3 ms·

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 b

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.
    - defaultprimate 5y ago
      >but your decision making process was not informed by information or probabilities in any way. That's exactly what it is and will be informed by, and that information right now is zero. There's no evidence to support the hypothesis' conclusion, therefore I reject the hypothesis at present. That's not always going to be the case. It's in no way comparable to conspiracy theories because it's a falsifiable premise. Statistical significance can and will exist about the long term safety eventually. The question at hand is very easily quantifiable and qualifiable: are mRNA vaccines safe in the long term and relative to the risks of the afflictions they target? The current answer is: there is no evidence supporting that they are, therefore the reasonable, rational, and scientific thing to do is maintain the baseline until sufficient evidence exists. Yeah maybe something can go wrong in 20 years in one person. That's not the argument I'm making. I'm arguing that we don't know what could go wrong or what the probability something can go wrong is in the long term because the data literally just doesn't exist you're trying to argue that we should just assume that the probability of something going wrong is already established as infinitesimally small. That's irrational and antiscientific. It's not established at all that's my entire point. The data will exist eventually, we are not stuck in this permanent state of ignorance.

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.
  - defaultprimate 5y ago
    >but your decision making process was not informed by information or probabilities in any way. That's exactly what it is and will be informed by, and that information right now is zero. There's no evidence to support the hypothesis' conclusion, therefore I reject the hypothesis at present. That's not always going to be the case. It's in no way comparable to conspiracy theories because it's a falsifiable premise. Statistical significance can and will exist about the long term safety eventually. The question at hand is very easily quantifiable and qualifiable: are mRNA vaccines safe in the long term and relative to the risks of the afflictions they target? The current answer is: there is no evidence supporting that they are, therefore the reasonable, rational, and scientific thing to do is maintain the baseline until sufficient evidence exists. Yeah maybe something can go wrong in 20 years in one person. That's not the argument I'm making. I'm arguing that we don't know what could go wrong or what the probability something can go wrong is in the long term because the data literally just doesn't exist you're trying to argue that we should just assume that the probability of something going wrong is already established as infinitesimally small. That's irrational and antiscientific. It's not established at all that's my entire point. The data will exist eventually, we are not stuck in this permanent state of ignorance.