In my experience, it’s usually not about finding out the actual facts / truth for these groups of people, but rather based mostly on emotion. I have an extremely hard time believing that letting them listen to TWiV would have any meaningful impact.
Just curious - if you say so many other people are forming their opinion based on emotion rather than facts / truth and don't realize that - why do you think you are immune to the same phenomena? I don't mean it as an insult, I probably also have a few beliefs like that, with no way to realize which ones. Certainly feels good to believe I am protected from a deadly disease and feels bad to wonder about side effects. So why listen to any critique of COVID-19 vaccines after I already got my shots?
'these groups of people' does imply there are (other groups of) people immune to it, whichever group they believe themselves to be in.
(That's an everyday speech 'imply', not a mathematical 'imply'; where of course the existence of sets containing x says nothing about the existence of sets not containing x.)
Hey, that’s not how vaccines actually work. I think you’ve had fragments of the truth presented in a way to try to make you believe things that aren’t true. Vaccines aren’t a platform that can be triggered to do different things. It does use RNA which is cool because it allows for more rapid changes. The vaccine will mostly work with a wide variety of RNA payloads with the only difference being the exact antibodies it encourages. In a few decades that might mean we could start developing and deploying vaccines in weeks. But rna doesn’t last long. It’s pretty unstable so the only thing getting updated is your bodies natural immune response
Technically uwagar is correct, if perhaps overestimating the capability of the "payload". The mRNA could in theory produce a wide array of proteins. Personally I'm excited by the potential for treatments for other conditions using mRNA tech, with research on autoimmune conditions already progressing. Also it's probably possible already to develop and deploy vaccines in weeks, though safety and efficacy tests trials still take months.
Hum, it pretty much is how classic attenuated vaccines worked, except here we are directly controlling the rna that gets stuck in your cells rather than trying to evolve the virus a bit and then stick it in you
u are just reinforcing my understanding. so payloads, triggering and 'specific' products are all real. surely 'bugs' in this sequence are inevitable too with maybe devastating consequences for which no one is liable. who is to say the boosters are not updates that sneak in backdoors with additional 'features'? + these vaccines are peddled by for profit companies that refuse to share IP and emergency approved by govt agencies that have these company officers on their boards.... sorry, i refuse this workflow that treats my body like a phone that needs constant 'security' updates.
Did you get flu updates in the past? What about yearly physicals? Obviously I’m not going to convince you, but I would like to invite you to wonder what the difference is. RNA tech is potentially scary, but the idea that vaccines are secretly doing something else is a bit silly. For one thing the number of people who can “decompile” the vaccine is pretty large. I believe there have been some research papers on it even and beyond that biology is pretty limited. You’d need a lot more than is in the vaccine to do anything more than your run of the mill virus does to you dozens of times a year and honestly a lot less than some because it can’t modify your dna, it can’t save itself anywhere.
Ah, you link to (your) "actual facts": a few short sentences, and a demand based on one graph. Plus speculation (no details though) that the vaccine is interacting with Omicron. A title with a demand in all caps.
Yay for facts, and not emotions! For the obtuse: the last sentence was sarcastic.
Give me a long detailed scientific paper and then maybe it's worth considering.
The “actual facts” are the numbers represented in the graph. (My bad, I thought that would be clear)
The shots were sold as “If you get this shot you won’t get the virus” but apparently people still are getting the virus. And not just getting the virus, but dying from it. And dying from it in greater numbers than before the shots! WTF is up with that?!
Clearly the shots don’t work as they were supposed to.
And they are killing people.
Excess deaths are way up in mRNA injected countries.
And they are preventing people from being born. Birth rates are way down in mRNA injected countries.
Sorry, that is poor application of the scientific method. The blogger - and you - have made hypotheses, and conclude (the page:) "How can anyone view this chart as evidence of anything except - at best - complete vaccine failure?" and (you:) "Clearly the shots don’t work as they were supposed to.". You've concluded these things because emotionally that's what you want to happen, because (I'll assume) you're afraid[1] of the vaccine.
From 1 screenshot graph! Is that all the data you need to draw your conclusions? Is the graph even real, or is a graph from a random blog good enough because it supports your viewpoint? (Let's be honest, "both sides" have this deficiency; "This PNG supports my viewpoint, I'm right!"). Let's see the vax rates (to me the page is trying to trick people by presenting "Over 95% are vaccinated" but that's for people over the age 50. Let's see the rate of "returning to normal" and partying and mingling by people who think since they were vaxxed 6 months ago they were safe.
> And they are preventing people from being born. Birth rates are way down in mRNA injected countries.
Oooh... it must be the vaccine! How about the fact that there's been economic instability since the pandemic? Nah: mRNA introduced, birth rates down, must be mRNA!
Sorry if you're insulted, but geez, either this comment slaps some sense into you (here I am fighting against a windmill) that you're an idjit who needs to be more scientific about his way of thinking, or you're just going to reaffirm your beliefs, because it's more comforting to think that you have a clue and everyone else are the idjits[2]. A toast to that!
[1] Yeah TBH it's a foreign substance, I don't know what liquid they injected into me, at the end of the day I had my faith in the scientists making and checking the vaccine, just like we all put faith that the burger we're eating have been checked properly - by whoever is in charge for checking those things - for mad cow and other diseases.
> Is the graph even real, or is a graph from a random blog good enough because it supports your viewpoint?
It's Google's chart. Search for "covid", then select Israel from the country drop down.
The poster you replied to is asserting that this chart should look much better by now, given the promises made when the vaccine when it was introduced. I don't see why you need "a long detailed scientific paper" to agree or disagree with this.
Public health rights and not clogging up hospitals with easily preventable diseases readily outweigh your individual right to not get vaccinated, in general. Had the discussions around the specific Covid vaccines been argued with this in mind, a more productive conversation could be had, but instead it jumps immediately to a conversation about “muh rights” which is wholeheartedly disingenuous and/or selfish.
To protect or support one individual's rights is to protect or support everyone's individual rights. That is why, for example, prominent free speech activists will support the right of people they vehemently disagree with to voice their opinions, as it protects one's own right to voice opinions.
How is that selfish?
> If you would like to be selfish, you should do it in a very intelligent way. The stupid way to be selfish is … seeking happiness for ourselves alone. … the intelligent way to be selfish is to work for the welfare of others.” - Dalai Lama
Individual rights do not trump collective rights in all cases. If I have the right to shoot a gun, that does not mean I have the right to shoot a gun while people are down range. This lack of nuance in your argument is absurd. The selfish part is suggesting that your individual rights trump everyone else’s rights.
Specific individual rights can and do trump collective rights, but this is a conversation we have to have as a society. For instance, if I am down range, my individual right trumps everyone’s right to fire a gun down that range. It’s the flip side of the same coin. Positive freedoms are zero sum with negative freedoms. Realizing that is step one to having a productive conversation about these things.
Once we get past that fact, by realizing that it is zero sum, and your individual right takes away some collective right (and vice versa) we can look at specific instances and debate those. But when the conversation begins with “you’re taking away my rights”, the rest of the conversation is guaranteed to be unproductive, because, depending on your perspective, both outcomes take away someone’s rights.
> Individual rights do not trump collective rights in all cases.
I agree, though:
a) I didn't make that claim
b) You may as well just say "one right does not always trump another", which is just as true and more insightful
Which makes this part:
> This lack of nuance in your argument is absurd.
actually absurd. And this part:
> The selfish part is suggesting that your individual rights trump everyone else’s rights.
as I've already pointed out, is not something I claimed. This was my claim:
“To protect or support one individual's rights is to protect or support everyone's individual rights."
Perhaps you'd like to try again, and this time actually address me with some respect, not least by actually replying to what was written and not what is most convenient to you in the fantasy argument you've spilled out from your head.
The shots don’t work.
Even if they did, people’s choice over what is injected into their bodies comes first.
Even if they did work, the profile of who was at risk was clear, it wasn’t healthy young people. So why was it pushed on healthy young people?
From the outset the risk reward ratio was not clear for those without high comorbidites, the minute the myocarditis signal showed up it should have been pulled for most people.
Bearing in mind we now know myocarditis is just one of a multitude of negative side effects.
So why did it go on being pushed and coerced to healthy people, actively harming them?
