3rd vaccine dose likely needed

[A&L_Ont]

13 hours ago, John&LaLa said:

 

So the primary reason to get vaccinated is to ensure cruising resumes. 🤔

@John&LaLa when someone charters private yachts why worry about vaccines. Who needs a vaccine if you have your “own” yacht booked.

[cured]

5 hours ago, nomad098 said:

 

And that's your "opinion"

 

All the post proves is that everyone suffers from conformational bias, the person who wrote the article, the poster and myself.

 

I remember the experts the UK government went to when SARS 1, MERS and Ebola looked like being a threat, when these people did not agree with the government's point of view and approach to Covid-19 they were suddenly deemed to be fringe scientists and called far worse by the mainstream media, talk about confirmation bias. These people were not discredited scientists but world leading experts in their respective fields. 

 

When the people we elected to govern us set a path and the scientists advising the UK government did not agree with them they undermined the government  and released information that forced the government to change their course, when did these scientists become experts in governance?

 

There are many many scientific experts that do not agree with the approach of the UK government scientific advice, some of these sit on the committee advising the government, when their voices went unrepresented by their superiors they wrote an open letter to the government, they were immediately vilified for their views, yet we have been paying them to advise us for over a year.

 

In such a fluid situation disagreeing with an "experts" view does not make you right nor will it necessarily mean you're wrong. 

You are basically saying the same thing. There is a huge difference between scientists with the same expertise debating the proper way of handling something and someone who doesn't have the same training weighing in as an expert.  The scientists with focus on the area of concern have all put in long hours of work and experience and debate among them is good for progress. Their opinions as experts should be believed. Not the guy down the road. It is when those not as qualified weigh in as the same experts.

 

For instance, when Apollo 13 was experiencing catastrophic difficulties, NASA consulted scientists and mechanics who had experience and expertise in the Apollo program. They debated the best strategy for bringing home the astronauts based on experience and knowledge. They all shared expertise in the Apollow program.

 

What NASA did not do was bring in the local Honda mechanic. While technically a mechanic just like the NASA mechanics, the Honda mechanic had no experience with rocket mechanics so therefore his/her opinion was not even close to the validity of the mechanics who had worked on rockets for most of their career.  Just as the NASA mechanics would not be the experts on Hondas.  Everyone has their own area of expertise.

 

So it is with biological and chemical scientists and doctors.  There is a reason we have multiple specialties. Each one is an expert in their particular field because they have the training and the different education.  There is a reason why your GP sends you to an oncologist if they suspect cancer.  Your GP may be able to weigh in on their expertise, your overall health, but the oncologist will be able to weigh in on particular courses of action for your particular diagnosis.

 

If you disagree with the consensus of the leading epidemiologists, looking at the research and work of other epidemiologists or experts in virology is healthy.  Their opinions are based on expertise and work done on viruses.

 

Discredited doctors' opinions who have absolutely no expertise in epidemiology do not carry the same weight as those that are experienced in epidemiology.  Just because they make youtube videos or create a dramatic background of standing on sweeping steps in white coats does not give them expertise.

 

All this is saying is listen to the experts. If you are trying to bring a disabled spaceship home, you cannot listen to the Apollo mechanic and the Honda mechanic and then weigh their opinions equally. You cannot listen to everyone who spews an opinion on a subject with or without expertise and then decide you will believe the person who fits your own narrative better.  If scientists with the same narrow expertise, research, and education differ in opinion, then so be it. They are all coming at the problem with the same expertise.  Science changes as more knowledge is learned. But the experts know how to interpret the knowledge and make adjustments as necessary.

 

All this piece is saying is to weigh the experts' opinions more heavily than those that have no expertise in the field they are opining about.  It is not equal.

[broberts]

6 minutes ago, A&L_Ont said:

@John&LaLa when someone charters private yachts why worry about vaccines. Who needs a vaccine if you have your “own” yacht booked.

 

Unless it's a bareboat charter and one never plans to go ashore a vaccination seems prudent.

[xpcdoojk]

11 hours ago, yogimax said:

Was that necessary?

At least as much as a guilt trip.  Thanks for sharing.

[Shorewalk Holmes]

1 hour ago, cured said:

You are basically saying the same thing. There is a huge difference between scientists with the same expertise debating the proper way of handling something and someone who doesn't have the same training weighing in as an expert.  The scientists with focus on the area of concern have all put in long hours of work and experience and debate among them is good for progress. Their opinions as experts should be believed. Not the guy down the road. It is when those not as qualified weigh in as the same experts.

 

For instance, when Apollo 13 was experiencing catastrophic difficulties, NASA consulted scientists and mechanics who had experience and expertise in the Apollo program. They debated the best strategy for bringing home the astronauts based on experience and knowledge. They all shared expertise in the Apollow program.

 

What NASA did not do was bring in the local Honda mechanic. While technically a mechanic just like the NASA mechanics, the Honda mechanic had no experience with rocket mechanics so therefore his/her opinion was not even close to the validity of the mechanics who had worked on rockets for most of their career.  Just as the NASA mechanics would not be the experts on Hondas.  Everyone has their own area of expertise.

 

So it is with biological and chemical scientists and doctors.  There is a reason we have multiple specialties. Each one is an expert in their particular field because they have the training and the different education.  There is a reason why your GP sends you to an oncologist if they suspect cancer.  Your GP may be able to weigh in on their expertise, your overall health, but the oncologist will be able to weigh in on particular courses of action for your particular diagnosis.

 

If you disagree with the consensus of the leading epidemiologists, looking at the research and work of other epidemiologists or experts in virology is healthy.  Their opinions are based on expertise and work done on viruses.

 

Discredited doctors' opinions who have absolutely no expertise in epidemiology do not carry the same weight as those that are experienced in epidemiology.  Just because they make youtube videos or create a dramatic background of standing on sweeping steps in white coats does not give them expertise.

 

All this is saying is listen to the experts. If you are trying to bring a disabled spaceship home, you cannot listen to the Apollo mechanic and the Honda mechanic and then weigh their opinions equally. You cannot listen to everyone who spews an opinion on a subject with or without expertise and then decide you will believe the person who fits your own narrative better.  If scientists with the same narrow expertise, research, and education differ in opinion, then so be it. They are all coming at the problem with the same expertise.  Science changes as more knowledge is learned. But the experts know how to interpret the knowledge and make adjustments as necessary.

 

All this piece is saying is to weigh the experts' opinions more heavily than those that have no expertise in the field they are opining about.  It is not equal.

 

Absolutely. 

 

So, to extend your analogy, if millions believe that the government faked the space missions, and the Honda mechanic is willing to agree, then the mechanic becomes a famous Facebook scientist -- the only 'scientist' those millions ever cite.  

[SailyaCruise]

On 4/23/2021 at 8:00 PM, cured said:

If you want real science, read the peer reviewed scientific journals where the actual studies are documented with results.  Use one of the scientific search engines geared to medical journals or better yet, if you have login access at your local university, use one of their scientific search engines.

Absolutely correct.   That's one of the first things I learned in grad school.  Science and peer-reviewed journals are the gold standard.

[TheMastodon]

Experts/Scientists don't always get it right - and that's fine.  

 

Michael Osterholm for example... Just a tad off.   

 

He is part of Biden's Covid19 team.  

 

 

 

[TheMastodon]

7 minutes ago, TheMastodon said:

Experts/Scientists don't always get it right - and that's fine.  

 

Michael Osterholm for example... Just a tad off.   

 

He is part of Biden's Covid19 team.  

 

 

 

 

 

? ? ? ? ?

 

This is why goof balls question scientists and Dr's.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Stallion]

230,000,000 vaccinations later including 81.5% vaccinations of those over 65 and things look much better-just as they do in strong vaccination performance countries like Israel and the United Kingdom. The outbreaks in other parts of the world show just how potent  Covid 19 can still be-numbers across the world are as high as they have ever been which is seemingly strangely minimized on a board discussing international travel

Edited April 26, 2021 by Stallion

[nomad098]

2 hours ago, cured said:

You are basically saying the same thing. There is a huge difference between scientists with the same expertise debating the proper way of handling something and someone who doesn't have the same training weighing in as an expert.  The scientists with focus on the area of concern have all put in long hours of work and experience and debate among them is good for progress. Their opinions as experts should be believed. Not the guy down the road. It is when those not as qualified weigh in as the same experts.

 

For instance, when Apollo 13 was experiencing catastrophic difficulties, NASA consulted scientists and mechanics who had experience and expertise in the Apollo program. They debated the best strategy for bringing home the astronauts based on experience and knowledge. They all shared expertise in the Apollow program.

 

What NASA did not do was bring in the local Honda mechanic. While technically a mechanic just like the NASA mechanics, the Honda mechanic had no experience with rocket mechanics so therefore his/her opinion was not even close to the validity of the mechanics who had worked on rockets for most of their career.  Just as the NASA mechanics would not be the experts on Hondas.  Everyone has their own area of expertise.

 

So it is with biological and chemical scientists and doctors.  There is a reason we have multiple specialties. Each one is an expert in their particular field because they have the training and the different education.  There is a reason why your GP sends you to an oncologist if they suspect cancer.  Your GP may be able to weigh in on their expertise, your overall health, but the oncologist will be able to weigh in on particular courses of action for your particular diagnosis.

 

If you disagree with the consensus of the leading epidemiologists, looking at the research and work of other epidemiologists or experts in virology is healthy.  Their opinions are based on expertise and work done on viruses.

 

Discredited doctors' opinions who have absolutely no expertise in epidemiology do not carry the same weight as those that are experienced in epidemiology.  Just because they make youtube videos or create a dramatic background of standing on sweeping steps in white coats does not give them expertise.

 

All this is saying is listen to the experts. If you are trying to bring a disabled spaceship home, you cannot listen to the Apollo mechanic and the Honda mechanic and then weigh their opinions equally. You cannot listen to everyone who spews an opinion on a subject with or without expertise and then decide you will believe the person who fits your own narrative better.  If scientists with the same narrow expertise, research, and education differ in opinion, then so be it. They are all coming at the problem with the same expertise.  Science changes as more knowledge is learned. But the experts know how to interpret the knowledge and make adjustments as necessary.

 

All this piece is saying is to weigh the experts' opinions more heavily than those that have no expertise in the field they are opining about.  It is not equal.

 

Up to now the experts have not exactly lived up to the hype.

 

I can't speak for the US but in the UK we have SAGE (Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies ) all experts in their fields but based on some of their advice and recommendations they have little to no clue of the realities of ordinary people's lives. At which point an expert is pretty useless.

 

From the chief medical officer for Wales an expert and a member of SAGE " non essential items are not to be sold in supermarkets to reduce the movement of people" sounds good except non essential items included women's sanitary products, you could buy food but not the pot to cook it in, you could buy alcohol but not baby clothes, you could buy a birthday cake but not candles to go on it and the list goes on.

 

We have been fed a narrative by one like minded group of experts, they may well be right however we will never know if they were right or wrong because the discourse normally associated with science has been shut down and the only people that are giving an alternative view are not the most credible sources

 

 

[Missusdubbya]

5 hours ago, A&L_Ont said:

@John&LaLa when someone charters private yachts why worry about vaccines. Who needs a vaccine if you have your “own” yacht booked.

I wondered if anyone else remembered the private yacht charter 😁

[broberts]

1 hour ago, nomad098 said:

From the chief medical officer for Wales an expert and a member of SAGE " non essential items are not to be sold in supermarkets to reduce the movement of people" sounds good except non essential items included women's sanitary products, you could buy food but not the pot to cook it in, you could buy alcohol but not baby clothes, you could buy a birthday cake but not candles to go on it and the list goes on.

 

So you write off the expertise of the entire SAGE because of some clerical misteps?

 

Misteps are not confined to subject area experts. Why would one expect birthday candles to be on an acceptable list? After all covid is an airborne virus. Blowing out birthday candles strikes me as contra indicated.

[John&LaLa]

22 minutes ago, Missusdubbya said:

I wondered if anyone else remembered the private yacht charter 😁

 

Unfortunately I remember way to much on a lot of posters🤣🤣