3 ms·

The science around covid has been fluid this entire time. We aren't even sure if these vaccines will work against other covid variants in the future. What make

The science around covid has been fluid this entire time. We aren't even sure if these vaccines will work against other covid variants in the future. What makes anyone qualified to make decisions over someone else's choice of what they should put in their body? If the vaccines are effective, then you can make the choice if you feel comfortable getting them and then being around other people. I don't even think people realize what they're saying when they say "most people aren't qualified to make decisions". I mean, seriously? The death rate of covid for healthy individuals is still very low. Even lower if you're vaccinated. We should _not_ sacrifice personal choice in the name of public safety. Give people the data and let them make their own choices.

Daishiman 5y ago
> The science around covid has been fluid this entire time. We aren't even sure if these vaccines will work against other covid variants in the future. Science _is_ fluid by its very nature because it's a process, not an outcome. But processes can be well-executed or not. Scientists, with all their human and institutional flaws, are still just so, so much more qualified than the lay public to make informed opinions that it's not even funny. It's the same as with doctors: a medical second opinions is obtained from another doctor, not by yourself, because ultimately expert opinions may be challenged by others who have at least a similar amount of training and expertise. Lay opinions have gigantic, brutal knowledge gaps. The gaps are so huge as to make lay opinions essentially useless. I have spent an hour a day, every day, since the beginning of the pandemic, reading up on the scientific literature of COVID. I am overeducated geek with a computer science degree. Do you know how many reasonable assertions I can make about the pandemic? About as much as validating that the calculations behind the p-values of studies are correct, and nothing more. I can, at most, summarize and explain the high-level reasoning behind most epidemiologists' and governments's decisions, with the pros and cons that they themselves have suggested. We are talking about over 600 hours of research as an educated layman and still no novel conclusions. To think that people who have spent at most a fraction of that time, with no university-level knowledge of statistics or basics of germ theory, can make reasonable assumptions, has no relation to reality.
dredmorbius 5y ago
Science has been fluid ... as additional facts, experience, data, and expertise are gained. The science-denying objections to the science has been ... remarkably consistent in shrillness, interneal inconsistency, and studied refusal to accept facts and demonstrated evidence. So there's that.

Daishiman 5y ago

> The science around covid has been fluid this entire time. We aren't even sure if these vaccines will work against other covid variants in the future. Science _is_ fluid by its very nature because it's a process, not an outcome. But processes can be well-executed or not. Scientists, with all their human and institutional flaws, are still just so, so much more qualified than the lay public to make informed opinions that it's not even funny. It's the same as with doctors: a medical second opinions is obtained from another doctor, not by yourself, because ultimately expert opinions may be challenged by others who have at least a similar amount of training and expertise. Lay opinions have gigantic, brutal knowledge gaps. The gaps are so huge as to make lay opinions essentially useless. I have spent an hour a day, every day, since the beginning of the pandemic, reading up on the scientific literature of COVID. I am overeducated geek with a computer science degree. Do you know how many reasonable assertions I can make about the pandemic? About as much as validating that the calculations behind the p-values of studies are correct, and nothing more. I can, at most, summarize and explain the high-level reasoning behind most epidemiologists' and governments's decisions, with the pros and cons that they themselves have suggested. We are talking about over 600 hours of research as an educated layman and still no novel conclusions. To think that people who have spent at most a fraction of that time, with no university-level knowledge of statistics or basics of germ theory, can make reasonable assumptions, has no relation to reality.

dredmorbius 5y ago

Science has been fluid ... as additional facts, experience, data, and expertise are gained. The science-denying objections to the science has been ... remarkably consistent in shrillness, interneal inconsistency, and studied refusal to accept facts and demonstrated evidence. So there's that.