I didn’t know what other countries recommended for the Covid vaccination so I asked perplexity what the other g10 countries do for their policy.
It seems like all g10 nations have risk-based recommendations and none for everyone in the general population.
I find it hard to get clear reporting on this to differentiate what’s uniquely “against the science” vs just the US changing to match the rest of the world.
For Germany there is a General Recommendation by the Stiko(Standing Comitee on Vaccination).
there is an PDF that sums it up: https://www.rki.de/EN/Topics/Infectious-diseases/Immunisatio... on Page 7.
These Vaccinations are also covered by the Insurances.
I’d stopped using it because its answers usually didn’t help, but I’ve not used Perplexity Pro recently. Is its main value just finding surface level info on websites quickly? Do you also use google.com/ai or similar as a fallback often or does it do a good enough job?
Am I the only one here who is skeptical that the MRNA shots have a positive risk-reward tradeoff for healthy people?
My job is to rush out complicated things, and biology is much more complex than even hardware. I know how fallible experts are. I know what hysteria and pressure driven deadlines do to build quality. And I know that you can't really test long term effects of biological products without long term human trials.
I think everyone here knows these things too, but most have a tribal political reaction to trust these shots because you dislike the people questioning them.
Do you have the same reservations for the other 99.9% of drugs that haven't gone through "long term human clinical trials?" How long would a trial need to be to assuage your concerns? How large would it need to be?
Because even the one "significant" adverse effect we see with COVID vaccines (myo- or pericarditis in young men) is so uncommon that it would've required trials several orders of magnitude larger than the largest trials ever conducted to detect.
I personally don't mind people asking questions of them, that's the whole point of science!
What's frustrating is when people ask questions that 1) are easily answered by the reams of publicly available literature on the topic [and are truly difficult to answer in 240 character snippets], and 2) they never even thought to ask of the various other compounds they're ingesting which are generally far less well-understood than the COVID vaccines.
It's almost like it's not an organic and earnest curiosity...
Anyway to your direct question: no obviously you're not the only one. But according to all available data the calculus very strongly contradicts your intuitions. We make decisions with incomplete data every day and we don't generally call "filling in the blanks with whatever I need to in order to reach a contrary conclusion" a form of wisdom.
Do keep in mind that folks at the CDC have gone full malicious compliance mode when it comes to the COVID vaccine. The list of exceptions covers essentially everyone and locations administering the vaccine, CVS and the like, just ask "are you eligible for the vaccine Y/n?" with no follow up. So do get your COVID booster when you get your annual flu shot. The restrictions are an optics "victory" while not really changing anything.
This has been confusing because if it's a grift, the playbook is to keep an equilibrium where the "threat" never gets solved, because its usefulness is its existence.
And if it's not a grift to him, if he's a true believer/victim of it, the people running the grift don't usually let those people all the way to the top to upset the equilibrium.
It's like we're a decade into watching the dog who caught the car.
I didn’t know what other countries recommended for the Covid vaccination so I asked perplexity what the other g10 countries do for their policy.
It seems like all g10 nations have risk-based recommendations and none for everyone in the general population.
I find it hard to get clear reporting on this to differentiate what’s uniquely “against the science” vs just the US changing to match the rest of the world.
For Germany there is a General Recommendation by the Stiko(Standing Comitee on Vaccination). there is an PDF that sums it up: https://www.rki.de/EN/Topics/Infectious-diseases/Immunisatio... on Page 7. These Vaccinations are also covered by the Insurances.
> I asked perplexity
I’d stopped using it because its answers usually didn’t help, but I’ve not used Perplexity Pro recently. Is its main value just finding surface level info on websites quickly? Do you also use google.com/ai or similar as a fallback often or does it do a good enough job?
https://archive.ph/X4VsS
Am I the only one here who is skeptical that the MRNA shots have a positive risk-reward tradeoff for healthy people?
My job is to rush out complicated things, and biology is much more complex than even hardware. I know how fallible experts are. I know what hysteria and pressure driven deadlines do to build quality. And I know that you can't really test long term effects of biological products without long term human trials.
I think everyone here knows these things too, but most have a tribal political reaction to trust these shots because you dislike the people questioning them.
Do you have the same reservations for the other 99.9% of drugs that haven't gone through "long term human clinical trials?" How long would a trial need to be to assuage your concerns? How large would it need to be?
Because even the one "significant" adverse effect we see with COVID vaccines (myo- or pericarditis in young men) is so uncommon that it would've required trials several orders of magnitude larger than the largest trials ever conducted to detect.
I personally don't mind people asking questions of them, that's the whole point of science!
What's frustrating is when people ask questions that 1) are easily answered by the reams of publicly available literature on the topic [and are truly difficult to answer in 240 character snippets], and 2) they never even thought to ask of the various other compounds they're ingesting which are generally far less well-understood than the COVID vaccines.
It's almost like it's not an organic and earnest curiosity...
Anyway to your direct question: no obviously you're not the only one. But according to all available data the calculus very strongly contradicts your intuitions. We make decisions with incomplete data every day and we don't generally call "filling in the blanks with whatever I need to in order to reach a contrary conclusion" a form of wisdom.
mRNA vaccine research has been going on for decades. It's not something new and rushed.
Do keep in mind that folks at the CDC have gone full malicious compliance mode when it comes to the COVID vaccine. The list of exceptions covers essentially everyone and locations administering the vaccine, CVS and the like, just ask "are you eligible for the vaccine Y/n?" with no follow up. So do get your COVID booster when you get your annual flu shot. The restrictions are an optics "victory" while not really changing anything.
This has been confusing because if it's a grift, the playbook is to keep an equilibrium where the "threat" never gets solved, because its usefulness is its existence.
And if it's not a grift to him, if he's a true believer/victim of it, the people running the grift don't usually let those people all the way to the top to upset the equilibrium.
It's like we're a decade into watching the dog who caught the car.