2 ms·

> If we put a scale from "totally work" to "don't work at all", the vaccines would be closer to "don't work". The vaccines are highly effective at preventing p

> If we put a scale from "totally work" to "don't work at all", the vaccines would be closer to "don't work". The vaccines are highly effective at preventing people from dying or becoming seriously ill. Which is the entire reason to be afraid of the virus to begin with. "Preventing infection" is only relevant in the context of the consequences of the infection, and muddying the water with discussions about infection probability when the the vaccine is effective at preventing death and hospitalization is a reckless red herring that confuses people. An equivocation of "you can still get sick with the vaccine" with "the vaccines don't work" is exactly the kind of misinformation crap that should be removed from platforms with any kind of responsible moderation.

SV_BubbleTime 3y ago
There are threads over and over here where you still pushing for the mistrusths you were told. I’m not making fun of you. I think you are probably an intelligent person who now is forced to persuade themselves that they weren’t lied to, it was just all messy and complicated. That your authority figures weren’t acting in ignorance or bad faith, most people just didn’t get it. We really are wired for religious tribalism.
- kube-system 3y ago
  I don't know what lie I'd be persuading myself to ignore, since nobody here has provided evidence of one. New information doesn't make old information a lie. The act of distilling nuanced judgment about a complex topic into a recommendation is not a lie. Outsiders on many topics believe things are a lot more black-and-white than they really are. The reality is the scope of discussion in the public sphere is always much more narrow than the scope of discussion among experts. You could point to any public statement ever, in any field, and the internal discussions would be more nuanced than the public statement. This isn't prima facie evidence of lying or scheming. Public statements are inherently not a brain dump of internal discussion. You know how people on this forum and watch the news about a tech topic, and shake their head at how they oversimplify the topics to the point of misunderstanding? That is exactly how public health experts react to people trying to make a fuss about the CDCs response.

SV_BubbleTime 3y ago

There are threads over and over here where you still pushing for the mistrusths you were told. I’m not making fun of you. I think you are probably an intelligent person who now is forced to persuade themselves that they weren’t lied to, it was just all messy and complicated. That your authority figures weren’t acting in ignorance or bad faith, most people just didn’t get it. We really are wired for religious tribalism.

kube-system 3y ago
I don't know what lie I'd be persuading myself to ignore, since nobody here has provided evidence of one. New information doesn't make old information a lie. The act of distilling nuanced judgment about a complex topic into a recommendation is not a lie. Outsiders on many topics believe things are a lot more black-and-white than they really are. The reality is the scope of discussion in the public sphere is always much more narrow than the scope of discussion among experts. You could point to any public statement ever, in any field, and the internal discussions would be more nuanced than the public statement. This isn't prima facie evidence of lying or scheming. Public statements are inherently not a brain dump of internal discussion. You know how people on this forum and watch the news about a tech topic, and shake their head at how they oversimplify the topics to the point of misunderstanding? That is exactly how public health experts react to people trying to make a fuss about the CDCs response.