4 ms·

> no one knows for sure that it cannot cause a problem It is extremely hard, if not impossible, to prove a negative. By all available evidence, the vaccines ar

> no one knows for sure that it cannot cause a problem It is extremely hard, if not impossible, to prove a negative. By all available evidence, the vaccines are "safe" for some level of "safe". What more evidence do you need? Not getting the vaccine -> risk. Getting the vaccine -> smaller risk. Those are your two choices. Also, your choice to not get vaccinated not only increases others risk of infection, pools of unvaccinated people allow for mutation, endangering the currently vaccinated as well. If you are looking for the ability to 100% prove something, take up mathematics, and leave the rest of science to others.

jjgreen 5y ago
> It is extremely hard, if not impossible, to prove a negative. It is actually rather easy to prove a negative: If P, then Q. Not Q. Therefore, not P. This is called modus tollens and has been known since antiquity.
- sseagull 5y ago
  I will interpret this as a little tongue-in-cheek. But see my comment on mathematics :)
natmaka 5y ago
> Not getting the vaccine -> risk. Getting the vaccine -> smaller risk. This is not a hard fact but a matter of opinion, mainly of trust. Everyone is entitled to have one, and to chose for himself. Coercing some (for example to have them vaccinated) in the name of solidarity and preservation of society may lead to resentment and even hate. This is dangerous. My take: such crisis (pandemics) arise because too much people live in too densely populated areas, and travel too much and too fast. Those who chose to live this way are threatening others. In a mature human society we may let subgroups chose, each for itself, instead of coercing everyone into sustaining a single way. Trying to solve such crisis thanks to some hack (here: mandatory vaccination) is at best a kludge. Do some really think that, given the current state of affairs, there will be no other pandemics, that some new ones will not raise the ante, or that kludges will always be adequate?

jjgreen 5y ago

> It is extremely hard, if not impossible, to prove a negative. It is actually rather easy to prove a negative: If P, then Q. Not Q. Therefore, not P. This is called modus tollens and has been known since antiquity.

sseagull 5y ago
I will interpret this as a little tongue-in-cheek. But see my comment on mathematics :)

natmaka 5y ago

> Not getting the vaccine -> risk. Getting the vaccine -> smaller risk. This is not a hard fact but a matter of opinion, mainly of trust. Everyone is entitled to have one, and to chose for himself. Coercing some (for example to have them vaccinated) in the name of solidarity and preservation of society may lead to resentment and even hate. This is dangerous. My take: such crisis (pandemics) arise because too much people live in too densely populated areas, and travel too much and too fast. Those who chose to live this way are threatening others. In a mature human society we may let subgroups chose, each for itself, instead of coercing everyone into sustaining a single way. Trying to solve such crisis thanks to some hack (here: mandatory vaccination) is at best a kludge. Do some really think that, given the current state of affairs, there will be no other pandemics, that some new ones will not raise the ante, or that kludges will always be adequate?