As a lay person, how do I know that the vaccine really is as safe as everyone says?
I mean, if you told people in 1995 that you won't take the pills that the doctor prescribed because they just want to get you addicted, people would have looked at you funny.
How do we know it's different this time?
Instead, recognize that all human knowledge is probabilistic in nature. The vaccine trials were all published publicly. Review them and scrutinize the methods if you think the conclusions are likely to be wrong.
It's perfectly fair to see that studies have been entirely falsified in the past, but understand also this is why the vaccine was developed in such a way that no single vendor has a monopoly patent on it. Coordinated fraud on the part of multiple researchers funded by multiple vendors in one of the most scrutinized public processes ever conducted is a lot less likely than when all of the information is being generated by a single source.
However, I only think it's only legitimate to reject the advice of the government if you actually go out and do your own research. If you do that, in a rationalist way, you will likely come to the conclusion to get the Covid vaccine, unless you 1) are willing to completely isolate, or 2) have particular blood or immune conditions. The safety of the vaccine compared to the safety of Covid has been conclusively demonstrated.
I agree with this, but it I find it hard to find a single repository of good information on Covid. Maybe I am ignorant. Is there something you can share with me? I know many people still on the fence and I would like to offer them some evidence.
The opioid is not the problem. It's the way it was marketed and prescribed.
Nobody is getting addicted to vaccinations.
The issue is that it’s legitimate to distrust medicine as a whole because there are numerous good examples of it being untrustworthy at every level from public health officials, drug manufacturers, down to individual physicians.
I don’t think it’s good sensemaking to be generically anti-vax, but I think the lack of trust in medicine is a systemic problem and not one that can so easily be blamed on the people who don’t trust it.
Rejecting the vaccine because you don't even understand it's described mechanism and so you fall victim to nonsense claims about "viral shedding" or "gene editing" is not being skeptical, it's being gullible.
I agree that there are level of distrust, but these are not separate categories.
> Nobody who disagrees with them (that Covid is real, that masks have value, that the vaccine is worth getting...) is trustworthy by definition.
Why is it relevant to attack people who disagree with mainstream views as ‘untrustworthy by definition’?
Being wrong or misguided doesn’t make someone untrustworthy.
> That's not "distrust," that's not something that can be addressed simply by "oh I talked to some more people and now I believe that this isn't a case of the system abusing us."
It’s not clear what point you are making here.
> Rejecting the vaccine because you don't even understand it's described mechanism and so you fall victim to nonsense claims about "viral shedding" or "gene editing" is not being skeptical, it's being gullible.
Now you are changing the goalposts. Skepticism is not the same as distrust and not something I have mentioned.
The best guidance we have about these things are from the CDC. While they don't always get it right, they usually have a good explanation for their error when they don't.
It's a gigantic gulf to go from "they're wrong some of the time" to "I'm not going to get vaccinated, but if I do get sick, I'm going to go inject myself with horse paste because I trust whackjob talking heads on the internet more than licensed medical experts in the field."
The VAST majority of people who are resistant to masks and vaccinations are not doing this because they don't believe in the science. They're doing it because talking heads instructed them that to accept them as normal is an affront to their freedom.
Why not the WHO?
The CDC lied to us that masks were useless when in fact they believed that masks were helpful but they wanted to keep the supply for medical professionals.
> While they don't always get it right,
That wasn’t a matter of not getting it right. It was a deliberate lie that was harmful to the health of those who followed it.
> they usually have a good explanation for their error when they don't.
It wasn’t an error, and the explanation was that they lied in order to manipulate public behavior.
> It's a gigantic gulf to go from "they're wrong some of the time" to "I'm not going to get vaccinated, but if I do get sick, I'm going to go inject myself with horse paste because I trust whackjob talking heads on the internet more than licensed medical experts in the field."
It might be for you and me who have background knowledge about vaccines and viruses, but in the absence of that, why would trust the CDC who you know for certain have been lying? Medical licenses didn’t prevent that.
Also, it’s not horse paste. That’s a lie in itself. It happens to be used in horses, but it is also approved for use in humans as are many medicines also used in animals, for example Ketamine. Do you think ketamine is ‘horse paste’.
Calling it horse paste shows contempt for those who think it’s a useful medicine. Why would anyone trust someone who is contemptuous of them?
Remember there are hundreds of licenses medical professionals who recommend ivermectin for covid. Some of them are the very people you are calling “whackjob talking heads”. Deepak Chopra has a medial license and has written 91 books! It doesn’t seem like a medical license is sufficient to tell who is a “whackjob”.
I don’t think ivermectin is effective, but that’s based on my own calculus of how to integrate the various different opinions, none of which are all that trustworthy.
I don't value the opinions of those who believes that a de-wormer is useful medicine against a virus.
Not. A. One.
Know who would have the most to gain by a buying spree of ivermectin?
The manufacturer.
Merck stated that ivermectin is not effective against COVID way back in February.
C'est la vie.
What does that mean? Seems like you just stopped discussing the issue of trust and offered a bunch of opinions about people.
> I don't value the opinions of those who believes that a de-wormer is useful medicine against a virus.
Were you aware that there are new clinical trials being done now to test the hypothesis?
Do you think you know better than the scientists who are conducting them?
We already have treatments that work. Roundworm poison isn't going to save anybody.
There are new studies being done now. We don’t know what them results will be.
> meaning that people who are currently using it might as well be rubbing crystals for all the good it will do them.
You don’t actually know that because you don’t know the results of the studies.
> Just because a scientist tries something, doesn't mean it's a cure or a treatment.
Of course, but it means they don’t think the matter is settled.
You seem to be claiming it is, I.e. that you know better than the scientists conducting the studies.
Can you explain to me, a simple Brit, what you mean. Here doctors are very reluctant to prescribe anything addictive even for a short time. What are the forces behind this?