Jump to content

3rd vaccine dose likely needed


Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, broberts said:

 

What a ridiculous response.

What is ridiculous is someone expecting everyone to have the same opinion and actions as they do when everyone has had different life experiences and events that have shaped their opinions.  What I choose to do in a certain situation may be completely different from someone else and that is ok.  

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/22/2021 at 10:03 AM, broberts said:

 

Even when it negatively affects my life?

IMHO, anyone who refuses to be vaccinated if effecting my life and the lives of all Americans. Those folks who refuse to be vaccinated are aiding and abetting this  virus and the virus will continue to mutate.

 

Someone made a comment either on a cruise forum or another forum that I read, that made me very concerned and alarmed actually. The comment made was that if this virus is allowed to continue to perpetuate and mutate, the vaccines we currently have just may become null and void to be protective for the millions of people who have already been vaccinated. That, to me, is abhorable. We need to get these vaccine hesitant people and the anti-vaxxers on board and get the shots. We need everyone to do their part to put an end to this pandemic.

  • Like 3
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/22/2021 at 11:04 AM, 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.

"Being impacted" to me means effecting someone's health and safety. Being offended by what someone says is no where near the implication of causing harm to another person's health and safety. My opinion, of course.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, xpcdoojk said:

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.  

I mean, not for nothing, but wasn't the idea that the earth was the center of the universe "settled science" at one point in time? The English word science comes from the Latin "scientia" which means knowledge, and itself comes from the Latin verb "scire," which means "to know." We can never know absolutely everything, it's a constant search. (just as you said) I worry about the scientific community becoming all-powerful to the point of it blackballing anything that its members decide "isn't scientific."

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, DCGuy64 said:

I mean, not for nothing, but wasn't the idea that the earth was the center of the universe "settled science" at one point in time? The English word science comes from the Latin "scientia" which means knowledge, and itself comes from the Latin verb "scire," which means "to know." We can never know absolutely everything, it's a constant search. (just as you said) I worry about the scientific community becoming all-powerful to the point of it blackballing anything that its members decide "isn't scientific."

 

It's clear you don't trust the scientific community.

 

So, who do you trust when it comes to your health and the health of others?

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, yogimax said:

It's clear you don't trust the scientific community.

 

So, who do you trust when it comes to your health and the health of others?

 

I trust my Doctor.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Truth be told, I use a lot of sources for my information regarding my health. I have used the CDC's website a lot, I've also watched CNN, Fox, MSNBC, the BBC, and read articles in The Washington Post, The New York Times, and read online articles by Harvard Medical School, the WHO, and other universities like Oxford in the UK. I also discussed issues with my primary physician. And that isn't an exhaustive list, by far. I live in Virginia and have used government websites here locally as well as listening to broadcasts from Maryland and DC. Last year I spent a lot of time while working from home listening to news briefings by various governors around the country and the White House Task Force headed by Dr Fauci.

Yes, the "Fox News" by itself was meant to be a joke, but I just intuitively knew someone was already thinking that and would assume I was serious.

Edited by DCGuy64
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, DCGuy64 said:

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.

 

I never said that you can't do anything. I said you shouldn't.

 

IMO people shouldn't cast aspersions on others just because they take the time to actually examine the facts, citations, and source quality of somebody's favorite paper.

 

From your original post, here's the list of the things that you were complaining that your opponents do when they don't agree with a paper:

 

"...dissect and scrutinize every word, challenge every assumption, discredit the source and slander the authors all in hopes of proving it wrong."

 

Except for the slander part, these are all good things if they are warranted!

 

If you don't have time to do these things, that's OK.  But I don't think it's fair to disparage those who actually do them, no matter what side of the fence they're on.

 

3 hours ago, DCGuy64 said:

If you don't like me or what I say, don't respond.

 

FWIW I like you just fine. Your posts tend to be courteous rather than aggressive and insulting.  And I can't imagine ever using the ignore feature on anyone unless maybe they spammed posts every few seconds.

 

 

Edited by Shorewalk Holmes
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks. Here are my thoughts:

1. This is, for all intents and purposes, an informal site dedicated to cruising and, I guess more broadly, tourism in general. It isn't a newspaper, a court of law, or a formal debating forum. Therefore, people are allowed to give their comments and criticisms, and others are, in their turn, allowed to comment back, question the reasoning or logic of others, and yes, even criticize. When someone reads an analysis by a scientist and calls that person a quack because it's clear the reader doesn't like that scientist's opinions, it may not meet the legal definition of slander, but it's pretty obvious the person is attempting to discredit the individual due to his views. That's pretty cheap, and I'm going to call people out on that.

2. Some people, I've noticed, answer most, if not every post, with something negative. The moment they see a cruise line stock tank, it's "the end of the industry," or "they'll all be bankrupt by the end of the year." I am allowed to push back against that, ask for evidence, and question the assumptions.

3. Some people seem to be convinced that Covid-19 will be the end of civilization as we know it, while others think we've probably achieved herd immunity or will do so soon, based in part on vaccinations and in part on people's immune systems having already responded to Covid-19. To bolster their views, many of these individuals cite statistics, news stories, peer-reviewed studies, and the like. Those who agree with the findings of these resources rarely, if ever (in my experience) question the methodology of the findings because the general recommendations or conclusions already match their desired outcome.

To say that I am guilty of disparaging people simply because I point things out critically seems rather harsh to me. It's as if you expect people to be able to say anything they want, even absent any evidence, but those who push back are disparaging. Hardly. I make plenty of statements and others take issue with them. I may not like it, but I have to accept it. Same goes for me. If the moderators of Cruise Critic decide that only opinions about cruising are permissible, but not opinions about others' opinions, then that's another matter.

I appreciate your contributions as well, though I do notice you seem to respond to my content rather quickly and negatively. Again, under the rules, it's your right to do so. 🙂

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Dizzney9915 said:


But you have plenty of time to continuously post long drawn out paragraph after paragraph after paragraph of the same crap day after day on a cruise forum. Ok. Got it. 

Agreed.  Better be careful...you'll end up on his "Ignored" list. 😉

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, DCGuy64 said:

When someone reads an analysis by a scientist and calls that person a quack because it's clear the reader doesn't like that scientist's opinions, it may not meet the legal definition of slander, but it's pretty obvious the person is attempting to discredit the individual due to his views. That's pretty cheap, and I'm going to call people out on that.

 

I agree with this.  People shouldn't just respond by only saying 'quack' or 'junk science'. 

 

My position is that (1) they need to give specific reasons why they think it's junk, and (2) doing this is a good thing.

 

The reasons can include pointing out deceptive citations, faulty logic, other scientists' differing opinions, and facts about the sources.

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

Posted (edited)
23 minutes ago, DCGuy64 said:

To say that I am guilty of disparaging people simply because I point things out critically seems rather harsh to me.

 

OK, how about this more positive take:

 

"...dissect and scrutinize every word, challenge every assumption, discredit the source and slander the authors all in hopes of proving it wrong."

 

Except for the slander part, these are all good things if they are warranted!

 

If you don't have time to do these things, that's OK.  But I believe we should encourage those who actually do them, no matter what side of the fence they're on.

 

 

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

8 minutes ago, Shorewalk Holmes said:

But I believe we should encourage those who actually do them, no matter what side of the fence they're on.

Just my opinion, of course, but I'd say if you're going to demand a high bar of proof for your opponents, the same must go for 'your' side, as well. Not that people will, but that they should. (to quote someone else) 😉

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, DCGuy64 said:

Just my opinion, of course, but I'd say if you're going to demand a high bar of proof for your opponents, the same must go for 'your' side, as well. Not that people will, but that they should. (to quote someone else) 😉

 

Agreed.  I wouldn't cite a paper without reading it and being comfortable with both the paper and the source.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Shorewalk Holmes said:

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.

 

I might as well say there is no fraud or bias in TV, news, corporations, politics, etc because none of those mediums have proved themselves guilty.

 

The whole "science" argument has lost a lot of credibility. Sure it's generally more accurate than a guy on the internet. However, you can often find "science" that supports both sides of an argument. How do we know which one is more accurate? The one being shoved into our face and given all of the funding. You don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to have a general understanding of the way the world works.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Just read an article that many states are returning their vaccines or requesting to the government not to send them as much.  Seems as though that most people who wanted the shot have gotten it.  The rest of us are not interested in a rushed emergency gene therapy injection that was rushed in 6 months.  

Edited by Sky616
  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Joebucks said:

 

I might as well say there is no fraud or bias in TV, news, corporations, politics, etc because none of those mediums have proved themselves guilty.

 

The whole "science" argument has lost a lot of credibility. Sure it's generally more accurate than a guy on the internet. However, you can often find "science" that supports both sides of an argument. How do we know which one is more accurate? The one being shoved into our face and given all of the funding. You don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to have a general understanding of the way the world works.

 

I know of no evidence of widespread  fraud in science. 

 

Unlike politics and media, publicly-funded scientific research is a very slow and careful process with multiple layers of review before you can publish anything. There's no built-in agenda except the topics that the funding agency wants to know more about.

 

Where you might get fraud is in some private companies where there may be pressure for the research to support the value of the product.

 

Edited by Shorewalk Holmes
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sky616 said:

The rest of us are not interested in a rushed emergency gene therapy injection that was rushed in 6 months.  

And that is precisely why cruising will not soon resume in the United States.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Joebucks said:

 

However, you can often find "science" that supports both sides of an argument. How do we know which one is more accurate? 

Sure you can find "opinions" on both sides of an issue.  

 

"Opinions," however, are totally different than scientific proof.  You can believe whoever you want and suffer the consequences.  I'll listen to those who can back up their opinions with facts.

  • Like 3
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ooh, scientific proof.  Where do we find that?  We all need a good dose of that.  Is that what they show on TV or Cable?  Maybe in the NYT or the WaPo?  

 

O, right, it is not scientific proof, but consensus.... and of course consensus is not actually science.  My head hurts.

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Booster shots great.

 

But what are you actually getting a booster shot against?

 

The present crop of vaccines target a very specific part of a very specific spike protein the booster shots will be the same just for a variant.

 

Covid19 mutates naturally however viruses can be pressured to mutate by external mechanisms like mass vaccination roll outs. This makes it easy for them to mutate beyond the design of the present vaccines, Dr Fauci and the UK advisors have been talking about this for a while

 

The problem is no one knows what variants will be in circulation in 3 to 9 months time, this is the timeframe to create a vaccine for a known variant, the Novaxx trial tells us that the probability is that the vaccines will have a limited to no effect on a variant it was not designed to protect against.

 

We all know quickly covid 19 circled the globe, the Kent variant to become the dominant strain in the UK during lockdowns and for 3 other variants of concern to be recognised. Unlike influenza vaccine makers and manufactures will not be able to anticipate what the next variant will be

 

The Novaxx trial did throw out some other interesting information, that those previously exposed to older variants of covid-19 seemed to be protected from the new South African variant only having mild symptoms.

 

There is science that shows that an live vaccine like yellow fever teaches the immune system to recognise the whole virus and is not rendered ineffective by changes at the surface. 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, yogimax said:

Who, I hope, listens to the scientific community.

He seems to and he came highly recommended by the hospital.  I needed a new doctor since I hadn't found one after our move yet.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Forum Jump
    • Categories
      • Thank You for 25 Years - Click for Fun Stuff!
      • Forum Assistance
      • 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...