4 ms·

Speaking about holding two opposed viewpoints in your head at the same time. Which is a skill btw. 1. I believe that Covid media coverage was horribly biased a

Speaking about holding two opposed viewpoints in your head at the same time. Which is a skill btw. 1. I believe that Covid media coverage was horribly biased and more than occasionally untruthful, and (extra doses of) vaccine are very likely counter-productive for large segments of the population, possibly all the healthy young. 2. This article grates my reasoning skills like fingernails on a chalkboard. Unfortunately, the opposite of stupid is not Wise. Coverage can be bad or biased on both sides, and we can't really take its quality as a sign on which side is more right. We just have to do it the hard way and keep weighting evidence. But anyways, as far as I'm concerned after this pandemic the emperor is naked for all to see: the authorities and the mainstream media lied, bullied and outright censored things which later turned out to be fact. And "neglected" to do due diligence to a degree that in the proper context could be called criminal.

csdvrx 5y ago
> But anyways, as far as I'm concerned after this pandemic the emperor is naked for all to see: the authorities and the mainstream media lied, bullied and outright censored things which later turned out to be fact. And "neglected" to do due diligence to a degree that in the proper context could be called criminal. Same. While they may have been lucky that the vaccine isn't dangerous, the loss of credibility is strong. We all have to lose when regular people start distrusting science. I tremble to imagine what would have happened if the lies/censoring had been made worse by the vaccine being genuinely dangerous.
- mbg721 5y ago
  There's still time. In a country full of "Did you take x drug? You may be entitled to compensation," commercials, if there turn out to be unexpected long-term effects to something many people were strong-armed into taking with no legal recourse, there are going to be lots of angry people who think dangerous kooks were right all along.
  - logicchains 5y ago
    > if there turn out to be unexpected long-term effects to something many people were strong-armed into taking with no legal recourse, there are going to be lots of angry people who think dangerous kooks were right all along. Wouldn't that mean the dangerous kooks were the ones unscientifically asserting there were no long-term side effects in spite of it being completely and utterly fucking impossible to know that without conducting longer-term trials?
    - mbg721 5y ago
      I more meant people who were already dangerous kooks about other stuff before, although I guess it's never too late to start a track record.
- radu_floricica 5y ago
  Eh, I think the vaccine was a bit over-tested. We had it from month 1, but had to wait almost a year to use it. It's more of a general disconnect between reality and discourse that's the problem. And a very very stupid black and white worldview - what's allowed is automatically mandatory. We should have allowed the vaccines much earlier for populations at risk, and we should hesitate a lot more before we make anything mandatory. But yeah, this would take balls and willingness to assume responsibility. And speaking of, literal millions[1] of dead later we still haven't done any challenge trials, because exposing 25 year olds to Omicron to find out things about it faster _would be immoral_. [1]: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/ https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
  - benmmurphy 5y ago
    I think the vaccine should have been distributed earlier to at risk groups as well. I’m probably classified as either anti-vaxx in the current discourse. I think if you are placing healthy people under house arrest to protect other people then you have to strongly consider if risk/benefits of an experimental vaccine justifies its distribution without waiting for normal testing.

csdvrx 5y ago

> But anyways, as far as I'm concerned after this pandemic the emperor is naked for all to see: the authorities and the mainstream media lied, bullied and outright censored things which later turned out to be fact. And "neglected" to do due diligence to a degree that in the proper context could be called criminal. Same. While they may have been lucky that the vaccine isn't dangerous, the loss of credibility is strong. We all have to lose when regular people start distrusting science. I tremble to imagine what would have happened if the lies/censoring had been made worse by the vaccine being genuinely dangerous.

mbg721 5y ago
There's still time. In a country full of "Did you take x drug? You may be entitled to compensation," commercials, if there turn out to be unexpected long-term effects to something many people were strong-armed into taking with no legal recourse, there are going to be lots of angry people who think dangerous kooks were right all along.
- logicchains 5y ago
  > if there turn out to be unexpected long-term effects to something many people were strong-armed into taking with no legal recourse, there are going to be lots of angry people who think dangerous kooks were right all along. Wouldn't that mean the dangerous kooks were the ones unscientifically asserting there were no long-term side effects in spite of it being completely and utterly fucking impossible to know that without conducting longer-term trials?
  - mbg721 5y ago
    I more meant people who were already dangerous kooks about other stuff before, although I guess it's never too late to start a track record.
radu_floricica 5y ago
Eh, I think the vaccine was a bit over-tested. We had it from month 1, but had to wait almost a year to use it. It's more of a general disconnect between reality and discourse that's the problem. And a very very stupid black and white worldview - what's allowed is automatically mandatory. We should have allowed the vaccines much earlier for populations at risk, and we should hesitate a lot more before we make anything mandatory. But yeah, this would take balls and willingness to assume responsibility. And speaking of, literal millions[1] of dead later we still haven't done any challenge trials, because exposing 25 year olds to Omicron to find out things about it faster _would be immoral_. [1]: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/ https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
- benmmurphy 5y ago
  I think the vaccine should have been distributed earlier to at risk groups as well. I’m probably classified as either anti-vaxx in the current discourse. I think if you are placing healthy people under house arrest to protect other people then you have to strongly consider if risk/benefits of an experimental vaccine justifies its distribution without waiting for normal testing.