Rambler OP wrote
Reply to comment by Wahaha in Have you gotten your COVID vaccination? Do you plan to? Why or why not? by Rambler
Same here. It's not that I'm anti-vax, it's just that I have no reason to get the vaccine since it:
- Is not required
- Does not make me immune from getting COVID or passing COVID to others.
- Still too new.
I may get it in a few years if it's still a thing and people aren't giving birth to three arm babies and stuff. If my life becomes inconvenienced by not having it, I'll work around it as best I can.
Wahaha wrote
From what I hear there's actually a death rate associated with the vaccine, so I think I rather take my chances with the holocough itself, which I might not even get.
Imperator wrote
This information was included in a briefing document published by the FDA ahead of Thursday’s meeting. As in Pfizer’s trial data, which showed that six people had died but that none of those deaths were related to the vaccine, the Moderna data also included some deaths. Thirteen people in Moderna’s 30,000-person trial died as of December 3. Seven of those people were in the placebo group and didn’t receive the vaccine, and six were in the group of people who got the vaccine. None of the deaths were deemed related to the vaccine treatment.
It’s worth noting, for context, that the deaths of over 307,000 Americans have been attributed, definitively, to Covid-19.
Wahaha wrote
Unfortunately, these sources cannot be trusted.
Imperator wrote
On what basis can these sources not be trusted?
Wahaha wrote
It's some nobody writing words on the Internet. How would you be able to trust that? Media have been caught lying too often. The only way to trust this would be the ability to verify all the claims. For example by having a list of all the names of the 307.000 Americans that have died supposedly from Covid-19 with time stamps of their deaths, location etc. and then personally investigating every single one of them.
Obviously this is impossible. It's truly unfortunate that we live in a world were nothing can be trusted that isn't personally verifiable.
Imperator wrote
I applaud your skepticism, the internet is frequently full of shit after all. I agree to an extent that most stuff on the internet should be taken with a grain of salt, but some trust in our democratic governments and census bureaus is warranted, I think. Society requires some trust in order to function. The CDC estimates the amount of U.S. deaths at 532,355. I'm sure that there's some degree of error in these statistics, but it should certainly be accurate enough to give an indication to what the order of magnitude of deaths is.
It's the same matter regarding the claims of election fraud in the U.S. The vast majority of people in various branches of the U.S. federal and state governments, legislature and independent observers have come to the same conclusion that there is no evidence of large-scale fraud. The problem with conspiracy theories in most cases is the staggering amount of people who would have to be "in" on the conspiracy. And most importantly: everyone would have to keep their mouth shut. A blanket statement such as "the mainstream media lies and cannot be trusted" implies that over dozens of independent rivaling news organisations somehow collaborate to keep information hidden - all while all people in said organisations keep silent without any dissent whatsoever.
In this specific instance, however, the primary source that the article's author mentions is this 8-hour livestream from the FDA which is summarized in this FDA report. In this document, the various known and potential risks of the Modena vaccine are assessed critically. Paragraph 8.3 and 8.4 describe these in particular.
Wahaha wrote
I don't think any trust in the so called democratic government is warranted. A government that poisons it's citizens with LSD and pretends a magic bullet that curved in the air killed Kennedy cannot be trusted. Not even a little bit. And those are just on the top of my head on what everyone can agree is bullshit. Duck and cover, amirite?
Nobody needs to keep their mouth shut. As long as enough people accept bogus primary sources, like the ones retelling them through their own media outlet, it's going to be enough.
With lies it is like with projects. The bigger and grander, the easier it is to get people going along. If you want funds for a nuclear plant, nobody bothers checking everything. Try to build a bike shed and things are different.
Wikipedia has a whole long ass article about things people got wrong just because nobody bothered checking and verifying primary sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_misconceptions
"The government isn't spying on us, they have better things to do" and "over dozens of independent rivaling news organisations somehow collaborate to keep information hidden - all while all people in said organisations keep silent without any dissent whatsoever." Then Snowden came along.
There's precedent for the thing you try to frame as ridiculous happening in the past ten years. And after seeing how Snowden ended up, others will think twice about following his example.
Imperator wrote
I concur that the U.S. government has pulled some shady shit the last century and has a poor track record. So I certainly understand your skepticism regarding your government. I'm from Europe (in the case you hadn't figured that out) and I really feel that the average European citizen has a different relation to the average European government than the average U.S. citizen has to the U.S. government, if that makes sense. Generally speaking, social democracy, liberalism and christian centrism are the prevailing ideologies here and this is reflected in our government policies. Most European countries have a reasonable welfare state and collective labor's rights. To many of us, this government is not a big baddie that must be kept to a minimum, but instead ought to occasionally intervene to protect the weaker in society. European response to the coronacrisis has been largely economically Keynesian. So yeah, different relationship dynamic. Our media landscape is generally diverse and broad with relatively little polarisation. Some media outlets have a slight bias in columnists and opinions but overall I cannot think of a concrete example where two news agencies report stuff in seriously different ways, unlike the CNN/Fox situation. Perhaps that makes us a bit naive and trusting but it does appear to work well for us thus far.
And about Snowden: if I recall correctly his revelations were mostly about the intelligence agencies overstepping their legal authority and getting cooperation from the upper echelons of the tech giants. I don't think that is wholly applicable in this discussion about the reliability of government in general. But I could be wrong here.
Wahaha wrote
I don't know every European country good enough, but for Germany: "Nobody plans to erect a wall!" and for Great Britain: September Dossier
No government has the best of their citizens in mind, that's just how it is. European countries have more social features because they are rather homogeneous. Handing out some benefits to people you have a positive attitude for is easier than handing out benefits to your arch nemesis. The major reason the USA isn't like that is because people from the US hate each other. And the reason for that is that the USA is a melting pot of many different people. The more you increase that type of diversity the worse things will get.
It's also why people in the US can feel the need to arm themselves. I was on vacation in Norway once and saw a car in the middle of nowhere. Open door, key in the ignition. It was a non-issue. People were just all nice to each other. Do that in the US and that car will be gone fast. Americans actually have a valid reason to arm themselves for defense. Not necessarily everywhere in the US, but in enough places. People hate each other. There are gangs in the streets fighting to death. That's just the kind of place you get when mixing people together that actually hate each other.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments