I elected to get the vaccine anyway because of the particular circumstances I was in. Had I been in different circumstances, I might have decided to self-isolate for another year instead, so that I could have more research on-hand.
-
-
Replying to @cmuratori @NickDrisc0ll and
As an extra added confirmation that I think my reasoning was sound, one of the tests I wanted to see _was_ later done, and it _did_ come out the way I suspected it might, and wanted more investigation into. So I am very confident in my understanding of this situation.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @cmuratori @NickDrisc0ll and
I, too, have complaints about people's behavior, but it has little to do with vaccination and more to do with mask wearing and other precautions, since those may be more important in the long run depending on what happens in the evolution of the virus.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @cmuratori @NickDrisc0ll and
When you take a flight, do you research all the engineering of the aircraft so you can know every part that can fail, and how it can fail, and how that can potentially kill you? Or do you just trust that it's literally the safest form of travel?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @IFollowTechStu1 @NickDrisc0ll and
Stop for a second and think about asking that question the first year airplanes were invented.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori @IFollowTechStu1 and
(Or in this case, I suppose, "the first year the public was allowed to fly in an airplane")
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori @NickDrisc0ll and
But I get it. The vaccine has not had such extensive and rigorous testing. But we have come quite a ways with medicine. I don't think we are going to unleash something that kills a hundreds of millions of people.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @IFollowTechStu1 @NickDrisc0ll and
I don't think so either. But I think it's well within rational reasoning to say, "I'd like to see two or three years worth of testing before I want to do it myself". That seems _very_ rational to me, and one doesn't need to be a conspiracy theorist to think that way.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori @IFollowTechStu1 and
That decision does not occur in a vacuum though, delaying at scale means extra years of COVID spread, mutation, deaths, side-effects and pressure on society and medical services. Is the rational argument that we shouldn't have started vaccinations at all until "known safe"?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @syranide @IFollowTechStu1 and
No, the rational argument is that we should do exactly what we did: partially vaccinated and partially not. Vaccinating 100% to eliminate the disease was never an option, because that would require the entire world to do it, which nobody has even suggested how that could happen.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
In other words, the standard human decision making process in the face of uncertainty: not everyone does the same thing. This is by design. It is the most fault tolerant by far, and _far_ better than 100% vax or 100% unvax. By _far_ when averaged over all scenarios.
-
-
Replying to @cmuratori @syranide and
As your risk profile goes down (eg., as you have more years of data about your vaccination strategy and the mutation of the virus), the number of people getting vaccinated will likely go up, and that is _also correct_, because the more certainty, the more the balance should skew.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @cmuratori @syranide and
The notion that humans are currently so good at collective decision making and scientific prediction that we _do not_ need to fault tolerant selection strategies is a great example of our current hubris, which frankly I find absurd.
0 replies 0 retweets 5 likes
End of conversation
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.