4 ms·
There is steelmanning an argument, and then there is completely changing it. There is a world of difference between having your healthcare provider tell you "t
by carbocation 3y ago
There is steelmanning an argument, and then there is completely changing it.
There is a world of difference between having your healthcare provider tell you "the flu vaccine has to be made in advance and often targets the wrong strain, so can therefore be ineffective even the majority of the time" vs calling the vaccine putting "junk in [your] body".
- vasco 3y agoI'm not sure what was so wrong about the reply, the person I replied to said it should be a fireable offense to "not believe in the efficacy of vaccines" but the specific vaccines they were talking about have around 40-60% efficacy vs 97%+ for other types. Maybe I'd agree that they could be fired / reprimanded for addressing such topics without more rigor (and not call them junk), but the specific point I addressed I think wasn't "changing the point".
- toomuchtodo 3y agoWords matter. If you tell an unsophisticated healthcare consumer a vaccine is junk, you should be fired. If you provide efficacy around different types or classes of vaccines and allow the healthcare consumer to make an informed decision, that is reasonable. It is about the information delivered and its delivery in significant matters. Tangentially, there is no value in arguing with antivaxxers or conspiracy theorists. You might as well attempt to talk them out of their religion. Effort better spent elsewhere. Regardless, informed consent must be mandatory in a healthcare or medical setting, so the patient can make a choice with all available information. I am not arguing choice in this subthread. I’m also not willing to argue vaccine safety data or statistics.