3 ms·

Assuming everyone should make medical decisions based purely on individual or even shared monetary grounds is a type of "flat earth" thinking of it's own. It a

Assuming everyone should make medical decisions based purely on individual or even shared monetary grounds is a type of "flat earth" thinking of it's own. It attempts to fit a pre-conceived view onto the world, that "no-vaxers" must be dumb the same way "flat-earthers" are and this helps you rationalize away digital content you personally disagree with without having to engage with it.

IAmEveryone 5y ago
The payment wasn't an argument that money is the only valid objective in decision-making. OP used it to illustrate that these believes are weakly held, "virtue signaling" for a crowd with different virtues, so to speak. I believe unvaccinated people seeking medical treatment from the same "elitist establishment" they had nothing but scorn for is a somewhat more obvious demonstration of the same principle.
- firstlink 5y ago
  > I believe unvaccinated people seeking medical treatment from the same "elitist establishment" they had nothing but scorn for is a somewhat more obvious demonstration of the same principle. Many people, whether anti-vax or not, would like to be able to receive medical advice and treatment from a person of their own choosing. But this is illegal, at least in most places HN commenters are likely to be found. So "seeking medical treatment from the same 'elitist establishment'" is nothing more than "seeking medical treatment, legally".
  - igorkraw 5y ago
    This is a nonsequitur dragging in unrelated politics, the original point is: the bulk of anti-vaxxers would not commit to a world where they are isolated and left to die if they catch COVID for all the "it's just a flu" talk. I don't agree with GP on wishing it was a thing, but this is bad arguing
- native_samples 5y ago
  They aren't weakly held, as evidenced by the large number of people who refuse to take them even when they are being fired, prevented from leaving their country or excluded from all public events. The analogy is actually flawed for a different reason: it simply sets up a one way bias. If you want to force people to put a price on their beliefs, get rid of all the subsidies for vaccines and all the liability for the manufacturers. Make people pay for their own shots and then allow those who get injured to sue the manufacturers for damages. Well, we could do that but actually we don't have to. We already know what the outcome is: the outcome is there are no COVID vaccine manufacturers at all, because complete legal immunity to damage claims was a mandatory criteria for them to sign contracts with governments. Liability allowed = no vaccines. So the market spoke already, and it seems to suggest the opposite of what's being implied above.
- scrubs 5y ago
  Bingo. You got it.
- ryandrake 5y ago
  It’s like when James Randi famously offered $1 million to anyone who could prove supernatural or paranormal ability [1]. Shockingly: nobody claimed the prize. 1: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Million_Dollar_Paranormal_Challenge https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Million_Dollar_Paranorma...
igorkraw 5y ago
I think this is missing the point, that there is no risk for the individual to denying COVID or vaccinations (or a round earth) because as a society we have decided not to deny medical treatment, punish lowering heard immunity (except when we do, i.e. longexisting vaccination mandates) and deny flight tickets for this virtue signaling respectively. I don't agree with GP that we should, but your point is weirdly defensive of anti-vax beliefs as well: the beliefs (not the people) are not worth engaging with, just like the ramblings of GPT1 aren't worth pondering as oracles for the purpose of stock price picking, there's nothing there to learn (engaging with the people is different)
- sdoering 5y ago
  > missing the point, that there is no risk for the individual to denying COVID or vaccinations I would argue that there is no subjectively felt risk. It isn't that we as society decided to care for these people when they fall ill. They nonetheless have a higher risk of dying from an infection with Sars-CoV-2. The risk is there - they just do not feel it, because the felt risk of some wonky chip implant or other imagined side effects feels bigger. These people have over time constructed a world view for themselves (with lots of help from YouTube, Facebook and other places to find "inspiration" for said world view) that is not only constructed around this one fear. To me esp. these COVID deniers feel (and I have no data to back that up) like they are grasping for straws of (felt) control in a world they feel is out of their control. They say: I do not let the state vax me. Because now they are in control of at least something. Then they need to make the fact go away that they just handed the control over to a virus. So the nearly logical next step is to either not believe the virus is real, or to believe it doesn't hit you or believe, if it hits you your immune system is fit enough to deal with it, because it isn't as dangerous as the big bad state wants you to believe. It is a rabbit hole to go down - one fear/believe/feeling out of control leading to the next piece of the puzzle in your new world view were you are in control. And the politicians doing the exact opposite thing that scientists recommend as well as science (by definition) not being able to provide 100% certainty and easy answers (because well life isn't made up of easy answers) are not equipped to make these people feel in control (because they are not - nobody is). So I feel (as said - I have no data) the problem lies deeper. Either (some) humans just want/need easy answers or we as a society have not learned to teach ourselves from early on, that there are no certainties and control is a myth and how to deal with greys and uncertainty. On the other hand - if one actually looks at the numbers, these people may seem loud and a big mass on said (social) platforms (probably amplified by the algorithms) but are a very tiny minority in reality.
scrubs 5y ago
Nah. I'm saying put your money where your mouth is. If that's too adult of a proposition, shut up. Now, while I can't make people shut up, my consolation prize is that talk is nothing but cheap symbolism. Deal with it. I mean, good lord: flat earther's and no-vax people want respect. But, honey, for what? Talking crap on tv or Youtube? I don't think so.

IAmEveryone 5y ago

The payment wasn't an argument that money is the only valid objective in decision-making. OP used it to illustrate that these believes are weakly held, "virtue signaling" for a crowd with different virtues, so to speak. I believe unvaccinated people seeking medical treatment from the same "elitist establishment" they had nothing but scorn for is a somewhat more obvious demonstration of the same principle.

firstlink 5y ago
> I believe unvaccinated people seeking medical treatment from the same "elitist establishment" they had nothing but scorn for is a somewhat more obvious demonstration of the same principle. Many people, whether anti-vax or not, would like to be able to receive medical advice and treatment from a person of their own choosing. But this is illegal, at least in most places HN commenters are likely to be found. So "seeking medical treatment from the same 'elitist establishment'" is nothing more than "seeking medical treatment, legally".
- igorkraw 5y ago
  This is a nonsequitur dragging in unrelated politics, the original point is: the bulk of anti-vaxxers would not commit to a world where they are isolated and left to die if they catch COVID for all the "it's just a flu" talk. I don't agree with GP on wishing it was a thing, but this is bad arguing
native_samples 5y ago
They aren't weakly held, as evidenced by the large number of people who refuse to take them even when they are being fired, prevented from leaving their country or excluded from all public events. The analogy is actually flawed for a different reason: it simply sets up a one way bias. If you want to force people to put a price on their beliefs, get rid of all the subsidies for vaccines and all the liability for the manufacturers. Make people pay for their own shots and then allow those who get injured to sue the manufacturers for damages. Well, we could do that but actually we don't have to. We already know what the outcome is: the outcome is there are no COVID vaccine manufacturers at all, because complete legal immunity to damage claims was a mandatory criteria for them to sign contracts with governments. Liability allowed = no vaccines. So the market spoke already, and it seems to suggest the opposite of what's being implied above.
scrubs 5y ago
Bingo. You got it.
ryandrake 5y ago
It’s like when James Randi famously offered $1 million to anyone who could prove supernatural or paranormal ability [1]. Shockingly: nobody claimed the prize. 1: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Million_Dollar_Paranormal_Challenge https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Million_Dollar_Paranorma...

igorkraw 5y ago

I think this is missing the point, that there is no risk for the individual to denying COVID or vaccinations (or a round earth) because as a society we have decided not to deny medical treatment, punish lowering heard immunity (except when we do, i.e. longexisting vaccination mandates) and deny flight tickets for this virtue signaling respectively. I don't agree with GP that we should, but your point is weirdly defensive of anti-vax beliefs as well: the beliefs (not the people) are not worth engaging with, just like the ramblings of GPT1 aren't worth pondering as oracles for the purpose of stock price picking, there's nothing there to learn (engaging with the people is different)

sdoering 5y ago
> missing the point, that there is no risk for the individual to denying COVID or vaccinations I would argue that there is no subjectively felt risk. It isn't that we as society decided to care for these people when they fall ill. They nonetheless have a higher risk of dying from an infection with Sars-CoV-2. The risk is there - they just do not feel it, because the felt risk of some wonky chip implant or other imagined side effects feels bigger. These people have over time constructed a world view for themselves (with lots of help from YouTube, Facebook and other places to find "inspiration" for said world view) that is not only constructed around this one fear. To me esp. these COVID deniers feel (and I have no data to back that up) like they are grasping for straws of (felt) control in a world they feel is out of their control. They say: I do not let the state vax me. Because now they are in control of at least something. Then they need to make the fact go away that they just handed the control over to a virus. So the nearly logical next step is to either not believe the virus is real, or to believe it doesn't hit you or believe, if it hits you your immune system is fit enough to deal with it, because it isn't as dangerous as the big bad state wants you to believe. It is a rabbit hole to go down - one fear/believe/feeling out of control leading to the next piece of the puzzle in your new world view were you are in control. And the politicians doing the exact opposite thing that scientists recommend as well as science (by definition) not being able to provide 100% certainty and easy answers (because well life isn't made up of easy answers) are not equipped to make these people feel in control (because they are not - nobody is). So I feel (as said - I have no data) the problem lies deeper. Either (some) humans just want/need easy answers or we as a society have not learned to teach ourselves from early on, that there are no certainties and control is a myth and how to deal with greys and uncertainty. On the other hand - if one actually looks at the numbers, these people may seem loud and a big mass on said (social) platforms (probably amplified by the algorithms) but are a very tiny minority in reality.

scrubs 5y ago

Nah. I'm saying put your money where your mouth is. If that's too adult of a proposition, shut up. Now, while I can't make people shut up, my consolation prize is that talk is nothing but cheap symbolism. Deal with it. I mean, good lord: flat earther's and no-vax people want respect. But, honey, for what? Talking crap on tv or Youtube? I don't think so.