4 ms·

To the contrary, people are more skeptical of vaccines than ever, leading to a drop even in proven childhood vaccinations.

hedora 3y ago
There are more anti-vaxxers, but also more people that are strongly pro-vaccine. The latter group is more likely to be involved in vaccine approval processes.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- yonaguska 3y ago
  > The latter group is more likely to be involved in vaccine approval processes. I'd rather have skeptics involved in high risk approvals.
  - SideburnsOfDoom 3y ago
    "anti-vaxxers" are not rational sceptics of the kind needed in approval processes.
    - yonaguska 3y ago
      My point is that someone that is strongly pro-vaccine is more harmful than not. I'd rather have someone that is just going to be unbiased and stick the scientific method. When you are doing something risky, the risk averse opinion, even if misguided, is far more safe than the the person who's vision is clouded by their preferences. of additional note, 2 FDA officials resigned during the votes on approving booster shots. They were simply replaced, and their concerns were moot. They were hardly anti-vaxxers.
      - SideburnsOfDoom 3y ago
        > someone that is strongly pro-vaccine is more harmful than not. You make it sound like " someone that is strongly pro-vaccine" is like the supporter of a football team or a "my country right or wrong" person, and therefor "harmful", rather than someone who has reached a decision based on weight of evidence. And I do not see that as accurate at all. In fact it is harmful.
        yonaguska 3y ago
        The original commenter made to comparison of anti-vaxxer vs strongly pro-vaccine, to me, that kind of comparison elicits both extremes of the spectrum. But putting that aside, since I don't think it's a productive discussion- I'm simply pro zero bias. The only bias that should exist is a bias towards non-intervention over interventions. This used to be the standard for evaluating any medicine or vaccine. Or any medical procedure in general. The real important bias issue that I see with the FDA doesn't have so much to do with vaccines specifically, but more with the incestuous relationship between FDA and Pharmaceutical companies, with there being a revolving door of blurry incentives. There's a long running issue of FDA officials, after approving various drugs and treatments for big pharma...then promoting into a big fat salary with a pharmaceutical company. I'm not sure what the solution is, as it makes logical sense that someone at the FDA would share the same skillsets as a big pharma exec, but- the only solution I can think of is to ensure that there are always skeptics on approval boards.
        SideburnsOfDoom 3y ago
        Looking at this from outside the USA, the emphasis that you place on the USA's FDA in calling the shots seems parochial and misplaced. And a bit conspiratorial. I do not take your claim of "zero bias" seriously while you make comments about "covid vaccine injured and damaged people" - sic. I do not take your claims about "bias towards non-intervention" seriously when you cannot mention the far higher incidence of heart issues etc that results from deliberate withholding of vaccinations. > ensure that there are always skeptics on approval boards. I think that the issue is still that there is more than one definition of "skeptics" and as said above, the anti-vaxxer ideologues simply do not think things through well enough to be of any benefit. See your non-serious claims above.

hedora 3y ago

There are more anti-vaxxers, but also more people that are strongly pro-vaccine. The latter group is more likely to be involved in vaccine approval processes.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
yonaguska 3y ago
> The latter group is more likely to be involved in vaccine approval processes. I'd rather have skeptics involved in high risk approvals.
- SideburnsOfDoom 3y ago
  "anti-vaxxers" are not rational sceptics of the kind needed in approval processes.
  - yonaguska 3y ago
    My point is that someone that is strongly pro-vaccine is more harmful than not. I'd rather have someone that is just going to be unbiased and stick the scientific method. When you are doing something risky, the risk averse opinion, even if misguided, is far more safe than the the person who's vision is clouded by their preferences. of additional note, 2 FDA officials resigned during the votes on approving booster shots. They were simply replaced, and their concerns were moot. They were hardly anti-vaxxers.
    - SideburnsOfDoom 3y ago
      > someone that is strongly pro-vaccine is more harmful than not. You make it sound like " someone that is strongly pro-vaccine" is like the supporter of a football team or a "my country right or wrong" person, and therefor "harmful", rather than someone who has reached a decision based on weight of evidence. And I do not see that as accurate at all. In fact it is harmful.
      - yonaguska 3y ago
        The original commenter made to comparison of anti-vaxxer vs strongly pro-vaccine, to me, that kind of comparison elicits both extremes of the spectrum. But putting that aside, since I don't think it's a productive discussion- I'm simply pro zero bias. The only bias that should exist is a bias towards non-intervention over interventions. This used to be the standard for evaluating any medicine or vaccine. Or any medical procedure in general. The real important bias issue that I see with the FDA doesn't have so much to do with vaccines specifically, but more with the incestuous relationship between FDA and Pharmaceutical companies, with there being a revolving door of blurry incentives. There's a long running issue of FDA officials, after approving various drugs and treatments for big pharma...then promoting into a big fat salary with a pharmaceutical company. I'm not sure what the solution is, as it makes logical sense that someone at the FDA would share the same skillsets as a big pharma exec, but- the only solution I can think of is to ensure that there are always skeptics on approval boards.
        SideburnsOfDoom 3y ago
        Looking at this from outside the USA, the emphasis that you place on the USA's FDA in calling the shots seems parochial and misplaced. And a bit conspiratorial. I do not take your claim of "zero bias" seriously while you make comments about "covid vaccine injured and damaged people" - sic. I do not take your claims about "bias towards non-intervention" seriously when you cannot mention the far higher incidence of heart issues etc that results from deliberate withholding of vaccinations. > ensure that there are always skeptics on approval boards. I think that the issue is still that there is more than one definition of "skeptics" and as said above, the anti-vaxxer ideologues simply do not think things through well enough to be of any benefit. See your non-serious claims above.