4 ms·

This is my biggest worry as well, what are people who clearly do not believe in medical science doing working in a medical capacity? Are these people performin

This is my biggest worry as well, what are people who clearly do not believe in medical science doing working in a medical capacity? Are these people performing treatments on patients that they do not believe work? The mind boggles.

TheTester 5y ago
DO you unironically quite believe that this people do not believe in what they do? Do you think that medicine is a nothing or all kind of thing? DO you believe that those who do not trust big companies that have paid millions in criminal fines, reject the rest of medicine? You are simply not Supposed to "believe" in science that is reedit tier thinking, Science is a process and in such process mistrusting leaky vaccines that reduce T cells amounts is ok. Medical Science is not monolithic.
commandlinefan 5y ago
> clearly do not believe in medical science doing working in a medical capacity Or... the people who know the most about the tradeoffs and benefits of this particular vaccine have done a cost/benefit analysis and rejected it? I'd be curious to see if they're rejecting this particular (experimental, rushed, based-on-unproven-mRNA technology) vaccine but not, say, the mumps or rubella vaccines.
AnimalMuppet 5y ago
Maybe their assessment of the medical science does not match yours. And maybe they are in a better position than you to evaluate it. And, of course, others who are also in that better position evaluate the evidence differently. One could draw two conclusions from this: "People are idiots", or "the evidence is not as clear-cut as we're being told".
- gertrunde 5y ago
  And yet the vaccination rate within the medical community is consistently higher than the general population (90% vs 70% in the UK). (Edit: although it is plausible that this is due to some bias in the statistics - e.g. medical workers are expected to be working age adults (who are statistically more likely to be vaccinated anyway), and the general population is obviously a wider range) So does this suggest that those in the know are more likely to be vaccinated? Or that those in the know are taking a wait-and-see approach?
  - AnimalMuppet 5y ago
    > So does this suggest that those in the know are more likely to be vaccinated? Or that those in the know are taking a wait-and-see approach? My... estimate? Gut feel? I do not have data... is that medical workers are at least no less likely than others of their same age group to get vaccinated. They may well be more likely to get vaccinated. But there are holdouts by the thousands, some of whom are willing to quit their high-paying jobs in order to avoid the vaccine. I don't think they're all just stubborn idiots. I think that at least many of them have done their own risk assessment, and decided that it wasn't worth it. On the other hand, others have gotten vaccinated, by the tens or hundreds of thousands, and they aren't all idiots or sheep, either. So... my read of the behavior of the people in the field is that the evidence leads toward the vaccines being worth it, but it's not as clear-cut as the media tells us. But I'm trying to use psychology to judge a matter of medical technology, and who knows if that approach is even halfway valid...

TheTester 5y ago

DO you unironically quite believe that this people do not believe in what they do? Do you think that medicine is a nothing or all kind of thing? DO you believe that those who do not trust big companies that have paid millions in criminal fines, reject the rest of medicine? You are simply not Supposed to "believe" in science that is reedit tier thinking, Science is a process and in such process mistrusting leaky vaccines that reduce T cells amounts is ok. Medical Science is not monolithic.

commandlinefan 5y ago

> clearly do not believe in medical science doing working in a medical capacity Or... the people who know the most about the tradeoffs and benefits of this particular vaccine have done a cost/benefit analysis and rejected it? I'd be curious to see if they're rejecting this particular (experimental, rushed, based-on-unproven-mRNA technology) vaccine but not, say, the mumps or rubella vaccines.

AnimalMuppet 5y ago

Maybe their assessment of the medical science does not match yours. And maybe they are in a better position than you to evaluate it. And, of course, others who are also in that better position evaluate the evidence differently. One could draw two conclusions from this: "People are idiots", or "the evidence is not as clear-cut as we're being told".

gertrunde 5y ago
And yet the vaccination rate within the medical community is consistently higher than the general population (90% vs 70% in the UK). (Edit: although it is plausible that this is due to some bias in the statistics - e.g. medical workers are expected to be working age adults (who are statistically more likely to be vaccinated anyway), and the general population is obviously a wider range) So does this suggest that those in the know are more likely to be vaccinated? Or that those in the know are taking a wait-and-see approach?
- AnimalMuppet 5y ago
  > So does this suggest that those in the know are more likely to be vaccinated? Or that those in the know are taking a wait-and-see approach? My... estimate? Gut feel? I do not have data... is that medical workers are at least no less likely than others of their same age group to get vaccinated. They may well be more likely to get vaccinated. But there are holdouts by the thousands, some of whom are willing to quit their high-paying jobs in order to avoid the vaccine. I don't think they're all just stubborn idiots. I think that at least many of them have done their own risk assessment, and decided that it wasn't worth it. On the other hand, others have gotten vaccinated, by the tens or hundreds of thousands, and they aren't all idiots or sheep, either. So... my read of the behavior of the people in the field is that the evidence leads toward the vaccines being worth it, but it's not as clear-cut as the media tells us. But I'm trying to use psychology to judge a matter of medical technology, and who knows if that approach is even halfway valid...