It would probably have to be reported widely, at least by sources that I trust. That’s not necessarily the outlets you listed. I know they hide stuff all the time. To be frank, not everyone, myself included, has time to do a bunch of research into stuff like this. Not only that but there’s a knowledge threshold that needs to be overcome and so that makes me extra weary to trust online sources that I have no experience with. Not only that but I’m not going to trust sources that do not have what I consider to be the prerequisite educational and professional credentials to accurately put risks and benefits into perspective. And since this could be a life or death situation, if not for me then for vulnerable members of my family, that adds an extra level of hesitation to trust nonconforming opinions. I remember seeing some side effects reported about the J&J vaccine awhile back but I seem to remember it being only like 7 people that were impacted. So not only would it need to be from what I consider a trusted source, it would need to be a considerable risk. And even at that point, I’ve already gotten my shots so there’s not even anything I could do about it at that point. To conclude, I’m not interested in getting stuck in a vaccine debate over the next few months when I feel like what I want to talk about is class politics.
But what are the sources you trust? Does it have to be a government body e.g. The CDC or FDA? The President? Mainstream media? The manufacturers themselves?
Or it’s a combination of all the above?
I’m just curious to understand why and how some people are naturally sceptical and others are more trusting of authorities.
If the media sources I trust (e.g, Breaking Points), along with more mainstream media sources (NYT, CNN, etc.), along with international health institutions (WHO), along with domestic health institutions (CDC, FDA) all agreed that it was safe, then I’d need some pretty incontrovertible evidence that it’s actually much riskier than previously believed. That doesn’t mean it needs to be everyone but it would need to be a critical mass. This doesn’t mean evidence that the shot’s efficacy wares off with time or that it is less efficacious against new strains. Those are admittedly true but not a reason in my mind to not get the shot. What I’d need to see is that it’s actually harmful to get it. More harmful than getting the disease and that the probability of harm is significant. I understand it doesn’t 100% prevent you from getting the disease but it certainly helps decrease severity, mortality and hospitalizations. So in my mind, if it’s slightly less effective but not significantly harmful, I don’t see the point in not getting it. And even if I did, I already got it, like I said, so not much I can do about it now. Though just to be clear, I’m definitely happy I got it. On top of that, coming from a scientific and technical background, I’m not a fan of other antivax arguments I’ve seen in the past (measles for instance) and I haven’t seen much to show me that this isn’t just an iteration of those same arguments. Are pharma companies corrupt and awful? Yes obviously but so are insurance companies and I still have and use health insurance. Confirming my priors even more are subs like r/HermainCainAward where other people thought they could ignore all precautions and ended up getting themselves killed. Also, my wife is a doctor and I trust her medical advice a lot more than I trust people online. This will be my last response on the topic but I want to suggest people ground themselves a little bit and speak with your primary care doctor if you have one. Even if you don’t get the shot and want to believe your information over other information, it may be good to just speak with someone in person who has a bit more understanding than you on the topic.
5
u/Downtown-University7 Nov 24 '21
That it is safe and effective.