5 ms·

How are you supposed to communicate 1 in 10^7 chance of anything happening versus communicating it's risk-free. The public isn't educated well enough to ascerta

How are you supposed to communicate 1 in 10^7 chance of anything happening versus communicating it's risk-free. The public isn't educated well enough to ascertain the difference. College-educated members of society sure, but what about the rest? Health messaging has to be broadly applicable. Most people won't have an issue, so it's simplest to convey this idea.

matheusmoreira 4y ago
> 1 in 10^7 chance I'm not sure I believe that. > The public isn't educated well enough to ascertain the difference. The public may be uneducated but they're still equipped with brains capable of pattern recognition. In my country, the public saw young famous people "mysteriously" dying of heart attacks and strokes immediately after getting vaccinated, in some cases not long after tweeting some insults at skeptics. People are watching and they are going to connect dots. I have a little collection of screenshots of people who suffered such a fate... It's unfortunate really.
- creato 4y ago
  You’re suffering from confirmation bias just as much as /r/HermanCainAward. There are 8 billion people in the world, there will be plenty of examples of any theory you can come up with.
  - ravel-bar-foo 4y ago
    In my country the vaccination was by prescription. People who wanted to be vaccinated would sit down for 3 minutes with a doctor who would tell them their probability of complications if they got Covid vs adverse events if they got the vaccine, given their sex and age bracket. (Well, not much was known for the first shot, but by the second shot side effects were well known.) Then if they consented they would be administered the vaccine. 80% of the population consented. This is how you do responsible public health communication. As an aside, naming phenomena after priests / politicians like that can't possibly be productive. It's telling the outgroup (people who admire Cain) that they are worthy of contempt instead of addressing their object level concerns and misunderstandings.
seneca 4y ago
Sorry, are you suggesting that people without a college education are too ignorant to make judgements about their own health and that it's therefore ok to lie to them? This sort of high handed paternalism is exactly the attitude that has destroyed faith in institutions.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- matheusmoreira 4y ago
  That's exactly what they are suggesting, unfortunately. I was about to reply to another comment but I think it was deleted. I think what I wrote is important enough to post here anyways. > It's obvious the messaging landed on was chosen was to maximize the individual choice to vaccinate as that was reasoned to the best possible outcome for all. This is inducing people to pick the choice you consider correct. This is unethical in the medical profession. Ethical conduct is to present the facts and let the patient decide. You don't "maximize" any outcome, nor do you "reason" about anything on behalf of the patient. To do so means you are prioritizing concerns other than your patient's best interests and once they figure this out you are done. If necessary, you can and must use simpler language to help them understand complex concepts. What you cannot do is decide for them in advance and then misrepresent facts in order to manufacture consent for the intervention you favor.
  - 88913527 4y ago
    If people are as indeed as smart as you and your parent commenter say they are, then they will understand there doesn't exist any risk-free medical procedure. Having to remind of them of that fact is the kind of patronizing you both seem to be rallying against, after all. The argument could evolve further to say, the messaging doesn't matter at all, since everyone is smart enough to make their own choice, so why be upset about it? Or, stated in other words, when exactly where they lied to if you claim they're smart enough to dissect the nuance? I guess the ultimate terminus of this discussion is the interpretation of what it means to characterize the vaccine as safe.

matheusmoreira 4y ago

> 1 in 10^7 chance I'm not sure I believe that. > The public isn't educated well enough to ascertain the difference. The public may be uneducated but they're still equipped with brains capable of pattern recognition. In my country, the public saw young famous people "mysteriously" dying of heart attacks and strokes immediately after getting vaccinated, in some cases not long after tweeting some insults at skeptics. People are watching and they are going to connect dots. I have a little collection of screenshots of people who suffered such a fate... It's unfortunate really.

creato 4y ago
You’re suffering from confirmation bias just as much as /r/HermanCainAward. There are 8 billion people in the world, there will be plenty of examples of any theory you can come up with.
- ravel-bar-foo 4y ago
  In my country the vaccination was by prescription. People who wanted to be vaccinated would sit down for 3 minutes with a doctor who would tell them their probability of complications if they got Covid vs adverse events if they got the vaccine, given their sex and age bracket. (Well, not much was known for the first shot, but by the second shot side effects were well known.) Then if they consented they would be administered the vaccine. 80% of the population consented. This is how you do responsible public health communication. As an aside, naming phenomena after priests / politicians like that can't possibly be productive. It's telling the outgroup (people who admire Cain) that they are worthy of contempt instead of addressing their object level concerns and misunderstandings.

seneca 4y ago

Sorry, are you suggesting that people without a college education are too ignorant to make judgements about their own health and that it's therefore ok to lie to them? This sort of high handed paternalism is exactly the attitude that has destroyed faith in institutions.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
matheusmoreira 4y ago
That's exactly what they are suggesting, unfortunately. I was about to reply to another comment but I think it was deleted. I think what I wrote is important enough to post here anyways. > It's obvious the messaging landed on was chosen was to maximize the individual choice to vaccinate as that was reasoned to the best possible outcome for all. This is inducing people to pick the choice you consider correct. This is unethical in the medical profession. Ethical conduct is to present the facts and let the patient decide. You don't "maximize" any outcome, nor do you "reason" about anything on behalf of the patient. To do so means you are prioritizing concerns other than your patient's best interests and once they figure this out you are done. If necessary, you can and must use simpler language to help them understand complex concepts. What you cannot do is decide for them in advance and then misrepresent facts in order to manufacture consent for the intervention you favor.
- 88913527 4y ago
  If people are as indeed as smart as you and your parent commenter say they are, then they will understand there doesn't exist any risk-free medical procedure. Having to remind of them of that fact is the kind of patronizing you both seem to be rallying against, after all. The argument could evolve further to say, the messaging doesn't matter at all, since everyone is smart enough to make their own choice, so why be upset about it? Or, stated in other words, when exactly where they lied to if you claim they're smart enough to dissect the nuance? I guess the ultimate terminus of this discussion is the interpretation of what it means to characterize the vaccine as safe.