656
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 03 Jan 2024
656 points (94.7% liked)
politics
19097 readers
4611 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
To play devils advocate: He isn’t entirely wrong. There are inherent risks with vaccines, and they can and do cause harm to a small percentage of people.
Now to stop talking crazy: The harm caused is extremely rare, and the percentage of affected people is quite small. These risks aren’t unknown or hidden, and they usually come from allergies or a compromised immune system’s.
Right.
This is basically the same as saying that wearing a seatbelt is a terrible idea, because in rare cases it causes terrible damage to the wearer.
Let's just ignore the hundreds of thousands of people it helps and cherry pick cases that look bad. It's not like we're a people who rely on rational thought to progress.
Which is extra ironic considering the parallels between anti-vax and early 1980s anti-seat belt protests.
I think the word you are looking for is apt or relevant, and not ironic.
That's fair. I've probably never used it appropriately.
80s? To this day I hear boomers saying this exact shit.
Before I got any of my COVID vaccines, the nurse explained the risks, what to look for and gave me a pamphlet.
I'm not listening to Maher or MacFarlane about it because they don't know what they are talking about.
MacFarlane seems to have read the brochure, at least. He wouldn't be my go-to for health care advice, but he does appear to be reasonably well informed.
Its crazy to me as to how many people will use a "comedian" as one of their sources for healthcare information.
I mean if I wanted advice on how to be a shitty comedian then I would ask Maher for advice because he is a pro at that. But I ain't taking his advice or even his opinion for my healthcare.
Comedians are consistently some of the loudest people in the room.
Even then, you can get people in white coats and stethoscopes to show up on TV shows and tell you medical-sounding things. I see them all the time in commercials and on daytime lifestyle shows. And they're very popular bit-characters in reality tv productions.
But then that's a big snag in the whole "Who do you trust?" game. Come out to Houston and talk to Dr. Steven Hotze. He will tell you all the same crazy shit Bill Maher is saying, and he'll do it with an M.D. after his name. Even a strict "I only trust doctors" rule-of-thumb only gets you so far.
Dude's been a shitty comedian longer than I've been alive. Its genuinely amazing how long that guy has clung to the national spotlight, given how many vastly more talented comics have come and gone alongside him.
And most importantly, there's a cost to getting the fucking thing the vaccine is for that outweighs the risks of the vaccine itself by an order of magnitude.
So yes, there's 1 in a tens of thousands chance of serious adverse reactions. Which is a much smaller risk than the difference in adverse reactions to getting the disease when vaccinated vs unvaccinated.
True, and worth extending: for example, the cardiomyopathy (heart inflammation) known to affect some people (particularly, young men): if we're evaluating the risks of taking a vaccine vs. not taking it, we also have to consider the risks of not taking the vaccine.
It turns out that incidence of cardiomyopathy in young men that didn't receive the vaccine but were infected is higher than its incidence among young men that got the vaccine- and if anything, the immune reaction to the live virus (it causes the body to attack heart tissue) is stronger and more lethal than the reaction to the vaccine.
This means that the people arguing 'but the vaccine has risks!' as an argument against receiving it aren't considering the risks associated with rejecting it. If you think about it, your odds of being exposed to the virus are basically 100% given enough time, and basically every adverse reaction to the vaccine will be milder than the same reaction to the live virus.
Yes- people are constantly worrying about the wrong things. Maybe they should be wary of lighting, because there are much greater chance of harm there than vaccine reaction (somewhere between 12-53 per million doses) and airline crashes (chance is .090 per million, or 1 in 11 million).
You are absolutely right.
The hardest part about this is that, there is truth, to what he is saying it just needs way, way more context.
Pretty much ANYTHING has risks, including vaccines.
Brushing your teeth HAS risks, but that doesn't mean that going natural, not brushing is the way to go.
Wait wtf risks am I taking brushing my teeth!?
It's also literally true that you risk choking to death every time you eat, but I wouldn't advocate stopping.
It's kinda like saying, "More then 3 Jews were killed during the Holocaust."
Technically true, but still very disingenuous.
20 years ago Penn and Teller covered anti Vaxxers on an episode of Bullshit. They even provided an analogy for your comment by rolling bowling balls to represent the statistics.
They showed that there was either a really good chance of death, or a tiny chance of complications using the anti-vaxxers own information.
You can wear a seatbelt because most people will be in a car accident at some point in their lives or not wear a seatbelt because of the 0.0001% chance you end up in an accident where the seatbelt traps you and you die.