4 ms·

>had a number of vaccines during my life - I am not an antivaxx "Antivaxx" in today's context has nothing to do with whether you've ever accepted a vaccine in

>had a number of vaccines during my life - I am not an antivaxx "Antivaxx" in today's context has nothing to do with whether you've ever accepted a vaccine in your life, and everything to do with whether you reject COVID vaccines. In fact, that's as much the meaning as anything: that people who were previously OK with vaccines (including the regimen of sometimes experimental vaccines required by the military) are somehow now vociferously opposed to COVID vaccines. And, on that measure, even a cursory glance at your recent comment history reveals that you are unequivocally antivaxx.

OrvalWintermute 5y ago
> you are unequivocally antivaxx My vaccine record says otherwise.
- unclebucknasty 5y ago
  To quote the sibling of my previous comment: "You are, apparently, not even making a token effort to understand my comments"
  - OrvalWintermute 5y ago
    You are using a pejorative directed at me, by calling me antivaxx, or, an antivaxxer. That is actually an insult. Please refrain from insulting me. I am not antivaxx. I am pro-vaccine, and as a veteran I am actually quite immunized. Heavily immunized in fact. Far more so than most of the civilian population. However, this is a question of an unlike comparison. I am vaccine hesistant in this case. Thanks for prompting this clarification.
    - unclebucknasty 5y ago
      >You are using a pejorative directed at me Nope. You voluntarily made the claim that you were "not antivaxx". I merely clarified for you that your previous acceptance of other vaccines has nothing to do with the definition of "antivaxx" in today's COVID context. You are clearly anti-COVID vaccines, as indicated by a number of your comments here. That makes your assertion that you are "not antivaxx" untrue in any contemporary discussion. Relentlessly searching for ways to discredit COVID vaccines and spreading FUD are not mere "hesitance". If you find the plain identification of your own behavior "insulting", then I would offer that you consider not engaging in that behavior.
      - OrvalWintermute 5y ago
        > You are clearly anti-COVID vaccines, as indicated by a number of your comments here. That makes your assertion that you are "not antivaxx" untrue in any contemporary discussion. > Relentlessly searching for ways to discredit COVID vaccines and spreading FUD are not mere "hesitance". Critical skepticism is an important element of science. Do No Harm is a key part of the Hippocratic Oath Just like Informed Consent with Medical Ethics. > Informed consent is the process in which a health care provider educates a patient about the risks, benefits, and alternatives of a given procedure or intervention. The patient must be competent to make a voluntary decision about whether to undergo the procedure or intervention. Informed consent is both an ethical and legal obligation of medical practitioners in the US and originates from the patient's right to direct what happens to their body. Implicit in providing informed consent is an assessment of the patient's understanding, rendering an actual recommendation, and documentation of the process. The Joint Commission requires documentation of all the elements of informed consent "in a form, progress notes or elsewhere in the record." The following are the required elements for documentation of the informed consent discussion: (1) the nature of the procedure, (2) the risks and benefits and the procedure, (3) reasonable alternatives, (4) risks and benefits of alternatives, and (5) assessment of the patient's understanding of elements 1 through 4. [1] > It is the obligation of the provider to make it clear that the patient is participating in the decision-making process and avoid making the patient feel forced to agree to with the provider. The provider must make a recommendation and provide their reasoning for said recommendation [1] [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK430827/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK430827/
        unclebucknasty 5y ago
        You really could save a lot of time by just saying you're "anti-vaxx". Maybe you're not familiar with the contemporary meaning of the phrase, but it perfectly encapsulates your behavior here and throughout HN. Antivaxx is a syndrome. Some tell-tale symptoms are: 1) a scattershot litany of objections based on vague pseudo-scientific conclusions, cherry-picked de-contextualized data, and deployment of hypotheticals that, in total, amount to FUD; 2) Antivaxx denialism: that is, retreating to a position of nuanced skepticism when called on their clearly manic anti-vaccine FUD tactics, "hey, I'm just cautious/hesitant/skeptical". 3) an effort to characterize COVID vaccines as somehow nefarious or "illegitimate" versus previous vaccines because they seek primarily to prevent serious disease; 4) a relentless emphasis on natural immunity as superior to vaccines; 5) and the dispositive test that is perhaps the gold standard for an antivaxx diagnosis: deploying a range of pseudo-ethical arguments that seek to paint COVID vaccines or their advocacy as somehow immoral. This is usually deployed via vague rantings that, say, inexplicably invoke the Hippocratic Oath.

OrvalWintermute 5y ago

> you are unequivocally antivaxx My vaccine record says otherwise.

unclebucknasty 5y ago
To quote the sibling of my previous comment: "You are, apparently, not even making a token effort to understand my comments"
- OrvalWintermute 5y ago
  You are using a pejorative directed at me, by calling me antivaxx, or, an antivaxxer. That is actually an insult. Please refrain from insulting me. I am not antivaxx. I am pro-vaccine, and as a veteran I am actually quite immunized. Heavily immunized in fact. Far more so than most of the civilian population. However, this is a question of an unlike comparison. I am vaccine hesistant in this case. Thanks for prompting this clarification.
  - unclebucknasty 5y ago
    >You are using a pejorative directed at me Nope. You voluntarily made the claim that you were "not antivaxx". I merely clarified for you that your previous acceptance of other vaccines has nothing to do with the definition of "antivaxx" in today's COVID context. You are clearly anti-COVID vaccines, as indicated by a number of your comments here. That makes your assertion that you are "not antivaxx" untrue in any contemporary discussion. Relentlessly searching for ways to discredit COVID vaccines and spreading FUD are not mere "hesitance". If you find the plain identification of your own behavior "insulting", then I would offer that you consider not engaging in that behavior.
    - OrvalWintermute 5y ago
      > You are clearly anti-COVID vaccines, as indicated by a number of your comments here. That makes your assertion that you are "not antivaxx" untrue in any contemporary discussion. > Relentlessly searching for ways to discredit COVID vaccines and spreading FUD are not mere "hesitance". Critical skepticism is an important element of science. Do No Harm is a key part of the Hippocratic Oath Just like Informed Consent with Medical Ethics. > Informed consent is the process in which a health care provider educates a patient about the risks, benefits, and alternatives of a given procedure or intervention. The patient must be competent to make a voluntary decision about whether to undergo the procedure or intervention. Informed consent is both an ethical and legal obligation of medical practitioners in the US and originates from the patient's right to direct what happens to their body. Implicit in providing informed consent is an assessment of the patient's understanding, rendering an actual recommendation, and documentation of the process. The Joint Commission requires documentation of all the elements of informed consent "in a form, progress notes or elsewhere in the record." The following are the required elements for documentation of the informed consent discussion: (1) the nature of the procedure, (2) the risks and benefits and the procedure, (3) reasonable alternatives, (4) risks and benefits of alternatives, and (5) assessment of the patient's understanding of elements 1 through 4. [1] > It is the obligation of the provider to make it clear that the patient is participating in the decision-making process and avoid making the patient feel forced to agree to with the provider. The provider must make a recommendation and provide their reasoning for said recommendation [1] [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK430827/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK430827/
      - unclebucknasty 5y ago
        You really could save a lot of time by just saying you're "anti-vaxx". Maybe you're not familiar with the contemporary meaning of the phrase, but it perfectly encapsulates your behavior here and throughout HN. Antivaxx is a syndrome. Some tell-tale symptoms are: 1) a scattershot litany of objections based on vague pseudo-scientific conclusions, cherry-picked de-contextualized data, and deployment of hypotheticals that, in total, amount to FUD; 2) Antivaxx denialism: that is, retreating to a position of nuanced skepticism when called on their clearly manic anti-vaccine FUD tactics, "hey, I'm just cautious/hesitant/skeptical". 3) an effort to characterize COVID vaccines as somehow nefarious or "illegitimate" versus previous vaccines because they seek primarily to prevent serious disease; 4) a relentless emphasis on natural immunity as superior to vaccines; 5) and the dispositive test that is perhaps the gold standard for an antivaxx diagnosis: deploying a range of pseudo-ethical arguments that seek to paint COVID vaccines or their advocacy as somehow immoral. This is usually deployed via vague rantings that, say, inexplicably invoke the Hippocratic Oath.