4 ms·

The probability of negative outcomes versus the a priori knowledge of outcomes, the context of the novel thing being introduced (direct health interventions ver

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
    > 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 Yeah, but we also don’t know the long-term risks of HDTVs, VR headsets, CBD oil or Impossible burgers. Not knowing the long-term risks of a product is exceedingly common. > you're trying to argue that we should just assume that the probability of something going wrong is already established as infinitesimally small. Not at all. I’m saying that you have to encounter this problem nearly every day. And that if you were consistently concerned about abstract, undefined, unknown potential risks that you had no knowledge or understanding of then you would not participate in any new medicine, technology or activities and I just don’t know of anyone that follows that philosophy consistently. So that’s why I’m not buying that 0 long-term data is the only reason or even the main reason someone wouldn’t take the vaccine. A chocolate bar from a brand new chocolate company at the grocery store is familiar and easy to understand. No one studied the long-term effects of this substance you’re about to put into your body (because it was just released this month), but we assume that the ingredients are correct, we assume that we understand the effects the ingredients will have on us, we assume that someone inspected the facility for cleanliness and we assume that it was delivered to the store and stocked without being tampered with. The long-term data for this particular bar of chocolate for this new brand doesn’t exist, but you don’t care and don’t think twice about consuming it. So, that’s why I don’t think it’s about the data at all, I think it has more to do with our assumed individual knowledge of the product, the production process and the quality control (or when lacking that, our willingness to trust the relevant parties). Even if you get long-term data, it’s a no-win scenario if you’re were never looking for anything specific in the first place. You had no hypothesis, no argument and designed no experiment. Let’s say 2030 roles around and they announce: “No long-term negative effects!” Well, why would I believe that? My area of concern was infinitely broad. You can’t test to infinity, so you’ll never satisfy my doubts. There might still be negative effects coming in 10 years, or maybe you messed up in the data collection, or are just plain lying to me, how would I know? Why would I trust you? Only if I approach the problem with a specific, testable concern can I ever get reassurance that my concerns have been addressed. It makes a lot more sense to me to say: I’m concerned about mRNA vaccines because Dr. X expressed concerns about Y. And then wait for that specific concern to be addressed. > The data will exist eventually, we are not stuck in this permanent state of ignorance. Only because people got the vaccine and didn’t wait for long-term data. That’s why this philosophy can never be adopted by a significant portion of the population, because it’s self-defeating. The moment you convince everyone that it’s smarter to wait for long-term data, you lose the ability to obtain that very data you want.

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
  > 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 Yeah, but we also don’t know the long-term risks of HDTVs, VR headsets, CBD oil or Impossible burgers. Not knowing the long-term risks of a product is exceedingly common. > you're trying to argue that we should just assume that the probability of something going wrong is already established as infinitesimally small. Not at all. I’m saying that you have to encounter this problem nearly every day. And that if you were consistently concerned about abstract, undefined, unknown potential risks that you had no knowledge or understanding of then you would not participate in any new medicine, technology or activities and I just don’t know of anyone that follows that philosophy consistently. So that’s why I’m not buying that 0 long-term data is the only reason or even the main reason someone wouldn’t take the vaccine. A chocolate bar from a brand new chocolate company at the grocery store is familiar and easy to understand. No one studied the long-term effects of this substance you’re about to put into your body (because it was just released this month), but we assume that the ingredients are correct, we assume that we understand the effects the ingredients will have on us, we assume that someone inspected the facility for cleanliness and we assume that it was delivered to the store and stocked without being tampered with. The long-term data for this particular bar of chocolate for this new brand doesn’t exist, but you don’t care and don’t think twice about consuming it. So, that’s why I don’t think it’s about the data at all, I think it has more to do with our assumed individual knowledge of the product, the production process and the quality control (or when lacking that, our willingness to trust the relevant parties). Even if you get long-term data, it’s a no-win scenario if you’re were never looking for anything specific in the first place. You had no hypothesis, no argument and designed no experiment. Let’s say 2030 roles around and they announce: “No long-term negative effects!” Well, why would I believe that? My area of concern was infinitely broad. You can’t test to infinity, so you’ll never satisfy my doubts. There might still be negative effects coming in 10 years, or maybe you messed up in the data collection, or are just plain lying to me, how would I know? Why would I trust you? Only if I approach the problem with a specific, testable concern can I ever get reassurance that my concerns have been addressed. It makes a lot more sense to me to say: I’m concerned about mRNA vaccines because Dr. X expressed concerns about Y. And then wait for that specific concern to be addressed. > The data will exist eventually, we are not stuck in this permanent state of ignorance. Only because people got the vaccine and didn’t wait for long-term data. That’s why this philosophy can never be adopted by a significant portion of the population, because it’s self-defeating. The moment you convince everyone that it’s smarter to wait for long-term data, you lose the ability to obtain that very data you want.