4 ms·

Reasonable skepticism should not be derided. But I would say (a) the skepticism is borderline, and (b) poor decision making is what is being derided. So why i

Reasonable skepticism should not be derided. But I would say (a) the skepticism is borderline, and (b) poor decision making is what is being derided. So why is the skepticism borderline? Well we have over 100 years of data showing that vaccines I’m general are safe and effective. The safety and effectiveness of vaccines has drastically improved during that century - especially in the last 20 years. mRNA vaccines is a new platform, but all the preclinical and clinical data tee have shows they are safe and effective, and if we were going to see long term effects (which would be related to abnormal inflammatory / immune) response; it is highly likely we would have seen some indicator by now. Which specific long term effects are people even worried about? And this brings us to why it is a poor decision. SARS-COV2 rewires your innate immune response, and has been observed to cause abnormal inflammatory/ immune responses that cause to death and long term disability with alarming frequency. So it seems like extremely poor judgement to be worried about long term effects from the vaccine more than the virus. The first concern is largely unsupported by the data, while the second is unquestionably supported by the data.

ithkuil 5y ago
Yes we have plenty of data about past vaccines: https://www.chop.edu/news/long-term-side-effects-covid-19-vaccine# https://www.chop.edu/news/long-term-side-effects-covid-19-va... "The history of vaccines shows that delayed effects following vaccination can occur. But when they do, these effects tend to happen within two months of vaccination: ...<some examples>" Whenever I show this kind of info to my family/friends that are against vaccines the response follow the three categories I posted earlier above. I categorically do not want to make fun of anybody. I really want to understand either: a) what's wrong about my understanding of the safety of this vaccination campaign (i.e. can really the world governments conspire so efficiently to hide the real data, or other arguments above) Or is it just a big identity politics problem, where we all think we engage in a rational discussion while each of us has already taken a stance that we cannot be moved out with arguments? (I'm putting myself into question too) b) how can I understand and reach my family members and friends and engage in a discussion that is not shut off quickly by one of the aforementioned unfalsifiable positions

ithkuil 5y ago

Yes we have plenty of data about past vaccines: https://www.chop.edu/news/long-term-side-effects-covid-19-vaccine# https://www.chop.edu/news/long-term-side-effects-covid-19-va... "The history of vaccines shows that delayed effects following vaccination can occur. But when they do, these effects tend to happen within two months of vaccination: ...<some examples>" Whenever I show this kind of info to my family/friends that are against vaccines the response follow the three categories I posted earlier above. I categorically do not want to make fun of anybody. I really want to understand either: a) what's wrong about my understanding of the safety of this vaccination campaign (i.e. can really the world governments conspire so efficiently to hide the real data, or other arguments above) Or is it just a big identity politics problem, where we all think we engage in a rational discussion while each of us has already taken a stance that we cannot be moved out with arguments? (I'm putting myself into question too) b) how can I understand and reach my family members and friends and engage in a discussion that is not shut off quickly by one of the aforementioned unfalsifiable positions