9 ms·
I wonder if a nasal spray (or a tablet) is enough to make vaccine deniers change their minds. Sometimes you wonder, is all the ridiculousness of their protest
by kepler1 4y ago
I wonder if a nasal spray (or a tablet) is enough to make vaccine deniers change their minds. Sometimes you wonder, is all the ridiculousness of their protest because they're just afraid of needles and injections?
- eastbound 4y agoYou might want to listen to what they say instead of listening to what media says about them. Perhaps you have one in your family. Anyway, so no I don’t care about injections, I care that the same people who obviously lied to us 6 times, are the people who tell us “This time, we’re right, we know what we’re doing.” The show Chernobyl is excellent in demonstrating how each type of personality deals with news in a regime where everything is false, some of them not even having recognized that the communist regime’s output were systematic lies. So what happened to Facebook censoring doctors because they said the virus would behave in waves, and at that time, the theory of waves was a conspiracy, so we shouldn’t have known about it?
- waboremo 4y agoWhat are the 6 lies they told?
- blueyoda 4y ago[flagged]
- waboremo 4y agoAh I understand the problem, nuance is difficult in public. Most of these weren't unanimous arguments by doctors. Masks for example: it's true they are ineffective at preventing most things, you can't put on a mask and be free of disease from others, it's mostly to spread it from you. At the same time, some masks are more effective than others, when most people were buying up cloth masks they didn't want to discourage this by redirecting to more effective masks especially at a time where hospitals were struggling to get those needs met and they were at much higher risk. So you see how something like that, when edited through soundbites and malicious actors, suddenly becomes "they lied about masks"? Now reevaluate the rest of your beliefs about how they "lied" during that time.
- stunk 4y ago[flagged]
- ryandrake 4y agoBy this logic, Newton’s theory of gravity was a lie, and Newton was a liar, because it did not account for relativity. “This is what we think is true right now” is not a lie just because later, new information changes things.
- orangepurple 4y agoNewton's laws held for 200 years and worked just fine for everybody's needs on earth
- Karunamon 4y agoIt is, however, a lie when you demonize and censor those who did so much as mildly disagree about any of it. "You are wrong according to what we know now" can be factual. "You are wrong and deserve to be silenced" is a damnable lie.
- blueyoda 4y agoExactly. They censored a Stanford doctor on Twitter just because he had a different opinion, which is incredibly concerning. It's no longer (and never was, in my opinion) about filtering misinformation - it's about controlling the narrative.
- lern_too_spel 4y agoYou have a strange definition of censorship — excluding somebody from the trending list. You are also speculating about the reason why. He made factually incorrect statements about the vaccine, in addition to stating his poorly reasoned opinions. https://mobile.twitter.com/19joho/status/1463540124407451659 https://mobile.twitter.com/19joho/status/1463540124407451659 Despite your perceived censorship, we all know the Christian fundamentalist Indian-American you're talking about.
- blueyoda 4y agoShadowbanning is a type of censorship. Who defines what is factually incorrect? The lab leak theory was considered "debunked" until recently. Who has the monopoly over what is considered fact and what is considered fiction? I would rather have a platform where people can be wrong rather than one in which a select group of individuals decide what is "true" and what is "false". Likewise, I'm not sure why the ethnicity of the filtered person matters to you?
- themitigating 4y ago"no link to myocarditis" (proved false, especially for young men" What is your definition of a lie? If there wasn't evidence of this when the statement was made then it's true.
- operatingthetan 4y agoRight, there seems to be a great many people out there that don't understand the implications of retrospective analysis of trufthfulness.
- VagueMag 4y agoThe whole "there is no evidence, therefore the link doesn't exist" thing is an obvious grift. Simply never look for side effects (and attribute them to hysteria or anything else besides the shots when they do arise), and it's as though they never existed.
- themitigating 4y agoIs that what happened ? According to whatever it says there's only been about 1000 cases and most recover. You remind me of current conspiracy theorists who now attribute any death via a health condition to the vaccine. Show me evidence they ignored reasonable warnings or didn't move fast enough?
- blueyoda 4y agoIf you're comfortable with that, that is fine, I respect everyone's decisions for their own health. But what about those who do not recover? No one has the right to coerce another person to receive an irreversible medical treatment. Masks can be taken off - nothing against them personally. But can one "un"-vaccinate themselves? And why are people forced to vaccinate when natural immunity has been proven to be at least, if not more effective, than vaccination (from a peer-reviewed study published in the Lancet)? The argument is not whether the vaccine is good or bad. It's about respecting people's right to a choice. Japan did not mandate the COVID vaccine and actively discouraged such an approach. Would you claim they are anti-science? It's also important to consider what the former President of Australia's Medical Association has stated regarding the COVID jab: "the true rate of adverse events is far higher than acknowledged due to underreporting and “threats” from medical regulators"
- rnk 4y agoThese COVID antivaxers are irritating. Like the endless election stealing claims that never have any evidence. And those people are on hackernews too.
- dukeofdoom 4y agoNo meaningful signature check was ever allowed to be done in the disputed states by any judge. So why should the other side trust the results. Let's put it this way, when a real person had to show up and vote in person, the Biden lead completely disappears.
- kennywinker 4y agoThe evidence is there as long as you don’t have to show it in court! Nobody has been able to show it in court. Because it’s not true.
- chihuahua 4y agoIt's Schroedinger evidence - it exists until you have to show it in court.
- dukeofdoom 4y agoSchroedinger signatures! they're real, unless you look at them. That's why courts don't allow people to look at them.
- kennywinker 4y agoYup nobody’s looked at them at all! Oh, wait… no, they’ve been audited and no fraud was found. Nevermind. https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/532042-georgia-signature-audit-finds-no-fraud-in-presidential-election/ https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/532042-georgia-signatu...
- 4y ago
- r00fus 4y agoAre these people in Helsinki the same people who lied to us before?
- themitigating 4y ago[flagged]
- UncleOxidant 4y agoThis isn't a vaccine, but there are nasal vaccines in clinical trial (I think you can already them in India). I suspect that most anivaxxers wouldn't have a problem with this nasal spray because it isn't a vaccine... but I also suspect that most of them will have objections to nasal vaccines because... they're vaccines.
- dukeofdoom 4y ago[flagged]
- blueyoda 4y ago[flagged]
- themitigating 4y agoIt's obvious that if someone is called an "anti vaxxer" in the last two years It's referring to being against the Covid vaccine.
- blueyoda 4y agoThe covid jab is not the only "vaccine" that exists. This is why that term is misleading. It lumps people skeptical about one vaccine into the same category as those who are against all vaccines (which is an absurd position)
- themitigating 4y agoBeing against any vacccine deemed safe by the majority of experts in a field is the same as being against all of them.
- blueyoda 4y agoI don't know many people who are "against" the COVID vaccine. Most I have spoken with agree that those who are at most risk from the disease should take it. They are not concerned with the decisions others make and have never called for the vaccine to be "banned". However, they have declined it for themselves. Hence I would say "Covid-vaxx-decliner" is a more accurate term. Also, would you say that religions that prohibit a certain meat (e.g. pork for Muslims) are "anti-meat"? If I don't like tuna but like haddock, am I anti-fish?
- hanoz 4y ago> Sometimes you wonder, is all the ridiculousness of their protest because they're just afraid of needles and injections? Obviously not, because the vast majority were fully up to date with all the usual established jabs.
- lc9er 4y agoThey probably received most, if not all, as children in the US. That is assuming they’re not getting regular flu shots.
- timcederman 4y agoAnd a significant chunk have decided to start skipping "usual established jabs" for their kids. https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2023/01/12/childhood-vaccination-rates-measles-chickenpox-polio/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2023/01/12/childhood-v...
- SV_BubbleTime 4y agoPerhaps the messaging “for the greater good” and political maneuvering around Covid was a bad idea.
- VagueMag 4y agoOr authorities flatly insisting the vaccines were "safe" in contexts where they had no evidence to support the claim whatsoever.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- dukeofdoom 4y agoGovernment lost the trust of an entire generation of people by trying to force them to do something against their will. What is best for the individual you is not often what is general greater good. It would be for the greater good if you went out and shared a bedroom with the next homeless person you see. It would probably be a terrible decision for you as the risk/reward ratio is probably pretty terrible. Part of what makes the US great, is the fundamental principal that people are given the freedom to act in their own best interest, and that, on balance will produce the greater good for society as a whole. Did people miscalculate the risk/reward by not taking the vaccine? For anyone under 40 the benefits are statistically insignificant for anyone without serious health problems to begin with. And this is why most people stopped at two shots, with time the obvious became apparent to even the ones that were scared and guilted into taking it.
- SV_BubbleTime 4y agoSeems you are fully prepared to fight that specific strawman. I had the vaccine but certainly wouldn’t blame anyone for being hesitant to take a new style of delivery and action (mRNA) that until Covid never once made it past phase three trials. But hey, yea, if we boil it down to “dummies afraid of needles” then we’re all set!
- themitigating 4y agoWhat new style of delivery are you referring to?
- VagueMag 4y agoRather than depositing bits of viral material directly, the mRNA vaccines instruct your own cells to manufacture a viral antigen (the spike protein), one which is now well understood by itself to play a key role in COVID pathology, despite all the initial insistence that it was harmless. This is absolutely a novel style of delivery. Even Dr. Paul Offit, who sat on the committees which voted to give the mRNA shots their emergency use authorizations, has acknowledged that they may in some cases be stimulating an immune response against the body's own healthy cells and tissues.
- kennywinker 4y agohundreds of millions of people vaccinated, an unknowable but definitely large number of lives saved - millions of long covid cases prevented - a handful of people with ongoing health problems from the vaccine. Yup, that tradeoff was worth it and yup i would still describe the mrna vaccine as “harmless”.
- guelo 4y agoIt will depend on if partisan media can successfully associate it with a political attack on the other side.
- phyzome 4y agoProbably true for some of them, yes.