8 ms·

Do you mean people who question the vaccine at all are "something else completely"? Seems strange to be called "anti-vax" and, presumably, "anti-science" for q

Do you mean people who question the vaccine at all are "something else completely"? Seems strange to be called "anti-vax" and, presumably, "anti-science" for questioning the logic in mass vaccinating with an experimental vaccine, built with experimental technologies, which since its deployment has been demonstrated through various data to be a spectacular failure in terms of safety and efficacy. What about just questioning the policies themselves? What about the fact that from where I'm sitting there's zero "science" supporting the use of cloth masks, yet they're attack vector numero uno when it comes to bifurcating the populace into angels and demons?

ipspam 5y ago
Science is only one piece of the puzzle. Ultimately it's a political game, so science is only part of the equation. Masks are to signal that I care about you, and to make you feel safe. Bullshit of course, but it's way to hard to make people understand that they are overestimating the risk of death and hospitalization by factors of 10x and 20x. Much easier to not correct the record and pretend masks reduce the risk 10-20x. Back to basics: The government doesn't care about you. Any interventions are likely to sacrifice long term success for short term success.
- sjwalter 5y ago
  Lying to people in some kind of psychological game to manipulate their feelings in the way you're describing is despicable and anyone participating willfully in such bullshit deserves zero respect. Many scientists and doctors out there are obviously either completely uninterested in the truth or just toadies for the elite, if what you're describing is correct. If so, they don't deserve our respect, our trust, or even our attention.
  - angelzen 5y ago
    It's more complicated than that. Most scientists do not set out to willfully participate in bullshit. They do honest work within the constraints of their profession. As an example, take covid antibody studies. It is interesting and useful to learn how covid vaccines elicit antibody production. OTOH, the immune system is not limited to antibodies. Extrapolating long-term immunity conclusions from an antibody study is unwarranted. Alas, the scientists performing antibody studies don't have the resources to perform long term studies. This creates an over-abundence of antibody studies, which are cheap and likely to produce measurable results. These studies are then used as incontrovertible evidence that 'science says' there is no such thing as natural immunity, and even if it were, vaccines are much better.
    - thrwawy12345 5y ago
      > Most scientists do not set out to willfully participate in bullshit. Probably true. But “scientists who seek political power” is a different set. See, Fauci
  - spookthesunset 5y ago
    > If so, they don't deserve our respect, our trust, or even our attention. Totally agree. What's the number one rule of crisis management? Keep people calm. I cannot name a single "expert" who has attempted to calm people at all. In fact most have done the exact opposite. They have intentionally provoked fear. If these people wanted respect, trust and attention they'd go out of their way to clearly articulate the risks of covid for each population group. Instead they act as if covid is a death sentence for anybody. They would actively stamp out misinformation like "4% kill rate" and "25% of people get long covid". They'd clearly frame "hospitals full" with the context of how busy an ICU is during normal times. They'd spend large chunks of their time calming parents who are fearful for their children. More important, they'd offer hope and work to instill courage and bravery in people. They'd tell people what they can do to minimize symptoms. They'd remind people virtually everybody recovers and many don't even know they had it. They'd give people ways to meaningfully contribute "to the cause" within their communities. Instead they've done nothing but crank up the fear factor and freaked the absolute shit out of people. They'd literally knocked screws loose from people I used to regard as level headed, rational people. And they keep at it. Never offering positive messaging. Never offering hope. Never communicating good news. Never calming people down. Of course if they did any of what I described, I'd imagine most people wouldn't have accepted any of these mitigation measures at all. Because I believe a rational individual looking at the data would see almost none of what we've done over the past year and a half makes a single ounce of sense at all. The cynic in me says that is exactly why they don't do what I describe... cranking up the fear is the only way to sell lockdowns, masks, vaccine mandates, border closures, and whatever other human rights crushing crap these people want to shove down our mouths. These "experts" are some of the most vile individuals I can think of. They don't deserve an ounce of respect, trust or attention.
    - vladTheInhaler 5y ago
      > I cannot name a single "expert" who has attempted to calm people at all. That's odd, because here are some excerpts from President Biden's remarks on covid [1]. "THE PRESIDENT: Good evening, my fellow Americans. I want to talk to you about where we are in the battle against COVID-19, the progress we’ve made, and the work we have left to do. And it starts with understanding this: Even as the Delta variant 19 [sic] has — COVID-19 — has been hitting this country hard, we have the tools to combat the virus, if we can come together as a country and use those tools. If we raise our vaccination rate, protect ourselves and others with masking and expanded testing, and identify people who are infected, we can and we will turn the tide on COVID-19. ... So, let me speak to you directly. Let me speak to you directly to help ease some of your worries. ... We know that if schools follow the science and implement the safety measures — like testing, masking, adequate ventilation systems that we provided the money for, social distancing, and vaccinations — then children can be safe from COVID-19 in schools." And here are some from a recent press briefing [2] by the COVID response team: "MR. ZIENTS: Good afternoon. Thanks for joining us. In a moment, I’ll turn to Drs. Walensky, Fauci, and Murthy. I’ll start by discussing the progress we’re making on testing, vaccination, and boosters — three critical parts of the President’s six-point plan to accelerate our path out of the pandemic. First, testing: In the past few months, testing has increased, particularly at-home testing — a convenient option that came to market earlier this year. To meet this increased demand, the President’s plan ramps up both the availability of tests and access to free testing. In just a matter of weeks, we’ve made significant progress on both fronts. ... I’ll close with this: We’ve made tremendous progress over the past eight months, and we are executing well against the President’s six-point plan. We’re on the right track, but we need everyone to do their part." The experts are saying "stay strong and we'll get through this". Meanwhile you are talking about how wearing a piece of cloth on your face is "human rights crushing crap" like we're one step away from the death camps. How is that calming anyone down? And who exactly do you mean when you say "them" anyway? It's a really worrying sign when "they" are always doing all these nefarious things just to frighten and control people. Do you know many in your life who acts that way? If not, why do you imagine that "they" are any different from the people you know? Where do you think "they" live? What do "they" want to do when "they" get home from work today? Do you think "they" read to their children before "they" tuck them in at night? [1] https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2021/09/09/remarks-by-president-biden-on-fighting-the-covid-19-pandemic-3/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/20... [2] https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/press-briefings/2021/10/06/press-briefing-by-white-house-covid-19-response-team-and-public-health-officials-60/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/press-briefings/202...
- kansface 5y ago
  It’s actually more like a factor of 100x for Democrats - maybe 50x for Republicans.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
xadhominemx 5y ago
> demonstrated through various data to be a spectacular failure in terms of safety and efficacy No
- sjwalter 5y ago
  It's best broken down by group, so here's just one example that I think is irrefutable about these being unsafe. If you've ever been pregnant or had a pregnant wife, you'd know that the list of medications which they can avail themselves of during pregnancy is tiny. This is because due to ethical concerns, testing pharmaceuticals on pregnant women is almost never done. So doctors tell pregnant women to never take most things while pregnant. The studies for the covid vaccines intentionally excluded pregnant women from their cohorts, for the same reason. Therefore, by the definition of unsafe that we've used for generations of medical advice, the vaccines are unsafe for pregnant women. No study on pregnancy? Not safe. And yet, pregnant women are recommended the vaccine every day. That's just one among many. As for failure, that's blindingly obvious at this point. If you disagree, please let me know how your view changes as you prepare for your fourth booster.
  - thephyber 5y ago
    You are conflating unsafe with unknown. You are ignoring the difference between a disease which is highly contagious (therefore difficult to avoid) versus pregnancy complications that are easy to avoid because they aren’t contagious diseases. You are also projecting typical ethical concerns around medical research on pregnant women and the mounting body of evidence that COVID vaccines are safe for women who get pregnant after vaccination. It turns out it is easy to study this after billions of doses are administered. The CDC is currently studying the effects of these vaccines on pregnancy: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/recommendations/pregnancy.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/recommend... “That’s just one among many” Perhaps some of the “many” might stand up to scrutiny…
    - sjwalter 5y ago
      > You are conflating unsafe with unknown. No, I am not. I am using the same definition of "safe" as doctors have for pregnant women for several generations, at least 60 years. Untested on pregnant women == unsafe for pregnant women and their babies. Period. Of course, it's possible that the covid vaccines are safe for pregnant women and their babies. It's also possible that all the various pharmaceuticals that women are told not to take are safe too! The risk is unknown, as you state, but where you're mistaken is that the precautionary principle for pregnant women is taken much more extremely, for good reason. So to medical doctors, unknown is equivalent to unsafe, for pregnant women. Sure, CDC is studying the effects now--they're studying it unethically on human experimental subjects in the general population, who have been mislead into thinking that the vaccines are safe for pregnant women--a total lie.
paganel 5y ago
> which since its deployment has been demonstrated through various data to be a spectacular failure in terms of safety and efficacy. What do you mean by "spectacular failure"? I live in Romania, one of the least vaccinated countries in the EU (together with Bulgaria) and we're now in the middle of a very, very bad Covid wave because of the low vaccination rates. The other EU countries don't go through the same thing as us. I don't call the vaccine a "spectacular failure" in terms of safety and efficacy, quite the contrary, it demonstrates that it has been doing its job pretty well.
- MisterBastahrd 5y ago
  In the US, 44% of the population remains unvaccinated, including virtually all school-aged children... but because the same anti-vax people are also really bad at math, they think that infection rates are proof that they're right when factually the virus is much more widespread than this time last year due to their lack of care. Meanwhile, the most vocal vaccine skeptics are catching and dying from the virus with such frequency that there are multiple subreddits devoted to their stories.
  - sjwalter 5y ago
    And here to me, it seems very obvious that vaccinating children is utter madness. Children are not at risk of covid.
    - thephyber 5y ago
      It depends what you think the intent of vaccination is. The 3 vaccines authorized / approved in the USA all significantly reduce the probability of severe disease, the duration of contagiousness, and the magnitude of contagiousness. I would agree that severe disease is already exceedingly rare among that population, but the contagiousness issue is more of a trade off of multiple factors.
    - lamontcg 5y ago
      Risks of the vaccine in kids are lower than the risks of MIS-C or myocarditis from the actual virus. Children have a very low risk of COVID complications, but the risk of vaccine complications is even lower.
thephyber 5y ago
> has been demonstrated through various data to be a spectacular failure in terms of safety and efficacy. Wat. There are 6 major vaccines which are approved for use in most countries. Pfizer/BioNTech, Moderna, J&J, AstraZeneca, Sinopharm, Sputnik. Most are extremely safe (obviously risks are non-zero, but those risks are orders of magnitudes better than the effects of the disease). Some are extremely effective (at reducing severe disease and/or reducing the spread of disease), at least for the first several months. Some are even very effective against a variant that didn’t present until after development and testing were done. Only 2 are mRNA based, which I presume is what you mean by “experimental”. These vaccines have been administered in billions of doses and side effects have been monitored for over a year. Your statements completely overstate the facts as observed.
thephyber 5y ago
> Seems strange to be called "anti-vax" and, presumably, "anti-science" for questioning… Who is calling you these things? Are they government epidemiologists or just randos on the internet? If the latter, then why do you care what they call you? Opinions are like models: they are all imperfect and only some are useful. Questioning policies is fine, but you have to recognize that you aren’t the only person espousing your position. There is a seemingly endless stream of opinions about how policies should be changed, so your voice is grouped together with other voices (some louder, some uninformed, some come with death threats, some come with violence). And it doesn’t help your case when you discount the actual scientific evidence that masks (even some cloth masks) do a non-zero amount of intervention. Never mind the fact that cloth masks are available, cheap, safe, and visible. You may not agree with these qualities, but you aren’t (I’m going out on a limb here) a government official charged with maintaining public health. Policy makers have to factor in things like effectiveness, cost, ubiquity, ease of implementation, effectiveness, and how it affects public order. If you aren’t applying all of these in your calculus, then you are just complaining without suggesting a viable solution.
lamontcg 5y ago
> Seems strange to be called "anti-vax" and, presumably, "anti-science" for questioning the logic in mass vaccinating with an experimental vaccine, built with experimental technologies, which since its deployment has been demonstrated through various data to be a spectacular failure in terms of safety and efficacy. Well yeah, that is hilariously bad anti-science. There's nothing scientific to support any of that.

ipspam 5y ago

Science is only one piece of the puzzle. Ultimately it's a political game, so science is only part of the equation. Masks are to signal that I care about you, and to make you feel safe. Bullshit of course, but it's way to hard to make people understand that they are overestimating the risk of death and hospitalization by factors of 10x and 20x. Much easier to not correct the record and pretend masks reduce the risk 10-20x. Back to basics: The government doesn't care about you. Any interventions are likely to sacrifice long term success for short term success.

sjwalter 5y ago
Lying to people in some kind of psychological game to manipulate their feelings in the way you're describing is despicable and anyone participating willfully in such bullshit deserves zero respect. Many scientists and doctors out there are obviously either completely uninterested in the truth or just toadies for the elite, if what you're describing is correct. If so, they don't deserve our respect, our trust, or even our attention.
- angelzen 5y ago
  It's more complicated than that. Most scientists do not set out to willfully participate in bullshit. They do honest work within the constraints of their profession. As an example, take covid antibody studies. It is interesting and useful to learn how covid vaccines elicit antibody production. OTOH, the immune system is not limited to antibodies. Extrapolating long-term immunity conclusions from an antibody study is unwarranted. Alas, the scientists performing antibody studies don't have the resources to perform long term studies. This creates an over-abundence of antibody studies, which are cheap and likely to produce measurable results. These studies are then used as incontrovertible evidence that 'science says' there is no such thing as natural immunity, and even if it were, vaccines are much better.
  - thrwawy12345 5y ago
    > Most scientists do not set out to willfully participate in bullshit. Probably true. But “scientists who seek political power” is a different set. See, Fauci
- spookthesunset 5y ago
  > If so, they don't deserve our respect, our trust, or even our attention. Totally agree. What's the number one rule of crisis management? Keep people calm. I cannot name a single "expert" who has attempted to calm people at all. In fact most have done the exact opposite. They have intentionally provoked fear. If these people wanted respect, trust and attention they'd go out of their way to clearly articulate the risks of covid for each population group. Instead they act as if covid is a death sentence for anybody. They would actively stamp out misinformation like "4% kill rate" and "25% of people get long covid". They'd clearly frame "hospitals full" with the context of how busy an ICU is during normal times. They'd spend large chunks of their time calming parents who are fearful for their children. More important, they'd offer hope and work to instill courage and bravery in people. They'd tell people what they can do to minimize symptoms. They'd remind people virtually everybody recovers and many don't even know they had it. They'd give people ways to meaningfully contribute "to the cause" within their communities. Instead they've done nothing but crank up the fear factor and freaked the absolute shit out of people. They'd literally knocked screws loose from people I used to regard as level headed, rational people. And they keep at it. Never offering positive messaging. Never offering hope. Never communicating good news. Never calming people down. Of course if they did any of what I described, I'd imagine most people wouldn't have accepted any of these mitigation measures at all. Because I believe a rational individual looking at the data would see almost none of what we've done over the past year and a half makes a single ounce of sense at all. The cynic in me says that is exactly why they don't do what I describe... cranking up the fear is the only way to sell lockdowns, masks, vaccine mandates, border closures, and whatever other human rights crushing crap these people want to shove down our mouths. These "experts" are some of the most vile individuals I can think of. They don't deserve an ounce of respect, trust or attention.
  - vladTheInhaler 5y ago
    > I cannot name a single "expert" who has attempted to calm people at all. That's odd, because here are some excerpts from President Biden's remarks on covid [1]. "THE PRESIDENT: Good evening, my fellow Americans. I want to talk to you about where we are in the battle against COVID-19, the progress we’ve made, and the work we have left to do. And it starts with understanding this: Even as the Delta variant 19 [sic] has — COVID-19 — has been hitting this country hard, we have the tools to combat the virus, if we can come together as a country and use those tools. If we raise our vaccination rate, protect ourselves and others with masking and expanded testing, and identify people who are infected, we can and we will turn the tide on COVID-19. ... So, let me speak to you directly. Let me speak to you directly to help ease some of your worries. ... We know that if schools follow the science and implement the safety measures — like testing, masking, adequate ventilation systems that we provided the money for, social distancing, and vaccinations — then children can be safe from COVID-19 in schools." And here are some from a recent press briefing [2] by the COVID response team: "MR. ZIENTS: Good afternoon. Thanks for joining us. In a moment, I’ll turn to Drs. Walensky, Fauci, and Murthy. I’ll start by discussing the progress we’re making on testing, vaccination, and boosters — three critical parts of the President’s six-point plan to accelerate our path out of the pandemic. First, testing: In the past few months, testing has increased, particularly at-home testing — a convenient option that came to market earlier this year. To meet this increased demand, the President’s plan ramps up both the availability of tests and access to free testing. In just a matter of weeks, we’ve made significant progress on both fronts. ... I’ll close with this: We’ve made tremendous progress over the past eight months, and we are executing well against the President’s six-point plan. We’re on the right track, but we need everyone to do their part." The experts are saying "stay strong and we'll get through this". Meanwhile you are talking about how wearing a piece of cloth on your face is "human rights crushing crap" like we're one step away from the death camps. How is that calming anyone down? And who exactly do you mean when you say "them" anyway? It's a really worrying sign when "they" are always doing all these nefarious things just to frighten and control people. Do you know many in your life who acts that way? If not, why do you imagine that "they" are any different from the people you know? Where do you think "they" live? What do "they" want to do when "they" get home from work today? Do you think "they" read to their children before "they" tuck them in at night? [1] https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2021/09/09/remarks-by-president-biden-on-fighting-the-covid-19-pandemic-3/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/20... [2] https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/press-briefings/2021/10/06/press-briefing-by-white-house-covid-19-response-team-and-public-health-officials-60/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/press-briefings/202...
kansface 5y ago
It’s actually more like a factor of 100x for Democrats - maybe 50x for Republicans.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

xadhominemx 5y ago

> demonstrated through various data to be a spectacular failure in terms of safety and efficacy No

sjwalter 5y ago
It's best broken down by group, so here's just one example that I think is irrefutable about these being unsafe. If you've ever been pregnant or had a pregnant wife, you'd know that the list of medications which they can avail themselves of during pregnancy is tiny. This is because due to ethical concerns, testing pharmaceuticals on pregnant women is almost never done. So doctors tell pregnant women to never take most things while pregnant. The studies for the covid vaccines intentionally excluded pregnant women from their cohorts, for the same reason. Therefore, by the definition of unsafe that we've used for generations of medical advice, the vaccines are unsafe for pregnant women. No study on pregnancy? Not safe. And yet, pregnant women are recommended the vaccine every day. That's just one among many. As for failure, that's blindingly obvious at this point. If you disagree, please let me know how your view changes as you prepare for your fourth booster.
- thephyber 5y ago
  You are conflating unsafe with unknown. You are ignoring the difference between a disease which is highly contagious (therefore difficult to avoid) versus pregnancy complications that are easy to avoid because they aren’t contagious diseases. You are also projecting typical ethical concerns around medical research on pregnant women and the mounting body of evidence that COVID vaccines are safe for women who get pregnant after vaccination. It turns out it is easy to study this after billions of doses are administered. The CDC is currently studying the effects of these vaccines on pregnancy: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/recommendations/pregnancy.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/recommend... “That’s just one among many” Perhaps some of the “many” might stand up to scrutiny…
  - sjwalter 5y ago
    > You are conflating unsafe with unknown. No, I am not. I am using the same definition of "safe" as doctors have for pregnant women for several generations, at least 60 years. Untested on pregnant women == unsafe for pregnant women and their babies. Period. Of course, it's possible that the covid vaccines are safe for pregnant women and their babies. It's also possible that all the various pharmaceuticals that women are told not to take are safe too! The risk is unknown, as you state, but where you're mistaken is that the precautionary principle for pregnant women is taken much more extremely, for good reason. So to medical doctors, unknown is equivalent to unsafe, for pregnant women. Sure, CDC is studying the effects now--they're studying it unethically on human experimental subjects in the general population, who have been mislead into thinking that the vaccines are safe for pregnant women--a total lie.

paganel 5y ago

> which since its deployment has been demonstrated through various data to be a spectacular failure in terms of safety and efficacy. What do you mean by "spectacular failure"? I live in Romania, one of the least vaccinated countries in the EU (together with Bulgaria) and we're now in the middle of a very, very bad Covid wave because of the low vaccination rates. The other EU countries don't go through the same thing as us. I don't call the vaccine a "spectacular failure" in terms of safety and efficacy, quite the contrary, it demonstrates that it has been doing its job pretty well.

MisterBastahrd 5y ago
In the US, 44% of the population remains unvaccinated, including virtually all school-aged children... but because the same anti-vax people are also really bad at math, they think that infection rates are proof that they're right when factually the virus is much more widespread than this time last year due to their lack of care. Meanwhile, the most vocal vaccine skeptics are catching and dying from the virus with such frequency that there are multiple subreddits devoted to their stories.
- sjwalter 5y ago
  And here to me, it seems very obvious that vaccinating children is utter madness. Children are not at risk of covid.
  - thephyber 5y ago
    It depends what you think the intent of vaccination is. The 3 vaccines authorized / approved in the USA all significantly reduce the probability of severe disease, the duration of contagiousness, and the magnitude of contagiousness. I would agree that severe disease is already exceedingly rare among that population, but the contagiousness issue is more of a trade off of multiple factors.
  - lamontcg 5y ago
    Risks of the vaccine in kids are lower than the risks of MIS-C or myocarditis from the actual virus. Children have a very low risk of COVID complications, but the risk of vaccine complications is even lower.

thephyber 5y ago

> has been demonstrated through various data to be a spectacular failure in terms of safety and efficacy. Wat. There are 6 major vaccines which are approved for use in most countries. Pfizer/BioNTech, Moderna, J&J, AstraZeneca, Sinopharm, Sputnik. Most are extremely safe (obviously risks are non-zero, but those risks are orders of magnitudes better than the effects of the disease). Some are extremely effective (at reducing severe disease and/or reducing the spread of disease), at least for the first several months. Some are even very effective against a variant that didn’t present until after development and testing were done. Only 2 are mRNA based, which I presume is what you mean by “experimental”. These vaccines have been administered in billions of doses and side effects have been monitored for over a year. Your statements completely overstate the facts as observed.

thephyber 5y ago

> Seems strange to be called "anti-vax" and, presumably, "anti-science" for questioning… Who is calling you these things? Are they government epidemiologists or just randos on the internet? If the latter, then why do you care what they call you? Opinions are like models: they are all imperfect and only some are useful. Questioning policies is fine, but you have to recognize that you aren’t the only person espousing your position. There is a seemingly endless stream of opinions about how policies should be changed, so your voice is grouped together with other voices (some louder, some uninformed, some come with death threats, some come with violence). And it doesn’t help your case when you discount the actual scientific evidence that masks (even some cloth masks) do a non-zero amount of intervention. Never mind the fact that cloth masks are available, cheap, safe, and visible. You may not agree with these qualities, but you aren’t (I’m going out on a limb here) a government official charged with maintaining public health. Policy makers have to factor in things like effectiveness, cost, ubiquity, ease of implementation, effectiveness, and how it affects public order. If you aren’t applying all of these in your calculus, then you are just complaining without suggesting a viable solution.

lamontcg 5y ago

> Seems strange to be called "anti-vax" and, presumably, "anti-science" for questioning the logic in mass vaccinating with an experimental vaccine, built with experimental technologies, which since its deployment has been demonstrated through various data to be a spectacular failure in terms of safety and efficacy. Well yeah, that is hilariously bad anti-science. There's nothing scientific to support any of that.