Seatbelts don’t have side-effects. — AJJ

What a cowardly little putz.

6 billion shots given; proven to be safe. Chances of any serious side effects smaller than the chances of winning Powerball— or the chances with any other vaccine. Yet still the idiocy prevails. Because it’s all about YOU, after all, not about the immunocompromised kid down the street, or the community at large (because what’s that?).

Hell, the side affects of the flu vax, ibuporfin, a McDonald's Big Mac, booze, hot dogs, etc. are greater. Don't be a pussy. — James Riley

:100:

I wrote the above before reading this.

Chances of any serious side effects smaller than the chances of winning Powerball— or the chances with any other vaccine. — Xtrix

And yet Dr. Mondo lost a girl friend to the vax after Guido and Luca put a gun to her head and said "Job or jab you little twit." :roll:

Ah, good old anecdotes. The imbecile’s idea of “strong evidence.”

Ah, good old anecdotes. The imbecile’s idea of “strong evidence.” — Xtrix

Yeah, and what are the odds we have a person right here on TPF who personally knows someone who died from the vax. Under threat of job loss, no less. We should all run out and buy a lottery ticket.

But what is good for the goose is good for the gander. So, if the Covid patient died from being fat and not covid, then that vax-related death wasn't really from the vax. Doesn't count. Sorry. The doctor who said the vax killed her is part of a big conspiracy to undermine the vax and is paid by FAUX News.

The doctor who said the vax killed her is part of a big conspiracy to undermine the vax and is paid by FAUX News. — James Riley

That’s how it’s done. Excellent! I for one am convinced.

That’s how it’s done. Excellent! I for one am convinced. — Xtrix

Hey, I just did my own research. I can criticize anything so I must have great critical thinking skills. :roll:

If it were a king, he might not ask. Hell, you can even dislike elected officials relying on experts but at least they are just asking politely. Actually, they are near begging. — James Riley

Only asking? Not commanding? In that case, it should not matter if some people take their choice and choose to decline.

Begging does nobody any good, it's pitiful at best. My dog begs too, its cute when she does it.

Enough slapping each other on the backs. Get a private room. If you cannot unearth and empathise why anti-vaxxer believe what they do, you're never going to convince them otherwise. They're not irrational or stupid as much as you want to find a reason why you're not able to convince them otherwise.

It's not fundamentally irrational to distrust governments or the pharmaceutical companies. I think government action in respect of Covid has been pretty shit in general.

In the Netherlands, thanks to this site, I argued for a lock down about 2 weeks before they implemented nation wide restrictions. That means people who's job it was to understand pandemics should've known even earlier. I assume they did, since the writing was on the wall by then and most likely politicians didn't listen because "the economy".

And then this summer when cases per citizen were higher than surrounding countries, the experts advised not to fully open up and the Netherlands being the god-damn most populous country in Europe, they fucking caved on the political pressure from a vocal minority and fully opened up. Predictably, that didn't end well. They then failed to take responsibility for it, which pisses me off even more and we went into lock-down again.

Then there was the wishy-washy communication on masks, which could've been avoided if they had simply said: "Masks work, we just need to prioritise them for front line healthcare workers, so the sale of them are banned until such time as the supply of PEP for front line workers is guaranteed. We've set up a special task force to but PEP." Instead of suggesting they're not effective.

Governments make decisions based on a variety of different social, economic and political interests and as we have seen, saving human lives is not their primary interest in most cases. The economy, e.g. those people who can buy influence and vote for status quo parties, are almost always prioritised and regular people pay the price. Normally that's just about taxes, this time it's about lives, which makes it especially egregious.

So yeah, I get the distrust, I just don't think it translates into having to distrust vaccinations. There's no particular reasons to distrust vaccines other than general distrust of governments and big pharma and that simply isn't evidence.

Why do people live? What do they hope to accomplish by living? Should they be helped to live, made to live, solely for the sake of living?

It would be easier to design an emergency response strategy to a health crisis if people's lives would be considered in terms of "living as a means to an end", rather than just "living for the sake of living".

It is, of course, unacceptable to bring this up in polite society. But it is precisely because we haven't cleared this up and instead made it into a taboo topic that our response to a crisis (any crisis) is bound to be ineffective
— baker

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. — frank

I think that in order to effectively handle a crisis, be it a medical one or a socio-economic one, or an ecological one, people first need to be in the clear about "the big existential issues" and have a definitive answer to the meaning of life question.

When, instead, they're just focusing on retaining the status quo, they'll sooner or later end up in the same or worse trouble.

There's no particular reasons to distrust vaccines other than general distrust of governments and big pharma and that simply isn't evidence. — Benkei

Indeed, it isn't evidence, but it is cause for action, or in the case of those who don't get vaccinated, inaction.

I think government action in respect of Covid has been pretty shit in general. — Benkei

Based on what do governments think that people should trust them?

With Pfizer's technology they can make a new vaccine in a couple of weeks.

Unfortunately it has to be super frozen, so it's not ideal for protecting war torn regions, for instance. — frank

Not just war torn regions. There was a scandal in Sweden where they vaccinated 6,000 people with stale Pfizer. It's not clear what came of that.

One of the reasons why I chose the Janssen vaccine was precisely this: since it can be stored at room temperature, there's less chance with something going wrong with it in this regard.

Indeed, it isn't evidence, but it is cause for action, or in the case of those who don't get vaccinated, inaction. — baker

No, that's just a heuristic approach that you confuse with making a rational decision. There's an important difference. If I have bad experiences with Apple products, that's no reason to assume their next phone will be shit too. Those bad experiences are a reason to do proper research on the next phone whether the issues I had with previous versions are resolved or not. It's also doubtful my experience with their phones can be carried over to other product lines such as laptops and desktops.

Of course, I can also choose to categorically not but Apple products as a stand in for doing that research but that's not rational because it's quite possible their next phone is the one best suited to my needs.

No, that's just a heuristic approach that you confuse with making a rational decision. — Benkei

?
Most people call their decision making "rational". In popular parlance, "rational" has a very different meaning than in academic philosophy.

I spoke of "causes for action" precisely to avoid this confusion.

As I tried to demonstrate with the Apple example, it's hardly rational to assume that because you had a bad experience with the government in one area that you will necessarily have a bad experience again and in particular in another area. Cause for concern? Sure. But so far I'm missing the evidence that Big Pharma and the government are lying and are untrustworthy with respect to the Covid vaccines.

There's different discussion to be had about the efficacy of policies in general and why Covid and not obesity and smoking and eating too much sugar and salt, etc. But those are still not reasons not to get a vaccination since the money has already been spend - your vaccine has been ordered.

Covid-19 in Norway can now be compared to the flu, says health chief

Put down your pitchforks and clean your breeches folks.

The R-factor is much lower in Norway because it isn't densely populated. So a 68% vaccination rate is sufficient to reach that. Different regions require different approaches. 68% vaccination in rural areas in the Netherlands would be enough as well - not so much in Amsterdam.

I'm talking about decisions that are made solely or primarily on trust. In this case, it matters not (or very little) what the evidence about the matter at hand is, but whether the person who needs to make a decision and take a particular action trusts the person asking them to make said decision. In this case, whether the citizen trusts the government. To note that normally, this trust takes a long time to build and is virtually impossible to establish it deliberately.

There are citizens who act the way they act with little or no regard as to what the government does or tells them to do. Ie. for those citizens, trust in the government plays a minor role or none at all.

But then there is also a percentage of citizens (possibly a considerable one) for whom trust is the deciding factor. These are people who "in their heart of hearts" must feel that the government means well for them. Once such people come to distrust the government, this is a generalized distrust. If the government were to say 2 + 2 = 4, these people's first impulse would be not to believe it.

Sure, we can say that these people are irrational, that they are jumping to conclusions, and so on. That they rely on the government too much, that they are even childish and "can't think for themselves". But right now, this is irrelevant. For these people, trust is the primary heuristic, and that's how they function. Attempting to educate these people about vaccines is not going to make a difference, but it can make things even worse, it can strengthen their distrust of the government.
I think what could make a difference are long-term citizenship programs where people are taught to be professional citizens, which includes having a significantly less emotional attitude toward the government, feeling less like a subject or less like a child toward the government. But this, of course, takes time and effort.

Sure, we can say that these people are irrational, that they are jumping to conclusions, and so on. That they rely on the government too much, that they are even childish and "can't think for themselves". But right now, this is irrelevant. For these people, trust is the primary heuristic, and that's how they function. — baker

I totally agree that it makes little to no difference telling people they are irrational. I do think it helps, if you're intent on changing minds, to understand the "heuristic" isn't a rational decision making process. Rational arguments aren't going to convince many as is clear with respect to the entrenched positions even on a board like this where rational thinking is presumably above average.

And your plan takes too long for the issue at hand. And it's true for both sides in a way. Assuming pro-vaxxers are right, what's the best way to go about convincing anti-vaxxers? Assuming anti-vaxxers are right, what's the best way to go about convincing pro-vaxxers?

Pro-vaxxers have a heurestic too, where the most used one is "scientific consensus". Even that is posited as a rational decision making process but it really isn't. But since most people tend to agree with the fact it's a pretty good heurestic they don't get challenged on it.

A start to at least get a meaningful conversation going is that both sides realise they've not rationally arrived at their position, unless they're expert epidemiologists or virologists and some doctors, and stop assuming only the other is irrational.

A question could be, what makes a good heuristic decision making process and why? Maybe that can take the conversation further, I don't know.

They're not irrational or stupid as much as you want to find a reason why you're not able to convince them otherwise. — Benkei

As I've explained all along, my truck with them is political. I don't see their issue as fear or suspicion or lack of trust. They won't vax because they hate who's asking and because they've been told not to by those who hate whose asking. It's political. They hate me for my politics, I hate them for their politics. Simple as that. They are disrespectful, inconsiderate, selfish, obstinate, petulant anti-social brats. When they go low, I go with them.

Only asking? Not commanding? — Merkwurdichliebe

Yes, only asking. Not commanding . . . . yet. It's like a mother pleading with her child to get in the back seat and put on the seat belt. You might think begging is like your dog but your dog is not going to lose his patience with you if you keep being a POS. Eventually there will be commands. And then we have to listen to the wailing. That is if we haven't lost the war already, thanks to these children. In that case, they've killed a lot of people.

P.S. So you think it's cute when government begs you to get a shot and save you life and that of others? Are your politics showing?

So yeah, I get the distrust, I just don't think it translates into having to distrust vaccinations. There's no particular reasons to distrust vaccines other than general distrust of governments and big pharma and that simply isn't evidence. — Benkei

And then we do live in democratic countries, where people can and will have their own ideas. Some countries more than others.

Even here in law abiding Finland, where of the population over 12 years old over 80% have gotten the first shot and 69% have gotten the second shot has been given to the majority of people. Yet even from the 65+ age cohort still just slightly over 91% - 93% have been vaccinated. So I guess that every tenth likely won't get a shot. The government has an objective to have 4/5 of the population having two shot vaccinations and rest there. To get higher, you would have to really forcing people to get vaccinations.

And your plan takes too long for the issue at hand. — Benkei

Most good plans are like that. People at large have allowed themselves to be lulled into a false sense of safety, and this is not something that can be remedied easily.

And it's true for both sides in a way. Assuming pro-vaxxers are right, what's the best way to go about convincing anti-vaxxers? Assuming anti-vaxxers are right, what's the best way to go about convincing pro-vaxxers?

I think that at this point, it's too late for convincing, too late for talking, too late for discussion. At this point, the only effective course of action seems to be to make vaccination and other sanitary measures mandatory, perhaps even enforce martial law.

A start to at least get a meaningful conversation going is that both sides realise they've not rationally arrived at their position, unless they're expert epidemiologists or virologists and some doctors, and stop assuming only the other is irrational.

This is a lot to expect even from academics, what to speak of ordinary people!

A question could be, what makes a good heuristic decision making process and why? Maybe that can take the conversation further, I don't know.

That conversation would take time, space, a period of peace with no crises, medical or otherwise.

People generally aren't used to function well under pressure; and even when they are, it's with the aim to get from under that pressure into a relaxed, "normal" way of being.
Perhaps, like the US Navy SEALs, we should all train under the motto "The only easy day was yesterday".

people first need to be in the clear about "the big existential issues" and have a definitive answer to the meaning of life question. — baker

That's ... aiming rather high (unless I misunderstand, which is entirely possible).
There are historical/textbook case studies, and (cumulative) evidence, all that stuff, that we can learn from, we'd be fools not to.
Seems relevant for a functional society where all kinds of different people interact, yes?

Some recommend a bit more than 1m, but, anyway...

Eventually there will be commands. And then we have to listen to the wailing. That is if we haven't lost the war already, thanks to these children. In that case, they've killed a lot of people. — James Riley

That's too bad. Good thing its all speculation.

So you think it's cute when government begs you to get a shot and save you life and that of others? Are your politics showing? — James Riley

Save my life and the life of others? Don't be so dramatic.

And what makes you think I give two fucks about saving lives? I'm simply content in not intentionally ending lives, I always do my part in refraining from murder and other forms of unnecessary killing, without fail. Did you know that there are numerous categories of people whose live's needed saving before covid, and continue to need saving today? If I were concerned about saving lives, the first ones I'd try to save would be Arab children getting blown up by the US war effort. But nobody gives a fuck about those people. It's a lot easier to feel righteous by obsessing about covid fatalities. For me, covid fatalities are at the bottom of the list of lives that need to be saved.

I think its cute when a dog begs. I think its pathetic when the state begs. In my opinion, if the state is a democratic republic, then it should ask and respect the choices of its people and deal with the consequences; if it is despotic, then it should command its people, and purge noncompliers with great predjudice. What is so hard about that?

You appear to favor the latter mode of statehood, no doubt you would thrive under it. Perhaps my politics are showing...you tell me.

That's too bad. Good thing its all speculation. — Merkwurdichliebe

Tell that to the folks who lost loved ones who could not access a bed.

Save my life and the life of others? Don't be so dramatic. — Merkwurdichliebe

I'd argue that, but then it was followed by this:

And what makes you think I give two fucks about saving lives? — Merkwurdichliebe

And that explains it.

Did you know that there are numerous categories of people whose live's needed saving before covid, and continue to need saving today? — Merkwurdichliebe

I know, right? And some of them can't get a bed.

If I were concerned about saving lives, the first ones I'd try to save would be Arab children getting blown up by the US war effort. But nobody gives a fuck about those people. It's a lot easier to feel righteous by obsessing about covid fatalities. For me, covid fatalities are at the bottom of the list of lives that need to be saved. — Merkwurdichliebe

Okay, so you side with the virus; killer of millions. Got it.

it should ask . . . . What is so hard about that? — Merkwurdichliebe

Exercise a little situational awareness and you'll see what's so hard about that.

You appear to favor the latter mode of statehood, no doubt you would thrive under it. — Merkwurdichliebe

If it were then I wouldn't be supporting the asking, and fearing the tools who could give a shit about others.

Enough slapping each other on the backs. Get a private room. If you cannot unearth and empathise why anti-vaxxer believe what they do, you're never going to convince them otherwise. They're not irrational or stupid as much as you want to find a reason why you're not able to convince them otherwise. — Benkei

Oh how objective and fair you are.

When people start speaking irrationally, ignoring evidence, and otherwise start talking like Alex Jones, there's no point in pretending to have a rational conversation. That has nothing to do with empathy.

Also, I think it's completely irrational to think you can convince them otherwise by hugging them to death. If anti-vaxxers have proven anything, in general, it's that they're completely immovable in their position. If you want to keep fighting the good fight, fine. I've spent hours responding to them, in fact -- but I owe them no politeness when they drop their manners.

Tell that to the folks who lost loved ones who could not access a bed. — James Riley

It isn't my problem that there are not enough beds. If you're so concerned, donate your bed?

And that explains it. — James Riley

Okay, so you side with the virus; killer of millions. Got it. — James Riley

Yes, it explains clearly. You prefer the indescriminate blowing up of Arab children, I prefer covid fatalities.

Did you know that children are far less susceptible to severe infection from covid than are other age groups? I guess that means I care about the lives of children more than you.

Yes, it explains it clearly.

Exercise a little situational awareness and you'll see what's so hard about that. — James Riley

I am, if I see the situation to be a democratic state, I expect it to serve its people.. If I see a despotic state, I expect the people to serve it. You see, very simple.

If it were then I wouldn't be supporting the asking, and fearing the tools who could give a shit about others. — James Riley

This is probably news to you, but not everyone is so needy, there are multitudes of people that do not want others to give a shit about them, especially strangers they will never meet. Looks like you don't give a shit about those people...so much for your universal benevolence