6 ms·

> I just think your division of categories is totally arbitrary and not grounded in any evidence. You just agreed that adenoviruses are proven to be safe and e

> I just think your division of categories is totally arbitrary and not grounded in any evidence. You just agreed that adenoviruses are proven to be safe and effective at scale. I don't think anyone can argue conclusively that mRNA vaccines are, though there is mounting evidence that the incidence of short-time side effects is low. If you follow that rule, it should be obvious what rule the division of categories take and why they are grounded in evidence. > You could describe the flat earth movement the same way. Now that is a strawman if I've ever heard one, not sure if you actually intend to be taken seriously with that. There are provable ways to show that the earth is round based on physical laws. There is not enough evidence that the covid mRNA vaccine is safe and effective. One could argue about what would constitute evidence for safe and effective, but pick any reasonable metric (e.g. full FDA approval, long term studies). In fact, I would argue that to think that the COVID vaccines are completely safe without enough evidence to conclusively prove that falls under the kind of beliefs that you describe. There are always going to be people who are non-rigorous and choose to believe what they want to but I hazard a guess that a large portion of the vaccine hesitant crowd falls under the category of people who want to see a rigorous analysis of the long term side effects of the vaccine before taking it. Before you strawman this argument again by saying that you can apply this logic to anything, do some research about the history of mRNA vaccines and its associated risks (autoimmune disorders, myocardial inflammation, all the anecdotal reports of persistent side effects, etc.). The point is not that mRNA vaccines produce these side effects with high probability but that there is high uncertainty as to whether they do or not because of the lack of long term studies.

bawolff 5y ago
> You just agreed that adenoviruses are proven to be safe and effective at scale. I don't think anyone can argue conclusively that mRNA vaccines are, though there is mounting evidence that the incidence of short-time side effects is low. If you follow that rule, it should be obvious what rule the division of categories take and why they are grounded in evidence. I have trouble following your line of argument. You think that adenovirus based vaccines are proven to be safe and effective at scale. You don't think that mRNA has. But covid was the first time adenovirus vaccines have been used at scale. They're probably a reasonable risk tradeoff for people during a pandemic, but they have rare side effect causing blood clots that are fatal if not immediately treated, so i wouldn't say they have the ideal safety profile. I think it would be logically consistent (even if i disagreed) to say neither mRNA nor adenovirus had enough testing. It would also be consistent to say both are ok or even mrna is ok but adeno isn't. However it makes no sense to me to say, of two vaccine types that have had the same amount of testing, the one that has worse safety & efficacy is great, the one with the better safety results needs more testing. Like, is their something i'm missing about your argument? What basis are you making this judgement on? > Now that is a strawman if I've ever heard one, How so? I'm pretty sure its not. A straw man is a specific type of invalid argument. To recap, you said > From what I understand the vaccine hesitant population includes medical professionals and many well informed people who are simply waiting for more evidence about its safety. And i said (ad absurdum) that the same could be said of flat earth. Flat earth is nuts, so if your argument applies equally to them, it must be incorrect. Therefore that line of reasoning should be discarded. > There are provable ways to show that the earth is round based on physical laws Indeed that was my point: flat earth is nuts. If your argument could be used to support a patently false position than there is almost certainly a mistake in your logic > Before you strawman this argument again by saying that you can apply this logic to anything Again that's very literally the opposite of what a straw man argument is. Wikipedia has an article on the topic if you are curious. > The smallpox vaccine today is understood to be both safe and efficacious This is kind of besides the point. But no that's not true. The smallpox vaccine is understood to be high risk and is not reccomended for most people. Risk is cost vs reward, so it was a very different story in the 1800s. My main argument here is not that its safe or not safe (even though i believe it is). I'm claiming that you're evaluating its safety irrationally and inconsistently (or perhaps without researching the underlying topic), and i guess more generally if you're not going to be consistent in your own evaluation you should just listen to experts.
- machinelearning 5y ago
  Either you don't understand what a strawman argument is or just lack the understanding of it and I need to spell it out for you. A strawman argument is when you misrepresent someone's argument and attack it in a misguided attempt to refute the original one. In this case, you are misrepresenting the argument I'm trying to convey by comparing it to something that is proven without a shadow of a doubt (the earth is round). You misrepresented the initial claim as being a statement on the "proven safety (or lack thereof) of covid mRNA vaccines" whereas it was merely about the "uncertainty of the safety of covid mRNA vaccines". Also to address your other leaky arguments. > However it makes no sense to me to say, of two vaccine types that have had the same amount of testing One of the vaccine types (hint: adenovirus vectored) has an instance that has approval for use by EMA. Now if you want to raise questions about the rigor of the EMA compared to that of the FDA and as a result their relative safety compared to the other vaccine types, you are free to do so. Like I mentioned, even if you want to omit that specific type of vaccine, my point still stands. It makes 0 difference to the argument I'm making. If you don't understand this basic point and are unable to progress beyond a single technicality, there is no use having a discussion because you don't get the point that is being made. > Indeed that was my point: flat earth is nuts. If your argument could be used to support a patently false position than there is almost certainly a mistake in your logic What is this patently false position you speak of? The only patently false argument I can think of is your insistence that there is enough evidence to conclude that the covid vaccines are conclusively safe over the long term. You do not need any additional evidence to prove that the earth is not flat. You absolutely do need more evidence to conclude with high probability that the covid vaccines are safe long-term for the obvious fact that there has not been sufficient time since a large group has been vaccinated to know. Not to mention the various variants which the vaccines don't seem to be effective against. > Again that's very literally the opposite of what a straw man argument is. Wikipedia has an article on the topic if you are curious. You should definitely go read up on what a strawman argument is. I am not surprised that you use such arguments given that your understanding of them is incomplete. To clarify, I'm referring to the fact that based on your previous responses, I can guess that you are prone to misunderstanding what I am saying as "covid vaccines are especially prone to having horrendous side effects" as opposed to "there is uncertainty about its long-term safety, for good reason". > I'm claiming that you're evaluating its safety irrationally and inconsistently (or perhaps without researching the underlying topic) I clearly just outlined several reasons to be skeptical of mRNA vaccines. I have many friends who are immunologists and pharmaceutical scientists who know about the history of mRNA vaccines and their associated risks. If you have no clue about this, you're the pot calling the kettle black and you should do more reading instead of wasting my time. Your deference to "experts" in the public eye clearly supersedes your ability for critical thinking, making sound logical arguments and reading primary literature.

bawolff 5y ago

> You just agreed that adenoviruses are proven to be safe and effective at scale. I don't think anyone can argue conclusively that mRNA vaccines are, though there is mounting evidence that the incidence of short-time side effects is low. If you follow that rule, it should be obvious what rule the division of categories take and why they are grounded in evidence. I have trouble following your line of argument. You think that adenovirus based vaccines are proven to be safe and effective at scale. You don't think that mRNA has. But covid was the first time adenovirus vaccines have been used at scale. They're probably a reasonable risk tradeoff for people during a pandemic, but they have rare side effect causing blood clots that are fatal if not immediately treated, so i wouldn't say they have the ideal safety profile. I think it would be logically consistent (even if i disagreed) to say neither mRNA nor adenovirus had enough testing. It would also be consistent to say both are ok or even mrna is ok but adeno isn't. However it makes no sense to me to say, of two vaccine types that have had the same amount of testing, the one that has worse safety & efficacy is great, the one with the better safety results needs more testing. Like, is their something i'm missing about your argument? What basis are you making this judgement on? > Now that is a strawman if I've ever heard one, How so? I'm pretty sure its not. A straw man is a specific type of invalid argument. To recap, you said > From what I understand the vaccine hesitant population includes medical professionals and many well informed people who are simply waiting for more evidence about its safety. And i said (ad absurdum) that the same could be said of flat earth. Flat earth is nuts, so if your argument applies equally to them, it must be incorrect. Therefore that line of reasoning should be discarded. > There are provable ways to show that the earth is round based on physical laws Indeed that was my point: flat earth is nuts. If your argument could be used to support a patently false position than there is almost certainly a mistake in your logic > Before you strawman this argument again by saying that you can apply this logic to anything Again that's very literally the opposite of what a straw man argument is. Wikipedia has an article on the topic if you are curious. > The smallpox vaccine today is understood to be both safe and efficacious This is kind of besides the point. But no that's not true. The smallpox vaccine is understood to be high risk and is not reccomended for most people. Risk is cost vs reward, so it was a very different story in the 1800s. My main argument here is not that its safe or not safe (even though i believe it is). I'm claiming that you're evaluating its safety irrationally and inconsistently (or perhaps without researching the underlying topic), and i guess more generally if you're not going to be consistent in your own evaluation you should just listen to experts.

machinelearning 5y ago
Either you don't understand what a strawman argument is or just lack the understanding of it and I need to spell it out for you. A strawman argument is when you misrepresent someone's argument and attack it in a misguided attempt to refute the original one. In this case, you are misrepresenting the argument I'm trying to convey by comparing it to something that is proven without a shadow of a doubt (the earth is round). You misrepresented the initial claim as being a statement on the "proven safety (or lack thereof) of covid mRNA vaccines" whereas it was merely about the "uncertainty of the safety of covid mRNA vaccines". Also to address your other leaky arguments. > However it makes no sense to me to say, of two vaccine types that have had the same amount of testing One of the vaccine types (hint: adenovirus vectored) has an instance that has approval for use by EMA. Now if you want to raise questions about the rigor of the EMA compared to that of the FDA and as a result their relative safety compared to the other vaccine types, you are free to do so. Like I mentioned, even if you want to omit that specific type of vaccine, my point still stands. It makes 0 difference to the argument I'm making. If you don't understand this basic point and are unable to progress beyond a single technicality, there is no use having a discussion because you don't get the point that is being made. > Indeed that was my point: flat earth is nuts. If your argument could be used to support a patently false position than there is almost certainly a mistake in your logic What is this patently false position you speak of? The only patently false argument I can think of is your insistence that there is enough evidence to conclude that the covid vaccines are conclusively safe over the long term. You do not need any additional evidence to prove that the earth is not flat. You absolutely do need more evidence to conclude with high probability that the covid vaccines are safe long-term for the obvious fact that there has not been sufficient time since a large group has been vaccinated to know. Not to mention the various variants which the vaccines don't seem to be effective against. > Again that's very literally the opposite of what a straw man argument is. Wikipedia has an article on the topic if you are curious. You should definitely go read up on what a strawman argument is. I am not surprised that you use such arguments given that your understanding of them is incomplete. To clarify, I'm referring to the fact that based on your previous responses, I can guess that you are prone to misunderstanding what I am saying as "covid vaccines are especially prone to having horrendous side effects" as opposed to "there is uncertainty about its long-term safety, for good reason". > I'm claiming that you're evaluating its safety irrationally and inconsistently (or perhaps without researching the underlying topic) I clearly just outlined several reasons to be skeptical of mRNA vaccines. I have many friends who are immunologists and pharmaceutical scientists who know about the history of mRNA vaccines and their associated risks. If you have no clue about this, you're the pot calling the kettle black and you should do more reading instead of wasting my time. Your deference to "experts" in the public eye clearly supersedes your ability for critical thinking, making sound logical arguments and reading primary literature.