To see whether people who push the vaccine have taken the time to understand the consequences, or if they are actually just randomly doing so because they read something on the internet. Exactly the same as the inverse test you might do for someone pushing anti-vaccine sentiment.
-
-
idk is this gonna be asking me to cite studies or obscure technical details that are irrelevant to whether it works or not, or just stuff that actually should be general knowledge?
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Strictly technical details, and only those that implicate our knowledge of whether or not it is safe to receive. It would include things like knowing all of the things that have and have not been tested for safety, the history of vaccine safety, the protocol design, etc.
3 replies 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori @TylerGlaiel and
I don't have the time to research and answer, but I would like to hear better anti vax complaints other than the ones acknowledge by official sources (rare deaths due to thrombosis, hearts problems, etc).
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @sohakes @TylerGlaiel and
I don't have any anti-vax complaints myself, since I think the mRNA vaccines on the measure are pretty good. But I also spent a lot of time researching them, _and_ would not zealously push them because there's a lot about them we still don't know.
1 reply 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori @TylerGlaiel and
I think it's a risk vs benefit calculation, and I feel you don't need to fully understand the vaccine to do a decent analysis. I think "what are the risks now, and what is the possible future risk?". Since I'm not a biologist, I try to read about possible caveats from trustable
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @sohakes @TylerGlaiel and
Yes, and that's great for you. But until you have done a rigorous investigation, you shouldn't _belittle_ other people for coming to a different conclusion, right?
2 replies 0 retweets 10 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori @sohakes and
I looked up statistics on it for safety and stuff when they were first being rolled out, and have a high level understanding of what the mRNA vaccine is actually doing, and also the clear statistics currently that they are effective and safe,
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @TylerGlaiel @cmuratori and
and have looked up most of the anti-vax complaints I've seen people spread (know a decent amount of them who keep posting *actual verifiable bullshit* about it on facebook)
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @TylerGlaiel @cmuratori and
Not sure if that counts as "super rigorous" as per your definition, but seems like enough for me, in combination with what the expert consensus is from people who actually know what they're talking about
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes
I agree it is enough for you. My question is, is it enough to call other people "dumbass" for choosing differently?
-
-
Replying to @cmuratori @sohakes and
the specific context of that tweet was calling people who cannot take the vaccine for medical reasons a dumbass if they are also a vocal anti-vax proponent
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @TylerGlaiel @sohakes and
OK, so more specifically, you don't think people who decline to get vaccinated are "dumbasses" per se, just those who are vocal about it?
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes - Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.