Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Claiming that since vaccinated people get sick that the vaccine is the cause is even less compelling. The evidence suggests exactly the opposite. And yet here we are.
I did not claim that. Although I will say that, in my social/professional circle, vaccinated people do seem to be getting sick slightly more often than people who declined the shots. In Massachusetts, everyone is vaccinated, so you can't make any comparisons, you just have to take it on faith that an imaginary control group of unvaccinated people is dying right and left. In Ohio, we have large numbers of both groups, so it would be obvious if unvaccinated people were faring considerably worse, but they don't seem to be. But again, none of this is enough for me to make a claim that "the vaccine is the cause of vaccinated people getting sick." Those were not my words.
All I am saying is it's complete sophistry to say "vaccinated people are getting sick because they're fortunate enough to still be alive" when the survival rate of the virus was about 99.4% even in its more virulent forms, and even before vaccines were available.
Yea definitely get this jab. It will only make you sick more often.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jayrandom
Only in the sense that being dead is the only 100% proven way to prevent further COVID infection. In preventing death, vaccines make it possible for you to get sick from COVID more often. You can also be alive to catch other diseases, or cancer, or even get hit by a bus.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tribecavsbrowns
I did not claim that.
And yet you have inserted yourself into my rebuttal of someone who did say that. If you want to step in to rebut my arguments, you should at least be aware of what it is I am arguing.
I didn't think the logic was hard to follow, but you seem to have missed it entirely:
The vaccine will not make you sick more often. That is a false statement. As with most false statements, you can reframe them to be true given specific conditions. The specific condition that makes this false statement true, at least using facts established by scientists, is to say that it does make you dead less often and being dead makes you less likely to be sick. I did not claim that you are particularly likely to be dead with or without the vaccine, only that you are more likely to die of COVID without the vaccine than with the vaccine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jayrandom
Although I will say that, in my social/professional circle, vaccinated people do seem to be getting sick slightly more often than people who declined the shots. In Massachusetts, everyone is vaccinated, so you can't make any comparisons, you just have to take it on faith that an imaginary control group of unvaccinated people is dying right and left. In Ohio, we have large numbers of both groups, so it would be obvious if unvaccinated people were faring considerably worse, but they don't seem to be. But again, none of this is enough for me to make a claim that "the vaccine is the cause of vaccinated people getting sick." Those were not my words.
All I am saying is it's complete sophistry to say "vaccinated people are getting sick because they're fortunate enough to still be alive" when the survival rate of the virus was about 99.4% even in its more virulent forms, and even before vaccines were available.
We've gone WAY past the stage where "well, among my friends". There have many multiple peer-reviewed articles, to the point where there are stating to be review articles, demonstrating the efficacy of the many approved vaccines. I suspect the fundamental problem is that you don't trust 'official' scientists and don't have the multibillion dollar budget to conduct your own studies, so you trust your eyes more than whatever 'science' says.
If the CDC isn't enough to convince you of something, I sincerely some random person on the internet who may or may not be a trained scientist will be able to do much. Conversely, if I'm basing my statement on peer-reviewed literature, the possibly true, possibly accurate, and definitely uncontrolled observations of a different random person on the internet are equally unlikely to convince me of anything. Especially when that person only seems interested in Massachusetts in regards to this particular topic.
And yet you have inserted yourself into my rebuttal of someone who did say that. If you want to step in to rebut my arguments, you should at least be aware of what it is I am arguing.
I didn't think the logic was hard to follow, but you seem to have missed it entirely:
The vaccine will not make you sick more often. That is a false statement. As with most false statements, you can reframe them to be true given specific conditions. The specific condition that makes this false statement true, at least using facts established by scientists, is to say that it does make you dead less often and being dead makes you less likely to be sick. I did not claim that you are particularly likely to be dead with or without the vaccine, only that you are more likely to die of COVID without the vaccine than with the vaccine.
We've gone WAY past the stage where "well, among my friends". There have many multiple peer-reviewed articles, to the point where there are stating to be review articles, demonstrating the efficacy of the many approved vaccines. I suspect the fundamental problem is that you don't trust 'official' scientists and don't have the multibillion dollar budget to conduct your own studies, so you trust your eyes more than whatever 'science' says.
If the CDC isn't enough to convince you of something, I sincerely some random person on the internet who may or may not be a trained scientist will be able to do much. Conversely, if I'm basing my statement on peer-reviewed literature, the possibly true, possibly accurate, and definitely uncontrolled observations of a different random person on the internet are equally unlikely to convince me of anything. Especially when that person only seems interested in Massachusetts in regards to this particular topic.
I don't have a problem with your logic; I am saying that I've seen this exact same logic used elsewhere in recent weeks as a pivot in the narrative. While you might have been dispassionately using this logic to rebut something another poster said, others are using it in a way that IMO amounts to sophistry. Here's an example of what I am talking about:
I appreciate you saying that the virus has a low fatality rate, and I appreciate your faith in peer-reviewed studies. You are correct that I don't trust the conclusions of the science being put out by institutions such as the CDC. Because I believe the people there are so taken with a narrative, I believe I can apprehend reality better using my own senses/reasoning/intuition in combination with unadulterated raw data to the extent that I can get it.
Last edited by tribecavsbrowns; 06-17-2022 at 11:46 AM..
I don't have a problem with your logic; I am saying that I've seen this exact same logic used elsewhere in recent weeks as a pivot in the narrative. While you might have been dispassionately using this logic to rebut something another poster said, others are using it in a way that IMO amounts to sophistry. Here's an example:
I appreciate you saying that the virus has a low fatality rate, and I appreciate your faith in peer-reviewed studies. You are correct that I don't trust the conclusions of the science being put out by institutions such as the CDC. Because I believe the people there are so taken with a narrative, I believe I can apprehend reality better using my own senses/reasoning/intuition in combination with unadulterated raw data to the extent that I can get it.
It's not so much a 'pivot in the narrative' as it is a mediocre rebuttal of a terrible argument. The "so and so got sick so vaccines must make you sick" is the terrible argument. My elementary-aged daughters put together far more convincing back-and-forth arguments.
At this point the pro-vaccine crowd and the anti-vaccine crowd have very little to say to each other. We are effectively disagreeing on axioms.
It's not so much a 'pivot in the narrative' as it is a mediocre rebuttal of a terrible argument. The "so and so got sick so vaccines must make you sick" is the terrible argument. My elementary-aged daughters put together far more convincing back-and-forth arguments.
At this point the pro-vaccine crowd and the anti-vaccine crowd have very little to say to each other. We are effectively disagreeing on axioms.
With all due respect, if you're calling the common-sense question "Why are vaxxed and boosted people getting Covid multiple times?!" a "terrible argument," I think that's mainly a reflection of your own biases, not the quality or appropriateness of the question being raised.
With all due respect, if you're calling the common-sense question "Why are vaxxed and boosted people getting Covid multiple times?!" a "terrible argument," I think that's mainly a reflection of your own biases, not the quality or appropriateness of the question being raised.
No, the "so-and-so are getting COVID multiple times so vaccines are causing sickness" is the terrible argument. It's like saying "people wearing seatbelts die in car crashes all the time, so seatbelts are causing traffic fatalities".
Vaccines help but are not perfect. Pointing out they are not perfect is fine. Unfortunately the online argument tends to go directly from admitting they are not perfect to admitting they are harmful, so people are hesitant to admit their limitations.
No, the "so-and-so are getting COVID multiple times so vaccines are causing sickness" is the terrible argument. It's like saying "people wearing seatbelts die in car crashes all the time, so seatbelts are causing traffic fatalities".
Vaccines help but are not perfect. Pointing out they are not perfect is fine. Unfortunately the online argument tends to go directly from admitting they are not perfect to admitting they are harmful, so people are hesitant to admit their limitations.
But that's not the argument as laid out in the Twitter post, that's you taking it a step further. What did I say about biases?
Anyway, I agree with you that it's often taken a step further, but in my experience, even if you don't take it a step further, you're still met, most of the time, with the same dismissiveness and defensiveness that would be there if you had done so.
You said you don't think the two camps can learn anything from each other at this point -- and I'm not sure I disagree with that. Question is, which camp decided first that they weren't going to listen to the other?
Last edited by tribecavsbrowns; 06-17-2022 at 12:49 PM..
But that's not the argument as laid out in the Twitter post, that's you taking it a step further. What did I say about biases?
That is the argument I have been discussing this entire time. You seem to be pretty focused on dismissing me because of some sort of 'bias'. That's fine. To be fair "people keep getting sick so vaccines don't work" is also a bad argument, just not as egregious. It's essentially saying, "people are still dying in car crashes while wearing seatbelts, so seatbelts are ineffective". Again, they are not perfect, but to determine if they are effective you need statistics. To get statistics you need someone to collect the data. And to get that data effectively you need rigorous experimental design and a collection authority you trust not to lie.
I suspect the "look they're still getting sick" crowd largely don't care about the scientific method, but even those that do can fall back on the "I don't trust the central authority collecting data" to scuttle any evidence that they disagree with.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tribecavsbrowns
Anyway, I agree with you that it's often taken a step further, but in my experience, even if you don't take it a step further, you're still met, most of the time, with the same dismissiveness and defensiveness that would be there if you had done so.
You said you don't think the two camps can learn anything from each other at this point, and I'm not sure I disagree with that. Question is, which camp decided first that they weren't going to listen to the other?
I'm not sure what you mean, exactly. Disagreeing on axioms isn't not listening. It's more akin to not speaking the same language. If I speak English and you speak French and we can't hold a conversation, it's not really either of our fault. We just speak different languages.
You won't be able to convince me that, specifically, your anecdotal evidence supersedes peer-reviewed scientific evidence and I can't convince you of the converse.
That is the argument I have been discussing this entire time. You seem to be pretty focused on dismissing me because of some sort of 'bias'. That's fine. To be fair "people keep getting sick so vaccines don't work" is also a bad argument, just not as egregious. It's essentially saying, "people are still dying in car crashes while wearing seatbelts, so seatbelts are ineffective". Again, they are not perfect, but to determine if they are effective you need statistics. To get statistics you need someone to collect the data. And to get that data effectively you need rigorous experimental design and a collection authority you trust not to lie.
I suspect the "look they're still getting sick" crowd largely don't care about the scientific method, but even those that do can fall back on the "I don't trust the central authority collecting data" to scuttle any evidence that they disagree with.
I'm not sure what you mean, exactly. Disagreeing on axioms isn't not listening. It's more akin to not speaking the same language. If I speak English and you speak French and we can't hold a conversation, it's not really either of our fault. We just speak different languages.
You won't be able to convince me that, specifically, your anecdotal evidence supersedes peer-reviewed scientific evidence and I can't convince you of the converse.
I appreciate this. I believe you're not sure what I mean, because you might be one who actually listens. The problem is with others in your camp who respond to someone asking "if it works, why doesn't it seem to be working" -- a legitimate, common-sense question -- and immediately assuming the asker doesn't care about the scientific method, and remaining closed off to any other possibility. You were thoughtful enough to offer an alternative possibility (that the asker doesn't trust the central authority collecting data -- well put), which is more than I can say for most of these conversations I've had.
And as for trusting the central authority collecting data, no, I often don't. New York City, I believe (might have been NYS, but I think it was NYC) was posting case/hospitalization data by vaccination status and counting people that they had not yet matched to a vaccination record as "unvaccinated." Of course, once the matching process was complete, many of these "unvaccinated" people became vaccinated, and the health authority tried to pass it off as all part of a legitimate process, when in reality, it is fraudulent.
Last edited by tribecavsbrowns; 06-17-2022 at 02:05 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
