Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A pro-science, pro-progress, techno-optimistic health textbook from 1929

moreisdifferent.blog

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 180 posts

Re: A pro-science, pro-progress, techno-optimistic health textbook from 1929

#131

Post by tristor »

HarryHirsch wrote: post #103
stevenAthompson wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those sociological factors aren't complex, and don't require an explanation of any real depth. The entire problem is this: Fifty four percent of Americans read below the 6th grade level, which means that the simple majority of Americans don't understand the world they live in and never will.

That's one side. The other side looks like this: https://spelmanblueprint.com/810/opinions/professors-bitter-... The background is a new faculty member actually teaching at university level. We know that proofs and reading are required. They do not.

> We know that proofs and reading are required. They do not.

In the context of you saying this after sharing a link to an article around difficulties at HBCUs, I'm trying to find some charitable way to interpret your statements as something other than horrendously racist. Can you please expound on this, or am I taking this correctly?

Re: A pro-science, pro-progress, techno-optimistic health textbook from 1929

#132

Post by insane_dreamer »

snowwrestler wrote: post #105
insane_dreamer wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's amusing to see the early signs of the anti-vax movement here. Not surprising. I look at vaccines the same way as I look at any new medication: has it been tested long enough to know what the long-term effects of it are, and do the benefits outweigh the risks. I don't have a problem with MMR, TB and other common vaccines, that have been around for decades. If I'm traveling to East Africa I'm going to get a yell…

> But I have never gotten a "flu shot" in my life because the benefit of it is rather low relative to the risk of influenza given my demographics and health. If that makes me an anti-vaxxer, so be it. That seems like reasonable risk assessment to me. It’s a minor chore to get but the benefit to you is also pretty minor. Lots of people skip the flu vaccine for those reasons. But some folks skip the flu vaccine because…

> It’s a minor chore

It's not just that. I generally avoid taking medications unless I need to (when prescribed), which so far in my life has been extremely rare. It may not be "harmful", but I don't want to put any chemicals in my body if I don't have to. Most medications come at some cost, in that besides doing what they are designed to do, they also interact with other cells or systems in ways that may not be desirable. Vaccines are no different in that respect.

Re: A pro-science, pro-progress, techno-optimistic health textbook from 1929

#133

Post by llamaimperative »

ElevenLathe wrote: post #125
llamaimperative wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Out of curiosity, where were you living during the 2008 election?

Lansing, Michigan

Yeah, that checks out. It's exactly the type of over-intellectualized rationale someone in a Democratic stronghold would come up with.

The left wing didn't aimlessly move left away from labor. Biden was dramatically more pro-labor ("New Dealy") than Obama. The right wing lost their fucking minds because we elected a black man. Trump himself is a one-man microcosm of this: loosely Dem-aligned until... Obama.

Spend some time with the GOP base. They're actually broadly racist, ranging from slightly (and ashamedly) to loudly and unabashedly. The left obviously also has various problems with race, so don't take this as some implicit categorical exoneration.

Re: A pro-science, pro-progress, techno-optimistic health textbook from 1929

#134

Post by phs318u »

insane_dreamer wrote: post #34
mmastrac wrote: post #2

It's amusing to see the early signs of the anti-vax movement here. The history of that movement is long. Humans are built to thrive in danger, chaos and instability. I think a good chunk of humans go insane in a safe and stable environment and resent the things that allow them to live mundane, safe lives -- technology, medicine and rational thinking. I think there's a certain amount of cherry-picking going on with th…

> It's amusing to see the early signs of the anti-vax movement here. Not surprising. I look at vaccines the same way as I look at any new medication: has it been tested long enough to know what the long-term effects of it are, and do the benefits outweigh the risks. I don't have a problem with MMR, TB and other common vaccines, that have been around for decades. If I'm traveling to East Africa I'm going to get a yell…

This encapsulates a misunderstanding of how vaccines work. They do not float around in our bodies for years. They work by (hopefully) training an immune response from our own bodies. The vaccines themselves rapidly breakdown. They do not last because there's no need for them to. As a result, vaccine testing - for all vaccines - pretty much only needs to cover that period. While side-effects (ranging from minor to serious and rare to common) from the vaccines themselves do occur, what's not clear to me is how well we understand/appreciate the second order effects of an altered immune system response e.g. "my body now knows to attack X, but in attacking X, it also impacts Y" - kind of thing. Where Y may be something that only becomes apparent much later.

Speaking for myself, having lived and worked in SE Asia for a while, I've had almost every vaccine known to man (the only one I'm sure I haven't had is the HPV). I've had 5 COVID shots (got COVID once in 2021) and get an annual flu-shot. The only side-effect I've ever had (that I'm aware of), is a sore arm at the injection site. I have no idea what that says about me. My mum reacts badly to most (not all) vaccines - especially the flu shots. People vary and I suspect our immune system (which I believe is poorly understood) has complex effects on the response to some vaccines.

Re: A pro-science, pro-progress, techno-optimistic health textbook from 1929

#136

Post by JumpCrisscross »

phs318u wrote: post #134
insane_dreamer wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's amusing to see the early signs of the anti-vax movement here. Not surprising. I look at vaccines the same way as I look at any new medication: has it been tested long enough to know what the long-term effects of it are, and do the benefits outweigh the risks. I don't have a problem with MMR, TB and other common vaccines, that have been around for decades. If I'm traveling to East Africa I'm going to get a yell…

This encapsulates a misunderstanding of how vaccines work. They do not float around in our bodies for years. They work by (hopefully) training an immune response from our own bodies. The vaccines themselves rapidly breakdown. They do not last because there's no need for them to. As a result, vaccine testing - for all vaccines - pretty much only needs to cover that period. While side-effects (ranging from minor to ser…

> vaccines themselves rapidly breakdown. They do not last because there's no need for them to

The effects of the vaccines linger, by design. (Granted, in a generally productive way.)

Re: A pro-science, pro-progress, techno-optimistic health textbook from 1929

#137

Post by insane_dreamer »

phs318u wrote: post #134
insane_dreamer wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's amusing to see the early signs of the anti-vax movement here. Not surprising. I look at vaccines the same way as I look at any new medication: has it been tested long enough to know what the long-term effects of it are, and do the benefits outweigh the risks. I don't have a problem with MMR, TB and other common vaccines, that have been around for decades. If I'm traveling to East Africa I'm going to get a yell…

This encapsulates a misunderstanding of how vaccines work. They do not float around in our bodies for years. They work by (hopefully) training an immune response from our own bodies. The vaccines themselves rapidly breakdown. They do not last because there's no need for them to. As a result, vaccine testing - for all vaccines - pretty much only needs to cover that period. While side-effects (ranging from minor to ser…

I didn't say that the vaccine itself persists. But the effects of its interactions with the body, do persist by design.

I had 3 COVID shots; no issues with the first two. But 2 years later, my arm is still quite sore to the touch where I got my shot (and I can feel mild discomfort there even without touching it). So obviously a long-term change there.

Re: A pro-science, pro-progress, techno-optimistic health textbook from 1929

#138

Post by insane_dreamer »

svara wrote: post #104
aphantastic wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, people can choose to do some things without wanting authorities to force them to do other things. Astutely observed.

So tired of this framing. We get it, you don't like the government. So what? If you're spreading lies about medicine because you distrust authority... Well, first of all, you're dumb because you believe falsehoods. But more importantly, you're a danger to my health, my friends and my families' health, and to your own health as well. Why would we have any patience for this? Your rugged self-important individualism is…

>We get it, you don't like the government. So what?

Well, if you don't trust the government, then the likelihood that you'll be willing to follow their "orders" is pretty low.

> But more importantly, you're a danger to my health, my friends and my families' health, and to your own health as well.

And __this__ response is exactly why people can become anti-vaxx without having a problem with medicine or science in general (which is the question being put forward by the OP). You're coming at it from a "the gov said its safe, so it's safe, and you're an idiot for not trusting the gov" (even though governments have shown themselves to be un-trustworthy many many times -- not in the area of vaccines necessarily -- but in other domains.

So this type of urging to "do it because we're all doing it because Uncle Sam said so" is highly counter productive.

Re: A pro-science, pro-progress, techno-optimistic health textbook from 1929

#139

Post by insane_dreamer »

Lutger wrote: post #37
api wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is it about vaccines? Lots of anti-vaxxers are fine with other kinds of drugs and use them liberally, even in many cases street drugs. They'll eat fast food, processed food, use household chemicals, do all kinds of other things that expose them to things they don't understand and may not be good for them, but vaccines are just the devil incarnate. The word vaccine seems to provoke a visceral gut reaction among a…

Of course, in the pandemic we saw extreme versions of this. Anything to avoid vaccination, but ivermectin and other risky drugs were no problem. If vaccination would be alternative medicine and ivermection government mandated, we might see the reverse. So I don't think its vaccination perse, at least not on its own, but vaccines have various things going against them. Like someone else in this thread said, government…

> A big part of the antivaxxers are now also anti 5G, advocate against the use of sunscreen, are against wind energy and EV, sometimes pro-russia, anti-deepstate

Sure, some of these might be the same people, but I disagree that there's a big overlap between anti-vaxxers, which are not uncommon (I know quite a few who "vaccine resistant" which in many people's minds == anti-vaxxers), and anti-5G which is very niche (I've never met or interacted with a single person who thinks that), or anti-EV which is again a different demographic ("I want to drive my gas guzzling F-150 because Amerika is #1")

Re: A pro-science, pro-progress, techno-optimistic health textbook from 1929

#140

Post by foxglacier »

stevenAthompson wrote: post #127
tivert wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ...and trying to pretend that if everyone were provided with the same opportunities they would achieve the same outcomes in basketball, or in intellectual pursuits, is not only dishonest, it's actively harmful to those born at a disadvantage. Cultivating an us/them distinction is also actively harmful, more harmful I'd say. But if you can't help yourself, count yourself with them and do your best to avoid condescen…

I can appreciate your perspective, but I also think the populist notion that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge" (to paraphrase Asimov) has already done even greater damage to our society. It must be stopped, and that can't happen if we're pretending that all people being worthy of respect also implies that all opinions are.

He's right though. People have cultural knowledge which can lead to better outcomes than "correct" reasoning even when those cultural beliefs are factually wrong. The scientific approach has blind spots where it hasn't reached, especially regarding sociology which is something long-lived cultures excel at but modern science falls flat. "intelligent" understanding has blind spots where things are too complicated to study so we pretend they don't matter. For example, do you count all religious people in your ignorant group? Even when they're having happier lives than comparable atheists?

Here's a thought. Animals often kill their own unhealthy babies but educated people much less so, and even demand that parents use technology to save them otherwise they're bad uneducated unintelligent people. Are those animals doing it wrong because they're too stupid to use medicine? Or are people doing it wrong? I'd say people have a non-scientific culture of minimizing of death even if it harms long-term evolutionary success of the species.

Post reply on HN