Coronavirus
- This topic has 1,592 replies, 41 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 4 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
MN – Absolutely.
Alan – You know, as well as I, that common sense arguments tend to legitimize prejudice and ideological conditioning. For instance the idea that capital punishment is a deterrent to murder or that slapping children provides them with a moral compass. Most people would regard the case for socialism as ‘against all common sense’.Don’t know where my last post went so I’ll repeat it:
MN – Absolutely.
Alan – You know, as well as I, that ‘common sense’ arguments tend to legitimize prejudice and ideological conditioning. Many would regard it as common sense that capital punishment is a deterrent to murder or that slapping a child provides it with a moral compass. Indeed most would say that the case for socialism was against all common sense.ALB – What do you think of the use of science in the disciplines of sociology, anthropology, psychology etc.? None of them seem favourable to socialism as far as I know.
I am not saying we shouldn’t be sceptical of all claims before making up our minds on the basis of the evidence. But you expressed sympathy for a notorious critic of science and its methods. Maybe he didn’t mean it and was only publicity seeking as a controversialist. I don’t know.
Actually, anthropology in particular has come up with evidence that strongly confirms the socialist case. So have various sociological studies and neurological ones (rather than psychological which I agree is a field for all sorts of non-evidence based beliefs).
But, to return to the subject of the thread, what is the evidence that current medical practice is not appropriate to deal with the pandemic? It’s not the bogey of “capitalist medicine” which once got a mention here before being slapped down, is it?
Hasn’t those social sciences produced much supporting evidence for the socialist case? Doesn’t the Party recommend some individual social science scholars?
We are in a battle of ideas, some academics are indeed on the other side. Some are not. When we look for a defence of socialist ideas, it is often to the findings of those social sciences we defer to.
Perhaps, Wez, our failure is to explain just how simple and common sense socialism is…indeed we have failed to effectively convince fellow-workers that it is in their own interests. I know in 2003 they didn’t require a lecture on the history of modern war and capitalism to know the Iraq invasion was all about oil. Likewise, (just to support you on one issue), they intuitively know that Big Pharma are indeed filling their own greedy pockets.
Have we over-complicated the whole socialist case? It was all so much easier in the past…
Capitalism is production for profit NOT human need.
So how is it possible for the scientific endeavour and the drug companies such as Pfizer to operate outside of this?
More importantly, how can other forms of production be made to operate in working class interests within capitlism?
Capitalism is production for profit NOT human need.
The “not” here seems a bit odd. If a capitalist produces useless things, things that do not satisfy a need, nobody will buy them. Capitalism does produce things that satisfy human needs, but it only produces to the extent that there is a profit to be made. In the case of covid vaccines, the state has had to step in to ensure that it is profitable for the companies to do so. If it hadn’t done so the functioning of capitalism as a whole would have been affected, that’s why the state is a necessary component of the whole system. In this case the interests of the working class (to not get struck down by a debilitating disease) and the interests of capital (to have a workforce that can continue working) allign.
‘But, to return to the subject of the thread, what is the evidence that current medical practice is not appropriate to deal with the pandemic? It’s not the bogey of “capitalist medicine” which once got a mention here before being slapped down, is it?’
ALB – At the risk of repeating myself I’m only trying to explain why some are dubious and even suspicious about the vaccines. As for my sympathy for a ‘notorious critic of science’ all I can say is that his work is quoted in many serious philosophical studies of science and he has mainly been branded as notorious by those who fear any alternative to their faith systems. Don’t forget that many on the Left regard us as notorious renegades but that doesn’t make them correct does it? I recommend you read some of his work and make up your own mind.
‘Have we over-complicated the whole socialist case? It was all so much easier in the past…’
Alan – perhaps the reverse is true. Some in the Party seem to want us to jump on the populist platform and proclaim our anti-intellectualism. I’ve been trying to communicate our case for 40 years and I don’t remember it being any easier.
“In this case the interests of the working class (to not get struck down by a debilitating disease) and the interests of capital (to have a workforce that can continue working) allign.”
No quarrel there, then.Re: common sense …Some find the possibility of socialism so outrageous to common sense that, after becoming acquainted with our case, they opt rather to be flat-earthers, and join those instead! :/
The problems of the pandemic goes beyond the actual medical consequences to people but as been pointed out, capitalism is a system that is not well suited for tackling the spread of the illness.
Socialism will no doubt still suffer from contagious diseases but the harm those bring will be mitigated by a system that does not foster poverty, national rivalry and social alienation,
When i talked of the past, Wez, i meant before our life-times and even the Party’s foundation, and, heresy of heresies, before even Marx. The “ignorant” mill-worker knew by common sense what was in his or her interests when the the social inequalities were starkly obvious in the days of the Chartists.
Wes – whilst it’s correct to say that Big Pharma’s main interest is profit, the situation here is a little more complex. It might also be true that a restaurant owner is only motivated by profit, but that doesn’t mean the chef is not motivated by a desire to provide beautiful food.
In the same way many of the scientists, researchers, etc. working for big pharma will be motivated by a wish to help humanity by controlling this dreadful virus.
Therefore to simply dismiss the results of these workers’ efforts, because of the social system they were produced in is a little like denying the artistic value of Michealangelo’s work because the Pope paid for it.
Another factor in this situation is the fact that this is a pandemic, pan meaning all. The owners of Big Pharma are not immune from this virus, nor are their friends and family. Not only that, a situation has arisen where to an extent the well being of themselves, their friends and their family is dependent to some degree on the welfare of the whole community. If the virus is not controlled on a world wide basis, it will continue to be a threat to them as much as it is to us. No virus control, no luxury ski resorts, no lavish restaurants, etc alongside the ever present risk of mutation. Although the poor have had higher rates of mortality, plenty of rich and famous people have died in this pandemic.
Moving on, whilst I can understand why “some are dubious” about the vaccines, a little research into methodology reveals an awful lot of information. Unfortunately some of the what might be termed the “Vaccine Skeptics” are as averse to studying the boring subject of statistics as the “anti vaxers” are. However a study of research methodology and statistics are very enlightening when it comes to understanding why vaccines have been produced so quickly, whilst also adding to evidence of their safety.
Again the key to understanding this is the fact that there’s a pandemic.
Say for instance we compare the development of the COVID vaccine with the Hepatitis C vaccine.
To prove the safety and efficacy of the Heb C vaccine you would need to recruit many thousands of volunteers and carry out a classic double blind study.
You divide the volunteers into two groups, one group gets the vaccine, one group gets a placebo, no one knows who got what until the end of the trial. At the end of the trial you compare the rate of infection between the two groups, showing the rate of effectiveness of the vaccine. Safety is also measured by comparing illnesses, reactions, etc between the two groups.
The difficulty for the Heb C trial is that it is very difficult and costly to recruit high numbers of volunteers, so they tend to be run with smaller numbers, so safety data is less thorough. Crucially because the prevalence of Heb C is quite low in the community the numbers of infections in the two groups are also very low, so much longer trials (often many years) are needed to increase the likelihood of infection and so provide the volume of data required to show efficacy and safety.
However for the Covid vaccine there was no shortage of volunteers, providing quick and accurate information on safety.
Also and crucially, because of the high level of prevalence of Covid in the community, determining efficacy, with high quality and very plentiful data, is really quite easy, shortening studies by many many years.
Also because of the current urgent situation, researchers are not waiting months and sometimes years to get their data in front of the regulators.
When you add the research already undertaken on SARS and MERS by vaccine researchers, it is easy to see why the Covid vaccines have been produced so quickly, yet can be judged as effective and safe.
The proof of this is flooding in, infection rates in vaccinated subjects in Israel have been very, very low. Globally very high numbers of vaccines have been given, with very high safety data coming back.
To put it into context, 100s of people are dying daily in the UK, due to Covid. Do you seriously believe that “big Pharma” and the government are suppressing big numbers of deaths or illness from the vaccine????
Alan – Was the Chartist movement widespread among the working class? Were they not a minority? Of course you’re correct that the inequalities were more obvious at that time but I wouldn’t call it ‘common sense’ because the term is now associated with prejudice and reactionary conditioning – perhaps ‘class conscious’ is a better term? Would you call their movement a success historically? Other movements like the Luddites and various religious organisations seem to have been more popular – but I defer to your knowledge of that time in working class history. Ultimately they all failed of course because from the diggers to the chartists they were fundamentally idealistic and we had to wait for Marx to give us the reason for their failure.
‘Therefore to simply dismiss the results of these workers’ efforts, because of the social system they were produced in is a little like denying the artistic value of Michealangelo’s work because the Pope paid for it.’
‘To put it into context, 100s of people are dying daily in the UK, due to Covid. Do you seriously believe that “big Pharma” and the government are suppressing big numbers of deaths or illness from the vaccine???’BD – Where do you get the impression that I dismiss the results of the worker’s efforts?? Also where does the idea that I believe that big pharma and the government are involved in a conspiracy come from?? Why do I have to keep repeating that I’m not an antivaxxer? It would appear that nobody actually reads what I say.
My contention is that government and big pharma have lost credibility because of the lies of the past. As a lifelong recipient of NHS treatment I can tell you with confidence that what one doctor tells you will be flatly contradicted by another – it is very difficult to maintain a belief in the coherence of medical science at the sharp end. The debate about the nature of science itself is a complex subject that perhaps wasn’t appropriate on this thread.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.