6 ms·

The statement “These are child safety laws” premises that the laws would save children - so the way to refute is to ask for proof. Outside of vaccines I doubt t

The statement “These are child safety laws” premises that the laws would save children - so the way to refute is to ask for proof. Outside of vaccines I doubt there is anything concrete that will directly benefit children. There is no argument that holds up to scrutiny. They also don’t have any good way to measure safety, though Goodhart’s Law would have an impact.

qsera 1mo ago
>Outside of vaccines Will you allow an argument against this? I mean, I want to show an example where it is only a problem when someone else is not as convinced as yourself, one way or the other. >so the way to refute is to ask for proof.. No use. The same proof will not be convincing for everyone. Let us take vaccine. The proof for a Vaccine for X saving Y lives is often the following. "Before the vaccine there was Y deaths per year from X. But after vaccines there is zero deaths from X". The implication is that vaccines saved X lives. This could convince most of the people. But someone can ask. Are those kids who are not dying of X (thanks to the vaccine), are dying of something else? Now the picture is not so clear. See, same data, different results depending on how deep you want to probe,
- pixelatedindex 1mo ago
  > Are those kids who are not dying of X (thanks to the vaccine), are dying of something else? Now the picture is not so clear. Why is it not so clear? If they are not dying of X then the vaccine did the job and technically saved the kid’s life from dying of X. Notice that it doesn’t mean that they can’t die of other things.
  - qsera 1mo ago
    Because just imagine that may be the underlying cause of death is malnutrition, or poor immune system. In this case the body won't be able to fight of any kind of infection. When you vaccinate such a person for X, that person is able to resist X. But since the immune system health is still weak or the person is still malnutrition, they could still succumb to an infection of Y. But that is one less death from X, and one death less that the vaccine can claim credit to, but in the larger picture, the vaccine did not save a life. So the point being 1000 deaths from X to 0 deaths from X does not necessary mean X lives saved.
    - pixelatedindex 1mo ago
      > So the point being 1000 deaths from X to 0 deaths from X does not necessary mean X lives saved. Yes, this statement is a non-sequitur. A vaccine preventing death from X does not prevent a death from other causes. That doesn’t mean X isn’t effective.
      - qsera 1mo ago
        >That doesn’t mean X isn’t effective. No one said it. Don't put words in my mouth.
        pixelatedindex 1mo ago
        That’s fair pushback. I concluded that this was the underlying assumption because I couldn’t surmise anything else because you had said this: > The implication is that vaccines saved X lives. This could convince most of the people. But someone can ask. Are those kids who are not dying of X (thanks to the vaccine), are dying of something else? To me it assumes mutual exclusivity between not dying of X and dying of something else, but perhaps my bias is showing.
        qsera 1mo ago
        It did not assume mutual exclusivity. But if the underlying cause of succumbing to a disease is poor general health or a poor immune system, then preventing a single disease might not really save the person. But it still shows up as a life saved by the vaccine (because it prevented a specific disease incidence). That is misleading. This can be made very clear by taking a small example. Imagine there is an island with a population of 100. Among these 50 are very weak. And every year, these 50 die due to various illness. And among these 50 deaths, 30 are caused by X. So in order to save these 30 deaths, the government started vaccinating against X. The next year there is zero deaths due to X. But there were still 50 deaths in total that year too. Only that the 30 lives that used to be claimed by X, is now claimed by A, B and C (they are so weak that they will succumb to any infection). This is not an unrealistic scenario. If you have a weak immune system, any minor infection could end up fatal. The only unrealistic thing in this story is the occurance of constant 50 people who have weak immune system every year. But that does not void the point. So while the vaccine prevented disease incidence, it did not prevent any deaths.
- mnewme 1mo ago
  [flagged]

qsera 1mo ago

>Outside of vaccines Will you allow an argument against this? I mean, I want to show an example where it is only a problem when someone else is not as convinced as yourself, one way or the other. >so the way to refute is to ask for proof.. No use. The same proof will not be convincing for everyone. Let us take vaccine. The proof for a Vaccine for X saving Y lives is often the following. "Before the vaccine there was Y deaths per year from X. But after vaccines there is zero deaths from X". The implication is that vaccines saved X lives. This could convince most of the people. But someone can ask. Are those kids who are not dying of X (thanks to the vaccine), are dying of something else? Now the picture is not so clear. See, same data, different results depending on how deep you want to probe,

pixelatedindex 1mo ago
> Are those kids who are not dying of X (thanks to the vaccine), are dying of something else? Now the picture is not so clear. Why is it not so clear? If they are not dying of X then the vaccine did the job and technically saved the kid’s life from dying of X. Notice that it doesn’t mean that they can’t die of other things.
- qsera 1mo ago
  Because just imagine that may be the underlying cause of death is malnutrition, or poor immune system. In this case the body won't be able to fight of any kind of infection. When you vaccinate such a person for X, that person is able to resist X. But since the immune system health is still weak or the person is still malnutrition, they could still succumb to an infection of Y. But that is one less death from X, and one death less that the vaccine can claim credit to, but in the larger picture, the vaccine did not save a life. So the point being 1000 deaths from X to 0 deaths from X does not necessary mean X lives saved.
  - pixelatedindex 1mo ago
    > So the point being 1000 deaths from X to 0 deaths from X does not necessary mean X lives saved. Yes, this statement is a non-sequitur. A vaccine preventing death from X does not prevent a death from other causes. That doesn’t mean X isn’t effective.
    - qsera 1mo ago
      >That doesn’t mean X isn’t effective. No one said it. Don't put words in my mouth.
      - pixelatedindex 1mo ago
        That’s fair pushback. I concluded that this was the underlying assumption because I couldn’t surmise anything else because you had said this: > The implication is that vaccines saved X lives. This could convince most of the people. But someone can ask. Are those kids who are not dying of X (thanks to the vaccine), are dying of something else? To me it assumes mutual exclusivity between not dying of X and dying of something else, but perhaps my bias is showing.
        qsera 1mo ago
        It did not assume mutual exclusivity. But if the underlying cause of succumbing to a disease is poor general health or a poor immune system, then preventing a single disease might not really save the person. But it still shows up as a life saved by the vaccine (because it prevented a specific disease incidence). That is misleading. This can be made very clear by taking a small example. Imagine there is an island with a population of 100. Among these 50 are very weak. And every year, these 50 die due to various illness. And among these 50 deaths, 30 are caused by X. So in order to save these 30 deaths, the government started vaccinating against X. The next year there is zero deaths due to X. But there were still 50 deaths in total that year too. Only that the 30 lives that used to be claimed by X, is now claimed by A, B and C (they are so weak that they will succumb to any infection). This is not an unrealistic scenario. If you have a weak immune system, any minor infection could end up fatal. The only unrealistic thing in this story is the occurance of constant 50 people who have weak immune system every year. But that does not void the point. So while the vaccine prevented disease incidence, it did not prevent any deaths.
mnewme 1mo ago
[flagged]