5 ms·

So much misinformation here.. > Perhaps the only reason why flu is harmless is because we don't fight it? The flu has been fought with vaccines for decades.

• unshavedyak 4y ago
  > It's sad to dismiss something because it doesn't benefit "me", without considering how it may benefit "us" as a community. Really seems a problem with many areas of modern society.
  • fnordpiglet 4y ago
    I’d note this isn’t a modern concept. Selfishness evolved when our mutated giant brain dna expressed itself and has been poisoning us all since.
    • SamPatt 4y ago
      Pursuing self interest isn't poison. There are many examples in history (and in our modern world) where doing the "selfless" thing is just manipulation for serving someone else's interests first. Religious leaders maintained power over society for ages by determining what was selfish behavior. We likely cannot agree on a rule which always properly distinguishes between pursuing self interest for survival's sake versus crossing the line into harming others. Since we are forced to inhabit the same world, it's best to not disparage others for pursuing their own self interest as long as they aren't hurting you directly.
      • di456 4y ago
        "Poison" is hyperbole but I read it as ego. Coming from an exclusively ego-centric place generally doesn't lead to the best outcomes in life. Unchecked ego is part of narcissism spectrum. We all have some of it. Extreme narcissism is a cancer in modern culture. Maybe that's what OP meant by poison.
        • fnordpiglet 4y ago
          The poison I meant is the difference between communal animals and human society. The root of why we are so noxious and odious a beast is the self, and a lack of realization the self doesn’t exist as it’s impermanent and ever changing. But I give away my doctrine here :-)
          • di456 4y ago
            I appreciate the perspective. If the self doesn't exist outside of our consciousness, while also being the most important and valued thing, it is quite the paradox of independence. Human society has a wide variety of cultural norms around this too. Being banished from the group into the wilderness was a death sentence in recent human history. It kept people in check and helped with survival of the group. Now we have instant access to life's needs and wants to the point where we take each other for granted. Our independent spirit can be a curse if taken too far. It's part of our DNA to need each other. For example a newborn can die if unheld for too long.
      • fnordpiglet 4y ago
        The motivating example here was the statement of “I’m not going to be hurt by disease X so I will do nothing to prevent harm to others who are impacted by the diseases spread.” This isn’t self interest. This is selfishness. They gain nothing by helping others than avoiding minor inconveniences. I would also note that major religions revolve on explaining the differences and providing a vantage for judging the boundaries between self interest and selfishness. The fact some selfish people exploit the ambiguities, or even the inefficiencies of selflessness does not obviate in any way the teaching of the religion. Just demonstrates that pursuing a selfless life doesn’t imply lack of critical thought.
• generalizations 4y ago
  > One is preventative, other is for acute care Nit: this difference has nothing to do with antimicrobial resistance. If you're concerned about misinformation, at least get your facts right.
  • Eldt 4y ago
    When did they make such a claim? Seems you are misinterpreting (or misrepresenting)
    • generalizations 4y ago
      >>>> antibiotic resistance issues we are facing due to dishing out antibiotics left and right >>> Vaccines and antibiotics are two completely different things. One is preventative, other is for acute care of a bacterial infection. >> this difference [preventative vs acute care] has nothing to do with antimicrobial resistance > When did they make such a claim? Right there in the parent comment. Ctrl-F might help?
  • spywaregorilla 4y ago
    The statement appears to have been that use of vaccines will contribute to antibiotic resistance, and the counterpoint being that vaccines are not antibiotics and thus irrelevant. What is incorrect about this?
    • generalizations 4y ago
      The orignal statement was actually "antibiotic resistance issues we are facing due to dishing out antibiotics left and right", which is pretty clearly not "use of vaccines will contribute to antibiotic resistance".
      • spywaregorilla 4y ago
        But that is the point being made. These two are not similar. Antibiotics are a general purpose thing. Using them on trivial cases can increase antibiotic resistance which is bad for the cases where we really need antibiotics. Vaccines are specific. You can't accrue "vaccine resistance" as a catch all thing by applying vaccines to everyone. You may create pressure for a virus to work around specific vaccines, but the only risk is that we will need to adjust the vaccine. Unlike with antibiotics where we really just need to try and find a new alternative.
• lynx23 4y ago
  Thats what happens if you overpressure people. I can definitely say that since the pandemic, and especially the hardcore propaganda during the first few waves, I can feel a distinct revoltion when someone pulls the "it is for the good of others" card. I can only watch my own gut reactions. No, thanks, I am not going to take medicine with questionable test status for "us". Maybe I might have without that hardcore pressure, but I will never forget the media running wild. I know I should feel differently, but I dont. I am through with "us".
  • jeromegv 4y ago
    Okay. But what you say has nothing to do with the scientific value and benefits. It’s just your gut feelings. You are free to feel that of course, to each their own
    • lynx23 4y ago
      I think the time of "blindly trusting science" is actually over. Also, invoking science and the statistical benefits of a effectively-forced medical intervention isn't really helping to rebuild trust. Dont get me wrong, I love science. Science alone. Without the media, uninformed journalists, and all the yada yada. I dont trust these people anymore to communicate facts without distoring them. Also, I work at a university, so I actually know that not every scientist is actually a genius. So, knowing that media distort information, and knowing that scientists have to publish, no matter what, does not help build trust in scientific data used to pressure people into compliance. IOW, there are two kind of science. There is the science we have learnt to depend on. And then there is reality, liars and media.
  • di456 4y ago
    I totally get that. The COVID vaccines were marketed as our hope for the end of the pandemic. But people with vaccines kept getting sick afterwards. There was definitely an overpromise and the messaging throughout the pandemic seemed completely "make it up as you go." At the same time there was and still is hardcore political propaganda to divide us into "us" and "them" camps on topics like this. It makes everyone on both sides more easily controlled and manipulated. Being through with "us" puts you into the "them" camp and your decision is equally shaped by the other side of the same propaganda. Are you really looking out for "me" or serving someone else's agenda just the way they want you to? One can decide to skip vaccines and still watch out for their neighbors, they aren't mutually exclusive. Camus' book The Rebel is a fascinating read on the topic. This quote stuck with me over the years: "Every revolutionary ends by becoming either an oppressor or a heretic. In the purely historical universe that they have chosen, rebellion and revolution end in the same dilemma: either police rule or insanity."