5 ms·

> it won't have much benefit for people who are healthy and have immunity from previous This doesn't mean it's harmful does it? That said I wonder what the pu

> it won't have much benefit for people who are healthy and have immunity from previous This doesn't mean it's harmful does it? That said I wonder what the public health officials are trying to achieve here. Are they trying to encourage the largest number of people to be vaccinated, in the hole of slowing down the transmission? Or are they trying to just use a non-nuanced language ("everyone") in order to convey authority and avoid accidentally seeding doubt? Because if it's the latter, I don't think that works with the present generation. The more you push things the less people trust you. I guess things were different 80 years ago or so, but today people have lost trust in buricracy and totally trust the first lunatic they can find online. Is it hopeless?

rewmie 3y ago
> This doesn't mean it's harmful does it? Do you actually have any concrete evidence suggesting any specific vaccine is harmful? We're a few years in the covid pandemic. There should be real-world data by now that supports your claims. Where is it?
- ithkuil 3y ago
  Just for clarity I didn't say it's harmful. Quite the contrary. I was replying to a claim where a doctor said that it didn't benefit _much_ to people who are healthy and had already had COVID in the past. I think that quote was taken to imply that the doctor said these people should not be vaccinated. I said that that one doctor didn't actually say that the vaccine was harmful.
- Grum9 3y ago
  [dead]
fileeditview 3y ago
There is no effect without side effect in meds. If you don't need a med you should not take it because if it is not beneficial for you, only potential harm remains. So as usual advising everyone to take a med is just plain stupid or even worse. And doubting officials doesn't make you a lunatic. There are plenty examples where the official standing was just plain bullshit to put it mildly.
- basch 3y ago
  is not beneficial =/= need
  - fileeditview 3y ago
    I think you got the meaning of what I was saying. No point in pedantry about words. To be clear: here not needing means that it won't be beneficial in a meaningful way.
    - ithkuil 3y ago
      I think it's also important to understand to whom it is beneficial. If it doesn't harm, perhaps it's worth still participating in something for the collective good. I know you Americans don't often reason that way. That said, one could question whether vaccinating healthy people will indeed lower the transmission speed qnd thus be q collective good. But I often hear people just considering what's good for them as individuals as if that was all what matters
    - basch 3y ago
      If the difference is getting sick or getting a little less sick, I would say I could benefit slightly but don’t need it.
      - ithkuil 3y ago
        perhaps if you get a bit less sick, you may be less likely to infect other people who are not as blessed as you are with perfect health. EDIT: just to make clear, I'm not advocating for compulsory vaccinating people who don't want to; just trying to offer a different POV so people can choose to behave in a selfish way while fully understanding that they are indeed acting in a selfish way, benefiting from a functioning society and choosing to not give back even if it doesn't cost much

rewmie 3y ago

> This doesn't mean it's harmful does it? Do you actually have any concrete evidence suggesting any specific vaccine is harmful? We're a few years in the covid pandemic. There should be real-world data by now that supports your claims. Where is it?

ithkuil 3y ago
Just for clarity I didn't say it's harmful. Quite the contrary. I was replying to a claim where a doctor said that it didn't benefit _much_ to people who are healthy and had already had COVID in the past. I think that quote was taken to imply that the doctor said these people should not be vaccinated. I said that that one doctor didn't actually say that the vaccine was harmful.
Grum9 3y ago
[dead]

fileeditview 3y ago

There is no effect without side effect in meds. If you don't need a med you should not take it because if it is not beneficial for you, only potential harm remains. So as usual advising everyone to take a med is just plain stupid or even worse. And doubting officials doesn't make you a lunatic. There are plenty examples where the official standing was just plain bullshit to put it mildly.

basch 3y ago
is not beneficial =/= need
- fileeditview 3y ago
  I think you got the meaning of what I was saying. No point in pedantry about words. To be clear: here not needing means that it won't be beneficial in a meaningful way.
  - ithkuil 3y ago
    I think it's also important to understand to whom it is beneficial. If it doesn't harm, perhaps it's worth still participating in something for the collective good. I know you Americans don't often reason that way. That said, one could question whether vaccinating healthy people will indeed lower the transmission speed qnd thus be q collective good. But I often hear people just considering what's good for them as individuals as if that was all what matters
  - basch 3y ago
    If the difference is getting sick or getting a little less sick, I would say I could benefit slightly but don’t need it.
    - ithkuil 3y ago
      perhaps if you get a bit less sick, you may be less likely to infect other people who are not as blessed as you are with perfect health. EDIT: just to make clear, I'm not advocating for compulsory vaccinating people who don't want to; just trying to offer a different POV so people can choose to behave in a selfish way while fully understanding that they are indeed acting in a selfish way, benefiting from a functioning society and choosing to not give back even if it doesn't cost much