The Vaccine Thread

[monadnocky]

Some people seem to be wired differently.

Covid vaccine holdouts are caving to mandates — then scrambling to 'undo' their shots
As mandates spread, anti-vaccine groups have been trafficking in pseudoscience treatments meant to remove or counteract the vaccines. Experts say it's like trying to "unring a bell."

Finally! Idiots whose idiocy I can totally get on board with!

[claritycycler]

Pfizer booster yesterday, sore arm today(more so than from the flu shot 2 weeks ago), so far so good, not expecting anything more as the initial vacs were not a problem.

[colker]

Some people seem to be wired differently.

Covid vaccine holdouts are caving to mandates — then scrambling to 'undo' their shots
As mandates spread, anti-vaccine groups have been trafficking in pseudoscience treatments meant to remove or counteract the vaccines. Experts say it's like trying to "unring a bell."

What do the "anti" crowd fear in the vaccine? Would they not believe the letality of covid at this point? Do they think those millions of deaths are just fiction? Do they rather risk developing covid on their lungs , losing memory and concentration? Is it a Death Wish? What´s the point: just to annoy?

[thollandpe]

What do the "anti" crowd fear in the vaccine?

It’s more than an annoyance, it’s downright dangerous. According to the Washington Post this morning, “anti-vaxxers and vaccine skeptics use social media to disseminate the message that the vaccines are unnecessary, ineffective and dangerous.” They say that motivated reasoning may be to blame, and we’re susceptible because we have weak math skills.

Covid misinformation spreads because so many Americans are awful at math

Two-step calculations are hard enough for some, but assessing vaccine effectiveness requires multiple steps.

I don’t know if I agree with their whys, but that article leads with a compelling example. A health director in New South Wales was quoting Covid hospitalization statistics, and after saying there were 43 in the ICU, he said “all but one were vaccinated.” Of course that was statistically impossible and he corrected himself during the same news conference. Only one of 43 in the ICU was vaccinated — all but one were unvaccinated.

And of course the misstatement traveled around the world and back again, amplified as a lie on social media and right wing “news” outlets.

Personally I don’t think it points as much to poor math education as it does to our present inability to pull together in the face of such an extreme crisis. Regardless of math training and ability, it is very difficult to visualize really large numbers (like the scope of Covid transmission) and objectively assess threats (such as unknowingly transmitting the disease). I also think that media — social, mainstream, and fringe — is just a tool being used to exploit our inability or unwillingness to pull together for a common cause. And it gobsmacks me that it’s the case for so many issues: climate change, gun violence, racism, disc brakes on Pegorettis.

It seems that division is the goal. If so, who does that serve? Let’s lace up our boots and kick that ass.

[echappist]

It’s more than an annoyance, it’s downright dangerous. According to the Washington Post this morning, “anti-vaxxers and vaccine skeptics use social media to disseminate the message that the vaccines are unnecessary, ineffective and dangerous.” They say that motivated reasoning may be to blame, and we’re susceptible because we have weak math skills.

Covid misinformation spreads because so many Americans are awful at math

Two-step calculations are hard enough for some, but assessing vaccine effectiveness requires multiple steps.

I don’t know if I agree with their whys, but that article leads with a compelling example. A health director in New South Wales was quoting Covid hospitalization statistics, and after saying there were 43 in the ICU, he said “all but one were vaccinated.” Of course that was statistically impossible and he corrected himself during the same news conference. Only one of 43 in the ICU was vaccinated — all but one were unvaccinated.

And of course the misstatement traveled around the world and back again, amplified as a lie on social media and right wing “news” outlets.

Personally I don’t think it points as much to poor math education as it does to our present inability to pull together in the face of such an extreme crisis. Regardless of math training and ability, it is very difficult to visualize really large numbers (like the scope of Covid transmission) and objectively assess threats (such as unknowingly transmitting the disease). I also think that media — social, mainstream, and fringe — is just a tool being used to exploit our inability or unwillingness to pull together for a common cause. And it gobsmacks me that it’s the case for so many issues: climate change, gun violence, racism, disc brakes on Pegorettis.

It seems that division is the goal. If so, who does that serve? Let’s lace up our boots and kick that ass.

Thread drift (mods feel free to give me a stern talking-to if I earned it).

Are we all so sure that unlimited freedom of speech is an unalloyed good after having witnessed all this (in the same vein as representative democracy is an unalloyed good)?

I think both are still preferable to their respective alternatives, but I think we have come to witness the effectiveness and utility of having more "good speech" drown out the "bad speech". Once the later is out of the box, there's no way to stop it (and only very crude and ineffective ways of curbing it).

[Chik]

I think both are still preferable to their respective alternatives, but I think we have come to witness the effectiveness and utility of having more "good speech" drown out the "bad speech".

Many will agree that 1) the first part of your sentence is true, and 2) the second part of your sentence is difficult to achieve in the short to medium term without resorting to one of the alternatives (education is, in theory, the long term solution to the problem, but empirical evidence to date seems to indicate that it isn't).

However, I also think many will agree with your sentiment.

[bigbill]

Many will agree that 1) the first part of your sentence is true, and 2) the second part of your sentence is difficult to achieve in the short to medium term without resorting to one of the alternatives (education is, in theory, the long term solution to the problem, but empirical evidence to date seems to indicate that it isn't).

However, I also think many will agree with your sentiment.

I'm not sure education will fix disinformation. People see data (not necessarily true or in context) that aligns with their opinion and decide to explore no further. Choice of news sources play a big role as well as disinformation on social media. Other than driving divisiveness, I don't understand the motivation of people pushing against the vaccine. If you don't want one, don't get it, but it seems that people need group approval for their decisions, and do so by convincing others that their action was rational. It's not even a question of freedoms, private employers can require face coverings, it's no different than any other PPE deemed necessary. I think people just want to be pissed off and divisive.

[j44ke]

Freedom of speech has never been the freedom to say anything you want. Even in the most permissive democracies on the planet, government regulates speech. So I don't think there is any such thing as "unlimited freedom of speech." And that may be the primary source of confusion for a lot of people. Government can and does tell you what to do, even in a democracy and even to the point of restricting your "freedoms".

[Saab2000]

I'm not sure education will fix disinformation.

No, it won’t fix mis- or disinformation. But education can help people think critically and filter out bad information more effectively.

We we don’t know can indeed hurt us.

[bigbill]

This article is revealing about the anti-vax groups. It aligns with my beliefs so I may be biased, but it's a good read.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...=pocket-newtab

[bigbill]

No, it won’t fix mis- or disinformation. But education can help people think critically and filter out bad information more effectively.

We we don’t know can indeed hurt us.

We can't misunderestimate (sometimes I miss GWB) the emotional investment people make in their beliefs. It's hard to make an educated u-turn about a topic after shouting it from the rooftops for months.

[zetroc]

I'll be eligible to get a booster in two days. Excited! There are no reasons not to get a booster shot.

[bigbill]

I'll be eligible to get a booster in two days. Excited! There are no reasons not to get a booster shot.

Mine is Thursday at 10am.

[colker]

Thread drift (mods feel free to give me a stern talking-to if I earned it).

Are we all so sure that unlimited freedom of speech is an unalloyed good after having witnessed all this (in the same vein as representative democracy is an unalloyed good)?

I think both are still preferable to their respective alternatives, but I think we have come to witness the effectiveness and utility of having more "good speech" drown out the "bad speech". Once the later is out of the box, there's no way to stop it (and only very crude and ineffective ways of curbing it).

That´s a hot issue right now. Network algorythms chose fake news in favor of verified but quiet information to spread. Anything that stimulates conflict is amplified in social networks.

[colker]

I'm not sure education will fix disinformation. People see data (not necessarily true or in context) that aligns with their opinion and decide to explore no further. Choice of news sources play a big role as well as disinformation on social media. Other than driving divisiveness, I don't understand the motivation of people pushing against the vaccine. If you don't want one, don't get it, but it seems that people need group approval for their decisions, and do so by convincing others that their action was rational. It's not even a question of freedoms, private employers can require face coverings, it's no different than any other PPE deemed necessary. I think people just want to be pissed off and divisive.

The most educated were the voters for the extreme right in Brasil, based on fake news and hate speech.

[gregl]

We can't misunderestimate (sometimes I miss GWB) the emotional investment people make in their beliefs. It's hard to make an educated u-turn about a topic after shouting it from the rooftops for months.

From one of my favorite movies (Dogma):

Bethany: Having beliefs isn't good?
Rufus: I think it's better to have ideas. You can change an idea. Changing a belief is trickier...

Greg

[echappist]

Freedom of speech has never been the freedom to say anything you want. Even in the most permissive democracies on the planet, government regulates speech. So I don't think there is any such thing as "unlimited freedom of speech." And that may be the primary source of confusion for a lot of people. Government can and does tell you what to do, even in a democracy and even to the point of restricting your "freedoms".

I should have been more clear (this is my fault, as I strive to say what I meant).

Instead of using "unlimited freedom of speech" in my original post, I should have used "unlimited speech not curtailed by the government". So the rhetorical point becomes: are we all so sure that unlimited speech that is not curtailed by the government is an unalloyed good after having witnessed all this?

For instance, this would apply to vaccine conspiracy in general or Holocaust denial in the U.S. (I'd argue that more enlightened places have banned the latter).

Both positions perfectly legal to espouse and spread in the U.S., but neither is actually good for society.

An old-fashioned civil liberty advocate would say that it's a marketplace of ideas, and the if one is so sure correctness of one's position, one shouldn't be concerned about one's position of getting drowned out. I'm just no longer sure. Like many ideals, perfectly fine to espouse, but doesn't quite work in real world.

[monadnocky]

From one of my favorite movies (Dogma):

Bethany: Having beliefs isn't good?
Rufus: I think it's better to have ideas. You can change an idea. Changing a belief is trickier...

Greg

Don't the Buddhists have something to say about the illusion of cathecting oneself to beliefs? Anyone?

[Scott G.]

That´s a hot issue right now. Network algorythms chose fake news in favor of verified but quiet information to spread. Anything that stimulates conflict is amplified in social networks.

Nothing like a enemy to rally the party members, it is even better if the enemy doesn't really exist,
or too weak to fight back.
FB has figured out how to monetize this effect.

[j44ke]

I should have been more clear (this is my fault, as I strive to say what I meant).

Instead of using "unlimited freedom of speech" in my original post, I should have used "unlimited speech not curtailed by the government". So the rhetorical point becomes: are we all so sure that unlimited speech that is not curtailed by the government is an unalloyed good after having witnessed all this?

For instance, this would apply to vaccine conspiracy in general or Holocaust denial in the U.S. (I'd argue that more enlightened places have banned the latter).

Both positions perfectly legal to espouse and spread in the U.S., but neither is actually good for society.

An old-fashioned civil liberty advocate would say that it's a marketplace of ideas, and the if one is so sure correctness of one's position, one shouldn't be concerned about one's position of getting drowned out. I'm just no longer sure. Like many ideals, perfectly fine to espouse, but doesn't quite work in real world.

I don't really understand what you are saying here. Who is saying that "unlimited speech not curtailed by the government" is an unalloyed good? And what do you mean by unalloyed? Are alloys bad? The metaphor doesn't make sense to me.