4 ms·

That’s not the issue. The issue is that it’s legitimate to distrust medicine as a whole because there are numerous good examples of it being untrustworthy at e

by zepto 5y ago

That’s not the issue. The issue is that it’s legitimate to distrust medicine as a whole because there are numerous good examples of it being untrustworthy at every level from public health officials, drug manufacturers, down to individual physicians. I don’t think it’s good sensemaking to be generically anti-vax, but I think the lack of trust in medicine is a systemic problem and not one that can so easily be blamed on the people who don’t trust it.

majormajor 5y ago
Distrust is different than "downright reject" and lumping the two together, painting it as a picture of "reasonable distrust," is being extremely favorable to those who simply have stopped engaging. Nobody who disagrees with them (that Covid is real, that masks have value, that the vaccine is worth getting...) is trustworthy by definition. That's not "distrust," that's not something that can be addressed simply by "oh I talked to some more people and now I believe that this isn't a case of the system abusing us." Rejecting the vaccine because you don't even understand it's described mechanism and so you fall victim to nonsense claims about "viral shedding" or "gene editing" is not being skeptical, it's being gullible.
- zepto 5y ago
  > Distrust is different than "downright reject" and lumping the two together, painting it as a picture of "reasonable distrust," is being extremely favorable to those who simply have stopped engaging. I agree that there are level of distrust, but these are not separate categories. > Nobody who disagrees with them (that Covid is real, that masks have value, that the vaccine is worth getting...) is trustworthy by definition. Why is it relevant to attack people who disagree with mainstream views as ‘untrustworthy by definition’? Being wrong or misguided doesn’t make someone untrustworthy. > That's not "distrust," that's not something that can be addressed simply by "oh I talked to some more people and now I believe that this isn't a case of the system abusing us." It’s not clear what point you are making here. > Rejecting the vaccine because you don't even understand it's described mechanism and so you fall victim to nonsense claims about "viral shedding" or "gene editing" is not being skeptical, it's being gullible. Now you are changing the goalposts. Skepticism is not the same as distrust and not something I have mentioned.
MisterBastahrd 5y ago
It is exactly the issue. The best guidance we have about these things are from the CDC. While they don't always get it right, they usually have a good explanation for their error when they don't. It's a gigantic gulf to go from "they're wrong some of the time" to "I'm not going to get vaccinated, but if I do get sick, I'm going to go inject myself with horse paste because I trust whackjob talking heads on the internet more than licensed medical experts in the field." The VAST majority of people who are resistant to masks and vaccinations are not doing this because they don't believe in the science. They're doing it because talking heads instructed them that to accept them as normal is an affront to their freedom.
- zepto 5y ago
  > The best guidance we have about these things are from the CDC. Why not the WHO? The CDC lied to us that masks were useless when in fact they believed that masks were helpful but they wanted to keep the supply for medical professionals. > While they don't always get it right, That wasn’t a matter of not getting it right. It was a deliberate lie that was harmful to the health of those who followed it. > they usually have a good explanation for their error when they don't. It wasn’t an error, and the explanation was that they lied in order to manipulate public behavior. > It's a gigantic gulf to go from "they're wrong some of the time" to "I'm not going to get vaccinated, but if I do get sick, I'm going to go inject myself with horse paste because I trust whackjob talking heads on the internet more than licensed medical experts in the field." It might be for you and me who have background knowledge about vaccines and viruses, but in the absence of that, why would trust the CDC who you know for certain have been lying? Medical licenses didn’t prevent that. Also, it’s not horse paste. That’s a lie in itself. It happens to be used in horses, but it is also approved for use in humans as are many medicines also used in animals, for example Ketamine. Do you think ketamine is ‘horse paste’. Calling it horse paste shows contempt for those who think it’s a useful medicine. Why would anyone trust someone who is contemptuous of them? Remember there are hundreds of licenses medical professionals who recommend ivermectin for covid. Some of them are the very people you are calling “whackjob talking heads”. Deepak Chopra has a medial license and has written 91 books! It doesn’t seem like a medical license is sufficient to tell who is a “whackjob”. I don’t think ivermectin is effective, but that’s based on my own calculus of how to integrate the various different opinions, none of which are all that trustworthy.

by zepto 5y ago

majormajor 5y ago

Distrust is different than "downright reject" and lumping the two together, painting it as a picture of "reasonable distrust," is being extremely favorable to those who simply have stopped engaging. Nobody who disagrees with them (that Covid is real, that masks have value, that the vaccine is worth getting...) is trustworthy by definition. That's not "distrust," that's not something that can be addressed simply by "oh I talked to some more people and now I believe that this isn't a case of the system abusing us." Rejecting the vaccine because you don't even understand it's described mechanism and so you fall victim to nonsense claims about "viral shedding" or "gene editing" is not being skeptical, it's being gullible.

zepto 5y ago
> Distrust is different than "downright reject" and lumping the two together, painting it as a picture of "reasonable distrust," is being extremely favorable to those who simply have stopped engaging. I agree that there are level of distrust, but these are not separate categories. > Nobody who disagrees with them (that Covid is real, that masks have value, that the vaccine is worth getting...) is trustworthy by definition. Why is it relevant to attack people who disagree with mainstream views as ‘untrustworthy by definition’? Being wrong or misguided doesn’t make someone untrustworthy. > That's not "distrust," that's not something that can be addressed simply by "oh I talked to some more people and now I believe that this isn't a case of the system abusing us." It’s not clear what point you are making here. > Rejecting the vaccine because you don't even understand it's described mechanism and so you fall victim to nonsense claims about "viral shedding" or "gene editing" is not being skeptical, it's being gullible. Now you are changing the goalposts. Skepticism is not the same as distrust and not something I have mentioned.

MisterBastahrd 5y ago

It is exactly the issue. The best guidance we have about these things are from the CDC. While they don't always get it right, they usually have a good explanation for their error when they don't. It's a gigantic gulf to go from "they're wrong some of the time" to "I'm not going to get vaccinated, but if I do get sick, I'm going to go inject myself with horse paste because I trust whackjob talking heads on the internet more than licensed medical experts in the field." The VAST majority of people who are resistant to masks and vaccinations are not doing this because they don't believe in the science. They're doing it because talking heads instructed them that to accept them as normal is an affront to their freedom.

zepto 5y ago
> The best guidance we have about these things are from the CDC. Why not the WHO? The CDC lied to us that masks were useless when in fact they believed that masks were helpful but they wanted to keep the supply for medical professionals. > While they don't always get it right, That wasn’t a matter of not getting it right. It was a deliberate lie that was harmful to the health of those who followed it. > they usually have a good explanation for their error when they don't. It wasn’t an error, and the explanation was that they lied in order to manipulate public behavior. > It's a gigantic gulf to go from "they're wrong some of the time" to "I'm not going to get vaccinated, but if I do get sick, I'm going to go inject myself with horse paste because I trust whackjob talking heads on the internet more than licensed medical experts in the field." It might be for you and me who have background knowledge about vaccines and viruses, but in the absence of that, why would trust the CDC who you know for certain have been lying? Medical licenses didn’t prevent that. Also, it’s not horse paste. That’s a lie in itself. It happens to be used in horses, but it is also approved for use in humans as are many medicines also used in animals, for example Ketamine. Do you think ketamine is ‘horse paste’. Calling it horse paste shows contempt for those who think it’s a useful medicine. Why would anyone trust someone who is contemptuous of them? Remember there are hundreds of licenses medical professionals who recommend ivermectin for covid. Some of them are the very people you are calling “whackjob talking heads”. Deepak Chopra has a medial license and has written 91 books! It doesn’t seem like a medical license is sufficient to tell who is a “whackjob”. I don’t think ivermectin is effective, but that’s based on my own calculus of how to integrate the various different opinions, none of which are all that trustworthy.