3 ms·
It falls to the bottom because it lies about the facts (vaccines were never declared 100% safe and effective) and reaches an incorrect conclusion (if one vaccin
by freyir 5y ago
It falls to the bottom because it lies about the facts (vaccines were never declared 100% safe and effective) and reaches an incorrect conclusion (if one vaccine is determined to be safer than another, it doesn’t follow that vaccines are objectively unsafe, or that being unvaccinated is safer than being vaccinated).
It’s a silly comment to make, and potentially harmful. The majority of people in this case don’t, on average, “follow what they’re told.” They’re very capable of evaluating facts and data and responding accordingly. That’s what’s happening here.
- iammisc 5y ago> he majority of people in this case don’t, on average, “follow what they’re told.” They’re very capable of evaluating facts and data and responding accordingly. That’s what’s happening here. Given articles like this, it seems unclear that this is true. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/18/briefing/atlanta-shootings-kamala-harris-tax-deadline-2021.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/18/briefing/atlanta-shooting... It seems obvious that large portions of the two major parties, as well as independents are completely factually wrong on salient aspects of COVID.
- 8note 5y ago"very capable of evaluating facts and data and responding to data" Sounds very incorrect. I'm at least very easily mislead, eg. Fusion advocates talking about the energy they put into plasma vs get out of plasma, rather than the energy they put into the system vs take out of the system. I don't know enough to know that they're lying to me about the prospects of ITER producing as much energy as it uses.