EPTGonna have to agree with Mohdoo's take here. You might 'have an education' and be vaccine skeptic, but my experience is definitely that people that are vaccine skeptics also tend to be unreliable sources of information on mostly any controversial subject, because the same sources that made them skeptical towards vaccines also made them be wrong about other things. I understand that you having a dad who from your perspective does not fit this mold makes you disagree with this, but to me, he's just another person whose method of getting information is most likely highly flawed.
Coronavirus and You - Page 427
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Any and all updates regarding the COVID-19 will need a source provided. Please do your part in helping us to keep this thread maintainable and under control. It is YOUR responsibility to fully read through the sources that you link, and you MUST provide a brief summary explaining what the source is about. Do not expect other people to do the work for you. Conspiracy theories and fear mongering will absolutely not be tolerated in this thread. Expect harsh mod actions if you try to incite fear needlessly. This is not a politics thread! You are allowed to post information regarding politics if it's related to the coronavirus, but do NOT discuss politics in here. Added a disclaimer on page 662. Many need to post better. | ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28715 Posts
Gonna have to agree with Mohdoo's take here. You might 'have an education' and be vaccine skeptic, but my experience is definitely that people that are vaccine skeptics also tend to be unreliable sources of information on mostly any controversial subject, because the same sources that made them skeptical towards vaccines also made them be wrong about other things. I understand that you having a dad who from your perspective does not fit this mold makes you disagree with this, but to me, he's just another person whose method of getting information is most likely highly flawed. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States45090 Posts
On August 18 2021 18:53 Liquid`Drone wrote: I don't know what the media universe looks like in Austria, but in Norway, following mainstream, reliable news, will most definitely give you the impression that the scientific consensus is very, very strongly in favor of vaccines. The Norwegians I know who are vaccine-skeptics are overwhelmingly consumers of 'alternative media' - or they don't consume news at all. In either case, they very strongly tend to be misinformed or uninformed on a whole slew of subjects, because their alternative media keeps misinforming them on other subjects too - or ignorant because they don't pay attention to anything. Gonna have to agree with Mohdoo's take here. You might 'have an education' and be vaccine skeptic, but my experience is definitely that people that are vaccine skeptics also tend to be unreliable sources of information on mostly any controversial subject, because the same sources that made them skeptical towards vaccines also made them be wrong about other things. I understand that you having a dad who from your perspective does not fit this mold makes you disagree with this, but to me, he's just another person whose method of getting information is most likely highly flawed. Agreed. It's the same way in the United States. There's zero doubt that the scientific consensus is overwhelmingly in favor of vaccinations, from both credible news sources and literally what the scientific and medical organizations themselves say. The only mixed messaging I've been hearing come from anti-science politicians, alternative media sources who are already well-known for obsessing over conspiracy theories, and parents who get their information from blogs and "their gut" instead of from their doctors. We're not seeing a significant section of the scientific and medical communities stating that covid vaccines are unsafe or useless. The anti-vaxxers / vaccine-skeptics / vaccine-hesitant individuals / whatever other political correct label they want to identify as are not educated on this specific subject. | ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria4478 Posts
On August 18 2021 18:53 Liquid`Drone wrote: I don't know what the media universe looks like in Austria, but in Norway, following mainstream, reliable news, will most definitely give you the impression that the scientific consensus is very, very strongly in favor of vaccines. The Norwegians I know who are vaccine-skeptics are overwhelmingly consumers of 'alternative media' - or they don't consume news at all. In either case, they very strongly tend to be misinformed or uninformed on a whole slew of subjects, because their alternative media keeps misinforming them on other subjects too - or ignorant because they don't pay attention to anything. Gonna have to agree with Mohdoo's take here. You might 'have an education' and be vaccine skeptic, but my experience is definitely that people that are vaccine skeptics also tend to be unreliable sources of information on mostly any controversial subject, because the same sources that made them skeptical towards vaccines also made them be wrong about other things. I understand that you having a dad who from your perspective does not fit this mold makes you disagree with this, but to me, he's just another person whose method of getting information is most likely highly flawed. I'm not getting my point across. Both pro- and anti-vaxxers are drawing their conclusions from equal amounts of rationality unless we can somehow prove otherwise. Knowing that the anti-vaxxers (or those who are vaccine hesitant) are drawing their conclusions fom some level of irrationality doesn't prove that they're overall drawing from more irrationality than the pro-vaxxers. Given that we don't know how much irrationality is present in both groups, we can still speculate on the reasons for why various people choose to abstain from getting vaccinated, or from their children getting vaccinated, but we can't get a complete picture of their reasons. The conclusion that people are abstaining due to being uneducate or naive is, in my opinion, an impossible one to make with the information we have. We can always find examples one way or the other, so that doesn't help. It's why I gave the example of my father to show that they're not all uneducated or naive. In fact he considers those naive who think they should just vaccinate their children. If you look back at history and the (really bad) record of various governments, you may understand why he has this perspective. | ||
|
Geisterkarle
Germany3257 Posts
Some scientists think it is not a big deal, some are really afraid, some think vaccinations are great, some show all the negative effects, ... search, you will find whatever you need for making your point and reasoning. Yeah yeah, you can then go "but those papers are wrong" and stuff... but that goes both ways. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States45090 Posts
On August 18 2021 19:10 Magic Powers wrote: I'm not getting my point across. Both pro- and anti-vaxxers are drawing their conclusions from equal amounts of rationality Dude. No. On August 18 2021 20:14 Geisterkarle wrote: All the talk about science is a little stupid. If you look "hard enough", you will find basically any evidence for "everything" for Covid! Some scientists think it is not a big deal, some are really afraid, some think vaccinations are great, some show all the negative effects, ... search, you will find whatever you need for making your point and reasoning. Yeah yeah, you can then go "but those papers are wrong" and stuff... but that goes both ways. Please find some peer-reviewed, published scientific/medical articles saying that the covid vaccines will have no positive effects against covid. | ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria4478 Posts
You didn't quote the whole sentence. I said this: "Both pro- and anti-vaxxers are drawing their conclusions from equal amounts of rationality unless we can somehow prove otherwise." | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland26109 Posts
On August 18 2021 17:49 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: So in a country with 100 million gun owners, capable of owning military grade weapons, would you like to go door to door injecting them against their will? Who is naive here? We’ll no, I’m not sure that’s being proposed, certainly here. What has been proposed is ‘no shot, no service’ to be adopted by businesses who feel that is appropriate for them, or their customers. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States45090 Posts
On August 18 2021 20:26 Magic Powers wrote: You didn't quote the whole sentence. I said this: "Both pro- and anti-vaxxers are drawing their conclusions from equal amounts of rationality unless we can somehow prove otherwise." I know that. That doesn't change anything. The expert communities have already "proven otherwise". Please find some peer-reviewed, published scientific/medical articles saying that the covid vaccines will have no positive effects against covid. Otherwise, stop suggesting that both "sides" are on equal footing here. The onus is on you to demonstrate that the anti-vaxxers have a mountain of scientific and medical evidence comparable to those of the pro-vaxxers. Where are the peer-reviewed, published journal articles that support the anti-vaxxer positions? Where is the scientific and medical consensus saying NOT to vaccinate people? | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland26109 Posts
On August 18 2021 20:26 Magic Powers wrote: You didn't quote the whole sentence. I said this: "Both pro- and anti-vaxxers are drawing their conclusions from equal amounts of rationality unless we can somehow prove otherwise." Equal amounts of knowledge, on average? Perhaps! I’ll give you that, equal amounts of rationality absolutely not. And to be clear we’re talking average anti-vaxxer here, absolutely not everyone who is reticent. ‘I don’t know shit, so maybe I’ll listen to those that do’ is not rationally equivalent to ‘I don’t know shit, but I know better than lifelong experts in the field’. And it’s almost entirely ideologically driven, the same lens of ‘skepticism’ isn’t applied to well, the rest of medical science that people are happy to benefit from. | ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria4478 Posts
| ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5686 Posts
On August 18 2021 20:26 Magic Powers wrote: You didn't quote the whole sentence. I said this: "Both pro- and anti-vaxxers are drawing their conclusions from equal amounts of rationality unless we can somehow prove otherwise." While I agree that the average person gets their scientific information from science interpreters and it comes down to whom you trust, the science interpreters used by the anti-vaxxers were wrong on pretty much everything, while those used by the mainstream have been mostly right. There are countless examples of that. If one trusts their science interpreter while their predictions have been wrong again and again, they're probably less rational than you're claiming. @DPB He's not talking about the quality of the evidence for this or that position. He's talking about the fact that the average person, whether they're pro- or anti-vaccine, makes their decision by referring to some science interpreters they find credible. For one camp, it's the CDC, the wider scientific community etc. and for the other it's people like Andrew Wakefield or Michael Yeadon. An average person is incapable of judging the quality of science behind those camps. As Drone has pointed out, anti-vaxxers have problems with assessing the reliability of the information they're getting. That's what it comes down to. | ||
|
ahswtini
Northern Ireland22208 Posts
On August 18 2021 15:54 Mohdoo wrote: Alabama reporting 12% of people in the hospital for covid are fully vaccinated: https://www.wsfa.com/2021/08/17/alabama-has-negative-icu-beds-available/ If my theory that delta's primary mechanism of chaos is extremely high concentrations, makes sense why fresh 3rd vax is really helpful. Also explains why fully vaxed people still getting dumpstered in certain cases. Simplified explanation: think of vaccines as a hole in a bucket. Large holes in the bucket make it easier to prevent the bucket from getting full. But if you have a really huge source of water filling the bucket, if the holes in the bucket aren't big enough, the bucket fills up. Vaccines help your body have a robust antibody response, meaning you actively fight covid really strongly when it shows up. But what if there is just an insane amount of covid in you? That would mean the vaccine helped you a ton but you still ended up in a "bad" position. Way better than without vax. So if you are vaccinated but you spend the weekend with someone who is very infectious, only so much a vaccine can do. If you're essentially butt chugging covid, you're gonna get sick. Ideally we want that figure to be 100% of people in hospital are fully vaccinated. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States45090 Posts
On August 18 2021 21:42 Magic Powers wrote: Aight, I guess we'll just have to demonize "the others", as is usually the best thing to do :sarcasm: Getting called out when you're exaggerating or misrepresenting positions is not being demonized. Also, if people are enabling a virus that has created a global pandemic, and if they aren't responding to discussion or education or scientific consensus or the idea that they should be helping themselves and others, then sure, applying pressure may be what's necessary. Not that ostracism necessarily needs to be the first attempt at persuading someone, but peer pressure certainly exists and can be effective in some circumstances. On August 18 2021 22:01 maybenexttime wrote: While I agree that the average person gets their scientific information from science interpreters and it comes down to whom you trust, the science interpreters used by the anti-vaxxers were wrong on pretty much everything, while those used by the mainstream have been mostly right. There are countless examples of that. If one trusts their science interpreter while their predictions have been wrong again and again, they're probably less rational than you're claiming. @DPB He's not talking about the quality of the evidence for this or that position. He's talking about the fact that the average person, whether they're pro- or anti-vaccine, makes their decision by referring to some science interpreters they find credible. For one camp, it's the CDC, the wider scientific community etc. and for the other it's people like Andrew Wakefield or Michael Yeadon. An average person is incapable of judging the quality of science behind those camps. As Drone has pointed out, anti-vaxxers have problems with assessing the reliability of the information they're getting. That's what it comes down to. Just to be clear, are you defining "science interpreter" to be "literally anyone giving their opinions on the virus"? Because I personally would think that the term "science interpreter" would imply some connection to the relevant science we're talking about, but it's very clear that many - and probably, most - anti-vaxxers aren't referencing scientifically literate people at all. Right-wing conspiracy theorists on the news and anti-vaxxer politicians, for example, are not "science interpreters" in any meaningful sense of the phrase, unless we're conceding that anyone can just make up nonsense that literally contradicts what scientists show and say, and still be labeled as a "science interpreter". These anti-vaxx leaders are way more popular and influential than AW and MY. Maybe it's just a semantics issue for me, but diluting the term "science interpreter" makes it seem like there's a reasonable disagreement between the pro-vax and anti-vax camps because everyone gets their information from... people who may or may not know what they're talking about. | ||
|
Lmui
Canada6216 Posts
Unvaccinated? Meet the Unsympathetic: Most inoculated Canadians indifferent to whether the non-jabbed get sick The views of the vaccinated and the views of the unvaxed are worlds apart. You're not going to have consensus, a strong majority of the vaccinated (in itself a majority of the population) is strongly in favour of restrictions on the unvaccinated. The unvaccinated of course want to have no restrictions on themselves. Vaccination is dramatically cheaper for everyone than paying for hospitalizations and regular testing as well. Even the average person getting sick and losing 2 weeks is enough tax revenue lost to make the vaccine worthwhile, forget the cost of doctors and nurses. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15725 Posts
On August 18 2021 18:07 Magic Powers wrote: There are a number of virologists who draw false conclusions from the current studies. One of them says that children should not receive the new vaccines, while instead advocating for them to get infected naturally. I strongly disagree with her conclusion and I'm completely convinced she must've misread the research. But that shows how easy it is for scientists to get something wrong while inspecting the data. Her name is Christine Stabell Benn, a 52-year-old "professor of global health at the University of Southern Denmark and long-time researcher in vaccines", according to this article: https://www.bt.dk/debat/professor-det-er-godt-for-immuniteten-at-boern-faar-corona You can read more about her credentials here: https://danish-ias.dk/people/christine-stabell-benn-danish-ias/ Do you understand now why this is not as simple as people being uneducated? Many of the people who conclude that the vaccines are potentially dangerous receive their information from experts. This is why they don't want to vaccinate their children, and it's why they remain hesitant to get vaccinated themselves. It's not them being uneducated, they're being mislead. Ironically by some experts, who apparently rely on outdated ideas. That’s not how that works. Finding some random crack pot with a background vaguely described does not invalidate anything. Scientific consensus is important because of they. If you have 500,000 researchers, a few are gonna be shitters. That’s just humanity. That’s why we have peer review and all that shit. No, some random dumb ass does not invalidate expertise as a whole. Your dad is still being extremely silly for defying scientific consensus. It’s his best chance at doing the right thing. There’s no guarantees in life but scientific consensus will always have the highest chance of being correct. I’m not going to continue this because it’s weird when people bring their family members into conversations like this. It’s awkward. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15725 Posts
On August 18 2021 17:49 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: I also said revoking citizenship is an option. Give people a raft and send them out to the Pacific Ocean. Don’t need to forcefully inject people, just need to apply pressure such that their lives are ruined otherwise. That’s what’s already happening with jobs and indoor places requiring vaccines.So in a country with 100 million gun owners, capable of owning military grade weapons, would you like to go door to door injecting them against their will? Who is naive here? | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5686 Posts
I'm talking about people like Andrew Wakefield, Mike Yeadon etc. and people who give them a platform. The former are certainly scientifically literate. They just happen to be charlatans. It's difficult for an average person to tell a charlatan from a credible expert. The anti-vax leaders are usually not promoting their own ideas. As Magic Powers pointed out, an average pro-vaccine person doesn't get their information on the scientific consensus from the scientific papers or even CDC reports. They watch CNN or BBC, read NYT or whatever. They trust those institutions to provide them with credible information. Those institutions, in turn, rely on the actual scientific institutions and the authorities (so the CDC, universities etc.) to inform them about those issues. People who fall victim of misinformation are typically distrustful of the institutions, which is why they're susceptible to all sorts of "alternative media". But the train of thought in both camps is similar enough: I don't know enough so I'll refer to the media I trust. The media give a platform to experts, who usually have some credentials, some just happens to be charlatans. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States45090 Posts
On August 19 2021 00:24 maybenexttime wrote: @DPB I'm talking about people like Andrew Wakefield, Mike Yeadon etc. and people who give them a platform. The former are certainly scientifically literate. They just happen to be charlatans. It's difficult for an average person to tell a charlatan from a credible expert. The anti-vax leaders are usually not promoting their own ideas. As Magic Powers pointed out, an average pro-vaccine person doesn't get their information on the scientific consensus from the scientific papers or even CDC reports. They watch CNN or BBC, read NYT or whatever. They trust those institutions to provide them with credible information. Those institutions, in turn, rely on the actual scientific institutions and the authorities (so the CDC, universities etc.) to inform them about those issues. People who fall victim of misinformation are typically distrustful of the institutions, which is why they're susceptible to all sorts of "alternative media". But the train of thought in both camps is similar enough: I don't know enough so I'll refer to the media I trust. The media give a platform to experts, who usually have some credentials, some just happens to be charlatans. Except those articles literally have links to official statements and publications from health experts. Getting news from reputable sources that are supported by the data is not equivalent to getting news from con-men and conspiracy theorists who simply don't have the science and medicine on their side. We don't just look at both and say "Meh, they're both equally reliable and/or the viewers on both sides are equally reasonable, because neither the pro-vax news anchor nor the anti-vax news anchor are the actual medical researchers." That's absurd, and it dismisses the importance of actually having the evidence and facts on your side. | ||
| ||
