Coronavirus

Tools    





"How tall is King Kong ?"
This suggests you think there are potentially good and bad explanations for not getting it, yeah? Which means you agree that people's reasons can be reasonable...or not. Could you give me an example of a good (and bad) reason not to get it?
Ok, chiming in, here. Not sure if your question is about Cricket's views or about people, but in case it's about people, I can provide two different sets of examples. The first one is people who feel medically fragile and terrified about some specific potential side effect of the vaccine (people with relevant allergies, for instance), or, as a person I know, living with undefined health issues triggered by undefined causes and scared of any novelty as they're trying to pinpoint that cause by limiting exposure to various potential ones. Another example around me is people with very strong religious beliefs, who not only distrust scientism but whose life also revolves around the postulate of a deity protecting them from bad luck or invisible causes of harm. Within their framework of belief, nothing bad can affect them as a result for following the deity's demands (church gathering, kissing the same sanctified icon, etc).

Such reasons can be false, but not illogical or "irrational" (beyond the "irrationality" of religious faith, but that's another upstream question that won't be solved in this context) given the postulate. And they drive people who are not otherwise dumb, and more importantly, not otherwise evil. Which mean, people I don't wish any harm to, be it disease or the violence of forceful injection. Even if, in this conundrum, I'm not really opposed to mandatory vaccine (but it would break my heart for them).

In contrast, you have people who simply don't like needles and seek for excuses, considering that abstract long term risk is still better than concrete short term inconvenience. Or people with demonstrably false conspiracy beliefs (about brain-controlling micro-chips or a worldwide conspiracy involving a fake pandemic) upheld out of political partisanship. Of course, as always, it's a continuum (even though too late for some, one religious person getting ill should debunk the religious argument, making its falsehood more demonstrable than the theist premise), and all is intertwined with our biases (I'd trust the praise of a European vaccine more than a Russian or Chinese one's). Because rationality is complex and multi-layered. But still, hostility to vaccines isn't always random or a breach of logic.

What to do with that fact is the real question. And as I said, as uneasy that I am with that option, I'm not one who would protest against mandatory vaccines. Because, by chance, I happen to not belong to the categories of people who have reasons to fear it. But I would still feel concern and sadness for those who do, and for whom I feel a solid level of empathy. Even if it saves them, which would be the imperative, the costs on other levels would not be negligible. And if we can avoid it (by defeating the virus through a sufficient number of vaccinated people outside of those), then all the better.



Every politician from both sides should have just come out and encouraged people to get the vaccine when it was ready, and also that they were going to take it themselves. That didn't happen.
Agreed.

One of the most encouraging things was that footage of Clinton, Bush, and Obama all getting it together. Probably not a coincidence that the perfect clarity came from the guys who're done with politics.



Ok, chiming in, here. Not sure if your question is about Cricket's views or about people, but in case it's about people, I can provide two different sets of examples. The first one is people who feel medically fragile and terrified about some specific potential side effect of the vaccine (people with relevant allergies, for instance), or, as a person I know, living with undefined health issues triggered by undefined causes and scared of any novelty as they're trying to pinpoint that cause by limiting exposure to various potential ones. Another example around me is people with very strong religious beliefs, who not only distrust scientism but whose life also revolves around the postulate of a deity protecting them from bad luck or invisible causes of harm. Within their framework of belief, nothing bad can affect them as a result for following the deity's demands (church gathering, kissing the same sanctified icon, etc).
Aye, these are the two cases that give me pause, as well. To be clear, my question was genuine, not a challenge. It was not meant to be "oh yeah? Provide reasons, because I don't think they exist!" It was actually "I want to understand which situations you think are reasonable." Medical fragility is definitely one, though I think/hope I allowed for that properly in saying things like "virtually all cases" instead of just "all."

As it so happens, I have a grandmother who was unable to take the vaccine for awhile for some health reasons. I think that's definitely the clearest example. But generally that's a rare and/or short-term reason, rather than a blanket one.

Anyway, specific disagreements aside, I want to note I very much agree with the general habit of distinguishing between "wrong" and "unreasonable," and increasingly conflating the two in politics and culture war stuff is a major problem. I think the more "wrong" things we also find "unreasonable," the more we're probably letting polarization and tribalism take over our thoughts. In theory there should be a lot of issues, populated by many people, that we find wrong without finding them unreasonable or absurd.



Well, Harris has been known to throw logic aside for kill points (ie Biden and busing). I don't defend her for that. But I also think it is reassuring in the sense that she supports "the doctors" who are making the approval decisions, and that their word is all that counts. Which is how it played out. After all, the vaccines were approved under the Trump administration, but I've never seen anyone use this fact as a reason not to get the vaccine, or to de facto suggest taint. I think the reason for that is that the response from medical professionals have been overwhelmingly supportive.
Cynically, I think it helps that they'd already won the election, otherwise I really think we'd have gotten more hemming and hawing. And it should be noted this was not an isolated incident: Biden said something really sketchy stuff leading up to the election, openly questioning the entire process in a similar manner, so it sure seems like they decided, as a campaign, that they were find repeatedly undermining it. Sadly this is the kind of thing we can always expect in the heat of a bitter campaign.

I think there is something to pointing out that the anti-vaxx crowd have been running with a litany of pretty kooky falsehoods - microchips, magnetism, menstruation anomalies, genetic experimentation, depopulation, etc. This kind of misinformation has a broad effect, and I think has had a substantial influence. I couldn't compare it to the other side if I wanted to because this goes well beyond mere politicization into a realm of hysteria.
Well, sure, I certainly agree it's worth pointing out. Just not in the context of downplaying some other mistake because it manages to be Less Bad. I'm not even a fan of that in marginal cases, and especially not in cases where being merely better is so depressingly easy.



minds his own damn business
Every politician from both sides should have just come out and encouraged people to get the vaccine when it was ready, and also that they were going to take it themselves. That didn't happen.
It happened on one side. Every Democrat in Congress and the White House has been openly vaccinated. Over 100 Republicans in Congress either are not vaccinated or unwilling to admit to it (because it appeals to their base not to be). There isn't equal responsibility here.
__________________



But you did agree the reasons can be understandable/reasonable or not. Wouldn't that also make some of them "bad"? Do you think a choice can be "unreasonable" but not "bad"? Unreasonableness isn't always bad?
I'm not into how you're formulating this.

Only if we find willful ignorance understandable. This hypothetical dude could Google some numbers or read any literature at all about it and get a pretty clear picture of the stark differences. So while it may be reasonable for him to think that with the information he currently has, it would still be unreasonable that he made no effort to learn more.

It's kind of a trick, really: if you WANT to believe something, you can look for a reason to believe it, and simply stop there. This is called "confirmation bias." It's the tendency to stop looking at evidence once you've found the evidence you want to find. I guess it's not as actively dishonest, but it's not really honest, either. And it's not genuine/understandable ignorance if they don't even make a good faith effort to inform themselves.
You don't have to convince me. It's different to convince the guy who sees his two buddies suffering by saying Google it. Human nature plays a role as well. For a person who's never had health problems, their instinct and feelings can overtake any logic that exists. That doesn't mean they shouldn't get vaccinated of course. You and others are trying to make the argument that people should get vaccinated but that's an easy argument to make. That's not what I'm arguing for or against.

Here's one:
If someone asked me if they should get the vaccine, I would tell them that I chose to get it, and that they should consult their physician, do some research, and make the best decision for them. If they decide against it, after proper consideration, who am I to say?

When you replied to this the first time it was just to talk about the "shouldn't" stuff. Speaking of...


I don't think I did. I summarized your position (I think it was clear it wasn't a direct quote), and then in your response you went ahead and said the same thing anyway. That would be a very odd thing to do if you felt I'd summarized your position incorrectly.
I know it wasn't a direct quote but it was in quotation marks and it seemed obvious you were directing it toward me. You introduced that word into the conversation so I used it the only way I saw fit, which was obviously very different-clearly, people shouldn't get vaccinated is different than saying people should do what they want, so no that's very far from the same thing.



minds his own damn business
Cynically, I think it helps that they'd already won the election, otherwise I really think we'd have gotten more hemming and hawing.
I guess we'll never know, but I wouldn't hesitate to call any left-leaning anti-vaxxers out either. Anti-vaxx has actually traditionally been on the left after all (Robert F. Kennedy Jr, for ex).


Well, sure, I certainly agree it's worth pointing out. Just not in the context of downplaying some other mistake because it manages to be Less Bad. I'm not even a fan of that in marginal cases, and especially not in cases where being merely better is so depressingly easy.
As you've already said, I find the comparison best to be avoided, not to protect this "mistake" on Harris' or any one else's part, but because I think this reflects a similar tendency to "both-sides" the issue to create a sense of equitable fault. I've been critical to politicians of all parties through the years and especially this last one, but I feel that with this particular phenomenon of politicized vaccine resistence, I don't think there's really much of a comparison to be had.



Ok, chiming in, here. Not sure if your question is about Cricket's views or about people, but in case it's about people, I can provide two different sets of examples. The first one is people who feel medically fragile and terrified about some specific potential side effect of the vaccine (people with relevant allergies, for instance), or, as a person I know, living with undefined health issues triggered by undefined causes and scared of any novelty as they're trying to pinpoint that cause by limiting exposure to various potential ones. Another example around me is people with very strong religious beliefs, who not only distrust scientism but whose life also revolves around the postulate of a deity protecting them from bad luck or invisible causes of harm. Within their framework of belief, nothing bad can affect them as a result for following the deity's demands (church gathering, kissing the same sanctified icon, etc).

Such reasons can be false, but not illogical or "irrational" (beyond the "irrationality" of religious faith, but that's another upstream question that won't be solved in this context) given the postulate. And they drive people who are not otherwise dumb, and more importantly, not otherwise evil. Which mean, people I don't wish any harm to, be it disease or the violence of forceful injection. Even if, in this conundrum, I'm not really opposed to mandatory vaccine (but it would break my heart for them).

In contrast, you have people who simply don't like needles and seek for excuses, considering that abstract long term risk is still better than concrete short term inconvenience. Or people with demonstrably false conspiracy beliefs (about brain-controlling micro-chips or a worldwide conspiracy involving a fake pandemic) upheld out of political partisanship. Of course, as always, it's a continuum (even though too late for some, one religious person getting ill should debunk the religious argument, making its falsehood more demonstrable than the theist premise), and all is intertwined with our biases (I'd trust the praise of a European vaccine more than a Russian or Chinese one's). Because rationality is complex and multi-layered. But still, hostility to vaccines isn't always random or a breach of logic.

What to do with that fact is the real question. And as I said, as uneasy that I am with that option, I'm not one who would protest against mandatory vaccines. Because, by chance, I happen to not belong to the categories of people who have reasons to fear it. But I would still feel concern and sadness for those who do, and for whom I feel a solid level of empathy. Even if it saves them, which would be the imperative, the costs on other levels would not be negligible. And if we can avoid it (by defeating the virus through a sufficient number of vaccinated people outside of those), then all the better.
Perfect!!



Aye, these are the two cases that give me pause, as well. To be clear, my question was genuine, not a challenge. It was not meant to be "oh yeah? Provide reasons, because I don't think they exist!" It was actually "I want to understand which situations you think are reasonable." Medical fragility is definitely one, though I think/hope I allowed for that properly in saying things like "virtually all cases" instead of just "all.
And then the tricky part is the fact that a population can only have so many people who aren't vaccinated before you drop below the levels needed to protect them!

People who, by all current knowledge, should be able to get the vaccine without risk of complications, put those who are medically fragile at risk because the herd immunity level isn't reached.

It's basically medical/health welfare. A population can support a certain number of people who aren't working. And if someone legitimately can't work, then they should be supported. But if 40% of a population isn't working (and most of them COULD be working), that's just not going to work out.



In my circle of real people friends it's about 50-50 on getting vaxxed but none of the people who aren't getting vaxxed are saying anything about microchips or any of that other online, FB, twitter bs. What I'm hearing from them are:

1. the vaccine is too new to know any of the long term effects or 2. they've already had covid and it wasn't that bad.

Not much you can say about the first one as the long term effects of the vaccine are still being studied. The scientists says it's safe, and it probably is, but the studies are still on going. Time is the only answer and to them six-eight months isn't long enough. To me it's a valid point.

The second one. I don't know. How do you convince somebody that's had covid that they have to have the shot? They beat it without the vaccine but you have to have the vaccine or else what? Delta is worse? They ain't buying it. A lot of times peoples personal experiences influences their decision making. It's weird how that works. 35 million confirmed cases in the USA. 611,000 died. That's an awful lot of deaths but that's also a lot of recoveries.

Ultimately, I think we're getting what we deserve. We've sown so much mistrust in each other by making villains out of anybody we disagree with that we don't trust anything or anyone, anymore and that genie, sorry to say, has left the bottle. Thankfully, I'm Gen X so I don't really give a **** and natural disasters have always fascinated me. That's about as ranty as I get, sorry, but now I gotta get back to twitter and shake a virtual fist at all the tin-hat wearing anti-vaxxers, Branch Covidians, GQPers and libtards. Just doing my part to bring us together.




p.s. 8 years on twitter, have sent out one tweet. Was supposed to get 20% off at a local department store for tweeting something about them @them. It was fake. I didn't get the discount. Man, can't trust anybody!



p.s. 8 years on twitter, have sent out one tweet. Was supposed to get 20% off at a local department store for tweeting something about them @them. It was fake. I didn't get the discount. Man, can't trust anybody!
With all this COVID talk, we've lost sight of the real tragedy here.

#Justicefor Fredrick
#20%forFredrick
#Honorscamcoupons

WARNING: spoilers below
I do not have a Twitter account



I'm not into how you're formulating this.
Why? It seems simple: some reasons are reasonable, so some aren't. The ones that aren't are bad, because it's bad to be unreasonable.

This conclusion may be uncomfortable, because it feels bad to criticize this kind of choice, but logically it's unavoidable, unless you want to say that something can be unreasonable without being bad.

You don't have to convince me. It's different to convince the guy who sees his two buddies suffering by saying Google it. Human nature plays a role as well. For a person who's never had health problems, their instinct and feelings can overtake any logic that exists. That doesn't mean they shouldn't get vaccinated of course. You and others are trying to make the argument that people should get vaccinated but that's an easy argument to make. That's not what I'm arguing for or against.
I agree that their "instinct and feelings can overtake any logic." But that's unreasonable! It's "understandable," to use your word, because it's a common human failing...but it IS a failing.

There are many situations in which responding emotionally should be treated with indifference, because it doesn't really harm anyone. But this is obviously not that kind of situation. It's the exact opposite: one where people's choices can harm others. In those situations, I think we have a moral obligation to at least call it what it is, and to expect more of people. Because they have a moral obligation, too.

If someone asked me if they should get the vaccine, I would tell them that I chose to get it, and that they should consult their physician, do some research, and make the best decision for them. If they decide against it, after proper consideration, who am I to say?
I don't really understand this "who am I to say?" stuff. You're a person with an opinion, and this is a public health matter. I'm sure we can find hundreds of examples of you being happy to express opinions about other people's behavior on matters far less consequential than this.

I know it wasn't a direct quote but it was in quotation marks and it seemed obvious you were directing it toward me. You introduced that word into the conversation so I used it the only way I saw fit, which was obviously very different-clearly, people shouldn't get vaccinated is different than saying people should do what they want, so no that's very far from the same thing.
What you said:
"I would say some people, however few they may be, would end up better off if they didn't get the vaccine"

How I summarized that:
"some people shouldn't get it"

Honestly not seeing the problem here, but there ya' go, now you have direct quotes laid out and everyone can decide for themselves if that's a fair summary or not.




General note here: I want to emphasize that I very much agree with what I think is your general posture, which is that you don't want us pillorying people for fear or ignorance. I don't think that's the solution, just mocking people for these decisions. It should be obvious that doesn't work and I suspect a lot of people do it more to feel good about themselves than out of a genuine attempt to improve the situation.

But I don't want to make the opposite mistake, of being so hesitant to criticize things that we're making excuses for willful ignorance, or of people being genuinely reckless and not making a real effort to inform themselves on matters that affect others, which I think is what's mostly happening when people decide not to get the vaccine.



I haven't read much of this thread lately and don't want to skate on political ice...So I won't comment on any of the last few pages which I perused only.

I'll just tell of my vaccination story, make of it what you will:
I was wanting to get vaccinated asap, but then read about the 'mechanics' of it involving RNA and lipid bubbles or something equally scary to me, so I decided against it. Then my parents got vaccinated and nothing happened but a sore arm...so I got vaccinated. Then I worried just for a few fleeting thoughts, then forgot about it.

Is the vaccine safe? Is it safe not to be vaccinated? That's something everyone has got to decide. I'm glad I got vaccinated and that's all I can say.



Why? It seems simple: some reasons are reasonable, so some aren't. The ones that aren't are bad, because it's bad to be unreasonable.

This conclusion may be uncomfortable, because it feels bad to criticize this kind of choice, but logically it's unavoidable, unless you want to say that something can be unreasonable without being bad.
Because you're introducing a word (bad) that I haven't been using and I don't feel like it would be productive for me to go that route. I'm trying to choose my words carefully with such a sensitive subject.

I agree that their "instinct and feelings can overtake any logic." But that's unreasonable! It's "understandable," to use your word, because it's a common human failing...but it IS a failing.

There are many situations in which responding emotionally should be treated with indifference, because it doesn't really harm anyone. But this is obviously not that kind of situation. It's the exact opposite: one where people's choices can harm others. In those situations, I think we have a moral obligation to at least call it what it is, and to expect more of people. Because they have a moral obligation, too.
I feel much like you do, but not everyone's brain works the same way and I'm trying to refrain from criticizing people who react to a lot of different things because of emotion. You look at things in an extremely logical manner which I very much appreciate, but for some people their feelings are more important. I'm normally one to discount this sort of thing but I'm not always sure it's the right thing to do.

I don't really understand this "who am I to say?" stuff. You're a person with an opinion, and this is a public health matter. I'm sure we can find hundreds of examples of you being happy to express opinions about other people's behavior on matters far less consequential than this.
I do think the majority of people should get vaccinated, but I wouldn't tell a person that they should get vaccinated. I believe a person should make the decision on their own and the only advice they should follow, if any, would be from their physician.

What you said:
"I would say some people, however few they may be, would end up better off if they didn't get the vaccine"

How I summarized that:
"some people shouldn't get it"

Honestly not seeing the problem here, but there ya' go, now you have direct quotes laid out and everyone can decide for themselves if that's a fair summary or not.
They're 2 completely different things but maybe it wasn't clear as to why I'm saying that. As you suggested before, this would strictly be a hindsight thing, and I thought of it because of these two young guys I heard of that had complications from the vaccine. My concern is that maybe they did not want the vaccine but were forced to by their employer, and I have no idea if that's the case. I think it would be tragic for someone to develop serious problems from the vaccine who only got it because they were pressured or forced to do so. Of course everything about the pandemic is tragic, but I see this as sort of a side effect from it.

General note here: I want to emphasize that I very much agree with what I think is your general posture, which is that you don't want us pillorying people for fear or ignorance. I don't think that's the solution, just mocking people for these decisions. It should be obvious that doesn't work and I suspect a lot of people do it more to feel good about themselves than out of a genuine attempt to improve the situation.

But I don't want to make the opposite mistake, of being so hesitant to criticize things that we're making excuses for willful ignorance, or of people being genuinely reckless and not making a real effort to inform themselves on matters that affect others, which I think is what's mostly happening when people decide not to get the vaccine.
Agreed. There are a lot of people who think they are morally superior to those who don't want to get vaccinated and I completely disagree with that way of thinking. One decision does not necessarily dictate the type of person you are.



Agreed. There are a lot of people who think they are morally superior to those who don't want to get vaccinated and I completely disagree with that way of thinking. One decision does not necessarily dictate the type of person you are.
While I don't think that I'm "better" than people who don't want to be vaccinated, I think that it IS partially a moral decision.

If you get infected with COVID, there is a significant chance that you will pass that infection on to someone else. You become part of a chain, and eventually that chain will end with someone who dies of the disease. It's a complicated issue, because it is a question that involves weighing your own wellbeing against the common wellbeing. Not getting vaccinated involves risk to yourself (and possibly even mitigates risk if you believe the vaccine might be harmful), but it undoubtedly makes the world a less safe place for others who are vulnerable, including some people who really CAN'T get vaccinated. People who choose not to get vaccinated are picking themselves over other, much more vulnerable, people.

Was I nervous about the vaccine? Yes. Very much so. I was worried about how quickly it was made. Worried that there were so few trials proving its efficacy. Worried that there was literally no way to have data about the long-term effects of it. Worried that the urgency of getting it out the door may have meant that corners were cut or less rigor was applied.

The fact is, all vaccines come with risk of adverse reactions. Some children will get very sick or maybe even die from vaccines we consider common, like measles. I had a relative who got incredibly sick from a flu shot. But is the individual risk worth allowing our population to stay well under herd immunity? That's where I see it as a moral issue.



While I don't think that I'm "better" than people who don't want to be vaccinated, I think that it IS partially a moral decision.

If you get infected with COVID, there is a significant chance that you will pass that infection on to someone else. You become part of a chain, and eventually that chain will end with someone who dies of the disease. It's a complicated issue, because it is a question that involves weighing your own wellbeing against the common wellbeing. Not getting vaccinated involves risk to yourself (and possibly even mitigates risk if you believe the vaccine might be harmful), but it undoubtedly makes the world a less safe place for others who are vulnerable, including some people who really CAN'T get vaccinated. People who choose not to get vaccinated are picking themselves over other, much more vulnerable, people.

Was I nervous about the vaccine? Yes. Very much so. I was worried about how quickly it was made. Worried that there were so few trials proving its efficacy. Worried that there was literally no way to have data about the long-term effects of it. Worried that the urgency of getting it out the door may have meant that corners were cut or less rigor was applied.

The fact is, all vaccines come with risk of adverse reactions. Some children will get very sick or maybe even die from vaccines we consider common, like measles. I had a relative who got incredibly sick from a flu shot. But is the individual risk worth allowing our population to stay well under herd immunity? That's where I see it as a moral issue.
I think that's a normal way to look at it, but I also believe the person turning it down needs to see it the same way in order for it to be a moral decision on their part.



Because you're introducing a word (bad) that I haven't been using and I don't feel like it would be productive for me to go that route. I'm trying to choose my words carefully with such a sensitive subject.
Whether you use the word or not doesn't change the idea being expressed: if some reasons are unreasonable, and being unreasonable is bad, then some people's reasons are bad.

I generally prefer acknowledging an uncomfortable truth over avoiding it. Implying a thing without saying it is how politicians approach this stuff, but we're not politicians, and I think we have a moral obligation to speak candidly about this. Sensitivity is fine and appropriate when we disapprove of things that don't affect us, but this is a public health issue with a clear impact on others.

I feel much like you do, but not everyone's brain works the same way and I'm trying to refrain from criticizing people who react to a lot of different things because of emotion. You look at things in an extremely logical manner which I very much appreciate, but for some people their feelings are more important. I'm normally one to discount this sort of thing but I'm not always sure it's the right thing to do.
I don't want to discount emotion, because I think its incorporation into decision making is actually very logical. Sometimes our gut is operating based on fear and emotion and trauma, but sometimes it's articulating something reasonable our minds can't.

I think it should be clear this isn't one of those situations, though. This is a straightforward risk assessment about the vaccine. If we're not willing to criticize something as clear-cut as this, we're basically saying everyone gets a pass from criticism (and social pressure) based only on their feelings.

I don't think that's a good idea, and I don't think it's actually respectful of those people, either. I think it's disrespectful, because it treats them like children who can't be expected to do better. It is respectful of people to let them make their own choices on difficult matters and/or matters that pertain primarily to them, but it's the exact opposite to let them off the hook when they behave in demonstrably irrational and reckless ways.

I do think the majority of people should get vaccinated, but I wouldn't tell a person that they should get vaccinated. I believe a person should make the decision on their own
But hearing from others is one of the ways people make those decisions! No choice happens in a vacuum. Vaccine skeptics sure aren't taking this kind of hands-off approach, either.

Trusting people to make their own decisions does not imply we shouldn't influence them: it's just the opposite. Good faith arguments and social pressure is exactly the thing you need when you decide NOT to force people to do something. The fact that we pick our leaders in a democracy doesn't mean we don't argue about who they should be, it means that arguing is actually more important. It's the same thing here: BECAUSE people are not forced to get the vaccine, we're obligated to make the case for it in public.

and the only advice they should follow, if any, would be from their physician.
Well, their physicians are obviously going to overwhelmingly tell them to get it, so I think we can safely assume the people not getting it are not following that advice.

They're 2 completely different things but maybe it wasn't clear as to why I'm saying that. As you suggested before, this would strictly be a hindsight thing, and I thought of it because of these two young guys I heard of that had complications from the vaccine. My concern is that maybe they did not want the vaccine but were forced to by their employer, and I have no idea if that's the case. I think it would be tragic for someone to develop serious problems from the vaccine who only got it because they were pressured or forced to do so. Of course everything about the pandemic is tragic, but I see this as sort of a side effect from it.
It's also a tragedy when someone doesn't get vaccinated out of fear and stubbornness (and I really think it's the latter a lot more than the former), and then passes it to someone vulnerable. And that seems to be happening way, way more.

It doesn't seem like a lot to ask that we at least point out the risks to people and not just accept whatever apprehension they have as inherently valid, when all the information we have strongly suggests they're putting themselves and others in far more danger based on an unwillingness to confront reality.



Whether you use the word or not doesn't change the idea being expressed: if some reasons are unreasonable, and being unreasonable is bad, then some people's reasons are bad.

I generally prefer acknowledging an uncomfortable truth over avoiding it. Implying a thing without saying it is how politicians approach this stuff, but we're not politicians, and I think we have a moral obligation to speak candidly about this. Sensitivity is fine and appropriate when we disapprove of things that don't affect us, but this is a public health issue with a clear impact on others.
You started using the word "bad", and I said I'll pass on that part of the conversation. That's a word that can be misunderstood so I'm not partaking. You already misunderstood something else I said, and to be nice, I said perhaps it was the way I communicated it. The truth is that I have no clue how you misunderstood me. Eventually you did understand me, we moved on, and it was over, but it took a lot of wasted time to get there. You don't need to respond to this part, but if you decide you can't help yourself, anything besides, ok that's fine, or something very close, will simply be met with "waste of time".


I don't want to discount emotion, because I think its incorporation into decision making is actually very logical. Sometimes our gut is operating based on fear and emotion and trauma, but sometimes it's articulating something reasonable our minds can't.

I think it should be clear this isn't one of those situations, though. This is a straightforward risk assessment about the vaccine. If we're not willing to criticize something as clear-cut as this, we're basically saying everyone gets a pass from criticism (and social pressure) based only on their feelings.

I don't think that's a good idea, and I don't think it's actually respectful of those people, either. I think it's disrespectful, because it treats them like children who can't be expected to do better. It is respectful of people to let them make their own choices on difficult matters and/or matters that pertain primarily to them, but it's the exact opposite to let them off the hook when they behave in demonstrably irrational and reckless ways.
Why are you telling me these things? Do you think that I don't know, understand, or agree with all of it? You could be 100% correct on the validity of the thoughts and feelings of millions of people who you don't know, and it would be irrelevant to me. I am not going to criticize people for the decision that they make.

But hearing from others is one of the ways people make those decisions! No choice happens in a vacuum. Vaccine skeptics sure aren't taking this kind of hands-off approach, either.

Trusting people to make their own decisions does not imply we shouldn't influence them: it's just the opposite. Good faith arguments and social pressure is exactly the thing you need when you decide NOT to force people to do something. The fact that we pick our leaders in a democracy doesn't mean we don't argue about who they should be, it means that arguing is actually more important. It's the same thing here: BECAUSE people are not forced to get the vaccine, we're obligated to make the case for it in public.
Again, none of this is breaking news. I am not going to try to convince somebody they should get the vaccine. The exception is someone who I'm very close with. That's my decision. If you want to do something else, that's your decision.

Well, their physicians are obviously going to overwhelmingly tell them to get it, so I think we can safely assume the people not getting it are not following that advice.
Doctors should be offering the vaccine right in their office after taking the blood pressure.

It's also a tragedy when someone doesn't get vaccinated out of fear and stubbornness (and I really think it's the latter a lot more than the former), and then passes it to someone vulnerable. And that seems to be happening way, way more.
It's a tragedy when anybody has severe health issues.

It doesn't seem like a lot to ask that we at least point out the risks to people and not just accept whatever apprehension they have as inherently valid, when all the information we have strongly suggests they're putting themselves and others in far more danger based on an unwillingness to confront reality.
That's fine for you. I am not comfortable trying to tell someone what to do with their body. Again, unless I am very close to that person.



The trick is not minding
Meanwhile, the US Deer population has also been affected by the virus.
New idea for a Disney Bambi reboot!
So instead of Bambi’s mom being shot, she succumbs to……*dramatic pause*…..Covid!



Meanwhile, the US Deer population has also been affected by the virus.
New idea for a Disney Bambi reboot!
So instead of Bambi’s mom being shot, she succumbs to……*dramatic pause*…..Covid!
Bambi's mom being an anti-vaxxer is truly the Disney reboot political hot take I did not see coming.