You know, some things can be true simultaneously, here. 1. I don't think all unvaccinated people should die. 2. I think people who are promoting anti-vaccination stances are causing incredible harm, both directly to the people who listen to them and indirectly to our national and international discourse around science, medicine and societal norms. 3. If people have a safe, free, well-known, easily-accessible method to protect themselves and others from something, they ignore it, and they die from that thing, I have a limited amount of sympathy. 4. If people from point #2 die from the thing, it's probably a net benefit to society, and I won't spare a second thought about them. If they were also a horrible person in other respects, I may even spare a little satisfaction for them having left the world a better place in their absence. I don't think these stances are particularly odd or vicious. I don't believe that everyone who is not a scientist should STFU. I believe that you, specifically, have demonstrated a repeated inability to appropriately filter and digest scientific literature, including not reading past the synopsis, looking at percentages without considering absolute numbers, not acknowledging criticism of studies, posting studies with anomalous findings as if this is the new consensus and not just another path to investigate, etc. In multiple places, I have refuted your findings or claims, and you just deflect and moved on. I also believe that experts form widespread consensus through repetition and peer review, and if anyone has an opinion that runs contrary to consensus, they'd better have a pretty compelling case about it, not just one meta-study of unreliable data. Note that the links you published were about exactly what I referenced, which is an unpublished study still in the peer-review stages which is already under criticism for its methods. The dismissal of my comment as not looking for "healthy discussion" is asinine. You are participating in a discussion about a medical condition, and a primary theme of your arguments has been the potential for dangerous vaccine side-effects. Post your references.
I agree that the nuances tend to get lost in the internet vortex of ass and yelling. The risks of the vaccine are not 0. Many of the studies who examine that risk fail to control for variables appropriately, don't follow FDA recommendations for those studies, and get very mixed results. For example: if you get the vaccine in a clinic that randomly has a bunch of people with strep throat, and you contract strep throat, the study will find a higher likelihood of strep symptoms as a result of the vaccine and the headlines will read: "VACCINE GIVES YOU SORE THROAT, MAKES IT FEEL LIKE YOU'VE BEEN FACE FUCKED BY SEABISCUIT, NEWS AT 11". So, yeah, "the scientists" to trust are the ones that have immense resources to design the study correctly, and will adhere to guidelines that have evolved over the years to be the safest, most accurate, and reliable measures of the safety and efficacy of a vaccine. There's a reason we're not all listening to scientists from the Yee-Haw Y'all University, Hair Care and Tire Center right now. However, the nuances don't change the fundamental math that a vaccine is far safer than COVID, and avoiding it due to "risk" while simultaneously remaining exposed to the most easily transmissible virus in known history isn't a wise or well-informed decision. That math at an individual level is one thing, but adding the likelihood of an unvaccinated person spreading it, that math becomes exponentially higher. If 1 in 100 has covid at any given moment, and 1 in 100,000 gets myocarditis from a vaccine (which is treatable, by the way, and has a far lower death rate than fucking COVID), then in 100,000 people: 1 gets myocarditis (maybe), and 1,000 spread it to whoever else hasn't been vaccinated. You can't catch myocarditis from going to class with someone else with it. Sky blue, water wet. Most people are bad at math, and especially bad at judging risk, see: the entire state of Florida. Bad science and bad scientists exist. With 1,000,000 corpses piled up, yes: the people who feel the need to play devil's advocate, and point out some of the non-zero risks need to shut the fuck up. The "benefit" of their research is people miscalculate risk, refuse to get the vaccine and cause more death. Ethically, that shit doesn't fly. I've seen a few nerds data-mining or outright stealing health records and drawing some dangerous conclusions, because their "research" had no expert parameters. For example, mining the data collected at Johns Hopkins might not be indicative of a standard population, and it's certainly not indicative of the "normal" quality of care one could expect from most health providers, but people will read "using Johns Hopkins data/records" and fail to acknowledge that. So, yes...the science and research that leads to people miscalculating risk, fueling misinformation and extending the pandemic, killing people and ruining lives is to be disregarded. The people, places and platforms that give said research credibility, viability and reach need to be held accountable for their part in furthering this nightmare. A disclaimer of "I'm just asking questions" or "I'm just a comedian" or "I did independent research" isn't a valid defense when it leads to people dying. Ask your questions privately, stick to jokes, and if you do independent research, you draw dependent conclusions, and they should be treated as such. You can't yell "fire" in a movie theatre if there isn't one, you can't shoot someone wearing a vest and get away with it citing "independent research", and the shit you're spouting ignores the most simple premise: the vaccine is safer than COVID, and at 2 years, with millions of cases, and approaching 1 million dead, anything saying the vaccine is unsafe is malicious. It's like saying how often gun safeties fail, resulting in fatal shootings, so we shouldn't bother having them. Objective reality should stare you in the face when making such an absurd comparison, and anyone who lets you spout some stupid shit like this that results in actual behavior needs to suffer some consequences. It's truly fucking sad that somehow falls on people like Neil Young fffs, but here we are.
I don't mean this in a snarky way at all...how do you determine who gets to have the valid opinion that can be spoken about publicly? And how does that opinion get challenged, in the event that it's wrong? And are you allowed to have an independent opinion, but actions that are forced to conform with the current consensus? Simply put, if that framework you suggest was in place, how would we ever know that thalidomide caused defects, that the sales tactics of Perdue caused the opioid crisis, or that the Catholic Church protects pedophiles? When in the system are you allowed to question it?
the thing with Aaron Rodgers is, yeah he didn’t want it to be public knowledge. If he stopped there and said this was a private choice that I was allowed to make knowing the risks, I have no further comment, then okay. I don’t agree with him, but okay. Thing is, he doubled down. And continues to. And is now holding himself out to be some kind of public martyr. That’s what I can’t stand. the reality is he’s that dumb jock stereotype who got hit in the head a bunch, talked to some very misinformed jock friends who happen to be famous for… reasons, and now has a public forum to broadcast his opinion as fact rather than gym bro “let’s go on the all meat diet!!!” laughable opinion that it should be taken as.
Usually, the courts decide that for you, when a company like Spotify is held liable for damages. I think that's why Clutch's observation about Youtube isn't a trifle. For a university, there's usually an ethics committee put in place, and in a lot of instances for the same reason: so the school can't be held financially responsible for the findings. I can see someone who's parent received a Herman Cain Award suing the fuck out of Facebook or Google saying "you put these lies in front of them, your algorithm kept it top of mind, and despite their loved ones pleading with them, they fucking died. Fuck you, pay up." In some cases, like with research conducted on illicit substances, you need licenses to study, tons of money which ususally combined means government support, and you can't publish without a ton of clearance through several layers of review. In others, you'd have companies like Pfizer saying "you can't publish a Goddamned word of this unless you state that we didn't authorize or support this research, and if that disclaimer isn't in bold, front and center, we will sue your balls off." The problem is all of these things take a LOT of time, and it's so easy to spin up a site to spout bullshit now, robots can do it almost instantaneously. I think an actual solution is for Google, FB, Twitter, etc. to self-police and say "Look, we've hired a bunch of nerds to review stuff, and we're only going to allow stuff on our platforms that has been vetted by our nerds and/or the appointed government entity for a few weeks/months UNTIL THE WORST OF THE PANDEMIC IS OVER. When it's over, fair game, everyone go nuts". Having a temporary ban on some kinds of content, even if it's just a month, would limit the spread of bullshit, and focus everyone on the highest quality, highest-funded and most agreed-upon research. I could see several use cases for that, like the fiasco of the reddit-fueled Boston bomber manhunt. or war zones where posts might inadvertently reveal intel, or where the risk of bad information is dramatically higher. "Pause on posts concerning." funnels information-seekers into a few high-quality sources, until the risk of bad information has passed. The issue is all it takes is one bad actor to refuse to comply, and the whole thing is moot. Imagine the next pandemic, where the few major platforms go: "hey, to avoid misinformation, we're not indexing posts/content about this disease from non-verified users, using heavily moderated forums, and will redirect all this traffic to official government sites or lists of resources that we believe are the best quality information right now." for let's say a week. Aside from the conspiracy theorist horse shit, that might force people to think about this stuff in more realistic, reasonable terms and acknowledge that it's an emergency. In an emergency, we're used to our flow of information being disrupted, and that flow coming from a single source that yes, you're expected to fucking obey. When the radio says evacuate, it's not a debate or a discussion and your opinion doesn't matter to fuck all. I think a cultural shift is needed, because they can do this with child pornography and other "internet no-no's", but they don't want to do it with misinformation, because it's a cash cow for them. The penalty for that has to outweigh the benefit, and we need a culture that recognizes and devalues this sort of thing, instead of sharing it, and diving down an internet outrage rabbit hole. However,not having a solution in place is not a valid reason to let the current shit-show persist. People are making money off of lies that cost lives, and I have to assume there will be a reckoning for that. The longer it goes on without consequences the more dire and unwieldy that reckoning will be.
Rodgers is smart...for an NFL player. That is part of his hubris, for sure. He lost me as a fan, and the ongoing horseshit cements the validity of that decision. Dude desperately needs to shut the fuck up. I miss the days where the most controversial stance an NFL player could take was that they hated insurance jingles, and Peyton Manning's helmets had to be ordered from a livestock supply store. One observation that strikes me is the difference between folks who put more stock in what the people in their circle are saying, versus authoritative sources. If your version of CDC is Chris, Dad and Cory, you're more likely to put a high degree of faith in utter bullshit. Knowing that about people is important.
I love the fact that you can't figure out how to run your thermostat, and yet you want us to believe that you can successfully and correctly interpret complex medical information.
You nailed it perfectly with this statement. Reading your other well-reasoned points, my first thought was, "What would CNN and Fox do if those measures dropped their viewership by 50 points?" The current model where you get paid for clicks and not truth is at the heart of quite a bit of the rot. Having an industry that requires 24-hour information and subsequently 24-hour crisis is another. I'm not sure how that gets implemented, if it would mean destroying some of the last bit of ad revenue and viewership these places are drawing at the moment. But it's certainly a problem that needs a solution.
It's almost like expertise in one field doesn't translate to another. Perhaps we should lock the thread and only allow the scientists specializing in virology to post from now on. In the interest of practicing what we preach.
That was exactly my point when you said "but I have a smart engineer/doctor friend who can figure shit out on his own." And no, we're not going to lock this thread... because while I don't profess to be any kind of an expert, I think there's still a lot to be learned and shared.
And my point, way back when the post was made about doctors, was that people can interpret things themselves and make up their own minds*. If you feel that there's still a lot to be learned and shared, then I would hope that you agree with some part of that sentiment. *If I recall, it was also because the argument at the time was that non-experts should STFU, and when medical doctors who dissent were brought up, the opinion then became, "Doctors barely know anything, and should also STFU."
No, it’s that not all doctors are created equally. I’m much more likely to listen to an epidemiologist or an infectious disease expert than a family medicine doctor or a general surgeon.
Anyone who is challenging the widespread scientific consensus needs compelling information to back their claims up. "Doctor" is a wide range of expertise. Most doctors are not experts in immunology, and are not automatically granted credibility. I can't speak for all context in this 397 page thread, but I have brought this up in regards to GPs who are questioning the safety or efficacy of the vaccine; again, it's not to say they could not possibly have a valid point, it's just that the title of doctor does not inherently mean their opinion isn't stupid.
That was the argument then. Now, we do know better, and the consensus is overwhelming. I thought you knew how science worked? Or do you adhere to notions that the earth is flat, because the argument back then was in favor of it being flat...? Here's a trick: poll a bunch of scientists: "Is the vaccine safe?" A. Yes. B. No. C. My area of expertise is unrelated/I have not personally seen data on the safety of the vaccine. Don't verify their field, expertise or generally anything beyond the capability to click a link you email them. Bonus, if they click "I've had more than 7 years of college education", you can call them a doctor! Their responses: A. 60% B. 1% C. 39%. Yet the headline is "40% of Scientists can't agree vaccine is safe!" and this is the quality of "research" you're spouting as useful in making vaccine decisions. Also, I think if some of these platforms just said "look, we're demonetizing any content that is about the vaccine. Say what you want, but you can't make any money off of it." this problem would shrivel up a little. I think you're missing the big picture here. This is a global phenomenon, we've never seen before. We haven't put the fire out yet, and there are people campaigning against water. Their argument is essentially dissent for the sake of there being dissent, which is valid if you're a 13 year old who just found a copy of the Anarchist Cookbook. The right to argue against a vaccine, to discuss the social responsibility to halt the spread and express concern with the risks of COVID are all entitlements granted to the living. The dead had theirs stolen, and if you don't see that as the fundamental injustice here, then stop fucking posting, and go hang out with some orphans who no longer have family members because their parents thought the vaccine was "too risky" because they listened to a podcast with independent researchers just asking questions. We want this suffering to end, and yes, if that comes at the cost of telling a bunch of arrogant people to shut the fuck up for a little while, after 2 years it's no steeper than any other price we've had to pay, and in some ways far cheaper. No, it's not fair. This is the worst thing that has happened to humanity in recent memory. Nearly everyone on Earth has been impacted. Just like 9/11, this will have dramatic implications for the world over the next few decades. Think about how this will look 5, 10, 15, 20 years from now...how many of the millions dead and debilitated will reflect back on a shorter, curtailed life and go "man, I'm glad we let them keep sharing lies on the internet, because freedom of speech"? or "So glad my mom didn't get vaccinated, and now she's dead, and I've got long-term health issues from a virus that was completely avoidable." The outrage and conflict over covid is in the early stages, and who do you think will be held accountable for making it worse, prolonging it or profiting from it? You're either part of the problem or part of the solution. In a global pandemic, with millions dead and trillions lost, being the part of the problem that prolongs this suffering means you deserve some attention.