7 ms·

> Do not try and force that recommendation on people and be willing to have that recommendation challenged. How dangerous does "not doing the thing" need to be

> Do not try and force that recommendation on people and be willing to have that recommendation challenged. How dangerous does "not doing the thing" need to be to the people around those making the decision before it should be forced? Obviously there is a limit -- for instance, we all agree that deciding not to change your plans to drive home when you get shit-faced is and should be illegal -- so where does that limit occur, and why there?

lax4ever 4y ago
1) I don't believe the considerations are equal because those in the medical profession do not make laws, and should never be empowered to make laws, often because their focus is too narrow (don't get me wrong, politicians are not perfect, but go with me on this one). Making drunk driving illegal was not a decision medical professionals made, it was one made by elected representatives. 2) There is no "one-size-fits-all" solution to anything. Drunk driving doesn't seem like an apt comparison to the vaccination thing because while we know a whole bunch about drunk driving, there are a whole lot of questions around vaccines (and other medical procedures. Beyond that, current medical practices are constantly being challenged and improved. Trying to keep the idea broad, but also not ignore the vaccine elephant in the room), in particular the COVID ones. Some of these are questions that require more research into COVID itself. Some of the questions require more research into the delivery method. Some of them require more research into human biological functions as we understand them. Since these questions remain (and on the same vein there are questions about a vast portion of medical procedures), medical practices (even above and beyond vaccines) should remain in question and as recommendations only. EDIT: 3) There are portions of our community that seem to think we should just take a medical professional's word without any additional consideration, in particular with vaccines, but even though I think the COVID vaccine has likely helped a large group of people I also think there is a valid argument that the messaging and integrity of those most pushing the vaccine have shown themselves to be very poor, in large part because there was no willingness to acknowledge that they don't know something or that they could possibly be wrong. For example, the vaccine, in it's early days, was touted by many people (Trump, Fauci, Biden, Pfizer and Moderna execs, Walensky, etc.) as the perfect solution. You get the vaccine, you never have to worry about COVID again. You won't get the disease, you won't transmit the disease, you are no longer a danger. But that clearly wasn't the case and we are being shown data that shows that all of these people should have known better. None of them have turned around and said they were wrong. None of them even acknowledged the possibility. That, in and of itself, hits one's integrity and reliability hard. 4) Anything that falls under the umbrella of "science" should be open to challenge and should welcome the challenge. The scientific method demands no less.
- IceMetalPunk 4y ago
  1) I'm not sure I agree with you on that. Laws that are not based on evidence are doomed to cause more harm than necessary. If the evidence shows that Action X will increase harm to others by Percentage Y, then Action X should be regulated. And since professional researchers are the ones discovering that causation, their advice should definitely become legislation on those fronts. Keep in mind that medical experts tend to get their jobs through experience and proof of capability, while politicians tend to get their jobs through popularity. 2) I wonder what evidence you think is missing from the safety and efficacy testing of COVID vaccines, which you don't think is missing from the safety and efficacy studies of abstaining from drunk driving? And what evidence would you need before you'd consider them "equally understood"?
  - lax4ever 4y ago
    1) I am certainly not arguing over the idea that professionals tend to be more qualified when it comes to their fields then when it comes to politicians, but I would not be asking an orthopedic specialist for advice that I should be asking a gastroenterologist, because their focus is different. A medical professional's recommendation is typically based on both the average response and does not usually consider a larger picture, especially outside their field of practice. For example, you can stop a lot of things with premise lock-downs (drunk driving included) but you create a whole lot more issues like what we are seeing now. This is an area where someone who is not an expert in a specialized field but has enough understanding in many fields, not all of them related, will be the better decision maker. Not saying that all of our representatives are as such, but that's the idea. Take your advice from many experts in different fields and make a balanced decision (also being willing to acknowledge the possibility that you are wrong). 2) There are a lot of questions still around COVID itself and how it affects the human body that we are still learning. Things like long-COVID, certain attack vectors of the spike protein COVID uses, why COVID affects people the way that it does when it comes to severity of symptoms, etc. All of these are questions that effect how a vaccine should be made. Beyond that, for the vaccine itself I tend to look at questions like was there enough initial testing given the shortened time frame of both knowing the disease and the time to develop the vaccine, questioning the methodology and how the initial trials were handled in the development phases, does the body treat these RNA fragments differently after they have broken up, is producing the spike protein (which has it's own dangers beyond COVID on the body) the best option for protecting against the disease or is there another vector that would prove to be more effective, does the body suffer from having an increased protein development response at the injection site, etc. Even now, we are discovering more effective ways to treat the disease and I would image the next 5 years or so will yield treatments that potentially reveal how the vaccine was a stop-gap measure and that there are likely better ways to treat this disease.

lax4ever 4y ago

1) I don't believe the considerations are equal because those in the medical profession do not make laws, and should never be empowered to make laws, often because their focus is too narrow (don't get me wrong, politicians are not perfect, but go with me on this one). Making drunk driving illegal was not a decision medical professionals made, it was one made by elected representatives. 2) There is no "one-size-fits-all" solution to anything. Drunk driving doesn't seem like an apt comparison to the vaccination thing because while we know a whole bunch about drunk driving, there are a whole lot of questions around vaccines (and other medical procedures. Beyond that, current medical practices are constantly being challenged and improved. Trying to keep the idea broad, but also not ignore the vaccine elephant in the room), in particular the COVID ones. Some of these are questions that require more research into COVID itself. Some of the questions require more research into the delivery method. Some of them require more research into human biological functions as we understand them. Since these questions remain (and on the same vein there are questions about a vast portion of medical procedures), medical practices (even above and beyond vaccines) should remain in question and as recommendations only. EDIT: 3) There are portions of our community that seem to think we should just take a medical professional's word without any additional consideration, in particular with vaccines, but even though I think the COVID vaccine has likely helped a large group of people I also think there is a valid argument that the messaging and integrity of those most pushing the vaccine have shown themselves to be very poor, in large part because there was no willingness to acknowledge that they don't know something or that they could possibly be wrong. For example, the vaccine, in it's early days, was touted by many people (Trump, Fauci, Biden, Pfizer and Moderna execs, Walensky, etc.) as the perfect solution. You get the vaccine, you never have to worry about COVID again. You won't get the disease, you won't transmit the disease, you are no longer a danger. But that clearly wasn't the case and we are being shown data that shows that all of these people should have known better. None of them have turned around and said they were wrong. None of them even acknowledged the possibility. That, in and of itself, hits one's integrity and reliability hard. 4) Anything that falls under the umbrella of "science" should be open to challenge and should welcome the challenge. The scientific method demands no less.

IceMetalPunk 4y ago
1) I'm not sure I agree with you on that. Laws that are not based on evidence are doomed to cause more harm than necessary. If the evidence shows that Action X will increase harm to others by Percentage Y, then Action X should be regulated. And since professional researchers are the ones discovering that causation, their advice should definitely become legislation on those fronts. Keep in mind that medical experts tend to get their jobs through experience and proof of capability, while politicians tend to get their jobs through popularity. 2) I wonder what evidence you think is missing from the safety and efficacy testing of COVID vaccines, which you don't think is missing from the safety and efficacy studies of abstaining from drunk driving? And what evidence would you need before you'd consider them "equally understood"?
- lax4ever 4y ago
  1) I am certainly not arguing over the idea that professionals tend to be more qualified when it comes to their fields then when it comes to politicians, but I would not be asking an orthopedic specialist for advice that I should be asking a gastroenterologist, because their focus is different. A medical professional's recommendation is typically based on both the average response and does not usually consider a larger picture, especially outside their field of practice. For example, you can stop a lot of things with premise lock-downs (drunk driving included) but you create a whole lot more issues like what we are seeing now. This is an area where someone who is not an expert in a specialized field but has enough understanding in many fields, not all of them related, will be the better decision maker. Not saying that all of our representatives are as such, but that's the idea. Take your advice from many experts in different fields and make a balanced decision (also being willing to acknowledge the possibility that you are wrong). 2) There are a lot of questions still around COVID itself and how it affects the human body that we are still learning. Things like long-COVID, certain attack vectors of the spike protein COVID uses, why COVID affects people the way that it does when it comes to severity of symptoms, etc. All of these are questions that effect how a vaccine should be made. Beyond that, for the vaccine itself I tend to look at questions like was there enough initial testing given the shortened time frame of both knowing the disease and the time to develop the vaccine, questioning the methodology and how the initial trials were handled in the development phases, does the body treat these RNA fragments differently after they have broken up, is producing the spike protein (which has it's own dangers beyond COVID on the body) the best option for protecting against the disease or is there another vector that would prove to be more effective, does the body suffer from having an increased protein development response at the injection site, etc. Even now, we are discovering more effective ways to treat the disease and I would image the next 5 years or so will yield treatments that potentially reveal how the vaccine was a stop-gap measure and that there are likely better ways to treat this disease.