4 ms·

>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

>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?
    - defaultprimate 5y ago
      The probability of negative outcomes versus the a priori knowledge of outcomes, the context of the novel thing being introduced (direct health interventions versus convenience of cell phones is a great chasm), the similar evidence surrounding the novel thing. As an example to the last point: many people did wait a long time to adopt cell phones and smart phones on the basis of worries about cancer, but there was already overwhelming evidence that non ionizing radiation doesn't cause cancer, so their concerns were misguided. Their concerns about novel devices were not applicable because the techniques and methods were not novel. On the other end of the spectrum, X-Rays used to be a form of acne treatment, and there was no evidence on the safety of using them as such, just on the efficacy of the technique. As a result, many people ended up with all different kinds of cancer in their face, because there was no long term data on ionizing radiation's effects on DNA. The technology and the technique were completely novel and unstudied. I never worried about getting cancer from a cell phone, because there was ample evidence proving the safety. I never would have gotten x-rays as acne treatment.
      - awb 5y ago
        > many people did wait a long time to adopt cell phones and smart phones on the basis of worries about cancer, but there was already overwhelming evidence that non ionizing radiation doesn't cause cancer, so their concerns were misguided Right, but they’re taking an action in response to a specific concern: cancer. When approached in that way, it can be measured, tested, debated, etc. Even if they’re wrong, they’re putting forth a useful dialog that can be approached scientifically and then put to rest. This is opposed to a non-specific concern: something being new. If you don’t do something because of the unknown, that’s fine, but you don’t get any kudos for being right down the line if it turns out to be dangerous. You basically bet on something going wrong and sometimes you’ll be right, sometimes you won’t, but your decision making process was not informed by information or probabilities in any way. And as with many conspiracy theories you can never really be wrong, because who knows, maybe data will come out in 2 years, or 10 or 20. Something can always go wrong later if you don’t define what you’re worried about and then retroactively claim that thing that went wrong as the thing you were worried about.

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?
  - defaultprimate 5y ago
    The probability of negative outcomes versus the a priori knowledge of outcomes, the context of the novel thing being introduced (direct health interventions versus convenience of cell phones is a great chasm), the similar evidence surrounding the novel thing. As an example to the last point: many people did wait a long time to adopt cell phones and smart phones on the basis of worries about cancer, but there was already overwhelming evidence that non ionizing radiation doesn't cause cancer, so their concerns were misguided. Their concerns about novel devices were not applicable because the techniques and methods were not novel. On the other end of the spectrum, X-Rays used to be a form of acne treatment, and there was no evidence on the safety of using them as such, just on the efficacy of the technique. As a result, many people ended up with all different kinds of cancer in their face, because there was no long term data on ionizing radiation's effects on DNA. The technology and the technique were completely novel and unstudied. I never worried about getting cancer from a cell phone, because there was ample evidence proving the safety. I never would have gotten x-rays as acne treatment.
    - awb 5y ago
      > many people did wait a long time to adopt cell phones and smart phones on the basis of worries about cancer, but there was already overwhelming evidence that non ionizing radiation doesn't cause cancer, so their concerns were misguided Right, but they’re taking an action in response to a specific concern: cancer. When approached in that way, it can be measured, tested, debated, etc. Even if they’re wrong, they’re putting forth a useful dialog that can be approached scientifically and then put to rest. This is opposed to a non-specific concern: something being new. If you don’t do something because of the unknown, that’s fine, but you don’t get any kudos for being right down the line if it turns out to be dangerous. You basically bet on something going wrong and sometimes you’ll be right, sometimes you won’t, but your decision making process was not informed by information or probabilities in any way. And as with many conspiracy theories you can never really be wrong, because who knows, maybe data will come out in 2 years, or 10 or 20. Something can always go wrong later if you don’t define what you’re worried about and then retroactively claim that thing that went wrong as the thing you were worried about.