Hacker News Reader

Comment by orwin | Hacker News Reader

> it compromised the trust in the program sure but there is no need to make it sound even worse than it is.

But this is worse than just that. This is an example of "post-truth", those kind of thing make people think "okay, the anti-vax side is lying, but the pro-vax side is lying too". It is because of this kind of comportment that so antivax tell themselves (and others when they are caught) "Okay, i'm lying, but i believe in the cause, i'm sure i'm right, and well, i have to lie to match my opponents, cause the truth takes the stairs, and lies the lift".

I'm taking Vax and anti-vax here, but you can make the same argument for less dangerous "truthers".

View on HN

That "everybody is lying" disease is what creates dangerous sociopaths. I'm almost certain it's impossible to get cured of it once you reach a certain threshold. It literally distorts your view of the world in a way that makes you harmful to others. And since you interpret your interactions with people through that lense it's impossible to help you.

CIA is lying and WPO is lying.This creates just healty paranoia. Trust but verify.

I have another form of this: I constantly think people are playing/fucking with me and behing dishonest just to make me feel good, and anyone that tries to tell me otherwise just fits perfectly in my lenses. I don't try to do it though and try to be nice and honest

You should assume intelligence agencies are lying to you to further a certain goal. This is a completely healthy assumption. Of course that is valid for any agency in any country.

A short look at history supplies a lot of empirical evidence for that.

Your analysis of antisocial personality disorder is very unscientific and not at all in line with definitions.

Anything can be used to justify your own biases to shift responsibility unto others (blame game). That's a personal responsibility to clear up, not someone else's. If one cannot function in an imperfect society, that only hurts oneself in the end.

You're in the shadow of an article about the US government running a vaccination program as the precursor to a violent massacre/assassination/kidnapping escapade that could theoretically trigger a war (although the Pakistanis are realpolitik savvy enough just to lie down and take it).

Vaccine programs have some unexpected risks to them. It might make a country question the US's involvement in a vaccine rollout.

Seems silly to make this into vaccination distrust when it should be government distrust.

They can get DNA from any charitable mission that gives moments of physical contact. They would have had to add extra steps to the vaccination process to get a good sample anyway.

Topical example, people claiming that "well it could have come from a lab" were effectively bucketed with people who said "this is a communist bioweapon!".

It happens, but is relatively rare, that scepticism of a COVID vaccine is allowed to stand on its own in an internet discussion. Being distrustful of the government can literally get people attacked as though they wanted to inject themselves with bleach.

Pointing out that the government is untrustworthy and suggesting maybe we should move slowly will get people hit with being anti-science. Facts or free choice be damned.

I don't see the problem, except for manufactured outrage and fueling such.

All current vaccines for COVID-19 are in experimental phase. They've been tested enough to be deemed safe enough. AstraZenica/Jansen was found to have rare cases of deadly side-effects, so many countries banned it. Other countries decided that it is safe enough compared to continued lockdowns or outbreaks. The new methods of making vaccines means it is very similar to the virus itself, but without causing viral outbreak. So by experts they are deemed to be much safer than catching the virus, which everybody eventually will - vaccinated or not. The relatively short time do have concerns that there might be side-effects that haven't been found yet, but medical authorities have in a distributed manner accepted the risks in all countries.

It's good to ask questions, but the questions should be made in good faith and based on concrete findings and facts, not based on unjustified distrust. Maybe some authorities deserve that, but states are made up by the people, and the people must fix that themselves.

This discussion thread is just all over the place, to shift blame rather than own up to a difficult situation.

There should be no automatic acceptance of experimental vaccines, but there are processes and concerns that have already been settled for this one. All medicine carry potential of severe and deadly side-effects, so testing, continued monitoring and scaling of usage is of paramount importance, also for trust in vaccine programs.

There's just no perfect solution at hand, and the crisis is ongoing.

Not that I disagree with your arguments per se, but look how many times you used 'should'. It should, we should etc.

Well, world isn't some theoretical ideal piece about how the world should be, humans are not as they should be, and these things are so much apart that its kind of pointless to be such idealist. Because proposed solutions will not work as intended, or at all.

I used "should" two places, both hypotheticals.

Of course people will see the same situation in different perspectives, so perhaps any call for reason and leniency is made in vain.

> based on unjustified distrust. Maybe some authorities deserve that, but states are made up by the people, and the people must fix that themselves.

It's disenfranchisement that even allows organizations like the CIA to do some of the things they do without fear of punishment. Pulling back completely is the last resort, not the first thing anyone ever tried. Also, it's up to Americans to change the CIA, not people in Pakistan. They react to it, but you can hardly blame them.

I think a lot of people are more worried about corruption on the board of Pfizer than they are about foreign CIA operations. They can also be worried about government corruption at the same time since there are clear lines of influence between pharma execs and elected officials.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com