Are you getting the vaccine? - Absolute trashfire thread, please enter with caution

[Vince McMahon]

However, corrupting 99% of scientists would be a lot harder than corrupting 1% of them

Wouldn't you just have to corrupt influential ones and the rest will follow suit due to peer pressure?

 

[Hollywood Hulk Hogan]

Wouldn't you just have to corrupt influential ones and the rest will follow suit due to peer pressure?

Not necessarily. They'd still have to give reasons for their opinions in a way that makes sense from a scientific perspective. Plus you'd have to worry about scientists from other countries having different conclusions, too. Like a scientist in China probably doesn't give a shit about what the US scientists say

 

[Vince McMahon]

Not necessarily. They'd still have to give reasons for their opinions in a way that makes sense from a scientific perspective. Plus you'd have to worry about scientists from other countries having different conclusions, too. Like a scientist in China probably doesn't give a shit about what the US scientists say

How does one know if something is scientifically sound if they don't have a degree?

 

[Hollywood Hulk Hogan]

How does one know if something is scientifically sound if they don't have a degree?

That is true, but I'd say if 99% of scientists say it is, it probably is. Like I said, it's harder to corrupt the 99% than the 1%

 

[Vince McMahon]

That is true, but I'd say if 99% of scientists say it is, it probably is. Like I said, it's harder to corrupt the 99% than the 1%

I find that argument really hard to comprehend. While it does make sense to me on the surface, it still feels like trust shouldn't be unquestioning because the majority of scientists say it. Isn't scientific consensus subject to constant change?

 

[Hollywood Hulk Hogan]

I find that argument really hard to comprehend. While it does make sense to me on the surface, it still feels like trust shouldn't be unquestioning because the majority of scientists say it. Isn't scientific consensus subject to constant change?

It can be, but it usually isn't. And saying you automatically disagree just because 99% of scientists say it would be even more foolish

 

[Fanatical Pragmatist]

How does one know if something is scientifically sound if they don't have a degree?

Generally if it's been peer-reviewed, it can be trusted with some degree of reliability (until another study supplants it).

The big issue we are seeing with COVID is an otherwise neutral study can be used by people to push a number of policies/take a number of different positions (for example the COVID reinfection studies from Denmark & the USMC).
A lot of the "TROOST SCIENCE!!!" is 1) "public health officials" (re:unelected bureaucrats) pushing a given policy and only listening to evidence which supports the policy they already wanted 2) journalists who tell you what to think

Its also worth noting that Neil "Curfew Cucker" Ferguson, the British scientist who gave off the crackpot model which estimated 500K dead in the UK and 2-3 million dead in US within the first 6-8 months had his model destroyed by peer-review and ultimately retracted it.
HOWEVER, the politicians/bureaucrats were never changed their plans of action treating this thing as the next Smallpox, and the journoshits never changed their coverage of treating COVID as mega-doom plague unlike anything we've ever seen.

 

[Herr Flick]

Judging by the lack of outrage within the medical field, most scientists apparently also think it’s a good idea to feed confused autists and children hormones and then lop off their penises as soon as possible. Since they’re scientists and doctors, surely this is a good thing and could not possibly be a scheme to make stacks of cash at the expense of thousands of ruined lives and society at large.

If your only argument in favor of the vaccine is an appeal to an authority whose status quo consistently and blatantly demonstrates that the core tenet of “Do no harm” has been replaced with “Make fat cash,” you are a blind and arrogant fool that has fallen for one of the largest gaslighting schemes in history.

 

[BrettyBoy]

Not to frighten anyone but It’s pretty off how people are complaining about feeling ill AFTER the vaccine.

 

[Fanatical Pragmatist]

Not to frighten anyone but It’s pretty off how people are complaining about feeling ill AFTER the vaccine.

To be fair, that's not uncommon in vaccines.
A good chunk of illness is your immune system reacting to the pathogen.

 

[Vince McMahon]

It can be, but it usually isn't. And saying you automatically disagree just because 99% of scientists say it would be even more foolish

But I'm not saying any of that. I just find it hard to palate that I should trust them because they're the majority and not because they have convinced me. Wouldn't it be much better to made a choice based on understanding, rather than following the majority opinion?

 

[Kulee Baba]

I did Moderna's for several reasons:

1. My mother did both doses and didn't have any notable negative side effects.
2. My employer would have required me to just keep masking up otherwise.
3. I plan to travel to Canada next year.

I respect everyone who didn't get the shot. Well unless you're not getting it because you hate shots, grow the fuck up the shot barely hurt.

 

[Analphylactic Shock]

This argument seems to centre around suffering from some organ damage and the chance of death on the one hand (the vaccine) and some more organ damage and higher probability of death on the other (Wuhan Flu).

If I had been given a choice, I would have chosen something safe like Ivermectin.

As it is, I had the vaccines and I haven't noticed anything except arm pain and the fact that the vaccine turned me into a gay, autistic retard. But those are just side effects.

 

[Hollywood Hulk Hogan]

But I'm not saying any of that. I just find it hard to palate that I should trust them because they're the majority and not because they have convinced me. Wouldn't it be much better to made a choice based on understanding, rather than following the majority opinion?

I don't think so. I think assuming that 99% of global scientists could be corrupted is foolish, especially when there's no reason for them to be corrupted (since they took the vaccine themselves)

 

[Vince McMahon]

I think assuming that 99% of global scientists could be corrupted is foolish

Have I actually assumed that? Or are you suggesting that short of bribing everyone, it's absolutely impossible to exert any sort of peer pressure on a group of people?

 

[Hollywood Hulk Hogan]

Have I actually assumed that? Or are you suggesting that short of bribing everyone, it's absolutely impossible to exert any sort of peer pressure on a group of people?

When that group of people saw the same data, I'd say yeah, it'd be tough. Those same people got the vaccine, too, so it's not like they don't have skin in the game as well

 

[Vince McMahon]

When that group of people saw the same data, I'd say yeah, it'd be tough. Those same people got the vaccine, too, so it's not like they don't have skin in the game as well

Okay, I respect your position, even if I disagree with it.

New question: do you agree that there might be entirely logical reasons to be cautious and considerate of getting these solutions, even if those reasons do not seem to be obvious to you?

 

[Hollywood Hulk Hogan]

New question: do you agree that there might be entirely logical reasons to be cautious and considerate of getting these solutions, even if those reasons do not seem to be obvious to you?

I do not, unless one has a history of allergies to vaccines or was told by a medical doctor (not chiropractor or ND, they're quacks) to not get it. The odds of an adverse reaction from it are far, far, far lower than from covid itself.

Then there's the whole societal reason, for herd immunity and to help prevent new strains from mutating

 

[Vince McMahon]

I do not, unless one has a history of allergies to vaccines or was told by a medical doctor (not chiropractor or ND, they're quacks) to not get it. The odds of an adverse reaction from it are far, far, far lower than from covid itself.

Can you provide me with those odds? Would you say that it's reasonable to consider the odds as complete data set, even though the solutions are still undergoing trials and will be monitored for reported outcomes?

 

[Hollywood Hulk Hogan]

Can you provide me with those odds? Would you say that it's reasonable to consider the odds as complete data set, even though the solutions are still undergoing trials and will be monitored for reported outcomes?

Off the top of my head, I don't have a link, but I remember it being something like 1000-fold more likely to be hospitalized or have long-term effects from covid than from the vaccine. Covid vaccine also has a 94% chance of decreased hospitalization if you did end up covid (since no vaccine is 100% effective). It's been over a year and there hasn't been any long term issues yet, it's fine.

But to use your own question on you... don't you worry that covid itself could have long term issues that haven't popped up that the vaccine could prevent?

And then there's the whole societal reason for vaccination: for herd immunity and to help prevent new, potentially more deadly strains from mutating