81–90 of 119 posts
If we can’t convince this crowd to get fully vaccinated, we stand no chance of stopping this pandemic until it’s finished it’s natural and brutal course.
You can't persuade skeptics by not addressing (simply omitting) some most important concerns, namely: - Role of age, fitness and comorbidities in risk/benefit analysis - Lack of trust in institutions (suppression of alternative views; capture/corruption) Another question is who New Yorker can reach, I won't be surprised that ~95% of their audience are already vaccinated. And remaining 5% holdouts are well-informed an…
«[...] This all sounds quite risky. Does it mean that we should avoid prescription medicines entirely? Let’s look at the most common adverse-reaction offenders. Anti-seizure drugs, insulin, and blood-thinning medications—often used to prevent stroke—are at the top of the list; antibiotics account for more adverse effects than almost any other kind of drug, leading to approximately a hundred and fifty thousand E.R. visits annually; even acetaminophen turns out to be risky, causing fifty-six thousand E.R. visits, twenty-six hundred hospitalizations, nearly half of all liver failures, and over four hundred and fifty deaths each year. Nevertheless, I think that most of my vaccine-hesitant patients would agree that preventing strokes and seizures, treating diabetes, alleviating pain, and curing infections are extremely important, and that the benefits we derive from using these medications weigh favorably against their risks.»
A binary dilemma is expressed in the paragraph, while the actual topic is ternary. «Most of [his] vaccine-hesitant patients» would take insulin as a better option than just bearing diabetes, but not necessarily would take farmaceutical prophylaxis over a relatively high isolation (if they can afford it in practice - The New Yorker was not exactly born for a public of dwellers in low density areas).
Given the responses to this article and the general level of education among the HN crowd, I hope everyone is ready for another year of this crap. If we can’t convince this crowd to get fully vaccinated, we stand no chance of stopping this pandemic until it’s finished it’s natural and brutal course.
1. In comparing risks of adverse effects of drugs with those of covid vaccines the author is missing a big point. Namely, medications are given to help patients (i.e. already sick people) or prophylactically to people in serious risk of developing an illness. Covid vaccines have been given and continue to be given to perfectly healthy people who are in minimal risk. Now, other vaccines we do administer to healthy people, so a more proper comparison would be between other vaccines - but, while I don't have any data to quote, I believe you'll find significant higher risks of adverse effects from the covid vaccines than from previous vaccines.
2. > And the principles behind it [mRNA technology] are startlingly simple and elegant.
Now this is quite problematic the way I see it. First off, I have a medical degree and I find the technology incredibly complex. Secondly, the author uses "simplicity" as a crutch to support her argument further down that since mRNA translation happens outside the nucleus (where the DNA is) there is in no way any interaction between DNA and mRNA.
I'm not saying that the mRNA vaccines alter our DNA; I wouldn't know. I do know there are a couple of ways - at least - that mRNA can go back to DNA (retrotransposons for example). But, I also believe that when developing the technology, issues like this have been given serious thought by smarter and more knowledgeable people than me. That, however, doesn't take away the fact that the author is omitting quite a lot in order to present a nicer, simpler picture of reality. Well, that's quite close to lying in my book.
These two issues at least stood out for me. I'm not "anti-vaccine", I'm just "anti-bullshitting". And no, even if you have the best intentions in mind, it's still very much bullshit.
edit: minor layout edits
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Skeptics" is a very generous portrayal of the anti-vax crowd. They are not skeptics. Their opposition is not based on missing information, it is based on conforming to an ideology. Which is diametrically opposed to skepticism.
Do you think it's possible that people could be generally pro-vaccine and be sceptical of the covid-19 vaccine? You're trying to lump people who have legitimate concerns about the covid-19 vaccine in particular with the vaccines cause autism/magnetic vaccines crowd, and it's very dishonest. This is not some monolithic movement, and I disavow the people who are anti-vax in principle. I'm rooting for the covid vaccines…
So I ask, what will it take for you to change your mind? What is the evidence you are waiting for that does not already exist?
You can't persuade skeptics by not addressing (simply omitting) some most important concerns, namely: - Role of age, fitness and comorbidities in risk/benefit analysis - Lack of trust in institutions (suppression of alternative views; capture/corruption) Another question is who New Yorker can reach, I won't be surprised that ~95% of their audience are already vaccinated. And remaining 5% holdouts are well-informed an…
"holdout" and "well-informed" are mutually incompatible in this scenario.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Skeptics" is a very generous portrayal of the anti-vax crowd. They are not skeptics. Their opposition is not based on missing information, it is based on conforming to an ideology. Which is diametrically opposed to skepticism.
People of all classes, religions, races, and political affiliations are among those who don't want to be injected. Men and women, young and old. Knowing this would require you to talk to people out in the real world in such a way that they think they can trust you, since most are terrified to speak up. It is hard to do this unless you are sincerely one of them. What you see on TV or YouTube isn't representative of th…
> For some people, it’s not so much the known risks that have them worried as the unknown. They ask, What if the mRNA vaccines alter our DNA, threatening our health far in the future? Will they affect our bodies in other, as yet undiscovered, ways? After all, some say, this is brand-new technology, and the F.D.A. has only fully approved the Pfizer vaccine. > As it turns out, though, mRNA technology isn’t especially n…
> not particularly concerned about the risk of undiscovered long-term side effects We don't know the long-term effects of corona or corona vaccines on the female reproductive system, especially eggs. Considering that if eggs are attacked, that's the end of us, so we should learn more and fast.
>It is this weighing of risks and benefits, in all their many facets, that informs the chorus of health-care professionals imploring their families, neighbors, co-workers, and friends, along with everyone else, to please get vaccinated against covid-19. They urge vaccination because they see its ratio of risks to benefits as incredibly, unbelievably good. For someone who has already had Covid and recovered, there is…
I guess you missed this big-ass bolded part at the bottom:
*Important Notice medRxiv publishes preliminary scientific reports that are not peer-reviewed and, therefore, should not be regarded as conclusive, guide clinical practice/health-related behavior, or treated as established information.
You fucking liar. You fucking merchant of death. You fucking deceiver. If your position were logical, rational, and intellectually honest, you would not have to mis-represent non-peer-reviewed, inconclusive single studies as inarguable truths.
But your position is bullshit, so your arguments must be to.
Go fuck yourself you fucking cultist.
Those that believe the vaccines are dangerous aren't swayed by rational thinking.
In the very first paragraph, the doctor gives a reason why people aren't getting vaccinated, and it's because they've heard of bad outcomes and are simply avoiding something they know to be a potential immediate risk. That is not irrational thinking. "I often ask them why, after the devastation we’ve seen this year, they’ve chosen not to get vaccinated. Sometimes their answers are weird or conspiratorial. But most pe…
> A 17-year-old ... was rushed to The Grange University Hospital earlier this month after testing positive for the virus - just three days after receiving her first jab.
> The schoolgirl, who is a member of the Welsh Youth Parliament, was soon diagnosed with a Covid-related blood clot in her lung following numerous blood tests, X-rays and CT scans.
Curious how the causal attribution works here.
[1]: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9938121/Schoolgirl-...