Fairly common, but it wouldn't matter if they were rare. What is the purpose of asking about how common they are?
Take a study that is looking at oranges and apples and how well each vaccinate. A survey is of records is done and shows that oranges vaccinate at a rate of 80% of their population. And apples vaccinate at a rate of 60% of their population. Asking oranges why they vaccinate at 80% of their population, in order to help apples vaccinate more, would be a bad study. Because you're literally comparing apples and oranges. The better study is to ask apples why they don't vaccinate, and measure their response, so you can do an apples to apples comparison. For this reason, where data comes from isn't important. Who the data is about is.
Vanderbilt is the teaching hospital in nashville. I don't know that their data gathering from patients means much in regards to measure if black people have or have not been there to get the vaccine. It's actually a pain in the butt hospital to park and get into, so I imagine most who have been vaccinated there are students, employees and patients
Meharry is the one that handles family medicine in Nashville. Vanderbilt's internal program would also see it, outside the hospital. That's where residents are going to see a lot of their patients. Not in the hospital, but in regular office hours.
This is UT's group, and it is next to St. Francis. You see normal, non-emergency patients. Lots of diabetes and smoking and pregnancy. https://www.uthsc.edu/saint-francis-family-medicine/clinical-care/index.php
If your decision on whether it is credible or not is based on faulty knowledge and experience, all you have done is made an unqualified and decision. Luckily, these studies are rigorous, and reviewed by qualified people before publication. But, for sake of the possibility of you being ultimately correct, and a hidden authority, what metrics do you use to determine what is credible?
No conclusion was made. Which is why the first word in the sentence was "If." Though this is really good evidence that maybe it should be a conclusion.
No, just a very old argument and philosophy that favors personal freedom, and not religion. Whereas some religion finds eating pork is wrong, personal freedom philosophy says it is not. Whereas some religion finds dancing wrong, personal freedom philosophy says it is not. Whereas some religion finds... drinking, sex, masturbation, drugs, etc... personal freedom says it is not. But, that there are some circumstances where it is, and those circumstances should be avoided. But inherently not wrong, if no harm. Yeas ago, I would have brought up drinking and driving on a private, personal island. Not wrong. Firing a gun into the air on your island. Not wrong. Drinking and driving not on an island. May be wrong. May not be wrong. Probably still illegal. Firing a gun into the air not on your island. May be wrong. May not be wrong. Probably still illegal. Without harm = not wrong because personal freedom. But still can be illegal, but should only be illegal when the potential harm is against another. Unfortunately, that is not our legal system all the time.
Boy, I am not sure I am vibing with this concept of wrong. I don't see personal freedom as relating to whether something is wrong or not, and think unnecessary risk exposure and conditioning to high risk behavior is a form of harm.
I don't think you ever have. But we have laws to handle high risk behavior, such as speeding, drinking and driving and firing weapons into the air haphazardly. It doesn't make those things wrong. The outcome may. But before the outcome, we have legal. Which says you can't do it.
is it wrong to call someone a piece of shit for having a different opinion? No harm is done, but its wrong and shouldn't happen. Is it wrong to cheat on taxes? No harm, no foul, but its wrong. Is it wrong to not pay a debt to a person who already has millions? Nobody is harmed, but its still wrong. I can take the philosophical route pretty often, but being wrong or doing something wrong isn't dependant on if another is harmed or not. The harm is a consequence, not the action.
If you call someone a piece of shit, you have harmed them. If you cheat on your taxes, you have harmed society. If you don't pay a debt to someone, you have harmed them by the amount you did not pay. How in the world are you concluding these are three things that did no harm?
If the person being called a pos doesn't give a flip and realizes the other person is a clown, there is no harm. If one pays 10x what the avg person pays in taxes, while half the country doesn't pay anything, he's not harming society. He's alrrady doing more to cover expenses of other people than people are doing themselves. Those that bilk the system are the one harming, not the dude paying out his ass. If the debt owed matters not to the one owed due to it barely being a blip on the radar and the one owed the debt is not in need, he hasn't been harmed. Hell if it's big enough, probably writes it off as a loss on taxes. Your definition of harm differs from mine. What's kinda silly is you debated the 60 minutes hitpiece was ok because it did no harm, yet want to claim being called a name or owing a $10 debt to a millionairre is harmful to them. Yet lying to manipulate people and send it out to the world is harmless?
