4 ms·

it's not minimizing risks. I work in computer security you don't have to fear a three letter agency. I am about a certain of that as I am you don't have to fear

it's not minimizing risks. I work in computer security you don't have to fear a three letter agency. I am about a certain of that as I am you don't have to fear the vaccine. could there be a three letter agency after you absolutely could you experience negative effects from the vaccine absolutely, with the information I do have I can assert easily they're about as likely (many restrictions apply). It's not reasonable for my mom to know about or be able to understand the risks of ransomware. Citing VARES without about at years worth of biomedical knowledge is, would be up there with her saying, but ransomware has hidden from this antivirus software before. While technically true, it's not a reason to not use antivirus, or to not trust that antivirus. Anyone who does security research would say the same thing... just like anyone who immunology research is saying about all the Cov19 vaccines.

TrevorJ 5y ago
So your thesis is: "you should trust the experts because you likely aren't smart enough to read a bar chart on your own." ?
- grayhatter 5y ago
  No, but I am happy to make that argument if you'd like. Because strictly speaking... yes! I shouldn't value my interpretation over the consensus of domain experts, when I'm not a domain expert. Full stop. But my argument was, much closer to raw data isn't as valuable as interpreted data. Humans instinctively weight loss with more value than gain. The vaccine will prevent 95% of all clinical infections. But has a 10% negative side effect rate. Which is the more important value in that hypothetical? If you get this vaccine you have a 1 in 10% chance to have a negative side effect... that sounds scary. The negative side effect might much more likely to be flu like symptoms, but that's not what you're gonna remember reading VARES. Where if no one gets the vaccine; IIRC the current case mortality rate is 1% you have a 1% chance to die if you get infected? VS flu like symptoms? That's what I mean. If you're not careful, it's very easy to be tricked by what you read because most people are not gonna hear 10% develop side effects, think flu symptoms. They're gonna thing thrombocytopenia, pericarditis, and anaphylaxis.

TrevorJ 5y ago

So your thesis is: "you should trust the experts because you likely aren't smart enough to read a bar chart on your own." ?

grayhatter 5y ago
No, but I am happy to make that argument if you'd like. Because strictly speaking... yes! I shouldn't value my interpretation over the consensus of domain experts, when I'm not a domain expert. Full stop. But my argument was, much closer to raw data isn't as valuable as interpreted data. Humans instinctively weight loss with more value than gain. The vaccine will prevent 95% of all clinical infections. But has a 10% negative side effect rate. Which is the more important value in that hypothetical? If you get this vaccine you have a 1 in 10% chance to have a negative side effect... that sounds scary. The negative side effect might much more likely to be flu like symptoms, but that's not what you're gonna remember reading VARES. Where if no one gets the vaccine; IIRC the current case mortality rate is 1% you have a 1% chance to die if you get infected? VS flu like symptoms? That's what I mean. If you're not careful, it's very easy to be tricked by what you read because most people are not gonna hear 10% develop side effects, think flu symptoms. They're gonna thing thrombocytopenia, pericarditis, and anaphylaxis.