I agree, but that's why I want yo understand better criticisms other than the common antivax ones which are quite easily proven as untrue. Partly because I'm curious, and also because antivax people I see are just generally misinformed.
In other words, I think you typically don't want to vaccinate 100% of your population in the first year of an emergent disease with a brand new vaccine. So the _outcome_ of splitting into vaccinated and non-vaccinated groups, especially if they can be geo-isolated, is good.
-
-
The _reasons_ people give for _either_ choice, however, seem very suspect to me and I suspect they are mostly post-hoc explanations, not the real reasons why people did or didn't do something.
-
This is actually true of most decisions, I think - most of the time people didn't actually start with an open mind and then do something on the weight of the evidence. Usually they picked one or another thing, and then later they say something about why, but it is not causal.
- 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.