3 ms·

You can keep adding all the conditionals you want, the majority of under-60 people will more likely than not fall in the "no real need to take it" bucket. This

You can keep adding all the conditionals you want, the majority of under-60 people will more likely than not fall in the "no real need to take it" bucket. This "those not taking are showing lack of empathy" carries a significant emotional blackmailing tone, and ends up making those on the fence less likely to join your side and it's frankly quite off-putting. It makes you sound like you are just parroting sound bites that you like instead of properly evaluating the information you receive and deciding accordingly. It's the opposite of critical thinking and just as dumb as those believing that taking horse dewormer is a good alternative treatment.

Retric 2y ago
You’re the one that said “The one that no doctor recommends you to take it unless you are over 60?” Obviously each of those exceptions means doctors are recommending someone get the shot before 60. The flue shot is also highly recommended for people at higher risk of getting infected like Teachers. A vaccine is simply less harmful than the flue even for healthy people. So unless the odds of inflection are low it’s considered a good idea.
- rglullis 2y ago
  The exceptions are exceptions. The general rule for recommendation is age/immunocompromised people. Post-hoc rationalization bogs me to no end. If you feel good about taking it, fine. But why keeping this idea that anyone who declined it is automatically a brainless moron?
  - Retric 2y ago
    If you don’t want to be called out for saying things that are wrong, either learn something or keep quiet. Complaining about it just makes you look worse.
    - rglullis 2y ago
      Are you saying I'm wrong solely because I used hyperbole? Because it takes a fantastic level of pedantry to take my original comment literally. > learn something or keep quiet What I learned, by talking with multiple doctors, is that I shouldn't worry about getting the vaccine until I am in my sixties.
      - Retric 2y ago
        > What I learned, by talking with multiple doctors, is that I shouldn't worry about getting the vaccine until I am in my sixties. Which is the root of your mistake. ~97% of Doctors get the flue vaccine, more than just about any other group. What’s relevant medical advice for you isn’t always generalizable. You may be the unusual exception.
        rglullis 2y ago
        Apples and Oranges? Doctors deal with sick people. Yes, perfectly rational to take one action while not blindly recommending it to the public at large. I don't know what you are trying to argue with this statistic, but it surely does not invalidate my original point.
        Retric 2y ago
        > not blindly recommending it to the public at large What about a 1 on 1 consultation with a doctor makes you think the advice they give you is a blind recommendation? The general advice knowing nothing about you is to get the flue shot. A doctor looking at you can tell if your BMI is over 40, but a poster/website etc can’t. Thus the default is to recommend everyone get a flue shot while a Doctor may say you specifically have little need.
        rglullis 2y ago
        > The general advice knowing nothing about you is to get the flue shot. A doctor looking at you can tell if your BMI is over 40... The general advice should be for people that are otherwise healthy, or be very specific about the risk factors being considered for the average case. Someone with a a BMI of 40 should be worrying over a whole lot of other things beyond the flu, and conversely it makes no sense to advise overall healthy people to be taking any type of drugs just because the risk is not that high. Granted, this calculus changes with infectious diseases with high fatality rates. This is why it's absolutely sensible to recommend everyone to be vaccinated for measles (1-2% IFR) and polio (5% IFR for kids, 20+% IFR for teenagers), but questionable to apply the same logic to something like influenza which is 100 to 1000 less fatal (0.01% IFR) and when fatality rate is highly concentrated (75%) on 65+ people.
soco 2y ago
The tactics of accusing the other party of something then practicing same said thing themselves is a characteristic of a certain party, which incidentally also generally frowns upon vaccines or anything with a "social" angle. Just my impression.
- rglullis 2y ago
  Yay, keep the argument based on this binary red vs blue mentality. It has has done wonders to civic debate in the last 20 years, and this "with us or against us" tribal thinking pairs perfectly with your call for more empathy, don't you think?

Retric 2y ago

You’re the one that said “The one that no doctor recommends you to take it unless you are over 60?” Obviously each of those exceptions means doctors are recommending someone get the shot before 60. The flue shot is also highly recommended for people at higher risk of getting infected like Teachers. A vaccine is simply less harmful than the flue even for healthy people. So unless the odds of inflection are low it’s considered a good idea.

rglullis 2y ago
The exceptions are exceptions. The general rule for recommendation is age/immunocompromised people. Post-hoc rationalization bogs me to no end. If you feel good about taking it, fine. But why keeping this idea that anyone who declined it is automatically a brainless moron?
- Retric 2y ago
  If you don’t want to be called out for saying things that are wrong, either learn something or keep quiet. Complaining about it just makes you look worse.
  - rglullis 2y ago
    Are you saying I'm wrong solely because I used hyperbole? Because it takes a fantastic level of pedantry to take my original comment literally. > learn something or keep quiet What I learned, by talking with multiple doctors, is that I shouldn't worry about getting the vaccine until I am in my sixties.
    - Retric 2y ago
      > What I learned, by talking with multiple doctors, is that I shouldn't worry about getting the vaccine until I am in my sixties. Which is the root of your mistake. ~97% of Doctors get the flue vaccine, more than just about any other group. What’s relevant medical advice for you isn’t always generalizable. You may be the unusual exception.
      - rglullis 2y ago
        Apples and Oranges? Doctors deal with sick people. Yes, perfectly rational to take one action while not blindly recommending it to the public at large. I don't know what you are trying to argue with this statistic, but it surely does not invalidate my original point.
        Retric 2y ago
        > not blindly recommending it to the public at large What about a 1 on 1 consultation with a doctor makes you think the advice they give you is a blind recommendation? The general advice knowing nothing about you is to get the flue shot. A doctor looking at you can tell if your BMI is over 40, but a poster/website etc can’t. Thus the default is to recommend everyone get a flue shot while a Doctor may say you specifically have little need.
        rglullis 2y ago
        > The general advice knowing nothing about you is to get the flue shot. A doctor looking at you can tell if your BMI is over 40... The general advice should be for people that are otherwise healthy, or be very specific about the risk factors being considered for the average case. Someone with a a BMI of 40 should be worrying over a whole lot of other things beyond the flu, and conversely it makes no sense to advise overall healthy people to be taking any type of drugs just because the risk is not that high. Granted, this calculus changes with infectious diseases with high fatality rates. This is why it's absolutely sensible to recommend everyone to be vaccinated for measles (1-2% IFR) and polio (5% IFR for kids, 20+% IFR for teenagers), but questionable to apply the same logic to something like influenza which is 100 to 1000 less fatal (0.01% IFR) and when fatality rate is highly concentrated (75%) on 65+ people.

soco 2y ago

The tactics of accusing the other party of something then practicing same said thing themselves is a characteristic of a certain party, which incidentally also generally frowns upon vaccines or anything with a "social" angle. Just my impression.

rglullis 2y ago
Yay, keep the argument based on this binary red vs blue mentality. It has has done wonders to civic debate in the last 20 years, and this "with us or against us" tribal thinking pairs perfectly with your call for more empathy, don't you think?