← Back to context

Comment by harladsinsteden

1 day ago

> Do your own assessment.

Yeah, and my primitive home-grown analysis then carries the same weight as those from experts with professional equipment? Oh come on...

Doesn't have to be one or the other. Trust, but verify? Experts make mistakes, professional equipment can be mishandled. Don't take anybodies word, look at the evidence for yourself.

This is a very scientific way of thinking. It's only gotten a bad rap on account of people using it to attack others' research and then(crucially) failing to perform their own.

  • > Don't take anybodies word, look at the evidence for yourself.

    Please nobody listen to his person. There is nothing scientific about ignoring the experts to instead behold the opinions of the uninformed.

    The world is too large, too complex, and too nuanced for the layman's opinion to be worth much. When someone is unqualified treat their opinion as equal to every other unqualified persons opinion. Include your own in that assessment. Be honest, what qualifications do you have that make your assessment of the evidence more valid than any other random street person's in the given field? It's very likely the answer is "none". So lend your own opinion the level of respect it has earned. Be honest with yourself about what that level is.

    "There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'” ― Isaac Asimov

    • > The world is too large, too complex, and too nuanced for the layman's opinion to be worth much.

      This has a very, "Trust us, we're with the government." feel to it.

      I enjoy Asimov's writing immensely but if you think quotations are some kind of mic drop, I'll leave you with this one.

      "The question then is not whether or not a girl should be touched. The question is merely where, when, and how she should be touched" ― Isaac Asimov

      1 reply →

  • True, trust but verify and start questioning things. Science is now more politicized more than ever by politicians. COVID vaccines are not even tested. I didn't said this. Pfizer and Moderna CEO said this in EU parliament hearing.

    • Lol, the COVID vaccines went through some of the largest randomized controlled trials ever conducted and had some of the best safety and efficacy results ever seen.

      You might have heard that it wasn't tested for reducing transmission, i.e. whether the vaccines make it less likely that an infected, vaccinated person would transmit the virus to someone else... Which it wasn't, because uhhh... how would you?

      They tested it for safety, reduction in symptomatic infection rate and reduction in infection severity.

      You should set aside your conclusions for a bit and take an earnest effort at learning some of the details of this stuff if you want to "do your own research" etc. It is clear you are misunderstanding some pretty fundamental things that are actually easily understandable if you approach them with honest curiosity!

      You can literally look up the trial designs and they just say right on them exactly what they're testing for and how they're doing it.

      10 replies →

    • >> COVID vaccines are not even tested

      Do you have a link to the exact quote?

      IIRC they have a 95% reduction in hospitalization rate, measured in a double blind human trial. [Compare that with the vector virus and inactivated virus vaccines, that have like a 65% reduction in hospitalization rate, measured in a double blind human trial.]

      3 replies →

    • We have more data on COVID vaccines that nearly every drug in existence.

      My wife was one of the first pregnant women to get the vaccine (outside of trials) because she’s an ER doctor, and she’s had regular follow-up surveys from the CDC for years.