5 ms·

You immediately assume the worst possible intent from those statements. Your cynicism casts it as some hollow statements, when most likely it was just people sh

You immediately assume the worst possible intent from those statements. Your cynicism casts it as some hollow statements, when most likely it was just people sharing there lives. Some might be fake, sure, bet I bet most aren’t. Try to be more compassionate of others and assume better intent.

reedjosh 5y ago
> Try to be more compassionate of others and assume better intent. Again, that's a fair point and I will do so, but that's completely missing how people on my side of things are being driven to this. I can't say something like "I had covid so I'm not getting the vaccine." on Facebook without having an algorithm shadow ban my post. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/may/29/facebook-whistleblower-who-exposed-vaccine-hesitan/ https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/may/29/facebook-wh... I can't post my opinions here without being madly downvoted. I post legitimate evidence of the censure of my opinions and am downvoted. Youtube removes any videos critical of the Government's handling of COVID, and state governments gives beer and ice cream to people willing to take an experimental vaccine. This post will be downvoted into oblivion. When people on my side can't have a conversation with people on the other side, how are we supposed to maintain positive outlooks?
- burnished 5y ago
  Have you considered that the brazen nature of you tribalism, combined with your inability to see good in others (notice how you immediately took the worst possible interpretation to the point where I'd argue you must have invented facts) is what is leading to your feelings of social censure?
  - reedjosh 5y ago
    > the brazen nature of you tribalism What tribe am I in? Am I republican? Christian? Anti-science? Anti-vax? I'm actually neither of those. What tribalism are you assuming of me? Could it be that I just have some contrarian viewpoints and have noticed those systemically squashed over the last year and a half. > ... your inability to see good in others ... is what is leading to your feelings of social censure? This idea completely washes over the very real fact that tech Cos and the Government are censoring alternative opinion.
    - burnished 5y ago
      what 'alternative opinion' is it that you are championing?
enraged_camel 5y ago
It's more than just cynicism. He also refers to the vaccines as "experimental" which is pure, unadulterated conspiracy nonsense. It's pretty clear he has an ax to grind.
- reedjosh 5y ago
  https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/vaccines/emergency-use-authorization-vaccines-explained https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/vaccines/emerge... Sure, fair as well. It's under emergency use authorization--not technically experimental. Experimental may be strong, but it at least somewhat aptly describes a vaccine that uses a novel technology that still does not yet have FDA approval. > pure, unadulterated conspiracy nonsense My use of experimental seems a bit logical to me, but I understand if you disagree. That said, your dismissal is quite shallow and leads me to believe you're unwilling to have a real discussion on the topic as my opinion is just `unadulterated conspiracy nonsense`. I believe more speech is the solution to bad speech. If you disagree with me please engage in an honest non-dismissive manner and we'll both become more informed even if you're right, you'll at least understand why I'm misinformed.
  - helen___keller 5y ago
    For the sake of good faith discussion, I do have two questions if you don't mind (1) I believe both Moderna and Pfizer are in the process of seeking full FDA approval for their mRNA vaccines. Assuming they succeed, is it safe to say your opinion of the vaccines will change accordingly to a less-contrarian view? (2) My understanding (and you can correct me if I'm wrong) is that your view is one looking to protect against tail risk, which can be summarized with the following statement: 'Absence of evidence of risk is not sufficient'. In other words, you want sufficient evidence that mRNA vaccines are safe, rather than accepting an EUA based on demonstrated effectiveness and lack of known risk[0]. My question is whether you're willing to reconsider the above statement as the absence of evidence of risk continues in the face of overwhelming distribution of the vaccine? For example, J&J was paused after just 8 million doses. Pfizer and Moderna are an order of magnitude higher on doses (on the order of about 100 million doses). Even if we're modelling against the risk of a side-effect that takes many months, or even somehow years, on average to materialize, on a bell curve many many vaccine recipients would already have materialized the side effects. (IE if materializing under 3 months is a 5 sigma event, we would have had enough adverse effects materializing to halt the use of the vaccines, similar to how J&J was halted after something like 6 or 8 observed blood clottings) Furthermore, my understanding is that FDA approval is based on having 6 months of phase 3 clinical trial safety data (and EUA based on 2 months of the same). The number of people enrolled in phase 3 clinical trials of mRNA vaccines is so few compared to the total number of vaccines (I think 40,000 in pfizer phase 3 trials), it is absurd to consider that new issues could show up in phase 3 trials that had not already demonstrated en masse in the hundreds of MILLIONS of doses given out in the public. It's statistically impossible. With that in mind, I would suggest that waiting until FDA full approval is basically pointless; if you're worried about side effects that take decades on average, the FDA won't be able to save you from that, and if you're worried about side effects that take months on average, we would already know about it from the hundreds of millions of willing volunteers. [0] Lack of known risk: the J&J vaccine was halted and investigated immediately when there was a potential blood clotting issue. No such potential risks have yet been uncovered with Pfizer and Moderna, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

reedjosh 5y ago

> Try to be more compassionate of others and assume better intent. Again, that's a fair point and I will do so, but that's completely missing how people on my side of things are being driven to this. I can't say something like "I had covid so I'm not getting the vaccine." on Facebook without having an algorithm shadow ban my post. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/may/29/facebook-whistleblower-who-exposed-vaccine-hesitan/ https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/may/29/facebook-wh... I can't post my opinions here without being madly downvoted. I post legitimate evidence of the censure of my opinions and am downvoted. Youtube removes any videos critical of the Government's handling of COVID, and state governments gives beer and ice cream to people willing to take an experimental vaccine. This post will be downvoted into oblivion. When people on my side can't have a conversation with people on the other side, how are we supposed to maintain positive outlooks?

burnished 5y ago
Have you considered that the brazen nature of you tribalism, combined with your inability to see good in others (notice how you immediately took the worst possible interpretation to the point where I'd argue you must have invented facts) is what is leading to your feelings of social censure?
- reedjosh 5y ago
  > the brazen nature of you tribalism What tribe am I in? Am I republican? Christian? Anti-science? Anti-vax? I'm actually neither of those. What tribalism are you assuming of me? Could it be that I just have some contrarian viewpoints and have noticed those systemically squashed over the last year and a half. > ... your inability to see good in others ... is what is leading to your feelings of social censure? This idea completely washes over the very real fact that tech Cos and the Government are censoring alternative opinion.
  - burnished 5y ago
    what 'alternative opinion' is it that you are championing?

enraged_camel 5y ago

It's more than just cynicism. He also refers to the vaccines as "experimental" which is pure, unadulterated conspiracy nonsense. It's pretty clear he has an ax to grind.

reedjosh 5y ago
https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/vaccines/emergency-use-authorization-vaccines-explained https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/vaccines/emerge... Sure, fair as well. It's under emergency use authorization--not technically experimental. Experimental may be strong, but it at least somewhat aptly describes a vaccine that uses a novel technology that still does not yet have FDA approval. > pure, unadulterated conspiracy nonsense My use of experimental seems a bit logical to me, but I understand if you disagree. That said, your dismissal is quite shallow and leads me to believe you're unwilling to have a real discussion on the topic as my opinion is just `unadulterated conspiracy nonsense`. I believe more speech is the solution to bad speech. If you disagree with me please engage in an honest non-dismissive manner and we'll both become more informed even if you're right, you'll at least understand why I'm misinformed.
- helen___keller 5y ago
  For the sake of good faith discussion, I do have two questions if you don't mind (1) I believe both Moderna and Pfizer are in the process of seeking full FDA approval for their mRNA vaccines. Assuming they succeed, is it safe to say your opinion of the vaccines will change accordingly to a less-contrarian view? (2) My understanding (and you can correct me if I'm wrong) is that your view is one looking to protect against tail risk, which can be summarized with the following statement: 'Absence of evidence of risk is not sufficient'. In other words, you want sufficient evidence that mRNA vaccines are safe, rather than accepting an EUA based on demonstrated effectiveness and lack of known risk[0]. My question is whether you're willing to reconsider the above statement as the absence of evidence of risk continues in the face of overwhelming distribution of the vaccine? For example, J&J was paused after just 8 million doses. Pfizer and Moderna are an order of magnitude higher on doses (on the order of about 100 million doses). Even if we're modelling against the risk of a side-effect that takes many months, or even somehow years, on average to materialize, on a bell curve many many vaccine recipients would already have materialized the side effects. (IE if materializing under 3 months is a 5 sigma event, we would have had enough adverse effects materializing to halt the use of the vaccines, similar to how J&J was halted after something like 6 or 8 observed blood clottings) Furthermore, my understanding is that FDA approval is based on having 6 months of phase 3 clinical trial safety data (and EUA based on 2 months of the same). The number of people enrolled in phase 3 clinical trials of mRNA vaccines is so few compared to the total number of vaccines (I think 40,000 in pfizer phase 3 trials), it is absurd to consider that new issues could show up in phase 3 trials that had not already demonstrated en masse in the hundreds of MILLIONS of doses given out in the public. It's statistically impossible. With that in mind, I would suggest that waiting until FDA full approval is basically pointless; if you're worried about side effects that take decades on average, the FDA won't be able to save you from that, and if you're worried about side effects that take months on average, we would already know about it from the hundreds of millions of willing volunteers. [0] Lack of known risk: the J&J vaccine was halted and investigated immediately when there was a potential blood clotting issue. No such potential risks have yet been uncovered with Pfizer and Moderna, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.