4 ms·
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 rema
by 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 agois not beneficial =/= need
- fileeditview 3y agoI 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 agoI 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 agoIf 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 agoperhaps 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