2 ms·

What does pretty good handle mean to you? We obviously know some things - we have various models that are predictive. We seem decent at figuring out if I do X,

What does pretty good handle mean to you? We obviously know some things - we have various models that are predictive. We seem decent at figuring out if I do X, then Y will happen with some frequency. And thats the sort of thing that will sell a drug like hot cakes. We don't seem good at knowing that it doesn't also cause Z, A, B, C, etc, and by the time you figure any of that out, the checks have already been cashed and spent. I don't think lay folks being able to regurgitate some terminology says much. Lay folks could tell you that birds flap their wings long before we had controlled manned flight.

whoisthemachine 3y ago
Maybe I'm not tracking the argument. Are you saying that because we can't completely model the body's response to a drug or immunization through to the body's eventual death, we shouldn't trust it or use it?
- ifyoubuildit 3y ago
  My argument was just that this is weak, nothing more: > This fed into conspiracy theories about it being unsafe because it was rushed but it was nothing more than the culmination of decades of research where fast vaccine turnaround was the entire point. Some people want to count all of the research time that went into mRNA tech as part of its "age" as a technology, like when it was being first tested on mice, or still failing small scale human trials. Others (like me) start the clock at the point when it started being rolled out in people en mass. That has nothing to do with conspiracy theories (everyone's favorite mental shortcut). It has everything to do with not wanting others foisting their risk calculus on my medical decisions. It was somewhat understandable when everyone was being blasted with the propaganda about killing grandma, but we should be clear now that it was never actually appropriate to be trying to force this thing on anyone, and that was one of the bullshit arguments used to do so.
  - whoisthemachine 3y ago
    Ah I see you must have lived (or live) in a country where it or was (or is) legally required to get the vaccine? I would agree then - there's a clear moral hazard with forcing people to get a medical treatment against their will.

whoisthemachine 3y ago

Maybe I'm not tracking the argument. Are you saying that because we can't completely model the body's response to a drug or immunization through to the body's eventual death, we shouldn't trust it or use it?

ifyoubuildit 3y ago
My argument was just that this is weak, nothing more: > This fed into conspiracy theories about it being unsafe because it was rushed but it was nothing more than the culmination of decades of research where fast vaccine turnaround was the entire point. Some people want to count all of the research time that went into mRNA tech as part of its "age" as a technology, like when it was being first tested on mice, or still failing small scale human trials. Others (like me) start the clock at the point when it started being rolled out in people en mass. That has nothing to do with conspiracy theories (everyone's favorite mental shortcut). It has everything to do with not wanting others foisting their risk calculus on my medical decisions. It was somewhat understandable when everyone was being blasted with the propaganda about killing grandma, but we should be clear now that it was never actually appropriate to be trying to force this thing on anyone, and that was one of the bullshit arguments used to do so.
- whoisthemachine 3y ago
  Ah I see you must have lived (or live) in a country where it or was (or is) legally required to get the vaccine? I would agree then - there's a clear moral hazard with forcing people to get a medical treatment against their will.