5 ms·

> It's your personal responsibility not the harm those around you as much as possible Sure. But there is also a bigger responsibility to oneself. To not do thi

by forcry 5y ago

> It's your personal responsibility not the harm those around you as much as possible Sure. But there is also a bigger responsibility to oneself. To not do things that might harm themselves. So with that conflicting forces, it becomes a matter of opinion and perception. So it becomes no longer selfish, and just common sense.

CogitoCogito 5y ago
> So with that conflicting forces, it becomes a matter of opinion and perception. So it becomes no longer selfish, and just common sense. All information points the disease being worse than the vaccine. It's not common sense to avoid it. It's highly irrational. If people are really concerned with not harming themselves, they _will_ get vaccinated.
- forcry 5y ago
  >All information points the disease being worse than the vaccine. No, at some point you are trusting some external entities. You trust the information because you trust the entities that provide it. When you say that someone else is irrational, you are doing that because that person does not share your trust. And to that person, in all probability, what you are doing might be irrational. In the end, I think no one have the right to impose their standard of trust on to anyone else.
  - CogitoCogito 5y ago
    You don't have the right to simply ignore all the research going into this and be treated seriously. But I guess believe whatever you want if it makes you feel better.
    - forcry 5y ago
      >You don't have the right to simply ignore all the research going into this and be treated seriously. Replace "research" with "stuff a bunch of people you believe say", and the situation will become much more clear.
      - CogitoCogito 5y ago
        Don't think that I don't understand the banal point you're trying to make.
        forcry 5y ago
        Try https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27817926 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27817926
        CogitoCogito 5y ago
        What point are you trying to make by linking that post? It's not even about the same subject. There may very well be not very much information supporting covid passes for restaurants, but what does that have to do with covid vaccinations? There is an enormous amount of information there. E.g. here is a point you made that doesn't even remotely apply here: > If you do an experiment that very few people in the world is able to replicate, because it is hard or due to lack of resources, then the rest of the world have to trust you. These vaccines have been taken by _millions_ of people. They have been given by many different independent organizations. So yeah this doesn't even apply at all. > The trust of people should be won, research by research, not authority by authority, and the non-requirement of mandates goes along automatically with that idea. Essentially all the research points towards the vaccines being much much better than the disease. It's your choice to stick your head in the sand if you so wish, but no one need respect your decision. You're not somehow wise simply due to your being contrarian.
        forcry 5y ago
        You don't have to respect me. But you have to respect the fact that trust in "science" is fundamentally different from trust in "scientists".
      - underseacables 5y ago
        I think this is really a case of self righteous indignation. There are people who truly believe you must take the vaccine, and nothing will convince them otherwise, but more importantly, If you say no you won’t take the vaccine, they take it as a personal attack on their beliefs. In other words: how dare you say no to what I want you to do.
    - native_samples 5y ago
      Fortunately, being forced to believe everything scientists say is neither a law nor a responsibility. And just as well because they routinely contradict themselves or turn out to have been lying. See: the denunciation of the lab leak theory by Daszak and other virologists, which successfully suppressed this obvious common sense idea for a year. So in fact people do have that "right".
      - Theory5 5y ago
        Lying? You mean changing their understanding of something new as more information becomes available? That's how science works they use the best info available, and change their understanding as more info becomes available.
        codeflow2202 5y ago
        No new information came out to prove the lab leak hypothesis. They just lied about it to cover the financing of their gain of function research.
        native_samples 5y ago
        They didn't change their understanding with new information, they asserted with 100% confidence that the lab leak idea was a ridiculous conspiracy theory, back when there was simply no intellectual justification for that assertion whatsoever, whilst lying (yes, lying) in their conflict of interest statement about their actual conflicts of interest. The man who coordinated it all refused to sign his own "open letter" to avoid arousing suspicion! Even today, in their newest letter, they are still trying to obfuscate the real situation and are certainly not apologizing for their prior stance. At any rate, this claim that scientists are never dishonest or wrong, they just "update their beliefs" as more information becomes available, is getting very tedious. That's not what they're doing. "Science" is constantly bombarding our political leaders with wildly extreme statements delivered not just with 100% confidence, but the assertion that you aren't even allowed to disagree because it's a "scientific consensus". People read the papers and point out that they're making false assumptions or are otherwise pseudo-scientific, but they're suppressed and ignoring. Then when that "consensus" turns out to have been completely wrong a bunch of apologists appear to explain that scientists can never be wrong by definition. Well, guess what? If a certain type of person constantly make confident statements as a group and insists reasoned disagreement is illegitimate, then is repeatedly proven to be wrong, all their statements become seen as less reliable. As a group.
- caeril 5y ago
  > It's highly irrational > All information points the disease being worse than the vaccine.* * : for the population cohort above approximately 50 years old or a BMI greater than 30. For better or for worse (for society), it appears healthy-weight people under 50 making the choice to not get vaccinated on a calculus of myocarditis, menstrual complications, blood clotting, and various other longer-term risks are, in fact, not being "highly irrational"
  - CogitoCogito 5y ago
    > For better or for worse (for society), it appears healthy-weight people under 50 making the choice to not get vaccinated on a calculus of myocarditis, menstrual complications, blood clotting, and various other longer-term risks are, in fact, not being "highly irrational" I'd be curious to read source of the statistics you're referring to (i.e. what rates of these complications you see and how they compare to the complications of covid itself in the same age groups).

by forcry 5y ago

CogitoCogito 5y ago

> So with that conflicting forces, it becomes a matter of opinion and perception. So it becomes no longer selfish, and just common sense. All information points the disease being worse than the vaccine. It's not common sense to avoid it. It's highly irrational. If people are really concerned with not harming themselves, they _will_ get vaccinated.

forcry 5y ago
>All information points the disease being worse than the vaccine. No, at some point you are trusting some external entities. You trust the information because you trust the entities that provide it. When you say that someone else is irrational, you are doing that because that person does not share your trust. And to that person, in all probability, what you are doing might be irrational. In the end, I think no one have the right to impose their standard of trust on to anyone else.
- CogitoCogito 5y ago
  You don't have the right to simply ignore all the research going into this and be treated seriously. But I guess believe whatever you want if it makes you feel better.
  - forcry 5y ago
    >You don't have the right to simply ignore all the research going into this and be treated seriously. Replace "research" with "stuff a bunch of people you believe say", and the situation will become much more clear.
    - CogitoCogito 5y ago
      Don't think that I don't understand the banal point you're trying to make.
      - forcry 5y ago
        Try https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27817926 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27817926
        CogitoCogito 5y ago
        What point are you trying to make by linking that post? It's not even about the same subject. There may very well be not very much information supporting covid passes for restaurants, but what does that have to do with covid vaccinations? There is an enormous amount of information there. E.g. here is a point you made that doesn't even remotely apply here: > If you do an experiment that very few people in the world is able to replicate, because it is hard or due to lack of resources, then the rest of the world have to trust you. These vaccines have been taken by _millions_ of people. They have been given by many different independent organizations. So yeah this doesn't even apply at all. > The trust of people should be won, research by research, not authority by authority, and the non-requirement of mandates goes along automatically with that idea. Essentially all the research points towards the vaccines being much much better than the disease. It's your choice to stick your head in the sand if you so wish, but no one need respect your decision. You're not somehow wise simply due to your being contrarian.
        forcry 5y ago
        You don't have to respect me. But you have to respect the fact that trust in "science" is fundamentally different from trust in "scientists".
    - underseacables 5y ago
      I think this is really a case of self righteous indignation. There are people who truly believe you must take the vaccine, and nothing will convince them otherwise, but more importantly, If you say no you won’t take the vaccine, they take it as a personal attack on their beliefs. In other words: how dare you say no to what I want you to do.
  - native_samples 5y ago
    Fortunately, being forced to believe everything scientists say is neither a law nor a responsibility. And just as well because they routinely contradict themselves or turn out to have been lying. See: the denunciation of the lab leak theory by Daszak and other virologists, which successfully suppressed this obvious common sense idea for a year. So in fact people do have that "right".
    - Theory5 5y ago
      Lying? You mean changing their understanding of something new as more information becomes available? That's how science works they use the best info available, and change their understanding as more info becomes available.
      - codeflow2202 5y ago
        No new information came out to prove the lab leak hypothesis. They just lied about it to cover the financing of their gain of function research.
      - native_samples 5y ago
        They didn't change their understanding with new information, they asserted with 100% confidence that the lab leak idea was a ridiculous conspiracy theory, back when there was simply no intellectual justification for that assertion whatsoever, whilst lying (yes, lying) in their conflict of interest statement about their actual conflicts of interest. The man who coordinated it all refused to sign his own "open letter" to avoid arousing suspicion! Even today, in their newest letter, they are still trying to obfuscate the real situation and are certainly not apologizing for their prior stance. At any rate, this claim that scientists are never dishonest or wrong, they just "update their beliefs" as more information becomes available, is getting very tedious. That's not what they're doing. "Science" is constantly bombarding our political leaders with wildly extreme statements delivered not just with 100% confidence, but the assertion that you aren't even allowed to disagree because it's a "scientific consensus". People read the papers and point out that they're making false assumptions or are otherwise pseudo-scientific, but they're suppressed and ignoring. Then when that "consensus" turns out to have been completely wrong a bunch of apologists appear to explain that scientists can never be wrong by definition. Well, guess what? If a certain type of person constantly make confident statements as a group and insists reasoned disagreement is illegitimate, then is repeatedly proven to be wrong, all their statements become seen as less reliable. As a group.
caeril 5y ago
> It's highly irrational > All information points the disease being worse than the vaccine.* * : for the population cohort above approximately 50 years old or a BMI greater than 30. For better or for worse (for society), it appears healthy-weight people under 50 making the choice to not get vaccinated on a calculus of myocarditis, menstrual complications, blood clotting, and various other longer-term risks are, in fact, not being "highly irrational"
- CogitoCogito 5y ago
  > For better or for worse (for society), it appears healthy-weight people under 50 making the choice to not get vaccinated on a calculus of myocarditis, menstrual complications, blood clotting, and various other longer-term risks are, in fact, not being "highly irrational" I'd be curious to read source of the statistics you're referring to (i.e. what rates of these complications you see and how they compare to the complications of covid itself in the same age groups).