4 ms·

> What am I missing? What is it that people don't understand about the situation? Why are people so upset about this, but not upset about things that are arguab

by ls15 5y ago

> What am I missing? What is it that people don't understand about the situation? Why are people so upset about this, but not upset about things that are arguably more detrimental to the livelihood of the entire human race? Even though the facts are mostly true and "known", most people are not fully aware of them. As of today, people are still trying to push mandates (and passports), even though it is clear that vaccines will not end the pandemic. The media and politicians have done A LOT to ideologize the vaccines, instead of decribing them as what they are: a tool for mitigating personal risk. The virus itself never had any ideology at all. Inaccurate preconceptions stick in people's minds and it will take a while until public opinion will reasonably will be in line with science again. They need to peel off all that ideology first.

beerandt 5y ago
Just wait until the general public finds out about the evolutionary/ selective pressures caused by a severity-reducing but non-sterilizing vaccine. The general public won't "trust the science" ever again.
- ls15 5y ago
  > The general public won't "trust the science" ever again. What does "trust the science" even mean? For many people it seems to mean, trusting what one selected scientist says. For others what the news have to say about science and for others it means analyzing the data themselves. I think that science generally benefits from critical thinking. Suppressing critical thinking seemed to be a recurring scheme of this pandemic.
  - TheGRS 5y ago
    If critical thinking here is a euphemism for loudly objecting to published scientific findings, which I suspect it is, then I disagree.
    - ls15 5y ago
      What about lougly objecting to a biased interpretation of published scientific findings? Of course that requires critical thinking.
    - kodachrome64 5y ago
      What about when the CDC publishes an article with a title like this? https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/s0806-vaccination-protection.html https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/s0806-vaccination-pr... Critical thinking would mean asking how could a vaccine that simulates part of the virus provide better immunity than recovering from the real thing? Turns out, it doesn't. But the latest release doesn't have a catchy sound bite for a title. The results are buried in the summary: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7104e1.htm?s_cid=mm7104e1_w https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7104e1.htm?s_cid=mm... The same goes with masks back in 2020. While officials were announcing that masks may actually be detrimental for the average person, hospitals were screaming for more PPE. Clearly, something wasn't adding up. As it turns out, that was a lie. I'm vaccinated, I was a big supporter of lockdowns at the beginning of all of this, but "trust the science" is, ironically, becoming its own religion to some people and I find it repulsive. Especially when it has been shown time and again that science can be wrong and that scientists have no problems with telling noble lies.
- TurkishPoptart 5y ago
  Trusting the science just means trusting the government's and Big Pharma's accepted interpretation.
qsdf38100 5y ago
So… there was hope vaccines could stop the pandemic, but they only help a lot to reduce number of hospitalizations and deaths, so now you’re anti vaccines. And people won’t trust science ever again? I’m sorry but that doesn’t make any sense. All I’m hearing is some people trying to argue their ways into being irresponsible and selfish. Should governments let hospitals get overrun without even trying to take any measures? Ok we get it, your freedom is more important than other people’s health. But freedom isn’t about doing whatever you want. If your "freedom" threatens the lives of other people, I’d say it’s egoistic behaviors disguised as freedom.
- ls15 5y ago
  > If your "freedom" threatens the lives of other people, I’d say it’s egoistic behaviors disguised as freedom. This has been debunked a long time ago. As I said: SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are a tool for mitigating personal risk, but not against the spread of the virus in the society. This is clearly shown by the Covid-rates in tripple-vaccinated people. Not taking the vaccine isn't any more egoistic than smoking, being obese, driving a motorbike, eating unhealthy, not supplementing vitamin D or anything else that increases your risk of illness. Not taking the vaccine also does not automatically translate into becoming hospitalized with severe Covid. A healhy young person with a functioning immune system has a very low risk of getting hospitalized because of Covid. SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine mandates are intellectually and morally dead. This is also evidenced by my own and my wife's case: Two doses of pfizer, then infected by a person who was tripple-vaccinated and we both had symptomatic Covid that wasn't mild by any means.
  - qsdf38100 5y ago
    "Not taking the vaccine isn't any more egoistic than smoking, being obese, driving a motorbike, eating unhealthy, not supplementing vitamin D or anything else that increases your risk of illness" I'm sorry but once again, hospitals aren't currently overrun by illnesses due to smokers, obese, etc. They are overrun by people with severe Covid cases, with significantly more unvaccinated people than vaccinated people. "Not taking the vaccine also does not automatically translate into becoming hospitalized with severe Covid" Of course, it just tends to reduce the severity of covid cases. Which is the point, because, you remember, it reduces hospitalizations so that health services can remain functional? "This is also evidenced by my own and my wife's case: Two doses of pfizer, then infected by a person who was tripple-vaccinated and we both had symptomatic Covid that wasn't mild by any means." Why aren't you considering the possibility that your not-mild covid could have been worse if you weren't vaccinated? I don't see your case as an evidence for anything, really. [Edit: Apart from the fact that covid vaccines don't make one immune, especially with variants. The point was that they still help significantly with case severity]

by ls15 5y ago

beerandt 5y ago

Just wait until the general public finds out about the evolutionary/ selective pressures caused by a severity-reducing but non-sterilizing vaccine. The general public won't "trust the science" ever again.

ls15 5y ago
> The general public won't "trust the science" ever again. What does "trust the science" even mean? For many people it seems to mean, trusting what one selected scientist says. For others what the news have to say about science and for others it means analyzing the data themselves. I think that science generally benefits from critical thinking. Suppressing critical thinking seemed to be a recurring scheme of this pandemic.
- TheGRS 5y ago
  If critical thinking here is a euphemism for loudly objecting to published scientific findings, which I suspect it is, then I disagree.
  - ls15 5y ago
    What about lougly objecting to a biased interpretation of published scientific findings? Of course that requires critical thinking.
  - kodachrome64 5y ago
    What about when the CDC publishes an article with a title like this? https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/s0806-vaccination-protection.html https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/s0806-vaccination-pr... Critical thinking would mean asking how could a vaccine that simulates part of the virus provide better immunity than recovering from the real thing? Turns out, it doesn't. But the latest release doesn't have a catchy sound bite for a title. The results are buried in the summary: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7104e1.htm?s_cid=mm7104e1_w https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7104e1.htm?s_cid=mm... The same goes with masks back in 2020. While officials were announcing that masks may actually be detrimental for the average person, hospitals were screaming for more PPE. Clearly, something wasn't adding up. As it turns out, that was a lie. I'm vaccinated, I was a big supporter of lockdowns at the beginning of all of this, but "trust the science" is, ironically, becoming its own religion to some people and I find it repulsive. Especially when it has been shown time and again that science can be wrong and that scientists have no problems with telling noble lies.
TurkishPoptart 5y ago
Trusting the science just means trusting the government's and Big Pharma's accepted interpretation.

qsdf38100 5y ago

So… there was hope vaccines could stop the pandemic, but they only help a lot to reduce number of hospitalizations and deaths, so now you’re anti vaccines. And people won’t trust science ever again? I’m sorry but that doesn’t make any sense. All I’m hearing is some people trying to argue their ways into being irresponsible and selfish. Should governments let hospitals get overrun without even trying to take any measures? Ok we get it, your freedom is more important than other people’s health. But freedom isn’t about doing whatever you want. If your "freedom" threatens the lives of other people, I’d say it’s egoistic behaviors disguised as freedom.

ls15 5y ago
> If your "freedom" threatens the lives of other people, I’d say it’s egoistic behaviors disguised as freedom. This has been debunked a long time ago. As I said: SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are a tool for mitigating personal risk, but not against the spread of the virus in the society. This is clearly shown by the Covid-rates in tripple-vaccinated people. Not taking the vaccine isn't any more egoistic than smoking, being obese, driving a motorbike, eating unhealthy, not supplementing vitamin D or anything else that increases your risk of illness. Not taking the vaccine also does not automatically translate into becoming hospitalized with severe Covid. A healhy young person with a functioning immune system has a very low risk of getting hospitalized because of Covid. SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine mandates are intellectually and morally dead. This is also evidenced by my own and my wife's case: Two doses of pfizer, then infected by a person who was tripple-vaccinated and we both had symptomatic Covid that wasn't mild by any means.
- qsdf38100 5y ago
  "Not taking the vaccine isn't any more egoistic than smoking, being obese, driving a motorbike, eating unhealthy, not supplementing vitamin D or anything else that increases your risk of illness" I'm sorry but once again, hospitals aren't currently overrun by illnesses due to smokers, obese, etc. They are overrun by people with severe Covid cases, with significantly more unvaccinated people than vaccinated people. "Not taking the vaccine also does not automatically translate into becoming hospitalized with severe Covid" Of course, it just tends to reduce the severity of covid cases. Which is the point, because, you remember, it reduces hospitalizations so that health services can remain functional? "This is also evidenced by my own and my wife's case: Two doses of pfizer, then infected by a person who was tripple-vaccinated and we both had symptomatic Covid that wasn't mild by any means." Why aren't you considering the possibility that your not-mild covid could have been worse if you weren't vaccinated? I don't see your case as an evidence for anything, really. [Edit: Apart from the fact that covid vaccines don't make one immune, especially with variants. The point was that they still help significantly with case severity]