3 ms·

> If you're claiming something that hasn't been demonstrated through peer-reviewed scientific research, then you're offering your opinion. Not necessarily. Wha

> If you're claiming something that hasn't been demonstrated through peer-reviewed scientific research, then you're offering your opinion. Not necessarily. What is the bar to be defined as "scientific research"? What is the bar for "peer review"? Considering the massive amount of evidence that a large amount of "peer review" doesn't review much and that a measurable amount of "scientific research" is inadequate and sometimes outright fraudulent, any pursuit of truth shouldn't be built exclusively on such a weak foundation. But to your point, good research should hold more weight (and does!). > If you're pushing a narrative that implies that you shouldn't get vaccinated, then yes, that's "anti-vax". And yet concerns about the long-term safety of these vaccines are, by definition, untested. The long term efficacy of these vaccines are certainly in doubt. Both are reasonable concerns worth debating and exploring. But will get classified as "anti-vax" and will become subject to censorship "for our own good". I am vaccinated. I believe these vaccines represent an astounding accomplishment. I believe people should have access to all information in order to make the best decisions for themselves. I also have some skepticism regarding the messages and messaging that comes from the CDC and NIH. I also distrust the role they've played in any discussion regarding the origins of Covid. Why we (in America at least) can watch abject government incompetence in the DoD, FBI, CIA, ICE, IRS, and on and on but pretend the CDC and the NIH, the ultimate gatekeepers of the Covid and vaccine narratives, are immune to such failings is beyond me.

LudvigVanHassen 5y ago
All of this is correct. Many on the left seem forcibly unable to view the nuance described here. Freedom of choice is an American value that doesn't exist anywhere else in the world to the degree that it does here. Freedom to decide what you do with your body trumps public health. Half of Americans believe this, and the other half doesn't. Finding the compromise between those two viewpoints is exceptionally challenging. Each group has the temptation to view the other as being "willfully evil," whether for being selfish or for imposing tyranny. I hope the solution is that our high vaccination rate of 70+% of adults and the prevalence of the spread of Delta (which creates natural immunity) will combine to reach herd immunity and we can get out of this craven, horrible timeline we find ourselves in.
- alexpw 5y ago
  "My right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins." Your freedom to catch and spread covid to me is not supported by established law. It's also why we don't allow smoking in restaurants, etc. And it's also related to seat belt laws. George Washington forced our soldiers to take a smallpox innoculation and it was pivotal to us winning. In 1905, in Jacobson v Massachusetts, the US Supreme Court upheld the Cambridge, Mass, Board of Health’s authority to require vaccination against smallpox during a smallpox epidemic. It ruled that the public health trumps your ability to freely engage in society if you will endanger it. You'd like to reach herd immunity, but you didn't offer a solution; instead, you gave a hopeful outcome if we do nothing. We have millions that refuse to vaccinate yet wish to move freely in society. They are clogging hospitals and costing our society an estimated $6B, and climbing. Reaching herd immunity while using your version of freedom means that long covid disabilities and deaths are just an inevitable that we're hopeless to prevent.
  - effie 5y ago
    > Your freedom to catch and spread covid to me is not supported by established law. No all freedoms are given by eastablished law, many are implicit. Then later some freedoms can be restricted by the law. Is there a law banning catching COVID or spreading COVID? I don't think so. > It's also why we don't allow smoking in restaurants, etc. Some establishments do allow it. It's your choice, if you want to visit them or not. > And it's also related to seat belt laws. It's not. > George Washington forced our soldiers to take a smallpox innoculation and it was pivotal to us winning. Yes, soldiers usually submit to wished of their commanders because otherwise their stance in the military deteriorates. Most people do not submit to military organization.
alexpw 5y ago
The long-term safety is an angle that sounds reasonable, but isn't, and is used as an anti-vax talking point. A doctor is expected to know better. First, historically, no vaccine has caused adverse effects beyond about 2 months. Second, millions have been vaccinated for nearly 9 months already. Third, the mRNA vaccine is metabolized in the body and leaves no trace of itself past 11-14 days. Fourth, it is not a daily medication. A reasonable analogy of drinking a beer and being worried the after effects might hit you a year after the fact, because it's untested, is obviously approaching absurd.
- trentnix 5y ago
  Objections over long term safety are absolutely reasonable due to historical precedent (see the Polio vaccine) and because the litmus test of “peer-reviewed” research is the standard the parent I responded to set. There exists no “long term” research of mRNA vaccines from which to draw conclusions (another reason why the “peer-reviewed science” standard for truth is fundamentally flawed). I don’t think concerns over long-term danger is a strong argument (which is one reason I chose to be vaccinated) but it is absolutely reasonable.

LudvigVanHassen 5y ago

All of this is correct. Many on the left seem forcibly unable to view the nuance described here. Freedom of choice is an American value that doesn't exist anywhere else in the world to the degree that it does here. Freedom to decide what you do with your body trumps public health. Half of Americans believe this, and the other half doesn't. Finding the compromise between those two viewpoints is exceptionally challenging. Each group has the temptation to view the other as being "willfully evil," whether for being selfish or for imposing tyranny. I hope the solution is that our high vaccination rate of 70+% of adults and the prevalence of the spread of Delta (which creates natural immunity) will combine to reach herd immunity and we can get out of this craven, horrible timeline we find ourselves in.

alexpw 5y ago
"My right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins." Your freedom to catch and spread covid to me is not supported by established law. It's also why we don't allow smoking in restaurants, etc. And it's also related to seat belt laws. George Washington forced our soldiers to take a smallpox innoculation and it was pivotal to us winning. In 1905, in Jacobson v Massachusetts, the US Supreme Court upheld the Cambridge, Mass, Board of Health’s authority to require vaccination against smallpox during a smallpox epidemic. It ruled that the public health trumps your ability to freely engage in society if you will endanger it. You'd like to reach herd immunity, but you didn't offer a solution; instead, you gave a hopeful outcome if we do nothing. We have millions that refuse to vaccinate yet wish to move freely in society. They are clogging hospitals and costing our society an estimated $6B, and climbing. Reaching herd immunity while using your version of freedom means that long covid disabilities and deaths are just an inevitable that we're hopeless to prevent.
- effie 5y ago
  > Your freedom to catch and spread covid to me is not supported by established law. No all freedoms are given by eastablished law, many are implicit. Then later some freedoms can be restricted by the law. Is there a law banning catching COVID or spreading COVID? I don't think so. > It's also why we don't allow smoking in restaurants, etc. Some establishments do allow it. It's your choice, if you want to visit them or not. > And it's also related to seat belt laws. It's not. > George Washington forced our soldiers to take a smallpox innoculation and it was pivotal to us winning. Yes, soldiers usually submit to wished of their commanders because otherwise their stance in the military deteriorates. Most people do not submit to military organization.

alexpw 5y ago

The long-term safety is an angle that sounds reasonable, but isn't, and is used as an anti-vax talking point. A doctor is expected to know better. First, historically, no vaccine has caused adverse effects beyond about 2 months. Second, millions have been vaccinated for nearly 9 months already. Third, the mRNA vaccine is metabolized in the body and leaves no trace of itself past 11-14 days. Fourth, it is not a daily medication. A reasonable analogy of drinking a beer and being worried the after effects might hit you a year after the fact, because it's untested, is obviously approaching absurd.

trentnix 5y ago
Objections over long term safety are absolutely reasonable due to historical precedent (see the Polio vaccine) and because the litmus test of “peer-reviewed” research is the standard the parent I responded to set. There exists no “long term” research of mRNA vaccines from which to draw conclusions (another reason why the “peer-reviewed science” standard for truth is fundamentally flawed). I don’t think concerns over long-term danger is a strong argument (which is one reason I chose to be vaccinated) but it is absolutely reasonable.