4 ms·

> why the rush to completely rule out vaccines? Are you kidding? The vaccines are the most politicised issue of the last 10 years. With the left and right wing

> why the rush to completely rule out vaccines? Are you kidding? The vaccines are the most politicised issue of the last 10 years. With the left and right wing media bating their respective audiences with dehumanising terms like 'antivaxxers' and 'face-diaper people', our society became incredibly tribalised on this issue. Whether the vaccines are or are not to blame, good luck getting any social consensus. This is akin to religion now.

bboygravity 4y ago
Yep, more papers isn't going to fix this. This "life saving vaccines are the devil" stuff is indeed just a religion now. Isn't anti-vax generally literally correlated to geographies with more religious people anyway?
- arghnoname 4y ago
  It's more charitable to acknowledge that each 'side' has been pretty 'religious' on this stuff. Fauci made his was onto Christmas ornaments and so on, after all. There were pro-vaccine dance numbers, and people who went to the beach without being vaccinated or masked were harangued. There were people who 'followed the science' on this stuff, which is more contentious on general covid policy than you might think, and then there were people who took whatever position their tribe took and threw venom and hate at the other side.
  - bboygravity 4y ago
    My point was that the issue wasn't the quality or lack of science. There's plenty of papers out there addressing most points people worry about (some come out a bit late, but hey... science takes time to do). The issue is with politics and media, which you seem to agree on since you're talking about "both sides", Fauci, tribes, venom and hate etc. All of which are concepts that aren't (or shouldn't be) relevant when doing virology and other related science. In my view this isn't science versus anti-science, it's just media (sponsored by big money) & politicians (sponsored by big money) v.s. the people. More papers or blaming scientists isn't going to fix any of those issues.
- ajsnigrutin 4y ago
  On the other hand, if you exclude vaccines and not even look at them, you just fuel the other sides arguments. "yes, there is a rise in heart issues in young men recently,..." "did you check if it's not the vaccines?" "it's not the vaccines, we didn't check them at all, but we checked everything else, and it could be gas stoves, red meat and eggs, but we're not sure" I'm vaccinated, but when I got vaccinated, we had four options here in slovenia (J&J, astrazeneca, pfeizer and moderna). Soon after, astrazeneca got cancelled due to causing heart issues in italy and some other places, so we were down to three. Then J&J killed a girl in slovenia, and we stopped using that too. Then moderna stats came out and in many northern european countries it caused a lot of heart issues with young men, and they cancelled it, and we followed... and we were left with pfeizer only.
- mdp2021 4y ago
  > just The poster must mean 'creed' (accepted doctrine), right after '«just»'. But the context is that of distrust - in which that «'just'» is strongly unfit. Not a positive creed but a negative distrust; not an acquired notion but a founded reaction (based on the staggering amount of seen "mess").

bboygravity 4y ago

Yep, more papers isn't going to fix this. This "life saving vaccines are the devil" stuff is indeed just a religion now. Isn't anti-vax generally literally correlated to geographies with more religious people anyway?

arghnoname 4y ago
It's more charitable to acknowledge that each 'side' has been pretty 'religious' on this stuff. Fauci made his was onto Christmas ornaments and so on, after all. There were pro-vaccine dance numbers, and people who went to the beach without being vaccinated or masked were harangued. There were people who 'followed the science' on this stuff, which is more contentious on general covid policy than you might think, and then there were people who took whatever position their tribe took and threw venom and hate at the other side.
- bboygravity 4y ago
  My point was that the issue wasn't the quality or lack of science. There's plenty of papers out there addressing most points people worry about (some come out a bit late, but hey... science takes time to do). The issue is with politics and media, which you seem to agree on since you're talking about "both sides", Fauci, tribes, venom and hate etc. All of which are concepts that aren't (or shouldn't be) relevant when doing virology and other related science. In my view this isn't science versus anti-science, it's just media (sponsored by big money) & politicians (sponsored by big money) v.s. the people. More papers or blaming scientists isn't going to fix any of those issues.
ajsnigrutin 4y ago
On the other hand, if you exclude vaccines and not even look at them, you just fuel the other sides arguments. "yes, there is a rise in heart issues in young men recently,..." "did you check if it's not the vaccines?" "it's not the vaccines, we didn't check them at all, but we checked everything else, and it could be gas stoves, red meat and eggs, but we're not sure" I'm vaccinated, but when I got vaccinated, we had four options here in slovenia (J&J, astrazeneca, pfeizer and moderna). Soon after, astrazeneca got cancelled due to causing heart issues in italy and some other places, so we were down to three. Then J&J killed a girl in slovenia, and we stopped using that too. Then moderna stats came out and in many northern european countries it caused a lot of heart issues with young men, and they cancelled it, and we followed... and we were left with pfeizer only.
mdp2021 4y ago
> just The poster must mean 'creed' (accepted doctrine), right after '«just»'. But the context is that of distrust - in which that «'just'» is strongly unfit. Not a positive creed but a negative distrust; not an acquired notion but a founded reaction (based on the staggering amount of seen "mess").