Jump to content

3rd vaccine dose likely needed


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Keksie said:

Let people live the life they choose not the life you wish they would live.  

Very nice philosophy.  I don’t believe people should be so free to choose what they wish to do if it adversely impacts on others.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, d9704011 said:

Very nice philosophy.  I don’t believe people should be so free to choose what they wish to do if it adversely impacts on others.

Ah, but who gets to decide what constitutes adverse impact? And in what spheres? How far do you want to go with this idea? I can think of PLENTY of examples that would make you reconsider that proposition.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, DCGuy64 said:

Ah, but who gets to decide what constitutes adverse impact? And in what spheres? How far do you want to go with this idea? I can think of PLENTY of examples that would make you reconsider that proposition.

No thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, broberts said:

 

Even when it negatively affects my life?

You are choosing to be negatively affected.  For instance if you are worried about how I am living in Florida then maybe don't visit.  I don't know if I could even get into Canada right now even if I wanted to.  If you are worried that somehow even though I am vaccinated I could somehow contract covid to the point that I was contagious, be around someone long enough to infect them and they go to Canada, be around you long enough without a mask to infect you then maybe you need to stay in your home and get delivery.  

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, d9704011 said:

Very nice philosophy.  I don’t believe people should be so free to choose what they wish to do if it adversely impacts on others.

We will just have to disagree on that point since adversely being impacted these days can mean being offended by what someone says.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Keksie said:

We will just have to disagree on that point since adversely being impacted these days can mean being offended by what someone says.

He didn't want to take me up on it, not sure why, but here's what I was thinking of:

1. I don't want others to have cars that use too much fuel because that will adversely affect me due to the strain on our planet.

2. I don't want others to work for less than I do, because that will adversely affect me due to downward pressure on my wages.

3. I don't want others to pay too much for housing in my neighborhood, because that will cause property values to go up and I'll have to pay more in property taxes.

 

There are plenty more where that came from. There's always going to be some situation in which other people's behavior might affect me adversely. Doesn't mean I get to dictate what other people do.

And when it comes to Covid-19, I do what I can to protect myself, but it's not up to me to tell others what to do, either.

PS and you're right, with all the talk of microaggressions, I can be accused of a hate crime if I use the wrong pronoun. Our world is crazy!

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, d9704011 said:

I don’t believe people should be so free to choose what they wish to do if it adversely impacts on others.


@YorkvillainI can’t believe I’m about to type this...


I have an example of what is happening in Canada but maybe should not which might adversely impact others. NHL hockey. (shuddering while typing this)

 

They travel from province to province during the third wave. Players are now only starting to enter vaccinated age groups for the lowered AZ shots, as other staff such as older coaches etc would have had a chance to get it by age.  They definitely are not essential, but watching them play helps mental health in watching something normal. 
 

The Canuck’s outbreak is a prime example to why they should not be playing. However, the Feds and Provinces that have teams allow it to continue.  That being said I am selfishly happy to watch the Canadian division while I stay home, knowing they go through a testing regime that regular citizens do not. 
 

After the Canuck outbreak, if not before, the NHL would/will have had a plan together in case teams can no longer play here. I think each team would fly to the states and they all Canadian teams share a few arenas and a bubble to finish off their regular season play.  Maybe even with some fans in attendance.  The first thing they would do is get their vax shots in hours of landing or at most days of their arrival, with the second to follow in the proper time frame.
 

Toronto will stay longer, as they advance deep into the playoffs.  Where as Ottawa and some others will be headed home in shorter order. The Leafs will raise the cup Ferda the boys, after some dirty dangles and bar down cellies.

 

The Olympics as well, something that doesn’t really seem to make sense for me right where Canada currently sits.  Especially if Canadian Olympians get vaccinated faster than those more deserving in the general community.  This is yet to be known, but travelling internationally seems to boldly go against the Feds recommendations.

 

Edited by A&L_Ont
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, A&L_Ont said:


@YorkvillainI can’t believe I’m about to type this...


I have an example of what is happening in Canada but maybe should not which might adversely impact others. NHL hockey. (shuddering while typing this)

 

They travel from province to province during the third wave. Players are now only starting to enter vaccinated age groups for the lowered AZ shots, as other staff such as older coaches etc would have had a chance to get it by age.  They definitely are not essential, but watching them play helps mental health in watching something normal. 
 

The Canuck’s outbreak is a prime example to why they should not be playing. However, the Feds and Provinces that have teams allow it to continue.  That being said I am selfishly happy to watch the Canadian division while I stay home, knowing they go through a testing regime that regular citizens do not. 
 

After the Canuck outbreak, if not before, the NHL would/will have had a plan together in case teams can no longer play here. I think each team would fly to the states and they all Canadian teams share a few arenas and a bubble to finish off their regular season play.  Maybe even with some fans in attendance.  The first thing they would do is get their vax shots in hours of landing or at most days of their arrival, with the second to follow in the proper time frame.
 

Toronto will stay longer, as they advance deep into the playoffs.  Where as Ottawa and some others will be headed home in shorter order. The Leafs will raise the cup Ferda the boys, after some dirty dangles and bar down cellies.

 

The Olympics as well, something that doesn’t really seem to make sense for me right where Canada currently sits.  Especially if Canadian Olympians get vaccinated faster than those more deserving in the general community.  This is yet to be known, but travelling internationally seems to boldly go against the Feds recommendations.

 

I can’t believe you’ve predicted a Laff Stanley Cup!! Is there something in the drinking water in municipalities west of Kingston that distorts rational brain function when it comes to hockey?  I do agree on the Senators; in fact, I’m a little surprised they’ve won more that five games this year.

 

Full disclosure:  I used to have a number 14 ironed on the back of my TML shirt when I was young.  Years of heartbreak and disappoint after 1969 (the Black Ballard Era) convinced me to become non-aligned; for sure not those Habs down the road from me (my wife’s team).  I will cheer for the Sens but definitely not a real fan... the Melnyk Malignancy Epoch has settled in here.

Edited by d9704011
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, DCGuy64 said:

He didn't want to take me up on it, not sure why, but here's what I was thinking of:

1. I don't want others to have cars that use too much fuel because that will adversely affect me due to the strain on our planet.

2. I don't want others to work for less than I do, because that will adversely affect me due to downward pressure on my wages.

3. I don't want others to pay too much for housing in my neighborhood, because that will cause property values to go up and I'll have to pay more in property taxes.

 

There are plenty more where that came from. There's always going to be some situation in which other people's behavior might affect me adversely. Doesn't mean I get to dictate what other people do.

And when it comes to Covid-19, I do what I can to protect myself, but it's not up to me to tell others what to do, either.

PS and you're right, with all the talk of microaggressions, I can be accused of a hate crime if I use the wrong pronoun. Our world is crazy!

 

I don't mean to imply that you don't already know the things below, you probably do.  But sometimes they get obscured in the back and forth.

 

Discussions based on generic ideological buzzwords instead of a specific, actual case are usually pretty fruitless.

 

So let's get specific. Suppose someone tests positive for covid and are sneezing and coughing.  Should they have the freedom to unmask and sneeze in the faces of crowds of people indoors?  How about in nursing homes?  How about seducing someone without telling them they're positive? 

 

The general principle here is that they're expelling physical objects that can hurt or kill other people.  As far as I know, people have no inherent freedom to do that.  That's why we can regulate pollution, for example.

 

The debate should be about all of the upsides and downsides of various possible actions to reduce the danger, not just about freedom, important as it is.

 

 

Edited by Shorewalk Holmes
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Shorewalk Holmes said:

 

I don't mean to imply that you don't already know the things below, you probably do.  But sometimes they get obscured in the back and forth.

 

Discussions based on generic ideological buzzwords instead of a specific, actual case are usually pretty fruitless.

 

So let's get specific. Suppose someone tests positive for covid and are sneezing and coughing.  Should they have the freedom to unmask and sneeze in the faces of crowds of people indoors?  How about in nursing homes?  How about seducing someone without telling them they're positive? 

 

The general principle here is that they're expelling physical objects that can hurt or kill other people.  As far as I know, people have no inherent freedom to do that.  That's why we can regulate pollution, for example.

 

The debate should be about all of the upsides and downsides of various possible actions to reduce the danger, not just about freedom, important as it is.

 

 

I hear you, but my quarrel isn't with you, it's with the person who wrote that he didn't think people had a right to do anything that adversely affected him. Since he didn't specify anything regarding the scenarios you just mentioned, I felt the need to counter that argument with a few instances of my own. That's all.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, d9704011 said:

I can’t believe you’ve predicted a Laff Stanley Cup!! Is there something in the drinking water in municipalities west of Kingston that distorts rational brain function when it comes to hockey?  I do agree on the Senators; in fact, I’m a little surprised they’ve won more that five games this year.

 

Full disclosure:  I used to have a number 14 ironed on the back of my TML shirt when I was young.  Years of heartbreak and disappoint after 1969 (the Black Ballard Era) convinced me to become non-aligned; for sure not those Habs down the road from me (my wife’s team).  I will cheer for the Sens but definitely not a real fan... the Melnyk Malignancy Epoch has settled in here.


In 1995 when my friend’s brother went to Sr Sanford Fleming in Peterborough, he rented a house. Found out after the fact, that he was on the Ottawa side of the street for CBC Saturday night home games on cable TV. Had he picked a house on the other side of the street he would have had the Leafs home games on cable TV with CBC.  

 

At the end of the day I’ll cheer on any Canadian team.  

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, DCGuy64 said:

Here's my armchair quarterback take:

If you believe that mask mandates and vaccines work, you will uncritically believe any study or quote that supports that. However, if someone presents contradictory information, you will dissect and scrutinize every word, challenge every assumption, discredit the source and slander the authors all in hopes of proving it wrong. It's human nature: we don't like our assumptions to be questioned. Most people do this all of the time, possibly without even knowing it. I've certainly seen plenty of evidence on here.

 

Can't speak for everyone, but I actually read the papers that people post, and properly research the credibility of their sources when I have time (I'm retired 🙂 ). 

 

You're right that people are motivated to look for problems if they don't believe the conclusion of a paper.  Especially if, like me, they've read other papers that reach the opposite conclusion!  

 

Just because someone is motivated doesn't mean they're wrong!  It's on you to show that. You shouldn't just toss off insinuations that motivated people are being disingenuous when, for example, they 'discredit' a source.  Some sources are demonstrably less credible than others.

 

Of course, I hope you'll agree that using the word 'slander' was ill-advised, unless you can prove some kind of deliberate deception.

 

Finally, here, from another post, is an actual virologist's opinion of a viral anti-mask paper that I have read and criticized:

 

"This is a list of generally discredited hypotheses that have been tested and disproved," said Benjamin Neuman, biology professor at Texas A&M University and chief virologist of the university’s Global Health Research Complex. "This seems to be a piece of deceptive writing from what appears to be a non-expert. It isn't science."

 

It has been implied (not by you) that Neuman may have been paid or ordered by his funding source to lie. No evidence, other than the belief that most scientists will lie or fudge data to please their funders.

 

So I looked up Neuman's funding source. It's the UK government's branch for funding innovative research ideas.  It's an awesome program, not a source of corruption!

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/innovate-uk-technology-strategy-board-research-development-and-innovation-scheme

 

Here's one of his papers:

 

Identification of a membrane binding peptide in the envelope protein of MHV coronavirus

 

 

 

Edited by Shorewalk Holmes
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will posit, that there are good scientists and quack scientists.  How do we know which are which?  Let you tell us?

 

There are good and bad in any profession.  Are you saying that scientists are only the good kind?

 

Those who try to prove a point by assuming all are one thing or another, fail on a point of logic.

 

Wanna try again?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, xpcdoojk said:

I will posit, that there are good scientists and quack scientists.  How do we know which are which?  Let you tell us?

 

There are good and bad in any profession.  Are you saying that scientists are only the good kind?

 

Those who try to prove a point by assuming all are one thing or another, fail on a point of logic.

 

Wanna try again?

 

I thank you for making my point.  'Quack' may be a little harsh, but some scientists are definitely better than others, as my contrast between the anti-mask guy and the real virologist shows.

 

As far as I know, there's no evidence of widespread fraud in science.  It does happen, but rarely.  So I will posit that there are far more good scientists than quack scientists.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Shorewalk Holmes said:

 

I thank you for making my point.  'Quack' may be a little harsh, but some scientists are definitely better than others, as my contrast between the anti-mask guy and the real virologist shows.

 

As far as I know, there's no evidence of widespread fraud in science.  It does happen, but rarely.  So I will posit that there are far more good scientists than quack scientists.

That is great.  I agree, probably more good than quack.  Which are which?  Which studies are junk science which are hard science?  Are they testing hypothesis in the tests or are they just doing studies then telling us what they mean?

 

Kind of hard for the people to judge what kind of science we are dealing with.  If there is some junk science, and yet both kinds are reported on the news.... who decides which is meaningful and which is just today’s don’t drink coffee it will kill you before the next study says you will live longer drinking more.  Or red wine is good for your heart, ignoring alcoholism will kill you.

 

I will further posit.  Most of the science reported on the news, FB, or Cruise Critic falls into the junk science category.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, xpcdoojk said:

That is great.  I agree, probably more good than quack.  Which are which?  Which studies are junk science which are hard science?  Are they testing hypothesis in the tests or are they just doing studies then telling us what they mean?

 

Kind of hard for the people to judge what kind of science we are dealing with.  If there is some junk science, and yet both kinds are reported on the news.... who decides which is meaningful and which is just today’s don’t drink coffee it will kill you before the next study says you will live longer drinking more.  Or red wine is good for your heart, ignoring alcoholism will kill you.

 

I will further posit.  Most of the science reported on the news, FB, or Cruise Critic falls into the junk science category.

 

 

True, there's actual junk science.  And some of it gets spread far and wide on social media. 

 

But I think some of the problems may be due to oversimplified reporting of legitimate scientific results.

 

Reporters sometimes get excited about a new result, and ignore the accumulated wisdom from earlier studies.  They know that readers are attracted to new and simple, not historical and complicated. 

 

On the other hand, Scientific American is a reliable source, but most people probably don't like the effort it takes to read their thorough explanations.

 

And, as you suggest, some issues are just unresolved.  But that doesn't make a good story.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, DCGuy64 said:

I hear you, but my quarrel isn't with you, it's with the person who wrote that he didn't think people had a right to do anything that adversely affected him. Since he didn't specify anything regarding the scenarios you just mentioned, I felt the need to counter that argument with a few instances of my own. That's all.

 

I strongly agree with your overall point.  Arguing over abstract, undefined propositions is not particularly useful.

Edited by Shorewalk Holmes
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Keksie said:

You are choosing to be negatively affected.  For instance if you are worried about how I am living in Florida then maybe don't visit.  I don't know if I could even get into Canada right now even if I wanted to.  If you are worried that somehow even though I am vaccinated I could somehow contract covid to the point that I was contagious, be around someone long enough to infect them and they go to Canada, be around you long enough without a mask to infect you then maybe you need to stay in your home and get delivery.  

 

What a ridiculous response.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Shorewalk Holmes said:

 

Can't speak for everyone, but I actually read the papers that people post, and properly research the credibility of their sources when I have time (I'm retired 🙂 ). 

 

You're right that people are motivated to look for problems if they don't believe the conclusion of a paper.  Especially if, like me, they've read other papers that reach the opposite conclusion!  

 

Just because someone is motivated doesn't mean they're wrong!  It's on you to show that. You shouldn't just toss off insinuations that motivated people are being disingenuous when, for example, they 'discredit' a source.  Some sources are demonstrably less credible than others.

 

Of course, I hope you'll agree that using the word 'slander' was ill-advised, unless you can prove some kind of deliberate deception.

 

Finally, here, from another post, is an actual virologist's opinion of a viral anti-mask paper that I have read and criticized:

 

"This is a list of generally discredited hypotheses that have been tested and disproved," said Benjamin Neuman, biology professor at Texas A&M University and chief virologist of the university’s Global Health Research Complex. "This seems to be a piece of deceptive writing from what appears to be a non-expert. It isn't science."

 

It has been implied (not by you) that Neuman may have been paid or ordered by his funding source to lie. No evidence, other than the belief that most scientists will lie or fudge data to please their funders.

 

So I looked up Neuman's funding source. It's the UK government's branch for funding innovative research ideas.  It's an awesome program, not a source of corruption!

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/innovate-uk-technology-strategy-board-research-development-and-innovation-scheme

 

Here's one of his papers:

 

Identification of a membrane binding peptide in the envelope protein of MHV coronavirus

 

 

 

Unlike you, I'm not retired, I have to work. I don't have an inexhaustible supply of time in which to research every news article (which nowadays feature hyperlinks to still OTHER articles, which could easily cost me a day's work, not to mention my JOB, to read). I read what I can, when I'm able. I consider myself reasonably well educated on matters relating to COVID.

Furthermore, despite what you say, I actually can say whatever the h*** I want on here, as long as I don't run afoul of Cruise Critic's rules. I absolutely am free to toss off insinuations of people disregarding articles they don't like simply because they don't like the source. That's just plain lazy. Any person can say "oh, you can't believe what such-and-such newspaper says," because the person hasn't even bothered to read the information. I could do that, too, but I try not to. Saying that "that isn't science" is a nice, convenient way of avoidance. I know that throughout the pandemic last year, I constantly heard people say we needed to "trust the science." When people like me cited articles by scientists in Sweden or the UK that challenged the efficacy of school closures, shuttering of businesses and mask mandates, what do you suppose was the reaction? It was "that person isn't a scientist" or "what works in Sweden or the UK doesn't apply here," in other words, ANYTHING at all to avoid questioning the mandates being forced on us in the USA. At any rate, humans being humans, we have a natural tendency to value viewpoints that generally agree with our own, and to reject ones that disagree. If you don't like me or what I say, don't respond. Or use the ignore feature. But I have a right to express my opinion, just as you do. But you don't have to like my opinions or agree with them, however I doesn't mean I'll stop posting them. Not by a long shot. Have a nice weekend.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, xpcdoojk said:

That is great.  I agree, probably more good than quack.  Which are which?  Which studies are junk science which are hard science?  Are they testing hypothesis in the tests or are they just doing studies then telling us what they mean?

 

Kind of hard for the people to judge what kind of science we are dealing with.  If there is some junk science, and yet both kinds are reported on the news.... who decides which is meaningful and which is just today’s don’t drink coffee it will kill you before the next study says you will live longer drinking more.  Or red wine is good for your heart, ignoring alcoholism will kill you.

 

I will further posit.  Most of the science reported on the news, FB, or Cruise Critic falls into the junk science category.

 

That's the big question, isn't it? Who decides?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, xpcdoojk said:

That is great.  I agree, probably more good than quack.  Which are which?  Which studies are junk science which are hard science?  Are they testing hypothesis in the tests or are they just doing studies then telling us what they mean?

 

Kind of hard for the people to judge what kind of science we are dealing with.  If there is some junk science, and yet both kinds are reported on the news.... who decides which is meaningful and which is just today’s don’t drink coffee it will kill you before the next study says you will live longer drinking more.  Or red wine is good for your heart, ignoring alcoholism will kill you.

 

I will further posit.  Most of the science reported on the news, FB, or Cruise Critic falls into the junk science category.

 

Yes, it is often hard to tell which is junk science. I also think it's very difficult for any scientist, good or bad, to eliminate all confirmation bias in their study. I do think we are seeing a lot of that now, otherwise we wouldn't be trying to shut people down for asking questions (not referring to you). Years ago I read an interesting article on the fallacy of many studies. I think that's why it's important to continue to discuss scientific issues and be careful to call any science "settled". Here is the article:  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182327/

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, HxFx said:

Yes, it is often hard to tell which is junk science. I also think it's very difficult for any scientist, good or bad, to eliminate all confirmation bias in their study. I do think we are seeing a lot of that now, otherwise we wouldn't be trying to shut people down for asking questions (not referring to you). Years ago I read an interesting article on the fallacy of many studies. I think that's why it's important to continue to discuss scientific issues and be careful to call any science "settled". Here is the article:  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182327/

Exactly.

 

Science is a constant quest for truth. 

 

When people say science to shut up debate, that is exactly like ex-communicating Galileo for saying the earth is not the center of the universe. These modern followers of science even tried to get us heathens to denounce our views so we can be let back into society.  It is really fascinating, that despite massive scientific achievement, we still treat our beliefs as truth.  

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Forum Jump
    • Categories
      • Forum Assistance
      • ANNOUNCEMENT: PONANT Cruises & Expeditions
      • Cruise Critic Live Special Event: Q&A with American Queen Voyages
      • New Cruisers
      • Cruise Lines “A – O”
      • Cruise Lines “P – Z”
      • River Cruising
      • ROLL CALLS
      • Digital Photography & Cruise Technology
      • Special Interest Cruising
      • Cruise Discussion Topics
      • UK Cruising
      • Australia & New Zealand Cruisers
      • Canadian Cruisers
      • North American Homeports
      • Ports of Call
      • Cruise Conversations
×
×
  • Create New...