4 ms·

I am genuinely curious - the goofy language is to mask the (possibly misdirected) immense concern. If I am wrong, and all these goons I perceive as sinners are

by Fezzik 2y ago

I am genuinely curious - the goofy language is to mask the (possibly misdirected) immense concern. If I am wrong, and all these goons I perceive as sinners are in fact saints, I would truly love to hear the recitation of facts that expels me of my delusion.

refurb 2y ago
If you’re looking for sinners and saints I don’t think you’re going to find it. If I were to summarize the disagreement in the most neutral terms, it’s the risk vs benefit of vaccines. And like all risk vs benefit choices, it comes down to a choice - there is no one right answer, it’s a value judgement. I work in the industry so see this all the time - someone makes the call “we have enough data to confidently say X”. People disagree all the time over this. You can always get more data to be more sure, but at some point you start wasting your time. I’d say the argument from the RFK side is we don’t know enough about the safety of certain vaccines to make the risk vs benefit argument of mandatory vaccination. The same argument for food additives like red dye. Marks likely disagrees - as is evident from him overruling 3 different teams on Elevidys - a drug that failed phase 3 yet Mark’s decided the risk vs benefit was good enough for FDA approval. And before anyone says “yeah but look at the kooky things that side says”, you can do that for any argument. Even the pro-vaccine side says untrue things but that doesn’t mean the core argument doesn’t have validity.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- tzs 2y ago
  The difference is that one side is data driven and one is not. Consider the measles vaccine. In the last 60 years in the US around 200 million people have been vaccinated with it. That has generated a lot of data on its safety and effectiveness. And not just short term safety--we've got plenty of data from people who were vaccinated in childhood and are now retired so we've got good data on long term safety too. This data overwhelmingly says that is is extremely safe and effective. The RFK Jr side has no statistically significant data to counter that, yet they still say it is not safe or not effective.
  - refurb 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - elktown 2y ago
      11 questions, impressive Sealioning.
      - refurb 2y ago
        If you’re not interested in an actual discussion just be upfront about it and save both ourselves the time. I didn’t make the claim, so asking what backs up that claim is called “discussion”. If you’re more interested in shouting people down, then maybe HN isn’t for you.
        elktown 2y ago
        [flagged]
        refurb 2y ago
        > I can be, but not with an obviously dishonest user like yourself. Dishonest how? By holding views you disagree with? I’ve engaged on a good faith effort so far and your first response was to act like my questions were some nefarious action. I’m not sure one can actually discussion complex topics without questions. Then when I respond nicely you come back to tell me to “fuck off”. I’m not sure what set you off, but I don’t think any of it is deserved.
        elktown 2y ago
        > It doesn't require a sociology degree to pattern-match your comment history. ^^^^ > Then when I respond nicely you come back to tell me to “fuck off”. I did not.
        2y ago

by Fezzik 2y ago

refurb 2y ago

If you’re looking for sinners and saints I don’t think you’re going to find it. If I were to summarize the disagreement in the most neutral terms, it’s the risk vs benefit of vaccines. And like all risk vs benefit choices, it comes down to a choice - there is no one right answer, it’s a value judgement. I work in the industry so see this all the time - someone makes the call “we have enough data to confidently say X”. People disagree all the time over this. You can always get more data to be more sure, but at some point you start wasting your time. I’d say the argument from the RFK side is we don’t know enough about the safety of certain vaccines to make the risk vs benefit argument of mandatory vaccination. The same argument for food additives like red dye. Marks likely disagrees - as is evident from him overruling 3 different teams on Elevidys - a drug that failed phase 3 yet Mark’s decided the risk vs benefit was good enough for FDA approval. And before anyone says “yeah but look at the kooky things that side says”, you can do that for any argument. Even the pro-vaccine side says untrue things but that doesn’t mean the core argument doesn’t have validity.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
tzs 2y ago
The difference is that one side is data driven and one is not. Consider the measles vaccine. In the last 60 years in the US around 200 million people have been vaccinated with it. That has generated a lot of data on its safety and effectiveness. And not just short term safety--we've got plenty of data from people who were vaccinated in childhood and are now retired so we've got good data on long term safety too. This data overwhelmingly says that is is extremely safe and effective. The RFK Jr side has no statistically significant data to counter that, yet they still say it is not safe or not effective.
- refurb 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - elktown 2y ago
    11 questions, impressive Sealioning.
    - refurb 2y ago
      If you’re not interested in an actual discussion just be upfront about it and save both ourselves the time. I didn’t make the claim, so asking what backs up that claim is called “discussion”. If you’re more interested in shouting people down, then maybe HN isn’t for you.
      - elktown 2y ago
        [flagged]
        refurb 2y ago
        > I can be, but not with an obviously dishonest user like yourself. Dishonest how? By holding views you disagree with? I’ve engaged on a good faith effort so far and your first response was to act like my questions were some nefarious action. I’m not sure one can actually discussion complex topics without questions. Then when I respond nicely you come back to tell me to “fuck off”. I’m not sure what set you off, but I don’t think any of it is deserved.
        elktown 2y ago
        > It doesn't require a sociology degree to pattern-match your comment history. ^^^^ > Then when I respond nicely you come back to tell me to “fuck off”. I did not.
        2y ago