Seriously thoughtful The Covid Vaccination Poll

[haertig]

Originally Posted by 4691mls

it seems like instead of continuing to follow the experts as more has been learned about Covid, many people reacted by not believing anything else experts said.

The issue is, that the "experts" proved that they are NOT experts. So why would people believe and follow them after that?

A good example is Fauci. He is the face of experts, isn't he? He of course went through the "no mask, followed by mask, followed by double mask" fiasco. It is fine to change your mind over time as new information comes in. many call that flip-flopping, but really it is learning and changing.

[edit]
It appears that I may be in error on the paragraph below. I fell into the same trap that I am complaining about - trusting something that I read online that was credibly presented. My mistake. Lesson learned, "trust nothing you see online".

However, in the case of Fauci, he wrote a medical paper specifically on the 1918 pandemic and the use of masks. His conclusion was that it was not the virus that caused the most deaths, it was pneumonia brought on my wearing of masks! Now, when he wrote that paper, there was no urgent situation going one, no pressure to come to one conclusion or the other. You would assume that Fauci heavily researched his work before publishing.
[/edit]

So even though he is thought of as "an expert", just how expert is he really? He didn't just change his opinions and recommendations in the heat of battle with covid raging, he changed them after careful research historically.

This is why people are prone to distrust "the experts" now. And it is obvious why this has happened. But you are right ... in the case where "an expert" does come up with a good recommendation, there is now a heavy burden of proof for them to prove they are competent in the first place. This is not a good situation to be in. But it is "the experts" who brought it onto themselves.

Masks are nothing new. They've been around for over a century. They have probably been studied to death, and studied during periods where there was zero pressure to come up with a conclusion. But yet, "the experts" still managed to contradict themselves right and left and make themselves look like fools.

Then you look at vaccines in general. They've been around forever. Sure, new viruses come and go, but that doesn't mean that everything has to start over from scratch each time. So when "the experts" say "we just don't know if the vaccine will prevent you from spreading the virus to others", you kind of scratch your head. What, haven't they been observing all the other bazillion vaccines over the decades? All those seem to prevent the spread, why not this one? Sure, that has to be proven, but they should have a pretty good idea that the spread will be diminished from vaccinated people, simply based on how other vaccines have worked over the years. And no, the mRNA technology is not all that new. They've been testing and developing it for over 20 years. They've had many trials and have monitored many patients who received mRNA vaccines. So when "the experts" claim that they have no idea about side effects, no idea how long immunity might last, or if the vaccine will help prevent the spread of disease, you have to wonder what they've been doing for the last twenty years while researching it.

Of course research is still needed. But honestly, these experts don't appear to be all that expert at what they're doing right now. It is appropriate to be skeptical of their recommendations. That doesn't mean not to follow them. But it does mean to question them.

[issybird]

Originally Posted by haertig

and the media has no credibility.

Quite the blanket statement and quite untrue. Some media have a lot of credibility and some in truth have none. Are we talking about the New York Times or are we talking about One America News? Pick a credible source; in fact there are many.

Originally Posted by haertig

We don't hear too much about the AZ vaccine in the USA, since it is not used here.

What we do hear is often times delayed, and driven by a hysterical media looking to grab attention with scary headlines.

Again, driven by your own personal experience and uninformed opinion. The news sources I use have covered the AstraZenaca vaccine in depth since it was announced. Nor do I consider these sources “hysterical.”

If you want to be informed, in fact it’s not all that hard. And if you think all US news is corrupt, pick a reputable foreign source. I just hope people from other countries don’t take your word for the news situation here.

[issybird]

Originally Posted by haertig

The issue is, that the "experts" proved that they are NOT experts. So why would people believe and follow them after that?

A good example is Fauci. He is the face of experts, isn't he? He of course went through the "no mask, followed by mask, followed by double mask" fiasco. It is fine to change your mind over time as new information comes in. many call that flip-flopping, but really it is learning and changing.

However, in the case of Fauci, he wrote a medical paper specifically on the 1918 pandemic and the use of masks. His conclusion was that it was not the virus that caused the most deaths, it was pneumonia brought on my wearing of masks!

False.

https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-f...-idUSKBN277200

Don’t blame your news sources for false scare-mongering; blame yourself for believing them.

[twowheels]

Originally Posted by haertig

However, in the case of Fauci, he wrote a medical paper specifically on the 1918 pandemic and the use of masks. His conclusion was that it was not the virus that caused the most deaths, it was pneumonia brought on my wearing of masks!

Here's a PDF of the paper, please show me where it says that masks are the cause of said bacterial pneumonia.... and then when you cannot find it, please stop spreading misinformation.

https://watermark.silverchair.com/19...F7eRMKXsuVRXbE

[haertig]

Originally Posted by twowheels

Here's a PDF of the paper, please show me where it says that masks are the cause of said bacterial pneumonia.... and then when you cannot find it, please stop spreading misinformation.

I have edited my post above to acknowledge the misinformation. Thanks.

[haertig]

Originally Posted by issybird

Again, driven by your own personal experience and uninformed opinion. The news sources I use have covered the AstraZenaca vaccine in depth since it was announced. Nor do I consider these sources “hysterical.”

And in turn, YOUR statements are driven by YOUR own personal experiences and opinion.

Duh.

Did it ever occur to you that our experiences may be different?

The nature of debate is to state your belief and possibly (probably!) have that rebutted. Then you reevaluate your viewpoint and either try to strengthen your case, or concede that you were wrong/misinformed. Usually the correct answer is in the middle, so neither side can claim a 100% victory. A concession is not always warranted, sometimes "agree to disagree" is the best resolution.

An alternate way to address this issue of opposing beliefs/opinions is to belittle the other side, put down their experiences, try to silence them, and attempt to elevate your stature while denigrating theirs.

And coincidentally, there is a difference of opinion regarding which of these two methods is the best one to use.

[issybird]

Originally Posted by haertig

[edit]
It appears that I may be in error on the paragraph below. I fell into the same trap that I am complaining about - trusting something that I read online that was credibly presented. My mistake. Lesson learned, "trust nothing you see online".

Serious question. If you’ll trust nothing you see online, where will you get your information? Given that every news source has an online presence? First-hand exposure? That hardly seems adequate.

Also, inquiring minds want to know. Which “news” source provided that gem about Fauci that was credibly presented?

[issybird]

Originally Posted by haertig

And in turn, YOUR statements are driven by YOUR own personal experiences and opinion.

Duh.

I was reacting to your blanket assertion that people in the US knew little if anything about the AstraZeneca vaccine, where you seemed to extrapolate from your own lack of knowledge to include all your countrymen.

The nature of debate is to state your belief and possibly (probably!) have that rebutted. Then you reevaluate your viewpoint and either try to strengthen your case, or concede that you were wrong/misinformed. Usually the correct answer is in the middle, so neither side can claim a 100% victory. A concession is not always warranted, sometimes "agree to disagree" is the best resolution.

Again, wrong. You can’t start from the position that the truth is “usually” somewhere in the middle, most especially when dealing with facts. It’s akin to the idea that all opinions are valid and that people are entitled to opinions that are illogical or based on false information. However, it’s certainly true that people will double down on demonstrable lies and there’s not much if anything that can be said to sway them. More’s the pity.

[CWatkinsNash]

I got my appointments!! My first shot is next Sunday the 18th, and my second shot is scheduled for Sunday May 9th. I'm excited!!

[haertig]

Originally Posted by issybird

I was reacting to your blanket assertion that people in the US knew little if anything about the AstraZeneca vaccine, where you seemed to extrapolate from your own lack of knowledge to include all your countrymen.

No, not "all". But "most".

Prove me wrong.

Again, wrong. You can’t start from the position that the truth is “usually” somewhere in the middle, most especially when dealing with facts.

When the facts are unknown, or conflicting, or not readily available, then I disagree. "The middle" is exactly where you should start.

You appear to think that things you believe are facts. So your starting position is that you are right and everyone else who does not agree with you is wrong, because they don't know the facts. Only you know the facts.

I am exactly the same way. I thought I knew a "fact" - that Fauci had authored an article indicting masks in the 1918 pandemic. But it turns out that my "fact" was wrong. I admit that. And I appreciate those that provided links to articles that nuked by belief. I will not make that statement again, because now I know that it was in error.

I'll bet if you look hard enough, you will find an instance where you were wrong too. If not, it's going to eventually happen. You will be wrong at some point in your life. No, I can't state that as a "fact", only a highly likely outcome based on my personal experience (which is, apparently, questionable).

It’s akin to the idea that all opinions are valid and that people are entitled to opinions that are illogical or based on false information.

No, it's not akin to that. It's akin to people rarely knowing all the facts, even if they think they do, and sometimes being wrong because of that lack of complete knowledge. If you don't think you occasionally suffer from that yourself, I suggest you look internally a little harder.

Sometimes "wrong" is absolute - you are right or you are wrong - there is no valid middle ground. But other times it's a continuum and the answer does indeed lie in the middle.

FWIW, I totally reject the new interpretation of opinions and thinking, "Everybody is right". That's a bunch of crap.

However, it’s certainly true that people will double down on demonstrable lies and there’s not much if anything that can be said to sway them.

That is indeed true. But you can't grab on to that thought about something that can happen and apply it universally and suggest that it happens in every case.

If you can find an instance where I have "doubled down on a demonstrable lie" then bring it to my attention. I would assume that you have tools to search every word that I have ever posted here. But use some common sense please. Don't confuse my being misinformed or ignorant as an intentional lie. And don't try to take one of my sarcastic jokes, like "I really, really trust my government!" and claim that is a demonstrable lie (doubled down because I used "really" twice). If you do view my previous posts honestly, you will have to admit that many of them - maybe even "most" of them - are sarcastic, dry humor in some way. Others are rants. Still others are "normal". I do not view you as a humorous person, but I do view you as an intelligent one who would know the difference.

[meeera]

Originally Posted by issybird

Again, driven by your own personal experience and uninformed opinion. The news sources I use have covered the AstraZenaca vaccine in depth since it was announced. Nor do I consider these sources “hysterical.”

I for one am getting pretty sick of certain sources who are blowing off any concern at all about a complication that disproportionately affects premenopausal women as "hysterical".

[haertig]

Originally Posted by meeera

I for one am getting pretty sick of certain sources who are blowing off any concern at all about a complication that disproportionately affects premenopausal women as "hysterical".

The concerns are not hysterical, but in general, the media is - the way they word their headlines. This is a very common term used to describe attention grabbing headlines. Do you not know the definition of the word? Here is what Merriam-Webster says about it - they even use the media as an example in describing hysteria:

hysterical adjective
hys·​ter·​i·​cal | \ hi-ˈster-i-kəl How to pronounce hysterical (audio) \
Definition of hysterical
1: of, relating to, or marked by hysteria
hysterical conditions
2: feeling or showing extreme and unrestrained emotion
hysterical fans
… the paper did not hesitate to appeal to racial passions in hysterical headlines and rabid editorials.
— The New Yorker
3informal : very funny
a hysterical movie/joke

Check it out right here on their webpage if you don't believe my quote above:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hysterical

You evidently do not understand this common use of the word in describing media headlines, and have offended yourself because you are assigning some other meaning that was never the intention here.

[meeera]

Originally Posted by haertig

The concerns are not hysterical, but in general, the media is - the way they word their headlines. This is a very common term used to describe attention grabbing headlines. Do you not know the definition of the word?

Since I referred specifically to premenopausal women, I think you can reasonably infer that I know both the definition and the etymology. It's sexist crap and it's not a word I use. I've seen many people in the past week referring to any concerns about AZ side effects as "hysterical", and I'm over it.

[haertig]

How you swung the discussion from untrustworthy media and their attention grabbing headlines into accusations of sexism against premenopausal women is one for the history books.

You claim to know the definition of "hysterical". To reassure myself, in case you know something that I don't, I went and Googled more dictionary definitions of the word, and how to use it. A good half dozen more popped up. Not a single one of them mentioned sexism or premenopausal women. But another definition, this one from the MacMillan Dictionary, again used the media as an example of proper usage of the word:

hysterical ​*
​ADJECTIVE
US

/hɪˈsterɪk(ə)l/
DEFINITIONS2
1
behaving in an uncontrolled way because you are extremely excited, afraid, or upset
She wasn’t hysterical, just crying.
Synonyms and related words
-
Feeling or expressing strong emotions
emotional
passionate
ardent
...
Explore Thesaurus ​
1a
reacting to something in an unreasonable way
Media coverage of the issue has been hysterical.
Synonyms and related words
+
1b
suffering from the medical condition of hysteria

https://www.macmillandictionary.com/...can/hysterical

You know, I have indeed seen the usage "hysterical woman". But I have also seen the usage "hysterical child". "Hysterical teenager". And even "hysterical jerk" (referring to a man). The word is not sexist. Using the word in a sentence is not sexist. It is an adjective that means "reacting to something in an unreasonable way". The definition does not change if it is an adjective referring to a woman, a child, a man (the jerk), or the media.

It is now clear to me that you view premenopausal women as hysterical. That's fine if that is your viewpoint. You must have had some experiences in your life that lead you towards that. But don't try to push your viewpoint off as being mine ... I was talking about the media and their unreasonable headlines. Premenopausal women did not even enter my consciousness. I was completely surprised when that accusation flew in from Pluto's outer orbit. What in the world does it have to do with untrustworthy media???

[meeera]

Originally Posted by haertig

It is now clear to me that you view premenopausal women as hysterical. That's fine if that is your viewpoint.

Ah, I didn't realise that you actually don't know what it means. Sorry, I should have explained earlier. The word literally refers to a "wandering womb", from the Greek "hystera", and throughout history has been used to dismiss women's (sometimes medical, sometimes not) issues and concerns as being due to their uterus (and, by extension, their feeble ladybrains).