7 ms·

I don't yet understand the implications or risk of this, but I'm positive the anti-vaxers will use it to spread their cause.

by tabtab 3y ago

g42gregory 3y ago
If you are not allowed to talk about vaccine's problems, how do you expect to fix them? It's all fun and games until it hits you or someone you know. Yes, anti-vaxers will use it, but so what? We are not supposed to research vaccine safety because of that?
- frognumber 3y ago
  I think you might be reading a subtext that's not there. I agree with OP's comment. I don't see how anyone sane would agree with what you believe it implies. Ironically, if we can't talk about how an article like this one will be used by anti-vaxers, we can't meaningfully address how to minimize that harm either. In either case, what I'd most like to see is a TL;DR / ELI5-level explanation of the article.
  - wddkcs 3y ago
    The best and only way to counter anti-truth is with truth, usually meaning transparency. There are always going to be non-conforming groups, you shouldn't be worried about countering their views explicitly if you're worried about general human wellness. Focus on transparency, and the natural scientific process will do the rest.
    - clipsy 3y ago
      > The best and only way to counter anti-truth is with truth, usually meaning transparency. Is that based on empirical research, or is it a statement of faith?
      - pigeons 3y ago
        It depends on your definition of "best".
        clipsy 3y ago
        I'd settle for empirical research demonstrating it to be a successful strategy.
        wddkcs 3y ago
        You could call it a statement of faith, but I would be very interested in any study showing that suppression of information leads to more factually correct opinions. But of course, if such studies existed, they should be suppressed, in order to lead to the correct opinion regarding the subject. The logic is self defeating. Transparency is required so information can be processed completely. You ask for transparency of sourcing, because the statement 'truth counters anti-truth' is foundational.
      - frognumber 3y ago
        It depends on the definition of "best." Countering anti-truth with truth is clearly the highest-integrity way of operating. My personal experience is that it's also the most effective. I see a lot of countering anti-truth with anti-truth, and people can smell the BS there. At that point, they become distrustful and defensive. For example, before someone lies to an anti-vaxer, it's easy to counter and convince with science and fact. Once someone lies to an anti-vaxer it becomes basically impossible to cross that hump.
chiefalchemist 3y ago
I don't understand how you can admit you don't understand and then immediately square off against X. X being the people asking for transparency, honesty, etc. Put another way, anti-vax is wrong but anti-you-and-rest-of-us is ok? One word for you: FollowTheMoney
- hinkley 3y ago
  Shouting conspiracy isn’t seeking truth. It’s throwing a tantrum to get out of doing something you don’t want to do.
  - chiefalchemist 3y ago
    And calling something a conspiracy theory doesn't make it so simply because someone else told you to do so and you assimilated to that norm simply because you are too intellectually lazy to think thoughts that might make you uncomfortable. Here's an example: "...But so far private companies Pfizer and Moderna are the only ones that have succeeded in making them. And both companies have refused to share their patents and their manufacturing know-how..." https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2022/07/13/1111137152/these-brazilian-besties-are-inventing-an-mrna-vaccine-as-a-gift-to-the-world https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2022/07/13/1111137... Now let that sink in...we were told time and again. It's a pandemic (i.e., worldwide) and that a variation in Country X has the potential to kill *everywhere*. But share the technology? To save lives?? Technology the US taxpayer paid for?? No way! Yeah, no big deal. There weren't that many people living in Brazil anyway. Or what about the fact long term safety was promised...based on what? A time machine? Or what about the fact that it was revealed mid-pandemic that those disposable blue masks weren't capable of filtering out things the size of a virus? (Read: They were effectively *useless*) When out of left field Faucci tried to push wearing two masks? Simple question: How could the CDC and a world renown "expert" *not* know that?? I get it. They've manipulated your scarcity brain and its biases and you can't help but to keep blowing the horn for them. But that doesn't make anything outside the dictacted narrative a conspiracy theory. It never has. It never will. Again: follow the money. p.s. Cardiovascular disease *continues* to kill and maim (i.e., stroke) more than Covid did and does but *no one* from NIH, CDC, WHO, etc. is in the media every other day saying,"Put down the Coke and fries and go for a long walk...". But now that there's a jab for weight reduction maybe that'll happen. Funny how that is. Coincidentally, those with excess weight (and associated medical conditions) fared worse against Covid. At yet the weight/cardiovascular pandemic doesn't get a spotlight? Why?
stormfather 3y ago
The blanket term anti-vaxxer is extremely problematic. There are plenty of legitimate reasons for intelligent people to question the risk-benefit of the coronavirus vaccines without being anti-vaccine in general. They're novel, no long term testing, powerful vested interests, rushed out when society was hysterical, did little to stop transmission, etc. Please stop turning this into more tribal, politicized us vs. them bs.
- isitmadeofglass 3y ago
  [dead]
- hinkley 3y ago
  And do you expect those people to use this information as fodder? Or the idiots?
  - indigo0086 3y ago
    Is the information correct,because of it is a concern to the scientific community it says something about blind trust "pro-vaxxers" have if long term harm is even higher
  - stormfather 3y ago
    I expect different people to use the fact to the limits of their cognitive abilities. And I wouldn't call them all idiots. To me personally, the idiots are the people who don't realize how much propaganda they're being exposed to, and don't realize they've been intentionally trained to conflate doubting one vaccine with doubting all vaccines or science in general.
soultrees 3y ago
You’re honestly doing yourself a disservice by using terminology like that. At the time it was a way to generalize a hysterical population in a hysterical time but nowadays, after science has had its time to do it’s thing, multiple studies have come out that have shown there were additional risks with the vaccine itself, also showing it wasn’t everything they had hyped it up to be, and the fact that it was basically forced upon the population as a doomsday cure - people were right to question what was happening. Now that the dust has settled, people are more willing to come out and say they didn’t take the vaccine or are more honest in their opinions about what happened then, and you would be surprised at the amount of well educated, well respected individuals who decided to wait, or decided to avoid the vaccine but follow all other protocols but were afraid to speak up because of the absolute outrage coming from people who were generalizing everyone as crazy anti-vaxxers. A functioning democracy needs people who question the official line, even just to stir the conversation. A healthy functioning democracy needs the freedom for people to speak up against, or at least question the official line and during COVID times, we didn’t have that. Just remember, this us vs them mentality you have in your mind is all fabricated and depending on which “channel” you were tuned in to, all the news was pointed towards hating the other side more. We could all use a reminder to appreciate our many commonalities and not our few differences of our fellow humans.
- hedora 3y ago
  > multiple studies have come out that have shown there were additional risks with the vaccine itself Citation?
  - pbjtime 3y ago
    You're honestly doing yourself a disservice expecting citations for such obvious helpful information gosh
- brnt 3y ago
  > A functioning democracy needs people who question the official line But that's not what's going on. What's going on is people questioning logic itself. At the time, we just had no better options, based on the knowledge so far. This being uncomfortable is a far cry from questioning the 'official line', it's just choosing to respond to feeling rather than logic, which is problematic. Nobodg felt good about Covid and any of it's solutions. They were merely the least worst. Antivaxxers would do well to understand how logical reasoning works, and stop attributing choice, emotion, officialdom, whatnot, where there is none. It's a classic case of projection: because they think so, doesn't mean it's how everyone thinks. Not doing the logical thing is always inferior thinking and should be recognised as such.

I don't yet understand the implications or risk of this, but I'm positive the anti-vaxers will use it to spread their cause.

by tabtab 3y ago

I don't yet understand the implications or risk of this, but I'm positive the anti-vaxers will use it to spread their cause.

g42gregory 3y ago

If you are not allowed to talk about vaccine's problems, how do you expect to fix them? It's all fun and games until it hits you or someone you know. Yes, anti-vaxers will use it, but so what? We are not supposed to research vaccine safety because of that?

frognumber 3y ago
I think you might be reading a subtext that's not there. I agree with OP's comment. I don't see how anyone sane would agree with what you believe it implies. Ironically, if we can't talk about how an article like this one will be used by anti-vaxers, we can't meaningfully address how to minimize that harm either. In either case, what I'd most like to see is a TL;DR / ELI5-level explanation of the article.
- wddkcs 3y ago
  The best and only way to counter anti-truth is with truth, usually meaning transparency. There are always going to be non-conforming groups, you shouldn't be worried about countering their views explicitly if you're worried about general human wellness. Focus on transparency, and the natural scientific process will do the rest.
  - clipsy 3y ago
    > The best and only way to counter anti-truth is with truth, usually meaning transparency. Is that based on empirical research, or is it a statement of faith?
    - pigeons 3y ago
      It depends on your definition of "best".
      - clipsy 3y ago
        I'd settle for empirical research demonstrating it to be a successful strategy.
        wddkcs 3y ago
        You could call it a statement of faith, but I would be very interested in any study showing that suppression of information leads to more factually correct opinions. But of course, if such studies existed, they should be suppressed, in order to lead to the correct opinion regarding the subject. The logic is self defeating. Transparency is required so information can be processed completely. You ask for transparency of sourcing, because the statement 'truth counters anti-truth' is foundational.
    - frognumber 3y ago
      It depends on the definition of "best." Countering anti-truth with truth is clearly the highest-integrity way of operating. My personal experience is that it's also the most effective. I see a lot of countering anti-truth with anti-truth, and people can smell the BS there. At that point, they become distrustful and defensive. For example, before someone lies to an anti-vaxer, it's easy to counter and convince with science and fact. Once someone lies to an anti-vaxer it becomes basically impossible to cross that hump.

chiefalchemist 3y ago

I don't understand how you can admit you don't understand and then immediately square off against X. X being the people asking for transparency, honesty, etc. Put another way, anti-vax is wrong but anti-you-and-rest-of-us is ok? One word for you: FollowTheMoney

hinkley 3y ago
Shouting conspiracy isn’t seeking truth. It’s throwing a tantrum to get out of doing something you don’t want to do.
- chiefalchemist 3y ago
  And calling something a conspiracy theory doesn't make it so simply because someone else told you to do so and you assimilated to that norm simply because you are too intellectually lazy to think thoughts that might make you uncomfortable. Here's an example: "...But so far private companies Pfizer and Moderna are the only ones that have succeeded in making them. And both companies have refused to share their patents and their manufacturing know-how..." https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2022/07/13/1111137152/these-brazilian-besties-are-inventing-an-mrna-vaccine-as-a-gift-to-the-world https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2022/07/13/1111137... Now let that sink in...we were told time and again. It's a pandemic (i.e., worldwide) and that a variation in Country X has the potential to kill *everywhere*. But share the technology? To save lives?? Technology the US taxpayer paid for?? No way! Yeah, no big deal. There weren't that many people living in Brazil anyway. Or what about the fact long term safety was promised...based on what? A time machine? Or what about the fact that it was revealed mid-pandemic that those disposable blue masks weren't capable of filtering out things the size of a virus? (Read: They were effectively *useless*) When out of left field Faucci tried to push wearing two masks? Simple question: How could the CDC and a world renown "expert" *not* know that?? I get it. They've manipulated your scarcity brain and its biases and you can't help but to keep blowing the horn for them. But that doesn't make anything outside the dictacted narrative a conspiracy theory. It never has. It never will. Again: follow the money. p.s. Cardiovascular disease *continues* to kill and maim (i.e., stroke) more than Covid did and does but *no one* from NIH, CDC, WHO, etc. is in the media every other day saying,"Put down the Coke and fries and go for a long walk...". But now that there's a jab for weight reduction maybe that'll happen. Funny how that is. Coincidentally, those with excess weight (and associated medical conditions) fared worse against Covid. At yet the weight/cardiovascular pandemic doesn't get a spotlight? Why?

stormfather 3y ago

The blanket term anti-vaxxer is extremely problematic. There are plenty of legitimate reasons for intelligent people to question the risk-benefit of the coronavirus vaccines without being anti-vaccine in general. They're novel, no long term testing, powerful vested interests, rushed out when society was hysterical, did little to stop transmission, etc. Please stop turning this into more tribal, politicized us vs. them bs.

isitmadeofglass 3y ago
[dead]
hinkley 3y ago
And do you expect those people to use this information as fodder? Or the idiots?
- indigo0086 3y ago
  Is the information correct,because of it is a concern to the scientific community it says something about blind trust "pro-vaxxers" have if long term harm is even higher
- stormfather 3y ago
  I expect different people to use the fact to the limits of their cognitive abilities. And I wouldn't call them all idiots. To me personally, the idiots are the people who don't realize how much propaganda they're being exposed to, and don't realize they've been intentionally trained to conflate doubting one vaccine with doubting all vaccines or science in general.

soultrees 3y ago

You’re honestly doing yourself a disservice by using terminology like that. At the time it was a way to generalize a hysterical population in a hysterical time but nowadays, after science has had its time to do it’s thing, multiple studies have come out that have shown there were additional risks with the vaccine itself, also showing it wasn’t everything they had hyped it up to be, and the fact that it was basically forced upon the population as a doomsday cure - people were right to question what was happening. Now that the dust has settled, people are more willing to come out and say they didn’t take the vaccine or are more honest in their opinions about what happened then, and you would be surprised at the amount of well educated, well respected individuals who decided to wait, or decided to avoid the vaccine but follow all other protocols but were afraid to speak up because of the absolute outrage coming from people who were generalizing everyone as crazy anti-vaxxers. A functioning democracy needs people who question the official line, even just to stir the conversation. A healthy functioning democracy needs the freedom for people to speak up against, or at least question the official line and during COVID times, we didn’t have that. Just remember, this us vs them mentality you have in your mind is all fabricated and depending on which “channel” you were tuned in to, all the news was pointed towards hating the other side more. We could all use a reminder to appreciate our many commonalities and not our few differences of our fellow humans.

hedora 3y ago
> multiple studies have come out that have shown there were additional risks with the vaccine itself Citation?
- pbjtime 3y ago
  You're honestly doing yourself a disservice expecting citations for such obvious helpful information gosh
brnt 3y ago
> A functioning democracy needs people who question the official line But that's not what's going on. What's going on is people questioning logic itself. At the time, we just had no better options, based on the knowledge so far. This being uncomfortable is a far cry from questioning the 'official line', it's just choosing to respond to feeling rather than logic, which is problematic. Nobodg felt good about Covid and any of it's solutions. They were merely the least worst. Antivaxxers would do well to understand how logical reasoning works, and stop attributing choice, emotion, officialdom, whatnot, where there is none. It's a classic case of projection: because they think so, doesn't mean it's how everyone thinks. Not doing the logical thing is always inferior thinking and should be recognised as such.