Covid 19/Coronavirus

Discussion in 'Politics & Current Events' started by Ralyks, Feb 27, 2020.

  1. jaxadam

    jaxadam SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    3,584
    Likes Received:
    3,304
    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2006
    Location:
    Jacksonville, FL
    Agreed, and this is the big one for me. There is no carte blanche in perpetuity for waning vaccine effectiveness, yet no one cares because they "did their part" and sure like to point the finger.
     
    mbardu likes this.
  2. profwoot

    profwoot SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    284
    Likes Received:
    261
    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2020
    et alia = "and others". No personification denoted.
     
  3. jaxadam

    jaxadam SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    3,584
    Likes Received:
    3,304
    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2006
    Location:
    Jacksonville, FL

    Et Al. vs. Etc.—What’s the Difference?

    What’s the difference between et al. and etc.? Whereas etc. refers to a list of things, et al. refers to a list of people. Etc. is common in formal and informal writing. You will most often see et al. in bibliographic lists.

    Etc. is short for “et cetera,” which is a Latin phrase that means “and the rest.” Use etc. when you’re writing a list of things:

    I am going to bring several pies (pumpkin, pecan, chocolate, etc. ) to Thanksgiving dinner. When travelling, bring necessary items like a passport, proof of medical insurance, extra money, etc.


    Et Al. Examples
    When people cite the work of you and your friends, they would likely use et al., especially in formal writing such as term papers and on works cited pages. Here are two examples, one in-text mention of a publication and another from a works cited page:

    These linkages were monitored by large-scale correlational survey research (e.g., Coleman et al., 1966) and subsequent reanalyses of that data set (Jencks et al., 1979 and Mosteller & Moynihan, 1972).

    Holt, John. “How Teachers Make Children Hate Reading.” The Norton Reader, 13th Edition. Ed. Linda Peterson, et al. New York: W.W. Norton, 2012. 195-203
     
    narad likes this.
  4. profwoot

    profwoot SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    284
    Likes Received:
    261
    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2020
    Yeah that ain't right. Its modern use has become mostly limited to academic contexts as you mentioned, but it's literally the latin words for "and" and "others" and can be used to refer to any things. Yes, we're largely beholden to tradition when it comes to language, but just because its common usage became limited over time doesn't mean I can't use the words in their broader sense, which is what I was doing. I use latin frequently in my job and perhaps should endeavor to avoid what might seem like malapropism lest I be goaded into dull explanations by always-fighty forum denizens.
     
  5. jaxadam

    jaxadam SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    3,584
    Likes Received:
    3,304
    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2006
    Location:
    Jacksonville, FL
    You win. “Let it be known, that on this 7th day in December in the year of our Lord Two Thousand and Twenty One that the Honorable @profwoot has extended the definition of et al., which throughout the entirety of human existence has explicitly referred to citing authors, will now be extended to… communicable diseases.”
     
  6. narad

    narad Progressive metal and politics

    Messages:
    11,462
    Likes Received:
    17,001
    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2009
    Location:
    Tokyo
    Well, throughout the entirety of our personal existences, which seems equally valid.
     
  7. jaxadam

    jaxadam SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    3,584
    Likes Received:
    3,304
    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2006
    Location:
    Jacksonville, FL
    And, not surprisingly, there’s quite a bit grammatically incorrect with this post as well. “its” should be contracted with an apostrophe as it is possessive of “usage”. Malapropism is the incorrect description of the “et al.” usage in this instance as well, as you were not going for a mistake, generally humorous, with the sounding of a different word. So please, carry on.
     
  8. spudmunkey

    spudmunkey SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    6,272
    Likes Received:
    9,719
    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2010
    Location:
    Near San Francisco
    That...doesn't seem right. I know it would be "Bob's" if we're talking about the usage attributed to Bob, but "it's" is only a contraction of "it is". In possessive form, it should be "its"...at least that's what I thought, and that's how it's described in all of the links I just checked over the last few minutes. Perhaps there's some "well, actually, originally..." or very technical reason I'm just not aware of, but this is one of the most common errors I make that gets caught by Grammarly. :lol:
     
  9. jaxadam

    jaxadam SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    3,584
    Likes Received:
    3,304
    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2006
    Location:
    Jacksonville, FL
    Shit I think you’re right… :lol:

    I amend my position, and instead of giving him an F on that post, I give him a C+.
     
  10. mbardu

    mbardu SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    3,484
    Likes Received:
    2,920
    Joined:
    May 21, 2013
    Location:
    California
    I live mostly in the Bay Area yeah, but quite familiar with Western Europe (esp France/UK) and South East Asia too.

    I did see that big "headline" summary figure out of CA. Not the 99% our colleague was touting, but looks pretty bad, right? But did you actually check how they get to that number?
    If you want, check out their data:
    Their numbers are extremely simple and their reporting even more so. They just take the total positive tests reported by vaccinated/unvaccinated and compare them.
    That's it. They do not divide by total number of tests in each group. They do not account for different type of tests.
    Right away, two factors make this very questionable:
    • Unvaccinated in California, you have to get tested way more often. For unvaccinated people, CA asks for a systematic test for indoor events. And for going to work, sometimes multiple times a week. And for education. Compare that to vaccinated who just have to show proof of vaccination. I wouldn't be surprised if out of all tests, there were easily 3/4x more tests from unvaccinated people vs vaccinated people (on a per-100k basis)... But we can't know for sure of course, because that number is no longer reported for some reason. That would just explain mechanically 3/4x more cases without any real world implication.
    • Even in cases where they ask for tests for someone vaccinated because of close contact... they ask to do a test 7 days later, whereas they ask for an immediate test for unvaccinated people. Yet I know a number of symptomatic people who tested positive by home test (while vaccinated) but already tested negative at that day 7 test... So if a good chunk of people are the same, but without symptoms, it's easy to be an asymptomatic carrier and to test negative after 7 days, while the unvaccinated guy will have been tested immediately and reported positive.
    They don't make any effort to account for any of that so it's a very very big stretch to just report that as "unvaccinated people were 7.2 times more likely to get COVID-19 than fully vaccinated people" just on this basis without the number of tests by category. I don't know if it's incompetence or on purpose... but the real description should read "we received 7.2 times more positive cases per 100k from unvaccinated vs vaccinated, but btw we also did way more tests in the first place for those unvaccinated".

    No different than the people reporting "You only have 0.001% chance to die as a breakthrough vaccinated case" earlier in the pandemic, at a time when only a fraction of the population was vaccinated, and even that fraction wouldn't even have had time to get Covid, incubate it, and then go through the weeks of slowly dying from it. I mean...duh...you wouldn't even have had the time to be that person at the time.

    In a country where they do report number of tests by vaccine status, not surprisingly, you do get some different views on the situation: https://drees.solidarites-sante.gouv.fr/sites/default/files/2021-12/Appariements sivic-sidep-vacsi Drees_0.pdf
    You can see the unvaccinated are tested about twice as much as the unvaccinated groups. You can see that even though "recent" categories show good protection, the 6 months+ category has about half the total cases as the unvaccinated one...but again, that's starting from half the number of tests too :lol:

    The French piece matches the UK one btw. Pretty consistent with the sources a couple of pages ago. Matches the Israeli data as well... But yeah, it will differ from the CA one if you take just the big one number. Except that big number is basically useless. And what we'd need to actually make that number useful, for some reason the CDC has also stopped reported on the number of test vs vaccination status. For some reason.

    Talk about bias?
    Posting the number 7.2x the way it's calculated above? Hiding the key data points (number of actual tests)? That is egregiously bad. Especially coming from agencies who are supposed to inform the public. Outside of agencies, talk about bias? People claiming absolutely ridiculous stuff like "99% of cases come from unvaccinated" and people just gulping it up without checking because it matches the narrative?

    I'm not particularly biased one way or another. Again, the vaccine can be very, has saved lives and will save others. For a lot of people, it's dumb not to get it. The number of hospitalizations and deaths speak for themselves.

    However, normalizing lies and misinformation to push an agenda is not OK, and it's weird to see how it's not only tolerated, but celebrated (because we feel superior being the vaccinated ones and have a group to hate on). All without checking on anything as long as it fits the bias.
     
    Last edited: Dec 7, 2021
  11. IwantTacos

    IwantTacos SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    348
    Likes Received:
    409
    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2021
    When you wake up in the morning and there's suddenly 5 new pages of a thread...a wild mbardu has appeared.

    Guys...throughout this whole word salad he's only had one point...

    which is that everyone should still be socially distanced and wear masks even after getting vaccinated.

    His other crap about is just the worst straw-man, slipperly slope bullshit and he knows and we all know it.
    All governments implement safety protocols all the time and in some instances does punish you for breaking them.

    We already hashed that all out the last time he got 30 minutes off of work to write a novel.
     
  12. mbardu

    mbardu SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    3,484
    Likes Received:
    2,920
    Joined:
    May 21, 2013
    Location:
    California
    Social distancing and masks help a lot, but that's not my argument here at all.

    Since reading comprehension is hard, the argument is twofold: #1-the idea that "the unvaccinated are the overwhelming source of the transmission and new surges in cases" with ridiculous figures like "99% of infections are from unvaccinated" is very dumb, and it's crazy to me how people believe it without even checking because it fits their bias; and then #2, using this stupid flawed false argument as a basis to be more and more coercive on people who don't get the vaccine is wrong on many levels.

    Do you know what a straw man is? A strawman argument is misrepresenting the original point someone is making in order to try to easily refute and get a win. Attacking on something the person or argument never said or implied.

    If you need some references to help you get started:
    • It would be for example, or for example, or for example saying out of the blue "those guys thinks they have the right to go an infect others with a lethal virus" while I never said anything of the sort. That's not the point at all.
    • In a discussion about transmission and infections, it would be for example trying to get some sort of "win" with the usual unrelated "but vaccines lower hospitalizations and individual mortality uR dumb". Like was done here, here, here. Again, not even related to the point.
    Just a few off the top of my head. If you can find a strawman in what I said, then unlike any poster in any example above, I'll happily correct it - and I'll pay you a nice cup of coffee for your troubles ;) !

    Except the strawman arguments, like the obvious bias, like the believing absolutely ridiculously exaggerated numbers while ignoring actual data....all that is really not on the side where you think it is.
     
    Last edited: Dec 8, 2021
  13. narad

    narad Progressive metal and politics

    Messages:
    11,462
    Likes Received:
    17,001
    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2009
    Location:
    Tokyo
    And that many of the US statistics are collected in a way that biases towards a higher association between covid positives and unvaccinated people. People should be aware of that, but it doesn't imply these groups are anywhere equal, either.
     
    mbardu likes this.
  14. TedEH

    TedEH Cromulent

    Messages:
    9,624
    Likes Received:
    7,016
    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2007
    Location:
    Gatineau, Quebec
    I've been mostly ignoring you for a while, but I keep seeing this, and I feel like it's pretty central to why you keep arguing all the time.
    Why do you feel so strongly about defending people who refuse to vaccinate during a pandemic?

    It's not like there has been zero tolerance for people who have legitimate reasons to be hesitant - be it auto-immune disorders or what have you - as long as that's a legitimate concern and not just a talking point. With the numbers of people who are refusing, I can't picture that many people have legitimate medical reasons to refuse, or even to be cautious. I mean, you're still at only something like 60% fully vax'd right now - there's no way 40% of people can't get the jab. There's been plenty of time for those who were "waiting" to see that the rest of us haven't dropped dead or become sterile or whatever they thought would happen. If there was some condition that affected 40% of people that made the vaccines dangerous, I'm sure we'd have heard about that by now, but we haven't. And I'm sure these numbers aren't because of availability - I've not heard a single story about "I would have loved to get the jab, but I can't because there's a waitlist or we're just out of doses". What reason is good enough for some states to be under 50% vax'd?

    If this is just a long winded way to say "personal / bodily autonomy wins regardless of anything else" without having to say it outright, then I only half agree with you. Yeh, sure, your body your choice, but I'd then reserve the right to think you're an asshole for exercising that right. Having a right and choosing to exercise that right to other people's detriment are two very different things. In the same way that I have every right to run around outside and swear at every old lady that goes by, but I'd be a dick for doing it. It's not illegal, there's no statistical nonsense you can argue either way about why I should or shouldn't do it, but it's still a dick move.

    There's still lots of arguing to do and internet points to win without bolstering anti-vax sentiment in the process.
     
    zappatton2 and ArtDecade like this.
  15. ArtDecade

    ArtDecade John Bohlinger's Miyagi-Fang Karate

    Messages:
    6,096
    Likes Received:
    5,449
    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2009
    Location:
    The MCG
    You can only believe that if you want to play some logical gymnastics.
    The vaccine does a lot of good. That's it.
     
  16. mbardu

    mbardu SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    3,484
    Likes Received:
    2,920
    Joined:
    May 21, 2013
    Location:
    California
    There are kind of two points to your post.
    One is "why defend people who refuse to vaccinate?", and another is you replying to my "we shouldn't use lies as basis for the argument and measures".

    On #1, the situation is not as black and white as people would like it to be. I am not "defending" all the unvaccinated wholesale. I have said multiple times that for many people it's dumb not to get the vaccine, considering it can reliably reduce your risk of serious case and death. Again, just the same as eating well, not drinking alcohol and exercising can add literal years of good quality of life to your life expectancy- with even more probability than the Covid vaccine. Yet you don't see me calling out for the drinkers/fast food eaters losing their jobs. If you don't get the vaccine because you think "Bill Gates 5G conspiracy", I don't know what to tell you.
    But there is an entire universe of case here. On one extreme, the 5G guy, but on another extreme the guys with very severe adverse reaction. And we like to think that "oh if you legitimately can't take the vaccine, you're exempt", but most people do not realize what this is in practice. We have an example on this very forum of someone who literally almost died from the vaccine, and that wasn't contraindication enough. He was told to get another vaccine -which he did, and again had bad side effects. And you're asking that guy to roll the dice every three months in the future with a booster? Would you roll the dice if you had almost died the first time? Who are we to decide how badly you almost died before you can maybe skip the vaccine? And for what? It's not like you're a hero saving society for doing so. Peak protection against transmission doesn't even last. Just stay at home a bit longer and take extra precautions, and you're doing a better job than the vaccinated who no longer care.
    I personally know people in same situations. Immediate seizure after a recent vaccine, and the answer they get when anxious about the next one is "well just try this other one then, maybe you won't have a seizure". It used to be more "accommodating" in many places, but in many states now, starting with CA, it's almost impossible to get an exemption. Physicians who used to give them are now punished, they have arbitrary quotas that they cannot exceed lest they go before disciplinary board, and it's all reported to the state and they could lose their license. Your doctor could very well be in a situation where he saw a patient with seizure yesterday, reluctantly gave him an exemption; and if he sees you today he'll have to choose between his career and your exemption.
    And do you know the stigma? If you have legitimately had severe reactions, it doesn't matter. People still put you in the "5g nutjob" category.

    As an aside, nobody would have to "defend" the unvaccinated if they were not constantly under vicious attack. I know people who can't get vaccinated, just as I know vaccinated people. The former group has continued to stay-at-home for the last 6 months, continues to take every precaution, while the other has slowly stopped taking much if any precaution with the confidence from the vaccine. In theory, the group of vaccinated people is now more dangerous than the group of unvaccinated. Yet who is being attacked? By the way it's not only theory, the latter group has since demonstrably caught and spread Covid despite the vaccine. Which I called months ago here, and was ridiculed for, yet is pretty much what is happening. Can you guess which group is seen as pariahs and losing their job, and which group is celebrated as heros? That's fucked up in my opinion.

    If the situation was truly dire. If the unvaccinated were really creating 99% of the cases, and breeding killer mutants as some people think or claim without proof, yeah sure, we should be more drastic. Maybe not necessarily force the vaccine if the recipient is going to die, but more stay-at-home or whatever. After all, it works.

    But how do you know make the determination of whether the situation is that extreme and dire? Well, that's where actual numbers and actual truth matters, and where dumb lies really rustle my jimmies. People claiming the 99% are just liars. People claiming the vaccinated are not spreading the disease are lying. And people believing them are being lied to. In highly vaccinated places where we actually know the numbers, it's not the case. In the UK, about 50/50. In France, maybe 40/60. In Israel, used to be about 50/50, but everyone got a booster, so we're back to the peak protection of a few weeks. Which may or may not last. In any case, we are certainly not at "99% of cases are unvaccinated" or "you're 10 times more likely to catch and spread it if you're unvaccinated".
    And yet we are making drastic decisions based on lies and misrepresentations. And we're not even talking small consequences here. Losing your job, no more travel. In some countries, fines and even prison time? For me this is wrong. And even worse than the actual discussion, it is wrong in a "meta" sort of way. The numbers are out there for everyone to see, yet people see the "99%" figure and don't even bother to check as long as it fits their bias. So you can essentially lie and people will believe you and do as you say. Just make them feel superior because the shot, just make them absolutely HATE the unvaccinated (booooh, they're the ones spreading!) and they'll accept authoritarianism for the "others". Not even reluctantly, they will cheer. On this very forum, people asking for medical treatment refused to unvaccinated, basically lettings them die. WTF. Pretty chilling and reminiscent of bad stuff IMHO, but to each their own.
     
    Last edited: Dec 8, 2021
  17. mbardu

    mbardu SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    3,484
    Likes Received:
    2,920
    Joined:
    May 21, 2013
    Location:
    California
    OK then. If a problem having more than one dimension is what you have to call "logical gymnastics", that explains why the discussion with you was in vain from the start.
    At least that clarifies and concludes it then. Cheers.
     
    Last edited: Dec 8, 2021
  18. StevenC

    StevenC Javier Strat 8 2022

    Messages:
    6,555
    Likes Received:
    7,130
    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Location:
    Northern Ireland
    Wait it's controversial to still wear a mask after you're vaccinated? Damn, it's like there really are shades of dumb.
     
    ArtDecade likes this.
  19. ArtDecade

    ArtDecade John Bohlinger's Miyagi-Fang Karate

    Messages:
    6,096
    Likes Received:
    5,449
    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2009
    Location:
    The MCG
    I was just being polite and saying that you are lying to yourself - not that you are thinking on some nuanced, secondary level. Your arguments have been nothing short of regurgitated red-state memes.
     
    StevenC likes this.
  20. TedEH

    TedEH Cromulent

    Messages:
    9,624
    Likes Received:
    7,016
    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2007
    Location:
    Gatineau, Quebec
    I feel like the whole "unvaccinated are under attack" narrative is entirely in your head. I only kinda skim this thread, but both here and in the real world, most people I've seen have been pretty level-headed about people's concerns or hesitations. I've got some friends who are afraid of the vax for various reasons, I and don't "attack" them. There's some exceptions, obviously - some people just get heated or argumentative by default (much like yourself), but that's not the majority.

    You don't need to exaggerate how aggressive the conversation gets to make a point about trying to be specific about the points. You can be very specific and nuanced without crying "we're under attack" whenever someone disagrees with you on some detail.
     
    StevenC, tedtan, zappatton2 and 2 others like this.

Share This Page