9 ms·

You can't persuade skeptics by not addressing (simply omitting) some most important concerns, namely: - Role of age, fitness and comorbidities in risk/benefit

by vldmit 5y ago

You can't persuade skeptics by not addressing (simply omitting) some most important concerns, namely: - Role of age, fitness and comorbidities in risk/benefit analysis - Lack of trust in institutions (suppression of alternative views; capture/corruption) Another question is who New Yorker can reach, I won't be surprised that ~95% of their audience are already vaccinated. And remaining 5% holdouts are well-informed and would need way better arguments.

honkycat 5y ago
"Skeptics" is a very generous portrayal of the anti-vax crowd. They are not skeptics. Their opposition is not based on missing information, it is based on conforming to an ideology. Which is diametrically opposed to skepticism.
- CozyBearNotSoy 5y ago
  People of all classes, religions, races, and political affiliations are among those who don't want to be injected. Men and women, young and old. Knowing this would require you to talk to people out in the real world in such a way that they think they can trust you, since most are terrified to speak up. It is hard to do this unless you are sincerely one of them. What you see on TV or YouTube isn't representative of the actual population.
  - OkiJ 5y ago
    I work with two. Let's just say they aren't anyone's "go-to" when a problem needs solved, full of right-wing conspiracy bullshit and pointless commentary. One drinks from a "LIBERAL TEARS" mug at work. Can you fucking imagine?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- mdp2021 5y ago
  The poster was probably - correctly - including hesitants. The article is about hesitants (not about the side you mention).
- boyleingpoint 5y ago
  Do you think it's possible that people could be generally pro-vaccine and be sceptical of the covid-19 vaccine? You're trying to lump people who have legitimate concerns about the covid-19 vaccine in particular with the vaccines cause autism/magnetic vaccines crowd, and it's very dishonest. This is not some monolithic movement, and I disavow the people who are anti-vax in principle. I'm rooting for the covid vaccines, and I hope they're everything we've been promised and more, but I will be waiting.
  - honkycat 5y ago
    You pretend to have a "reasonable" hesitation for the vaccine, despite overwhelming evidence of the safety and effectiveness of the vaccine, especially in contrast to the effects of Covid-19 itself. So I ask, what will it take for you to change your mind? What is the evidence you are waiting for that does not already exist?
    - boyleingpoint 5y ago
      If it was demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that it would be more detrimental for me to be infected than to be vaccinated (taking into account my personal risk factors) and it conferred better long term immunity than a natural infection, I would change my mind. Given that as of September Israel will only consider people fully vaccinated if they've had a booster injection, I don't believe this criteria has yet been met. It's not even like an annual flu shot at this point, as people who were considered fully vaccinated just a couple of months ago now need further boosters. At this stage it looks like the taxpayer will be footing the bill for twice-annual booster shots for everyone. This is just not sustainable
      - Marsymars 5y ago
        > At this stage it looks like the taxpayer will be footing the bill for twice-annual booster shots for everyone. This is just not sustainable Isn't it? Not speaking to its wisdom, but it seems entirely sustainable from a financial perspective - some napkin math suggests that the all-in costs of that frequency of vaccination would be <1% of the federal budget of a typical developed country.
mdp2021 5y ago
There is another point: to the author, «[...] This all sounds quite risky. Does it mean that we should avoid prescription medicines entirely? Let’s look at the most common adverse-reaction offenders. Anti-seizure drugs, insulin, and blood-thinning medications—often used to prevent stroke—are at the top of the list; antibiotics account for more adverse effects than almost any other kind of drug, leading to approximately a hundred and fifty thousand E.R. visits annually; even acetaminophen turns out to be risky, causing fifty-six thousand E.R. visits, twenty-six hundred hospitalizations, nearly half of all liver failures, and over four hundred and fifty deaths each year. Nevertheless, I think that most of my vaccine-hesitant patients would agree that preventing strokes and seizures, treating diabetes, alleviating pain, and curing infections are extremely important, and that the benefits we derive from using these medications weigh favorably against their risks.» A binary dilemma is expressed in the paragraph, while the actual topic is ternary. «Most of [his] vaccine-hesitant patients» would take insulin as a better option than just bearing diabetes, but not necessarily would take farmaceutical prophylaxis over a relatively high isolation (if they can afford it in practice - The New Yorker was not exactly born for a public of dwellers in low density areas).
- native_samples 5y ago
  It's also not comparable because drugs are given to people who are ill, so the cost/benefit analysis is much clearer. Vaccines are being given to people who are not ill, may well not become ill any time soon even if they don't take the vaccine, and if they did become ill for many (i.e. the non eldery/co-morbid) it would not be especially serious. All of which makes the cost/benefit calculation drastically different to antibiotics. It's partly the weakness of pro-vaccine articles like this one that fuels the phenomenon. People read it and say, is that the best counter-argument there is? Then perhaps my hesitation is correct indeed.
  - mdp2021 5y ago
    The statement «if they did become ill for many ... it would not be especially serious» brings to the question about what causes damage after infection, and what causes (severe) adverse events after the vaccines: if the causes are different, the poster's idea that seem to imply that "a specific individual may get worse consequences from the vaccines than from the natural infection" may appear less shaky, while if the causes partially coincide (something about the spike protein) it would make more sense to believe that the same individual risks much more damage with natural infection than with vaccination - consistently with the apparent numbers (damages post-vaccine seem to be order(s) of magnitude less than damages post natural infection. Of course, the practical comparison passes through the individual chances of vaccination vs chances of infection - but that is another matter). If the source of damages is similar with infection or vaccination, and if the vulnerability depended on one's specific body, if you may suffer a hit after the latter, imagine the blow you could get after the former. About instead the article and its "reassurances to hesitants": its honest report of the risks of very common medicines will be an eye opener to those who thought of medicines as "innocuous candies not worth considerate approach".
OkiJ 5y ago
> And remaining 5% holdouts are well-informed "holdout" and "well-informed" are mutually incompatible in this scenario.
CharlesW 5y ago
> You can't persuade skeptics by not addressing (simply omitting) some most important concerns… You're making a couple assumptions here which don't hold true in practice. (1) That "skeptic" concerns are uniform. Those may be your important concerns, but they're not for others. (2) That you'll be able persuade "skeptics" by logically addressing their concerns. You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.

by vldmit 5y ago

honkycat 5y ago

"Skeptics" is a very generous portrayal of the anti-vax crowd. They are not skeptics. Their opposition is not based on missing information, it is based on conforming to an ideology. Which is diametrically opposed to skepticism.

CozyBearNotSoy 5y ago
People of all classes, religions, races, and political affiliations are among those who don't want to be injected. Men and women, young and old. Knowing this would require you to talk to people out in the real world in such a way that they think they can trust you, since most are terrified to speak up. It is hard to do this unless you are sincerely one of them. What you see on TV or YouTube isn't representative of the actual population.
- OkiJ 5y ago
  I work with two. Let's just say they aren't anyone's "go-to" when a problem needs solved, full of right-wing conspiracy bullshit and pointless commentary. One drinks from a "LIBERAL TEARS" mug at work. Can you fucking imagine?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
mdp2021 5y ago
The poster was probably - correctly - including hesitants. The article is about hesitants (not about the side you mention).
boyleingpoint 5y ago
Do you think it's possible that people could be generally pro-vaccine and be sceptical of the covid-19 vaccine? You're trying to lump people who have legitimate concerns about the covid-19 vaccine in particular with the vaccines cause autism/magnetic vaccines crowd, and it's very dishonest. This is not some monolithic movement, and I disavow the people who are anti-vax in principle. I'm rooting for the covid vaccines, and I hope they're everything we've been promised and more, but I will be waiting.
- honkycat 5y ago
  You pretend to have a "reasonable" hesitation for the vaccine, despite overwhelming evidence of the safety and effectiveness of the vaccine, especially in contrast to the effects of Covid-19 itself. So I ask, what will it take for you to change your mind? What is the evidence you are waiting for that does not already exist?
  - boyleingpoint 5y ago
    If it was demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that it would be more detrimental for me to be infected than to be vaccinated (taking into account my personal risk factors) and it conferred better long term immunity than a natural infection, I would change my mind. Given that as of September Israel will only consider people fully vaccinated if they've had a booster injection, I don't believe this criteria has yet been met. It's not even like an annual flu shot at this point, as people who were considered fully vaccinated just a couple of months ago now need further boosters. At this stage it looks like the taxpayer will be footing the bill for twice-annual booster shots for everyone. This is just not sustainable
    - Marsymars 5y ago
      > At this stage it looks like the taxpayer will be footing the bill for twice-annual booster shots for everyone. This is just not sustainable Isn't it? Not speaking to its wisdom, but it seems entirely sustainable from a financial perspective - some napkin math suggests that the all-in costs of that frequency of vaccination would be <1% of the federal budget of a typical developed country.

mdp2021 5y ago

There is another point: to the author, «[...] This all sounds quite risky. Does it mean that we should avoid prescription medicines entirely? Let’s look at the most common adverse-reaction offenders. Anti-seizure drugs, insulin, and blood-thinning medications—often used to prevent stroke—are at the top of the list; antibiotics account for more adverse effects than almost any other kind of drug, leading to approximately a hundred and fifty thousand E.R. visits annually; even acetaminophen turns out to be risky, causing fifty-six thousand E.R. visits, twenty-six hundred hospitalizations, nearly half of all liver failures, and over four hundred and fifty deaths each year. Nevertheless, I think that most of my vaccine-hesitant patients would agree that preventing strokes and seizures, treating diabetes, alleviating pain, and curing infections are extremely important, and that the benefits we derive from using these medications weigh favorably against their risks.» A binary dilemma is expressed in the paragraph, while the actual topic is ternary. «Most of [his] vaccine-hesitant patients» would take insulin as a better option than just bearing diabetes, but not necessarily would take farmaceutical prophylaxis over a relatively high isolation (if they can afford it in practice - The New Yorker was not exactly born for a public of dwellers in low density areas).

native_samples 5y ago
It's also not comparable because drugs are given to people who are ill, so the cost/benefit analysis is much clearer. Vaccines are being given to people who are not ill, may well not become ill any time soon even if they don't take the vaccine, and if they did become ill for many (i.e. the non eldery/co-morbid) it would not be especially serious. All of which makes the cost/benefit calculation drastically different to antibiotics. It's partly the weakness of pro-vaccine articles like this one that fuels the phenomenon. People read it and say, is that the best counter-argument there is? Then perhaps my hesitation is correct indeed.
- mdp2021 5y ago
  The statement «if they did become ill for many ... it would not be especially serious» brings to the question about what causes damage after infection, and what causes (severe) adverse events after the vaccines: if the causes are different, the poster's idea that seem to imply that "a specific individual may get worse consequences from the vaccines than from the natural infection" may appear less shaky, while if the causes partially coincide (something about the spike protein) it would make more sense to believe that the same individual risks much more damage with natural infection than with vaccination - consistently with the apparent numbers (damages post-vaccine seem to be order(s) of magnitude less than damages post natural infection. Of course, the practical comparison passes through the individual chances of vaccination vs chances of infection - but that is another matter). If the source of damages is similar with infection or vaccination, and if the vulnerability depended on one's specific body, if you may suffer a hit after the latter, imagine the blow you could get after the former. About instead the article and its "reassurances to hesitants": its honest report of the risks of very common medicines will be an eye opener to those who thought of medicines as "innocuous candies not worth considerate approach".

OkiJ 5y ago

> And remaining 5% holdouts are well-informed "holdout" and "well-informed" are mutually incompatible in this scenario.

CharlesW 5y ago

> You can't persuade skeptics by not addressing (simply omitting) some most important concerns… You're making a couple assumptions here which don't hold true in practice. (1) That "skeptic" concerns are uniform. Those may be your important concerns, but they're not for others. (2) That you'll be able persuade "skeptics" by logically addressing their concerns. You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.