4 ms·

Anti-vaxxers don't think they don't work; they believe (without evidence) that they are more harmful than helpful.

Felony_Fred 6y ago
Many people also believe (without enough evidence) that they are more helpful than harmful. If you are 85 with a pulmonary condition, you should probably get it. If you are 39 and in good health, you should probably avoid it. I'm not a fervent anti-vaxxer, but I have more chances of getting hit by a truck than dying of that hard flu, which I did get. Getting injected with a substance we know relatively little about doesn't make sense in view of what it seeks to prevent. I'll take the virus ( again ) over the vaccine any day.
- Shared404 6y ago
  For those wondering, this entire account consists of argument about Covid. Make of that what you will. Edit: I do not normally go snooping through account history, however, for a new account that is arguing about Covid, I make exceptions.
  - Felony_Fred 6y ago
    > this entire account consists of argument about Covid More like 11 / 21 total threads I commented in. Given this is a pretty hot and important topic, and that the flow of information about it is restricted ( censored ) through various mechanisms, especially the stance I have on it, which is best resumed by the Great Barrington Declaration ( signed by 13,000 + medical and public health scientists that I keep linking to ) I believe this is not an unreasonable ratio. In any event, your claim is false. If you check some of the stuff I've linked to, you may find I have some objectively valid points.
    - sheepdestroyer 6y ago
      From Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Barrington_Declaration https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Barrington_Declaration: "The declaration makes no mention of [...] Long Covid, which has left many fit and young people suffering from debilitating symptoms months after a mild infection. [...] the WHO say that the herd immunity component of the proposed strategy is undermined by the limited duration of post-infection immunity. The more likely outcome, they say, would be recurrent epidemics, as was the case with numerous infectious diseases before the advent of vaccination. [...] It was sponsored by the American Institute for Economic Research, a libertarian think tank that is part of a Koch-funded network of organizations associated with climate change denial" Enough said
- arilotter 6y ago
  If you care for your own health but not for the health of the people in the community you live in, then this makes perfect sense. If you're 39 and in good health, but want to prevent community outbreak that'll inevitably lead to more susceptible people catching the virus and dying, you should probably get vaccinated.
  - Felony_Fred 6y ago
    > If you care for your own health but not for the health of the people in the community you live in, then this makes perfect sense. It's not that I don't care for the health of others, it's that I care more about the health of 98% of the population ( including mine and that of people I know ) that are more or less invulnerable to the virus than about the health of people that would die ( for the most part ) within the next few years from just about any cause, and that are not currently enjoying any quality of life nor contributing to society. It's a matter of proportionate and rational response. See Focused Protection. I am for throwing everything we got for minimizing those deaths, up to a certain point and within what is reasonable.
    - jmartrican 6y ago
      So in the US we at over 350k deaths. If left to run rampant that number will increase by maybe a factor of ~10. So you saying that the vaccine, if given to everyone, will kill more than 3 million people?
      - Felony_Fred 6y ago
        Not at all. I wasn't arguing against the vaccines but against blanket lockdowns ( EDIT : I guess that was really not clear, since I was initially arguing about that, my bad ). I have reservations about the vaccines, but on a voluntary basis, it seems to make a lot of sense that the people in the at-risk demographics and those in daily direct contact with them should get it. The damage from the lockdowns however could be equal to or worse than the damage they seek to prevent. This damage not being limited solely to loss of life but also including that. This is not even a marginal opinion, as per my previous comments, it is backed by many scientists and the WHO itself. Feel free to swarm the karma out of me for clarifying that ( not necessarily directed to parent comment ).

Many people also believe (without enough evidence) that they are more helpful than harmful. If you are 85 with a pulmonary condition, you should probably get it. If you are 39 and in good health, you should probably avoid it. I'm not a fervent anti-vaxxer, but I have more chances of getting hit by a truck than dying of that hard flu, which I did get. Getting injected with a substance we know relatively little about doesn't make sense in view of what it seeks to prevent. I'll take the virus ( again ) over the vaccine any day.

Shared404 6y ago
For those wondering, this entire account consists of argument about Covid. Make of that what you will. Edit: I do not normally go snooping through account history, however, for a new account that is arguing about Covid, I make exceptions.
- Felony_Fred 6y ago
  > this entire account consists of argument about Covid More like 11 / 21 total threads I commented in. Given this is a pretty hot and important topic, and that the flow of information about it is restricted ( censored ) through various mechanisms, especially the stance I have on it, which is best resumed by the Great Barrington Declaration ( signed by 13,000 + medical and public health scientists that I keep linking to ) I believe this is not an unreasonable ratio. In any event, your claim is false. If you check some of the stuff I've linked to, you may find I have some objectively valid points.
  - sheepdestroyer 6y ago
    From Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Barrington_Declaration https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Barrington_Declaration: "The declaration makes no mention of [...] Long Covid, which has left many fit and young people suffering from debilitating symptoms months after a mild infection. [...] the WHO say that the herd immunity component of the proposed strategy is undermined by the limited duration of post-infection immunity. The more likely outcome, they say, would be recurrent epidemics, as was the case with numerous infectious diseases before the advent of vaccination. [...] It was sponsored by the American Institute for Economic Research, a libertarian think tank that is part of a Koch-funded network of organizations associated with climate change denial" Enough said
arilotter 6y ago
If you care for your own health but not for the health of the people in the community you live in, then this makes perfect sense. If you're 39 and in good health, but want to prevent community outbreak that'll inevitably lead to more susceptible people catching the virus and dying, you should probably get vaccinated.
- Felony_Fred 6y ago
  > If you care for your own health but not for the health of the people in the community you live in, then this makes perfect sense. It's not that I don't care for the health of others, it's that I care more about the health of 98% of the population ( including mine and that of people I know ) that are more or less invulnerable to the virus than about the health of people that would die ( for the most part ) within the next few years from just about any cause, and that are not currently enjoying any quality of life nor contributing to society. It's a matter of proportionate and rational response. See Focused Protection. I am for throwing everything we got for minimizing those deaths, up to a certain point and within what is reasonable.
  - jmartrican 6y ago
    So in the US we at over 350k deaths. If left to run rampant that number will increase by maybe a factor of ~10. So you saying that the vaccine, if given to everyone, will kill more than 3 million people?
    - Felony_Fred 6y ago
      Not at all. I wasn't arguing against the vaccines but against blanket lockdowns ( EDIT : I guess that was really not clear, since I was initially arguing about that, my bad ). I have reservations about the vaccines, but on a voluntary basis, it seems to make a lot of sense that the people in the at-risk demographics and those in daily direct contact with them should get it. The damage from the lockdowns however could be equal to or worse than the damage they seek to prevent. This damage not being limited solely to loss of life but also including that. This is not even a marginal opinion, as per my previous comments, it is backed by many scientists and the WHO itself. Feel free to swarm the karma out of me for clarifying that ( not necessarily directed to parent comment ).