You beertoll and Ultegra134 are using the antivaxxer and conspiracy theorist labels and, although with many people you are right, you should not take a black-and-white approach as this is not my case as I am not against vaccines, just want to wait and see a little bit before deciding to get the jab safely and I just don't accept any Government making it mandatory in this phase without further testing, as it would set a very dangerous precedent.
First of all, I'm not aware of near-zero risk groups. Even in young people, there can be a form of brain damage. COVID-19 can cause strokes, seizures and Guillain-Barre syndrome — a condition that causes temporary paralysis.
As I am young and the risk for me to die from covid is near zero (estimated 0,2%), if you are not aware of near-zero risk groups you should, especially when you say that we only read whatever fits our established beliefs. I am aware of the risks of the virus, of course, but the vaccine has reported side effects too, with several deaths from strokes and thrombosis among others (a few days ago a young boy of 21 years died from the vaccine in my country). 1st rule in medicine: do not harm.
That's because vaccination of the population is a conspiracy in your head and you think there is a secret "agenda". No, it hasn't started in the past 10 years. The growing list of mandatory vaccination requirements for children and certain professions was in place many decades ago. Many of you fully vaccinated anti-vaxxers don't have terrible diseases like polio because of the mandatory vaccinations.
I know well the polio as one familiar of mine got it when there wasn't any vaccine for it. The effects in children of these diseases you posted are devastating, nothing to do with Covid, and even in the case of the polio vaccine, when it was released for the first time, many millions of doses were contaminated by HPV, which wasn't known in that moment, with millions of women dying from womb cancer derivated from the vaccination 10 or even more than 20 years after it.
With these precedents, you should at least understand that some people prefer to wait and see, especially when the typical minimum timeline for any drugs to be safe has been reduced by 10 times with these brand new vaccines: you talk about trusting the scientific community when they are not meeting the proper observation criteria which are the fundamentals of the scientific method.
No need to be an anti-vaxxer nor a conspirathy theorist to have a healthy critical mindset.
In none of my responses to you, I labeled you or used the term anti-vaxxer. I mentioned people who are against vaccines in general that are fully vaccinated but are not aware of it. My replies to you are thorough and non-haughty. I share my opinions with you in a dialogue without any attacks. I used the anti-vaxxer term only with people who mention big pharma in every post and imply that their government wants to poison them, not in replies intended to you. The quotes you've highlighted or mentioned are the responses to other people's posts as you can see.
Before this reply of yours, I said that I understand when people base their fears on the fact that it is a new vaccine and that some people prefer to wait and see. And now after you saying "...you should at least understand that some people..." I think you've missed that reply. That reply has information on some misunderstandings about the rapid timelines and safety of these vaccines, why the corners weren't cut and why the long terms effects are unplausible, and why it is riskier to wait that vaccinate. The original reply -
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.57582041Totally agree with, "No need to be an anti-vaxxer nor a conspiracy theorist to have a healthy critical mindset" but many people say that they have critical mindset. Oftentimes people think that when they go against common knowledge or authorities or established science is because they have critical mindset.
Regarding your quote, "if you are not aware of near-zero risk groups you should, especially when you say that we only read whatever fits our established beliefs", I'm aware of low-risk groups and the 0.20 percent of people dying is not near zero to me. And I never heard that someone else would call it near zero. Here is an illustration, in a college that has 5000 students, 10 young people may die (0.2%). Again, this is not near zero to me. Also realize that they will bring the virus to their family members who may have a higher risk of dying and hospitalization.
P. S. People with truly critical mindsets will be able to make the right choices. I believe that you are one of them and you just need to keep relying on sources of scientific evidence. Writing thorough responses takes time, and although some people enter into a dialogue, some just spew random stuff. I don't see a value in responding to most of those comments and going to spend my time on something useful. I'm unsubscribing from this thread and apologize if I won't see your reply and won't reply to you.
P. P. S. Look at the comment below which is a perfect example of "people just spew random stuff". So I hope Porfirii you will understand why I think this is a waste of time.
