This week in the feminist insane-o-sphere: Oxford teacher worried Oxford will find coronavirus vaccine

[Jokodo]

Here's what might be the first English language mention of the practice of inoculation, as something the author has observed as being performed in "Contantinople" (i.e. Istanbul), where to his knowledge it had been introduced 40 years prior from the Caucasus region - in a 1713 letter to the Royal Philosophical Society https://books.google.at/books?id=iOg_AAAAYAAJ&pg=PA88&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

Voltaire in 1742 describes it as a practice performed since "time immemorial" by Circassian women and first introduced into England by a woman: https://www.bartleby.com/34/2/11.html

Oh my goodness! Thank the stars these women were part of an international consortium of vaccine discovery and manufacture, because if they'd been at Oxford....heaven forfend!

I'd say it's obvious you've run out of arguments, but that would assume you ever had any beyond your vivid imagination.

 

[Toni]

Because she wrote an entire article about the imagined negative consequences that follow from Oxford and Britain looking good. Indeed, you summarise it below.

I happen to agree that BoJo touting a vaccine as more or less his personal success while continuing his course of austerity that brought the British health care system in its sorry state is thus directly responsible for tens of thousands of British dead would not be the best possible outcome from this mess.

I happen to agree that the main take home lesson shouldn't be how great Oxford is (though great it is), but that international cooperation is essential to fight a crisis of global proportions, and that starving essential infrastructure (like health care) and declaring any capacities not used under average load as wasteful is a bad idea when we know that demand can spike unpredictably to a multiple of that average.

I happen to agree that this is a lesson the Tories are likely to be less happy about, so the threat that they might try to silence it in favour of their preferred narrative is real.

Don't you? And if so, why not?

And how does any of that make what you wrote a fair summary of what she wrote?

Well, the author of the linked article *is* a woman.....

 

[Metaphor]

Here's what might be the first English language mention of the practice of inoculation, as something the author has observed as being performed in "Contantinople" (i.e. Istanbul), where to his knowledge it had been introduced 40 years prior from the Caucasus region - in a 1713 letter to the Royal Philosophical Society https://books.google.at/books?id=iOg_AAAAYAAJ&pg=PA88&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

Voltaire in 1742 describes it as a practice performed since "time immemorial" by Circassian women and first introduced into England by a woman: https://www.bartleby.com/34/2/11.html

Oh my goodness! Thank the stars these women were part of an international consortium of vaccine discovery and manufacture, because if they'd been at Oxford....heaven forfend!

I'd say it's obvious you've run out of arguments, but that would assume you ever had any beyond your vivid imagination.

Alright luv. I'm not the one posting evidence of innoculation discovery that by your own argument has nothing to do with how modern vaccines are developed.

 

[Jokodo]

I'd say it's obvious you've run out of arguments, but that would assume you ever had any beyond your vivid imagination.

Alright luv. I'm not the one posting evidence of innoculation discovery that by your own argument has nothing to do with how modern vaccines are developed.

Coming from the person who brought up vaccines developed "by individual, evil, white, English men!"

Which indeed has nothing to do with how modern biomedical research works. But since you already extended this disussion to be not only about modern vaccine research but also about methods of historical interest only, I might as well mention Circassian women's traditional knowledge being handed down from mother to daughter as every bit as relevant as Edward Jenner - i.e. not at all when it comes to the actual topic of the thread.

 

[laughing dog]

Prove it.

Prove what? That Britain can't prevent other countries manufacturing vaccines?

If Britain comes up with a vaccine, it might be able to keep its formula secret which would prevent other countries from manufacturing that vaccine.

Dodge noted.

It is not a dodge to note your questions are irrelevant to her argument. She is concerned about her country in this matter. What she may or may not think about other countries is not relevant. I have no clue what her views on those matters are, and I don’t care. Why? Because as a rational disinterested observer, I know that they are irrelevant.

I happen to disagree with her worries because I doubt there will be only ONE possible vaccine that will be effective. But your attempts to discredit her worries are not based on her actual words but your delusional interpretation of her comments.

Given your overt hostility towards “feminism”, it seems that the OP is an attack on “feminism” and “feminists” even though Ms. Cousens concerns have nothing to do with feminism.

 

[Metaphor]

If Britain comes up with a vaccine, it might be able to keep its formula secret which would prevent other countries from manufacturing that vaccine.

How's your sci-fi future dystopia script coming along? The one where Britain is a totalitarian isolationist State, and vaccine formulas are kept secret for no reason, and once a vaccine is discovered, an alien virus removes all research and knowledge from the brains of scientists everywhere outside Britain that would allow them to develop their own.

It is not a dodge to note your questions are irrelevant to her argument. She is concerned about her country in this matter. What she may or may not think about other countries is not relevant. I have no clue what her views on those matters are, and I don’t care. Why? Because as a rational disinterested observer, I know that they are irrelevant.

Of course they are relevant. She is worried about a future hypothetical without considering its relative worth contrasted against other hypotheticals.

 

[Jokodo]

If Britain comes up with a vaccine, it might be able to keep its formula secret which would prevent other countries from manufacturing that vaccine.

How's your sci-fi future dystopia script coming along? The one where Britain is a totalitarian isolationist State, and vaccine formulas are kept secret for no reason, and once a vaccine is discovered, an alien virus removes all research and knowledge from the brains of scientists everywhere outside Britain that would allow them to develop their own.

It is not a dodge to note your questions are irrelevant to her argument. She is concerned about her country in this matter. What she may or may not think about other countries is not relevant. I have no clue what her views on those matters are, and I don’t care. Why? Because as a rational disinterested observer, I know that they are irrelevant.

Of course they are relevant. She is worried about a future hypothetical without considering its relative worth contrasted against other hypotheticals.

Again, which part of that article suggests to you that she wants other countries to win the race instead? As far as I can tell, one of her core objections is that this one is too important to approach it as a race between countries.

But yeah, fighting a strawman is indeed easier than understanding and contemplating the actual argument being made and considering its merits and shortcomings. I get it. What I don't get is why you don't post straight to Elsewhere.

 

[Metaphor]

How's your sci-fi future dystopia script coming along? The one where Britain is a totalitarian isolationist State, and vaccine formulas are kept secret for no reason, and once a vaccine is discovered, an alien virus removes all research and knowledge from the brains of scientists everywhere outside Britain that would allow them to develop their own.



Of course they are relevant. She is worried about a future hypothetical without considering its relative worth contrasted against other hypotheticals.

Again, which part of that article suggests to you that she wants other countries to win the race instead? As far as I can tell, her core objection is that this one is too important to approach it as a race between countries.

But yeah, fighting a strawman is indeed easier than understanding and contemplating the actual argument being made and considering its merits and shortcomings. I get it. What I don't get is why you don't post straight to Elsewhere.

What argument? Cousens didn't make Jokodo's argument, which was better than anything in Cousens' article. No, she was concerned with Oxford not 'winning the race' because it would be a British victory. She waxes on about the cooperation of other countries, but does not say that Oxford, or Britain, is somehow withholding itself from international participation. Perhaps her desired outcome is some kind of international victory, but she doesn't say this. Hell, she can't even get out of her head the whole idea that it's a 'race' with 'winners and losers'.

If you think my threads deserve to go to 'Elsewhere', ask a mod to do it. They'll evaluate whether that's where it should go.

 

[Jokodo]

How's your sci-fi future dystopia script coming along? The one where Britain is a totalitarian isolationist State, and vaccine formulas are kept secret for no reason, and once a vaccine is discovered, an alien virus removes all research and knowledge from the brains of scientists everywhere outside Britain that would allow them to develop their own.



Of course they are relevant. She is worried about a future hypothetical without considering its relative worth contrasted against other hypotheticals.

Again, which part of that article suggests to you that she wants other countries to win the race instead? As far as I can tell, her core objection is that this one is too important to approach it as a race between countries.

But yeah, fighting a strawman is indeed easier than understanding and contemplating the actual argument being made and considering its merits and shortcomings. I get it. What I don't get is why you don't post straight to Elsewhere.

What argument? Cousens didn't make Jokodo's argument, which was better than anything in Cousens' article. No, she was concerned with Oxford not 'winning the race' because it would be a British victory. She waxes on about the cooperation of other countries, but does not say that Oxford, or Britain, is somehow withholding itself from international participation. Perhaps her desired outcome is some kind of international victory, but she doesn't say this. Hell, she can't even get out of her head the whole idea that it's a 'race' with 'winners and losers'.

If you think my threads deserve to go to 'Elsewhere', ask a mod to do it. They'll evaluate whether that's where it should go.

I guess I must have imagined that there was a paragraph something along the lines, let's see if I can reconstruct it from memory, maybe like this: "Coronavirus is a global epidemic. Yet, rather than motivating the UK to take a proud role at the global stage, as leaders like Macron have urged, the UK is increasingly resorting to patriotism in response."

Either that, or your reading skills are lacking.

Do I have to mention that you didn't even touch on my question? So here it is again: which part of that article suggests to you that she wants other countries to win the race instead?

 

[Metaphor]

I guess I must have imagined that there was a paragraph something along the lines, let's see if I can reconstruct it from memory, maybe like this: "Coronavirus is a global epidemic. Yet, rather than motivating the UK to take a proud role at the global stage, as leaders like Macron have urged, the UK is increasingly resorting to patriotism in response."

Either that, or your reading skills are lacking.

Cousens offers no examples of what she means by 'increasingly resorting to patriotism' (whatever that means), nor makes any attempt to show that the architects of this alleged 'patriotism' are impeding discovery of a vaccine.

Do I have to mention that you didn't even touch on my question? So here it is again: which part of that article suggests to you that she wants other countries to win the race instead?

The fact that she calls it a race and that she singles out Britain as a 'contestant'. Britain is a country. She also names other individual countries that she praises for information sharing, as if making an implicit argument that Britain hasn't been.

Now, the fact that you have spelled out what Cousens might have meant does not mean she said it. Because she didn't. Further, her whole philosophy is fucked up. When a vaccine is discovered, everyone is a winner.

 

[Jokodo]

I guess I must have imagined that there was a paragraph something along the lines, let's see if I can reconstruct it from memory, maybe like this: "Coronavirus is a global epidemic. Yet, rather than motivating the UK to take a proud role at the global stage, as leaders like Macron have urged, the UK is increasingly resorting to patriotism in response."

Either that, or your reading skills are lacking.

Cousens offers no examples of what she means by 'increasingly resorting to patriotism' (whatever that means), nor makes any attempt to show that the architects of this alleged 'patriotism' are impeding discovery of a vaccine.

Do I have to mention that you didn't even touch on my question? So here it is again: which part of that article suggests to you that she wants other countries to win the race instead?

The fact that she calls it a race and that she singles out Britain as a 'contestant'.

That's not a fact at all. Here's the full text of both paragraphs that mention "race". Neither of them mentions "Britain", both of them refer to (the University of) Oxford as the contestant. The concern is that British politics will instrumentalise Oxford's success. That hardly makes sense unless Oxford and Britain are two distinct entities with distinct interests.

Oxford, that symbol of British excellence. Producing the finest minds in the world and, if this week’s news is anything to go by, leading the race to develop a vaccine against Coronavirus.

The race is on and researchers at Oxford are doing vital, life-saving work. But races have winners and losers. If my university is the first to develop the vaccine, I’m worried that it will be used as it has been in the past, to fulfil its political, patriotic function as proof of British excellence.

And if it were a fact, it wouldn't in any way suggest that she wants other countries to win.

Britain is a country. She also names other individual countries that she praises for information sharing, as if making an implicit argument that Britain hasn't been.

Now, the fact that you have spelled out what Cousens might have meant does not mean she said it. Because she didn't. Further, her whole philosophy is fucked up. When a vaccine is discovered, everyone is a winner.

No part of "her philosophy" suggests otherwise, or at least that is not indicated by anything she said, and which you can point your finger at. However, when a vaccine is discovered and people learn a lesson that'll help them to better respond to the next pandemic, everyone is an even bigger winner than when a vaccine is discovered and we forget that lesson.

 

[laughing dog]

How's your sci-fi future dystopia script coming along? The one where Britain is a totalitarian isolationist State, and vaccine formulas are kept secret for no reason, and once a vaccine is discovered, an alien virus removes all research and knowledge from the brains of scientists everywhere outside Britain that would allow them to develop their own.

Nice irrational dodge.

A developer of a vaccine is under no legal requirement to divulge its makeup. It is possible for an university or a private firm to come up with a vaccine and keep the formula a secret. Is that probable? No. Does it preclude other institutions or countries from coming up with a different or similar vaccine? No.

Do those possibilities have anything to do with her fears about Britain? No. They simply make them less likely to occur and to inflict less damage to the world's population if they do occur.

So once again, you are infecting irrelevancies into the discussion.

Of course they are relevant. She is worried about a future hypothetical without considering its relative worth contrasted against other hypotheticals.

There is no logical or moral or ethical requirement to consider other hypotheticals, so those criticisms are irrelevant.


It is one thing to make the argument that Ms. Clausen's fears are far-fetched or unreasonable. It is quite another to inject "feminism" as a culprit or link this to the "feminist insane-o-sphere". The latter hyperbolic rhetoric suggests an irrational animus rather than a reasoned disinterested critique.

 

[Jokodo]

How's your sci-fi future dystopia script coming along? The one where Britain is a totalitarian isolationist State, and vaccine formulas are kept secret for no reason, and once a vaccine is discovered, an alien virus removes all research and knowledge from the brains of scientists everywhere outside Britain that would allow them to develop their own.

Nice irrational dodge.

A developer of a vaccine is under no legal requirement to divulge its makeup. It is possible for an university or a private firm to come up with a vaccine and keep the formula a secret. Is that probable? No. Does it preclude other institutions or countries from coming up with a different or similar vaccine? No.

Do those possibilities have anything to do with her fears about Britain? No. They simply make them less likely to occur and to inflict less damage to the world's population if they do occur.

So once again, you are infecting irrelevancies into the discussion.

Of course they are relevant. She is worried about a future hypothetical without considering its relative worth contrasted against other hypotheticals.

There is no logical or moral or ethical requirement to consider other hypotheticals, so those criticisms are irrelevant.


It is one thing to make the argument that Ms. Clausen's fears are far-fetched or unreasonable. It is quite another to inject "feminism" as a culprit or link this to the "feminist insane-o-sphere". The latter hyperbolic rhetoric suggests an irrational animus rather than a reasoned disinterested critique.

But, but! She's a woman, plus she has "gender" in her bio squib. If that isn't enough to ignore everything she says concluding that it really boils down to "white cis men are evil", what is? You're suppressing Metaphor by suggesting he needs to actually read and engage with the argument. Worse than that, since doing so would expose his feeble mind to the threat if being infiltrated by the feminazi virus, and we all know there's no vaccine against that!

 

[Jokodo]

I just realised that this article was brought up and duly shot down by ronburgundy already over in Science. https://talkfreethought.org/showthr...o-die!!!!-quot&p=786086&viewfull=1#post786086

/thread

 

[Metaphor]

It is one thing to make the argument that Ms. Clausen's fears are far-fetched or unreasonable. It is quite another to inject "feminism" as a culprit or link this to the "feminist insane-o-sphere". The latter hyperbolic rhetoric suggests an irrational animus rather than a reasoned disinterested critique.

Cousens is a feminist and her worries (that white British men from elite institutions will accomplish something and it will be acknowledged) is exactly what I would predict coming from her camp. Her worries about 'patriotism' (without citing a single example of how Britain has ramped up 'patriotism' in the wake of COVID-19) is from the feminist playbook.

The fact that she openly admits that Oxford's excellence bothers her is parody-level SJW, but nevertheless it isn't a Poe. She is the real deal. I'm surprised only she did not call for Brexit to be delayed (though of course the Guardian has already made that call).

 

[Metaphor]

Worse than that, since doing so would expose his feeble mind to the threat if being infiltrated by the feminazi virus, and we all know there's no vaccine against that!

There may or may not be a vaccine. Luckily, some of us are immune. The immunity can be developed by thinking for oneself.

 

[Jokodo]

Worse than that, since doing so would expose his feeble mind to the threat if being infiltrated by the feminazi virus, and we all know there's no vaccine against that!

There may or may not be a vaccine. Luckily, some of us are immune. The immunity can be developed by thinking for oneself.

And some of us have their brains fried by an overreaction of the immune system.

 

[Jokodo]

It is one thing to make the argument that Ms. Clausen's fears are far-fetched or unreasonable. It is quite another to inject "feminism" as a culprit or link this to the "feminist insane-o-sphere". The latter hyperbolic rhetoric suggests an irrational animus rather than a reasoned disinterested critique.

Cousens is a feminist and her worries (that white British men from elite institutions will accomplish something and it will be acknowledged)

which is not at all what she's worried about. Indeed, she makes no claim about the demographics of the research teams - they could be minority-majority and mostly FAA l female, and considering that we're talking about microbiology, it's in fact reasonably probable thay they are both. Three white men she's worried about are not ones that might develop a vaccine, bit l but ones that might claim the success as theirs.

is exactly what I would predict coming from her camp. Her worries about 'patriotism' (without citing a single example of how Britain has ramped up 'patriotism' in the wake of COVID-19) is from the feminist playbook.

not reading what she actually said helps a lot too.

The fact that she openly admits that Oxford's excellence bothers her is parody-level SJW,

If she did that, it might be. We're don't know, because she didn't.

but nevertheless it isn't a Poe. She is the real deal. I'm surprised only she did not call for Brexit to be delayed (though of course the Guardian has already made that call).

 

[Axulus]

Ok, so, the administration of the US has already attempted to make early test systems US-only in the face of an international pandemic. Brittain is similarly going down a path of nationalistic exceptionalism.

It is not out of line to have concerns over such countries having initial control over vaccines, given their nationalistic exceptionalism.

I don't want the vaccine to be developed by a nation that may attempt to keep it out of the hands of the rest of the world either. That's why I'm cheering for Germany or Canada or even China in the development of this over the US or the UK. I don't want to see ignorant shitheads trying to exert control over something that needs widest possible dissemination.

I am of the opinion that all vaccines ought be seized for the commons under emminent domain not by any country, but by the UN, with development costs reimbursed by the UN.

What control are you referring to? How will Oxford discovery of an effective vaccine allow for any kind of control? Universities are much more about freely sharing science and information than private corporations. Your concern, just like the lady the OP references, is delusional.

 

[laughing dog]

Cousens is a feminist and her worries (that white British men from elite institutions will accomplish something and it will be acknowledged) is exactly what I would predict coming from her camp.

That was not her worry. Jokodo linked to ronburgundy's take which I will reproduce here

Yeah, how insane for someone to want their country to learn the long term lessons of this pandemic that will make them and humanity in general better prepared (including more internationally collaborative) for the next one rather than to have vacuous nationalistic pride erase those lessons and the fact of the UK's poor preparedness and response. FYI: The UK is the worst in world in terms of cases per capita as a function of their low testing per capita. IOW, controlling for tests given, the UK has way more infections per capita than anyone, with the US in second.


That is all this author is saying and they lay it out very clearly. They want a vaccine as quickly as possible. They just are concerned the UK's nationalistic and Oxford-proud "leaders" will abuse the success of Oxford developing the vaccine to whitewash their own and the country's major failings and leave the UK just as vulnerable next time. It's a highly rational concern and very likely response by Boris.

Quite different than the kneejerk straw men you are creating.