4 ms·

Does the presentation of statistics make it feel as if the author is diminishing the suffering of others? Actual question.

Arnt 6y ago
First, which others? A friend in the US drove several hours to be vaccinated, maybe three hours each way, which adds up to the same risk as from the vaccination according to the site. Are you asking whether it diminishes his suffering due to the risk en route to/from vaccination or his suffering due to risk on the site? Or are you asking whether quantifying the two risks diminishes suffering?
- doggosphere 6y ago
  Was referring to the OP's bet that author was not a woman, perhaps implying that author was insensitive to the suffering of the (mostly) women at risk of vaccine side effects.
  - thehappypm 6y ago
    Indeed. It's almost similar to how old married men often have harsh stances on abortion rights.
  - Arnt 6y ago
    I see. The question still stands, but lightly modified — insensitive to which suffering of women? The suffering of women in traffic accidents vs. the suffering of women with thrombosis? Or insensitive because quantifying/comparing the two?
- TechBro8615 6y ago
  This is nuts. Like, zealotry, religious level nuts.
jonplackett 5y ago
That isn't my intention no. This isn't about suffering really. The chances are that no suffering will take place from having a vaccine. What I'm trying to do is remind people that their lives are not currently risk free, so comparing their perceived current zero risk of suffering to the now-real risk of suffering from getting vaccinated is an incorrect comparison. We are all, every day, at risk of something bad happening to us, and it's this amount of current risk we should be comparing any new risk to, not our perceived zero risk. The increase in risk from being vaccinated is very small compared to that, but more importantly compared to the benefits of us all getting vaccinated.

Arnt 6y ago

First, which others? A friend in the US drove several hours to be vaccinated, maybe three hours each way, which adds up to the same risk as from the vaccination according to the site. Are you asking whether it diminishes his suffering due to the risk en route to/from vaccination or his suffering due to risk on the site? Or are you asking whether quantifying the two risks diminishes suffering?

doggosphere 6y ago
Was referring to the OP's bet that author was not a woman, perhaps implying that author was insensitive to the suffering of the (mostly) women at risk of vaccine side effects.
- thehappypm 6y ago
  Indeed. It's almost similar to how old married men often have harsh stances on abortion rights.
- Arnt 6y ago
  I see. The question still stands, but lightly modified — insensitive to which suffering of women? The suffering of women in traffic accidents vs. the suffering of women with thrombosis? Or insensitive because quantifying/comparing the two?
TechBro8615 6y ago
This is nuts. Like, zealotry, religious level nuts.

jonplackett 5y ago

That isn't my intention no. This isn't about suffering really. The chances are that no suffering will take place from having a vaccine. What I'm trying to do is remind people that their lives are not currently risk free, so comparing their perceived current zero risk of suffering to the now-real risk of suffering from getting vaccinated is an incorrect comparison. We are all, every day, at risk of something bad happening to us, and it's this amount of current risk we should be comparing any new risk to, not our perceived zero risk. The increase in risk from being vaccinated is very small compared to that, but more importantly compared to the benefits of us all getting vaccinated.