7 ms·

Thanks for calling me an idiot. I make a well researched decision to not get vaccinated based on my lifestyle, risk profile, the unknown long term effects of th

by adevx 5y ago

Thanks for calling me an idiot. I make a well researched decision to not get vaccinated based on my lifestyle, risk profile, the unknown long term effects of the vaccines, the known declining efficacy of the vaccines and the way we are blindly pushing this on everyone. Calling people idiots isn't going to help the discussion.

hktlfnfnd 5y ago
Sars-cov-2 infection also has unknown long term effects. Why do you think they are less risky than the vaccine ones? Or you assume you'll very unlikely to get infected.
- nerdponx 5y ago
  This. I'm sure there are specific situations that I haven't conceived of, but in general I find it hard to believe that you can look at the data and conclude that the vaccine is more dangerous than the disease itself. Unless you are in some kind of a very high risk category for mRNA vaccines, the risk of serious side effects or death seems to be at least one order of magnitude less for the vaccine than for the virus itself. I'm a bit uncomfortable with the overall authoritarian approach to public health in the West (see also: fluoride in water; harmless, but unnecessary and immoral). So I can sympathize with people who are uncomfortable with a vaccine mandates, particularly nowadays that the issue is politicized and is no longer "just" about public health. But all that said, I suspect a lot of people who claim to have evaluated the risks are really just rationalizing an emotional decision.
  - quenix 5y ago
    I'm not in a country but does this, but why do you find fluoride in water immoral?
- mewpmewp2 5y ago
  If you consider infection rate in your area and your own behaviour vs behaviour of an average person in your area, you can do some basic math to understand what the chances of getting covid are for you. For example I've deduced it to be around 1% per year, right now. My behaviour is also better for society in terms of reducing the R. Even if I were to get Covid, since I go out so rarely it's unlikely I would ever go outside during a symptomatic phase. What I'm doing for example: 1. WFH. 2. Order everything in. 3. Go see family only when infection rate is reasonably low. 4. Do sports outside. 5. Go to gym only at times when there's very little traffic and cases per day seems reasonable to me. And trust me I do believe Covid19 is really bad, but I don't like vaccines either based on information I've gathered. Keeping my R lower than 1 or even 0.5, I can also live guilt free. Many vaccinated people have R larger than 1.
  - hktlfnfnd 5y ago
    I assume you also wear a N95 all the time outside of house, otherwise that's a big hole in your defenses.
    - mewpmewp2 5y ago
      I wear medical mask if I happen to be around people, in indoor settings or are you saying it's likely one could get infected outdoors otherwise? There probably is some sort of hole which I'm not considering and it's mainly unknowns why I even believe it to be 1%. If there were no holes I'd believe it to be near 0%. There's people who go to office, are around other people 40+ hours a week, then come to home to large families, have children that went to school. Offices, schools, things like these probably have the most spread. Even with a vaccine that has 90% efficacy for preventing infection they would be exposed to the virus more than 10x that I am, and so would have higher chance of getting infected. I know some studies calculated efficacy from hours spent in a high risk situation.
JumpCrisscross 5y ago
> Calling people idiots isn't going to help the discussion At this point, the only thing more idiotic than refusing to get vaccinated is trying to convince the voluntarily unvaccinated to vaccinate. The discussion is over. Positions are entrenched. The best we can do is isolate the population and move on.
- NackerHughes 5y ago
  > The best we can do is isolate the population and move on. I, too, am a proponent of segregationism.
  - supertrope 5y ago
    Freedom of choice doesn’t mean freedom from consequences.
- AshamedCaptain 5y ago
  > The best we can do is isolate the population and move on. Or force them to vaccinate -- it would not be the first time this has been done. IMHO that looks like a much more sensible option than having "vaccination passes" which basically mandate vaccination anyway but also happen to become (yet another) type of government ID. I'm not going to be the one to complain that societal paternalism is a bad thing.
  - mdp2021 5y ago
    It is absolutely questionable that you show to believe to have a capacity for judgement adequate to know the "truth" and be able to impose it to others (also) on that basis.
    - AshamedCaptain 5y ago
      It's called democracy. We assume everyone +18 has this "capacity" and as such impose the will of the majority on others. Has been going on for some decades already...
AshamedCaptain 5y ago
> Calling people idiots isn't going to help the discussion. Ironically, when we are at the point that the alternative is for subtle manipulation of the information that is being given around (which is my complain), I'd personally prefer the former, and I guess many people would, too. I'm not sure if it is really going to "help" anything but, given the doubt, I think brutal honesty is the more humane option. In any case, I only put that disclaimer to avoid attracting the usual trolls (plus downvotes from the other side), but I see it attracted the usual trolls anyway. I hope a mod deletes it.
- mewpmewp2 5y ago
  Claiming someone is an "idiot" is not brutal honesty. Are you claiming that you think they have low IQ, or what exactly are you being brutally honest about? What is even definition of an idiot for you? This word only exists as a tool to either manipulate or shame or simply live out your emotional rage, it's not about brutal honesty. It's not about being truthful or even trying to understand the truth. Generally, if someone calls someone else an "idiot", I can give benefit of the doubt few times if this happens, okay it's an emotional outburst, but otherwise I would lose trust in their general resolve.
  - AshamedCaptain 5y ago
    To put it simply, I think most people would prefer being directly called an idiot versus "we question so much your ability to make decisions that we are going to try to censor the information that we provide you without telling you anything". It's actually wiser, strategically, to do this silent manipulation (and most definitely it's not strategically wise to call one an idiot), but, as the receiver, I'd prefer the honest approach myself.
    - mewpmewp2 5y ago
      Both is happening. And both are dispelling me emotionally from the mainstream. While this is going on though, I still believe I can see through my emotions, that I also feel towards people who pressure unvaccinated and think the issue is binary and understand data I'm seeing with reasonable accuracy. I don't know if the silent manipulation is benefitting the world, maybe it is getting more people to vaccinate, but I can guarantee that this only makes me personally dig deeper and distrust most things coming from the same sources that silently manipulate the information. Also given a "good to be true" view of mainstream or anything I disbelieve it. If something is too good to be true, like how current vaccines are portrayed, it deserves further inspection. All in all when you are classifying someone "an idiot", is there any other correlation that this person would likely have in their characteristics? E.g. let's say is definition of "an idiot" to you someone who "didn't take the vaccine". Or is "an idiot" someone who generally has poorer mental capabilities? What do you think it correlates to? Below average memory? Below average comprehension? Of what? Below average scientific understanding? Below average abstract reasoning? Below average working memory? Do you think being an idiot means at least few of those? How do you think they reached their conclusion? Can you even understand how they reached their conclusion or are you just speculating in your head how they reached it and therefore they must have poor comprehension or memory? I mean you can't see in their head.
mewpmewp2 5y ago
I completely agree with this sentiment. Not to throw ad hominem back at the above poster, which I'm of course doing, but I have hard time trusting ability to understand information and do correct deductions from said information by anyone calling others "an idiot". Now I'm not saying that they are "idiot" themselves, which I don't think they are, but it's revealing in my view how the ways they reach any conclusions in life may be flawed. Here's few thoughts: 1. Single decision like this in such a short timeframe of these vaccines being available does not make or imply anyone to be an idiot. You have no clue about their circumstances someone may be in or what they've seen. 2. Medication/vaccines have trade-offs, even if these are 10,000,000:1 ratio. 3. I believe current studies show vaccines have a lot more potential downsides than mainstream media is letting on. Which makes it hard to trust anything mainstream media is saying right now. 4. While anecdotal reports are not scientific evidence, they are definitely cause for alarm at present time. Looking at VAERS and similar European adverse reporting sites, I don't think there can be a good explanation why the reports are so high compared to other vaccines, except the fact that these vaccines are actually causing so many issues. 5. Above poster doesn't know your age, gender, existing conditions, allergy risks, behaviour - maybe you live alone and never go outside, etc. 6. Despite whatever anyone likes to repeated, that mRNA tech has been studied for decades, which I don't even necessarily think is the issue here, the spike protein might be the issue here for instance, we don't know what the long term issues are, e.g. recent study showing that it may impair DNA repairs. There's so many hints everywhere, and we haven't had time to investigate all of this. 7. Despite what people like to claim, it is possible to avoid Covid19 by staying inside, and make chances of getting it reasonably low, 1% per year possibly, if you can work from home and order everything in. Only see family when infections in you area are really low. In this case you are also doing more for your society than an average vaccinated person, since your R is definitely below 1. If everyone behaved like you without vaccines, the virus would die out. 8. More and more data coming out about adverse effects and wading efficacy. 9. Issues with Pfizer trials, and trial participants with adverse effects being excluded, gaslighted etc. 10. If you do get vaccine damage, there's no compensation and you might just get gaslighted like has happened to thousands of people. In fact to my knowledge at least 6 people committed suicide because they had vaccine injuries and nobody believed them.
craftinator 5y ago
> the known declining efficacy of the vaccines I just want to point out that the main cause of breakthrough cases is having too many people be unvaccinated. They are breeding grounds for mutations, and the reason the word 'variant' is now in vogue.

by adevx 5y ago

hktlfnfnd 5y ago

Sars-cov-2 infection also has unknown long term effects. Why do you think they are less risky than the vaccine ones? Or you assume you'll very unlikely to get infected.

nerdponx 5y ago
This. I'm sure there are specific situations that I haven't conceived of, but in general I find it hard to believe that you can look at the data and conclude that the vaccine is more dangerous than the disease itself. Unless you are in some kind of a very high risk category for mRNA vaccines, the risk of serious side effects or death seems to be at least one order of magnitude less for the vaccine than for the virus itself. I'm a bit uncomfortable with the overall authoritarian approach to public health in the West (see also: fluoride in water; harmless, but unnecessary and immoral). So I can sympathize with people who are uncomfortable with a vaccine mandates, particularly nowadays that the issue is politicized and is no longer "just" about public health. But all that said, I suspect a lot of people who claim to have evaluated the risks are really just rationalizing an emotional decision.
- quenix 5y ago
  I'm not in a country but does this, but why do you find fluoride in water immoral?
mewpmewp2 5y ago
If you consider infection rate in your area and your own behaviour vs behaviour of an average person in your area, you can do some basic math to understand what the chances of getting covid are for you. For example I've deduced it to be around 1% per year, right now. My behaviour is also better for society in terms of reducing the R. Even if I were to get Covid, since I go out so rarely it's unlikely I would ever go outside during a symptomatic phase. What I'm doing for example: 1. WFH. 2. Order everything in. 3. Go see family only when infection rate is reasonably low. 4. Do sports outside. 5. Go to gym only at times when there's very little traffic and cases per day seems reasonable to me. And trust me I do believe Covid19 is really bad, but I don't like vaccines either based on information I've gathered. Keeping my R lower than 1 or even 0.5, I can also live guilt free. Many vaccinated people have R larger than 1.
- hktlfnfnd 5y ago
  I assume you also wear a N95 all the time outside of house, otherwise that's a big hole in your defenses.
  - mewpmewp2 5y ago
    I wear medical mask if I happen to be around people, in indoor settings or are you saying it's likely one could get infected outdoors otherwise? There probably is some sort of hole which I'm not considering and it's mainly unknowns why I even believe it to be 1%. If there were no holes I'd believe it to be near 0%. There's people who go to office, are around other people 40+ hours a week, then come to home to large families, have children that went to school. Offices, schools, things like these probably have the most spread. Even with a vaccine that has 90% efficacy for preventing infection they would be exposed to the virus more than 10x that I am, and so would have higher chance of getting infected. I know some studies calculated efficacy from hours spent in a high risk situation.

JumpCrisscross 5y ago

> Calling people idiots isn't going to help the discussion At this point, the only thing more idiotic than refusing to get vaccinated is trying to convince the voluntarily unvaccinated to vaccinate. The discussion is over. Positions are entrenched. The best we can do is isolate the population and move on.

NackerHughes 5y ago
> The best we can do is isolate the population and move on. I, too, am a proponent of segregationism.
- supertrope 5y ago
  Freedom of choice doesn’t mean freedom from consequences.
AshamedCaptain 5y ago
> The best we can do is isolate the population and move on. Or force them to vaccinate -- it would not be the first time this has been done. IMHO that looks like a much more sensible option than having "vaccination passes" which basically mandate vaccination anyway but also happen to become (yet another) type of government ID. I'm not going to be the one to complain that societal paternalism is a bad thing.
- mdp2021 5y ago
  It is absolutely questionable that you show to believe to have a capacity for judgement adequate to know the "truth" and be able to impose it to others (also) on that basis.
  - AshamedCaptain 5y ago
    It's called democracy. We assume everyone +18 has this "capacity" and as such impose the will of the majority on others. Has been going on for some decades already...

AshamedCaptain 5y ago

> Calling people idiots isn't going to help the discussion. Ironically, when we are at the point that the alternative is for subtle manipulation of the information that is being given around (which is my complain), I'd personally prefer the former, and I guess many people would, too. I'm not sure if it is really going to "help" anything but, given the doubt, I think brutal honesty is the more humane option. In any case, I only put that disclaimer to avoid attracting the usual trolls (plus downvotes from the other side), but I see it attracted the usual trolls anyway. I hope a mod deletes it.

mewpmewp2 5y ago
Claiming someone is an "idiot" is not brutal honesty. Are you claiming that you think they have low IQ, or what exactly are you being brutally honest about? What is even definition of an idiot for you? This word only exists as a tool to either manipulate or shame or simply live out your emotional rage, it's not about brutal honesty. It's not about being truthful or even trying to understand the truth. Generally, if someone calls someone else an "idiot", I can give benefit of the doubt few times if this happens, okay it's an emotional outburst, but otherwise I would lose trust in their general resolve.
- AshamedCaptain 5y ago
  To put it simply, I think most people would prefer being directly called an idiot versus "we question so much your ability to make decisions that we are going to try to censor the information that we provide you without telling you anything". It's actually wiser, strategically, to do this silent manipulation (and most definitely it's not strategically wise to call one an idiot), but, as the receiver, I'd prefer the honest approach myself.
  - mewpmewp2 5y ago
    Both is happening. And both are dispelling me emotionally from the mainstream. While this is going on though, I still believe I can see through my emotions, that I also feel towards people who pressure unvaccinated and think the issue is binary and understand data I'm seeing with reasonable accuracy. I don't know if the silent manipulation is benefitting the world, maybe it is getting more people to vaccinate, but I can guarantee that this only makes me personally dig deeper and distrust most things coming from the same sources that silently manipulate the information. Also given a "good to be true" view of mainstream or anything I disbelieve it. If something is too good to be true, like how current vaccines are portrayed, it deserves further inspection. All in all when you are classifying someone "an idiot", is there any other correlation that this person would likely have in their characteristics? E.g. let's say is definition of "an idiot" to you someone who "didn't take the vaccine". Or is "an idiot" someone who generally has poorer mental capabilities? What do you think it correlates to? Below average memory? Below average comprehension? Of what? Below average scientific understanding? Below average abstract reasoning? Below average working memory? Do you think being an idiot means at least few of those? How do you think they reached their conclusion? Can you even understand how they reached their conclusion or are you just speculating in your head how they reached it and therefore they must have poor comprehension or memory? I mean you can't see in their head.

mewpmewp2 5y ago

I completely agree with this sentiment. Not to throw ad hominem back at the above poster, which I'm of course doing, but I have hard time trusting ability to understand information and do correct deductions from said information by anyone calling others "an idiot". Now I'm not saying that they are "idiot" themselves, which I don't think they are, but it's revealing in my view how the ways they reach any conclusions in life may be flawed. Here's few thoughts: 1. Single decision like this in such a short timeframe of these vaccines being available does not make or imply anyone to be an idiot. You have no clue about their circumstances someone may be in or what they've seen. 2. Medication/vaccines have trade-offs, even if these are 10,000,000:1 ratio. 3. I believe current studies show vaccines have a lot more potential downsides than mainstream media is letting on. Which makes it hard to trust anything mainstream media is saying right now. 4. While anecdotal reports are not scientific evidence, they are definitely cause for alarm at present time. Looking at VAERS and similar European adverse reporting sites, I don't think there can be a good explanation why the reports are so high compared to other vaccines, except the fact that these vaccines are actually causing so many issues. 5. Above poster doesn't know your age, gender, existing conditions, allergy risks, behaviour - maybe you live alone and never go outside, etc. 6. Despite whatever anyone likes to repeated, that mRNA tech has been studied for decades, which I don't even necessarily think is the issue here, the spike protein might be the issue here for instance, we don't know what the long term issues are, e.g. recent study showing that it may impair DNA repairs. There's so many hints everywhere, and we haven't had time to investigate all of this. 7. Despite what people like to claim, it is possible to avoid Covid19 by staying inside, and make chances of getting it reasonably low, 1% per year possibly, if you can work from home and order everything in. Only see family when infections in you area are really low. In this case you are also doing more for your society than an average vaccinated person, since your R is definitely below 1. If everyone behaved like you without vaccines, the virus would die out. 8. More and more data coming out about adverse effects and wading efficacy. 9. Issues with Pfizer trials, and trial participants with adverse effects being excluded, gaslighted etc. 10. If you do get vaccine damage, there's no compensation and you might just get gaslighted like has happened to thousands of people. In fact to my knowledge at least 6 people committed suicide because they had vaccine injuries and nobody believed them.

craftinator 5y ago

> the known declining efficacy of the vaccines I just want to point out that the main cause of breakthrough cases is having too many people be unvaccinated. They are breeding grounds for mutations, and the reason the word 'variant' is now in vogue.