4 ms·

We're not talking about things occurring "randomly". We're taking about reasonable probability assessments based on available information. Those refusing the va

We're not talking about things occurring "randomly". We're taking about reasonable probability assessments based on available information. Those refusing the vaccination are operating with the same level of information about long term effects as those that get it: none. People that get the vaccine have no empirical evidence that it will be beneficial or not harmful in the long run. No long term data exists for the techniques or methodology. Your nutrition example is a great parallel because if we would have looked at the funding and long term data regarding the food pyramid, simple carbs, etc vs fats instead of just "trusting the experts" we wouldn't have an epidemic of obese, diabetic gen x and millennials. There's tons of sound empirical evidence about the long term health benefits of vegetables. It's complete false equivalence

awb 5y ago
> Those refusing the vaccination are operating with the same level of information about long term effects as those that get it: none When I create a website, hire someone, fire someone, etc., I have no knowledge of the decision’s long term effects. My one simple act could make the world a paradise or destroy it, but I have no evidence or reason to believe in either of those scenarios so I ignore it and focus on outcomes that seem reasonable given the information I have at the moment. It’s fine to question the long term effects of a decision, but if you’re doing so with no information or insight, you are just randomly guessing. So better than “what if X happens?” Is “what if Y causes X to happen because of Z?” Then we have the basis of a hypothesis that we can discuss. In the veggie example: “What if eating veggies causes heart disease because of Z?” “Z” is where the beef is :)
- defaultprimate 5y ago
  >if you’re doing so with no information or insight, you are just randomly guessing. No you aren't. You are doing the empirically sound thing and accepting the null hypothesis, the baseline of being unvaccinated, in the absence of sufficient evidence that the long term effects of the vaccines are more beneficial than detrimental.
  - awb 5y ago
    Do you maintain the baseline of your current state of knowledge and not accept new information? New information could possibly have long-term negative effects. There is no sufficient evidence as to the long-term effect this conversation will have on you. Yet, you readily engage, why? Do you use any technology created in the last 20 years? 20 years isn’t long enough to properly study long term effects. Or take any medicine developed in the last 40 years? We jump into the unknown every day. You’re free to make whatever decisions you please, but when you make the decision to maintain your current baseline and reject a new option, ideally you’re doing that out of some informed position or rational fear and not simply because that option is new. That’s why the interesting conversation to me isn’t “I’m waiting to take the vaccine until we understand the long term effects.”, it’s “I’m waiting to take the vaccine until we understand the long term effects because _______”. That’s where the meat is because it helps convey why this decision isn’t like discussing a new topic or using a cellphone or taking Lipitor.
    - defaultprimate 5y ago
      You clearly do not understand the scientific method or empiricism. How about this? "I'm waiting to take the vaccine until we understand the long term effects because no data exists regarding them and it would be empirically and scientifically unsound to confirm a hypothesis (that the vaccine's long term benefits outweigh the costs) without sufficient evidence to overrule the null hypothesis and default state of being unvaccinated."
      - awb 5y ago
        But you ignore the fact that you likely don’t feel the need wait for long-term studies with information, technology, other medicine, etc. That’s my point. There’s nothing wrong with your theory on paper. But in practice I’m willing to bet those that believe it selectively apply it. And that’s where my curiosity lies. In the absence of negative evidence how do you determine when to “wait for long-term data” and when do you “just go for it”? Like using a cellphone. I’m sure many of those that want to “wait and see” on the vaccine readily use cellphones and didn’t feel the need to “wait and see”. What’s the difference? I’m genuinely curious. Is it the expected utility?

awb 5y ago

> Those refusing the vaccination are operating with the same level of information about long term effects as those that get it: none When I create a website, hire someone, fire someone, etc., I have no knowledge of the decision’s long term effects. My one simple act could make the world a paradise or destroy it, but I have no evidence or reason to believe in either of those scenarios so I ignore it and focus on outcomes that seem reasonable given the information I have at the moment. It’s fine to question the long term effects of a decision, but if you’re doing so with no information or insight, you are just randomly guessing. So better than “what if X happens?” Is “what if Y causes X to happen because of Z?” Then we have the basis of a hypothesis that we can discuss. In the veggie example: “What if eating veggies causes heart disease because of Z?” “Z” is where the beef is :)

defaultprimate 5y ago
>if you’re doing so with no information or insight, you are just randomly guessing. No you aren't. You are doing the empirically sound thing and accepting the null hypothesis, the baseline of being unvaccinated, in the absence of sufficient evidence that the long term effects of the vaccines are more beneficial than detrimental.
- awb 5y ago
  Do you maintain the baseline of your current state of knowledge and not accept new information? New information could possibly have long-term negative effects. There is no sufficient evidence as to the long-term effect this conversation will have on you. Yet, you readily engage, why? Do you use any technology created in the last 20 years? 20 years isn’t long enough to properly study long term effects. Or take any medicine developed in the last 40 years? We jump into the unknown every day. You’re free to make whatever decisions you please, but when you make the decision to maintain your current baseline and reject a new option, ideally you’re doing that out of some informed position or rational fear and not simply because that option is new. That’s why the interesting conversation to me isn’t “I’m waiting to take the vaccine until we understand the long term effects.”, it’s “I’m waiting to take the vaccine until we understand the long term effects because _______”. That’s where the meat is because it helps convey why this decision isn’t like discussing a new topic or using a cellphone or taking Lipitor.
  - defaultprimate 5y ago
    You clearly do not understand the scientific method or empiricism. How about this? "I'm waiting to take the vaccine until we understand the long term effects because no data exists regarding them and it would be empirically and scientifically unsound to confirm a hypothesis (that the vaccine's long term benefits outweigh the costs) without sufficient evidence to overrule the null hypothesis and default state of being unvaccinated."
    - awb 5y ago
      But you ignore the fact that you likely don’t feel the need wait for long-term studies with information, technology, other medicine, etc. That’s my point. There’s nothing wrong with your theory on paper. But in practice I’m willing to bet those that believe it selectively apply it. And that’s where my curiosity lies. In the absence of negative evidence how do you determine when to “wait for long-term data” and when do you “just go for it”? Like using a cellphone. I’m sure many of those that want to “wait and see” on the vaccine readily use cellphones and didn’t feel the need to “wait and see”. What’s the difference? I’m genuinely curious. Is it the expected utility?