3 ms·

The difference is we actually know what is in the vaccines and how they are produced. They're also not produced by one single company, we've got pfizer, moderna

by dngray 5y ago

The difference is we actually know what is in the vaccines and how they are produced. They're also not produced by one single company, we've got pfizer, moderna and a number of others working independently over international borders. Not only that there's not exactly much sense in having many people die of a preventable disease. That costs government both in reduced productivity and healthcare. It also encourages harsher health regulations to prevent spreading which in turn costs more money to corps who have to implement them.

carlmr 5y ago
I got the vaccine so I personally don't believe that we're trying to kill and/or subjugate all of humanity right now. But this strikes me as odd: >The difference is we actually know what is in the vaccines and how they are produced. If you had designed the vaccine, produced all the inputs of the manufacturing process and the machines yourself, and then produced the vaccines which you then checked with machines to analyze the result and then analyzed it yourself, and then took that vial and injected it yourself with your own syringe and your own disinfectant, then you would "know" what you were injected with. My point is not to distrust the vaccines, or that any one person can realistically do this. "Trusting the science" and "trusting the vaccines" is in essence still trusting all other humans in that chain of events that led to the vaccine in your arm to have done their job properly, at least to the best of their abilities. Some people are now ready to trust the government on this more than others. I think there was a study once in mould or some other simple organism, I sadly can't find it. They found that even these simple lifeforms have the tendency to have outliers in behavior. When a high number, say 95%, of it goes towards a food source 5% will avoid it. This survival mechanism might kill the 5% more often than not, but if the opposite happens, the food is bad and kills the 95%, there is a reservoir of living cells that can spread. On a long enough timeline, as the article shows, trust will be broken. From an evolutionary perspective then it's good to have some outliers. The reasoning they use doesn't matter, survival is what matters.
throwawaylinux 5y ago
You're right, never ever have a bunch of corporations and governments colluded to be dishonest with people for their own gain. Never happened in anything related to the Middle East, South America, India, the Gulf of Mexico, tobacco, climate change, asbestos, banking bailouts, subprime mortgages, or anything else. Now let's all go bash the first fascist we find daring to question our benevolent corporate-government overlords.
- orwin 5y ago
  I find you way too harsh. Yes, you are right, cartels have existed, and still exist. But do you think France, China, Russia would just agree to everything a supposed US health cartel say? And the researchers in public labs, do you think they would agree to this cartel? I mean, they are the one who sounded the alerts on: tobacco, neonicotinoids, sugar? Maybe everyone in the world is on it. I find it unlikely myself, but its OK to believe it. And you are not a fascist for refusing the vaccine :/
  - throwawaylinux 5y ago
    I think multiple governments have certainly colluded to cover things up and perpetuate lies many many times. If you aren't concerned about undue influence of Russia or China on people within the US government, let alone the collusion between western nations such as five eyes countries, then I don't know what to say. I'm not sure what you're talking about researchers in public labs or what you think exactly I'm alleging here. It's not anything about the validity of scientific theories and data gathered about covid and vaccines. I never said anything at all about vaccines until right now, in fact.
- dngray 5y ago
  > You're right, never ever have a bunch of corporations and governments colluded to be dishonest with people for their own gain. There would have to be an awfully lot of people keeping that super awful secret. Corporations are made up of people and it would only take one of them to talk. Things don't usually stay a secret when that many people know about it. Also third party scientists are able to read, comprehend papers that are written, so it's pretty unlikely in this day and age of being able to read any paper you want. I think you missed my point which was that having the virus spread isn't beneficial to governments, corporations or anyone wanting the status quo to remain the same.

by dngray 5y ago

carlmr 5y ago

I got the vaccine so I personally don't believe that we're trying to kill and/or subjugate all of humanity right now. But this strikes me as odd: >The difference is we actually know what is in the vaccines and how they are produced. If you had designed the vaccine, produced all the inputs of the manufacturing process and the machines yourself, and then produced the vaccines which you then checked with machines to analyze the result and then analyzed it yourself, and then took that vial and injected it yourself with your own syringe and your own disinfectant, then you would "know" what you were injected with. My point is not to distrust the vaccines, or that any one person can realistically do this. "Trusting the science" and "trusting the vaccines" is in essence still trusting all other humans in that chain of events that led to the vaccine in your arm to have done their job properly, at least to the best of their abilities. Some people are now ready to trust the government on this more than others. I think there was a study once in mould or some other simple organism, I sadly can't find it. They found that even these simple lifeforms have the tendency to have outliers in behavior. When a high number, say 95%, of it goes towards a food source 5% will avoid it. This survival mechanism might kill the 5% more often than not, but if the opposite happens, the food is bad and kills the 95%, there is a reservoir of living cells that can spread. On a long enough timeline, as the article shows, trust will be broken. From an evolutionary perspective then it's good to have some outliers. The reasoning they use doesn't matter, survival is what matters.

throwawaylinux 5y ago

You're right, never ever have a bunch of corporations and governments colluded to be dishonest with people for their own gain. Never happened in anything related to the Middle East, South America, India, the Gulf of Mexico, tobacco, climate change, asbestos, banking bailouts, subprime mortgages, or anything else. Now let's all go bash the first fascist we find daring to question our benevolent corporate-government overlords.

orwin 5y ago
I find you way too harsh. Yes, you are right, cartels have existed, and still exist. But do you think France, China, Russia would just agree to everything a supposed US health cartel say? And the researchers in public labs, do you think they would agree to this cartel? I mean, they are the one who sounded the alerts on: tobacco, neonicotinoids, sugar? Maybe everyone in the world is on it. I find it unlikely myself, but its OK to believe it. And you are not a fascist for refusing the vaccine :/
- throwawaylinux 5y ago
  I think multiple governments have certainly colluded to cover things up and perpetuate lies many many times. If you aren't concerned about undue influence of Russia or China on people within the US government, let alone the collusion between western nations such as five eyes countries, then I don't know what to say. I'm not sure what you're talking about researchers in public labs or what you think exactly I'm alleging here. It's not anything about the validity of scientific theories and data gathered about covid and vaccines. I never said anything at all about vaccines until right now, in fact.
dngray 5y ago
> You're right, never ever have a bunch of corporations and governments colluded to be dishonest with people for their own gain. There would have to be an awfully lot of people keeping that super awful secret. Corporations are made up of people and it would only take one of them to talk. Things don't usually stay a secret when that many people know about it. Also third party scientists are able to read, comprehend papers that are written, so it's pretty unlikely in this day and age of being able to read any paper you want. I think you missed my point which was that having the virus spread isn't beneficial to governments, corporations or anyone wanting the status quo to remain the same.