differentiate "bad science" and "sound science" isn't appropriate. Science is science. But those persons who call themselves or are called "scientists" may be applying science and deserve to be called "scientists" or may not be applying science and not deserve to be called "scientists".

Stevie, this is how I define these terms:

Bad Science = Science that disregards or contradicts logic.
Sound Science = Science that is logically sound.

And

stevie wrote: ↑January 25th, 2022, 3:05 am

RJG wrote: ↑January 24th, 2022, 1:32 pm

stevie wrote:To differentiate "bad science" and "sound science" isn't appropriate. Science is science. But those persons who call themselves or are called "scientists" may be applying science and deserve to be called "scientists" or may not be applying science and not deserve to be called "scientists".

Stevie, this is how I define these terms:

Bad Science = Science that disregards or contradicts logic.
Sound Science = Science that is logically sound.

Ok but then you have to specify "logic" and based on that specification define "logically sound".

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Pcwk344ALUM&feature=share

Interesting.

Also note the reference to the Great Barrington Declaration, which is a group of tens of thousands of medical experts and scientists that also see the dangerous "Bad Science" of Dr. Fauci.

RJG wrote: ↑January 24th, 2022, 1:32 pm
Bad Science = Science that disregards or contradicts logic.
Sound Science = Science that is logically sound.

Sorry. Your definitions are not just idiosyncratic, but they are also just mistaken.

Good science is peer-reviewed. It is based on reproducible observations.

“Unsound science” can make valid connections between false statements.

If logic concurs with experimental data, then good on you.

Your thread, RJG, is not about distinguishing good science from bad science, but rather one more expression of the same proposition you have raised repeatedly.

Think hard: why is it that you have not convinced most anyone of your logically sound opinion about natural herd immunity?

RJG wrote: ↑January 25th, 2022, 7:32 pm ***youtube*com/watch?v=Pcwk344ALUM&feature=share

Interesting.

Also note the reference to the Great Barrington Declaration, which is a group of tens of thousands of medical experts and scientists that also see the dangerous "Bad Science" of Dr. Fauci.

Not interesting. In less than a minute and a half he has stated a fallacy. Basic evolution does not suggest that universal vaccination could drine the virus to a more pathogenic state.
In fact the emergence of omincron demonstrates the complete opposite.

I am astounded that any one could say that. Ending vaccination would mean the virus would run rampant and more able to mutate as there would be more hosts, being infected for longer, and giving more severe disease.
Unless you actually want to wipe ou another 10 or 20 million people vaccination is the best route to herd immunity.

Malone is the guy now infamous for taking money from the manufacturers of famotidine (an antacid remedy) AND ivermectin (a veternary worming pill) , as a treatment for hospitalised COVID patients.
I do not think it worth trusting his views.

AB, again, Bad Science is science that disregards (or contradicts) logic. If you can't understand this, then sorry, I don't have the patience or energy to explain such a simple statement or play semantic games.

Just ask yourself - whats the end game? How many more mutations and deaths will there be following the advice of Dr. Fauci? How will this all end given the same trajectory?

When will we realize and see that we are accelerating the mutation process by blindly following this Bad Science? When will we stop and look at this problem from a logical perspective?

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/25/the-nex ... -says.html

How will it all end?

It is foolish (and logically impossible!) to believe that we can vaccinate our way out of this mess if we continue to mask and socially isolate our healthy vaccinated population.

Soon, we won't have enough healthy people to slow or stop the monster that we created (...created out of ignorance to logic and blind adherence to Bad Science).

Can I vote on banning these anti-vaccine topics from the forum? RJG can explore his suicide fantasies alone.

Atla wrote:Can I vote on banning these anti-vaccine topics from the forum? RJG can explore his suicide fantasies alone.

Atla, I have NEVER been anti-vaccine! We need vaccines to get enough immune people to stop this thing!

Atla, instead of perpetuating lies, how about you try understanding my words, and put the "cancel-culture" BS away? ...and stop making up lies, ...fair enough?

Read the OP to understand the role of vaccination to getting us immune people to "participate" in getting herd immunity to stopping this virus.

RJG wrote: ↑January 26th, 2022, 10:03 am

Atla wrote:Can I vote on banning these anti-vaccine topics from the forum? RJG can explore his suicide fantasies alone.

Atla, I have NEVER been anti-vaccine! We need vaccines to get enough immune people to stop this thing!

Atla, instead of perpetuating lies, how about you try understanding my words, and put the "cancel-culture" BS away? ...and stop making up lies, ...fair enough?

Read the OP to understand the role of vaccination to getting us immune people to "participate" in getting herd immunity to stopping this virus.

The existing vaccines don't give us immune people, so what vaccines are you talking about?

Atla wrote:The existing vaccines don't give us immune people, so what vaccines are you talking about?

"Immune" refers to those who are not susceptible to the ill effects of covid. Immune people are those that have strong, healthy, fast responsive immune systems. Vaccinations to healthy people further enhance the immune response to the virus.

"Vulnerable" people are those that are susceptible to the ill effects of covid. Vulnerable people are those that have weak or compromised immune systems. Vaccinations to vulnerable people may (or may not) help enhance the immune response to the virus. Vulnerable people, whether vaccinated or not, are still susceptible to the ill effects of covid (as the empirical evidence has shown).

At the first iteration (mutation) of this virus, we had more than enough immune people to put out this fire (stop this virus), but we did the worst thing possible, we masked and socially isolated our fire extinguishers (our healthy immune population), thereby allowing the virus to spread and to further mutate.

And at each new iteration (that we are intentionally and foolishly allowing), our army of available immune people is getting smaller and smaller. Each new iteration is seemingly more contagious, and potentially more deadly. https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/25/the-nex ... -says.html

Because of our foolishness (our disregard for logic, along with the 'blind' adherence to Bad Science) we now have to rely on vaccinations to get us enough immune people to protect the vulnerable and help put out this fire. But vaccinations themselves do not necessarily protect the vulnerable, nor stops this virus -- healthy immune systems ("immune people") protect the vulnerable and helps stop this virus! Without immune people socializing unmasked, the virus will continue to mutate into potentially more contagious and deadly variants.

When will we realize and see that we are foolishly accelerating the mutation process by blindly following this Bad Science? When will we stop and look at this problem from a logical perspective?

RJG wrote: ↑January 26th, 2022, 2:02 pm "Immune" refers to those who are not susceptible to the ill effects of covid. Immune people are those that have strong, healthy, fast responsive immune systems.
...

Yeah that's clearly not what happened in the last 2 years, countless people with otherwise healthy immune systems also got the virus and spread it more easily without masks. Some of them went through hell, they don't need your suicide fantasies pushed on them.