I think alt-right media and conversations have become a kind of cultural intelligence test. It’s not that rural Americans who haven’t gone to college necessarily have “low IQ”, but they do tend to be seeped in disinformation, and denial that their radio, Fox News, and xenophobic/homophobic preachers might be lying to them.

It depends, I feel, what someone’s reason are, to not get vaccinated.
There are people that simply can’t take it because of (other) health issues.
Some might be under the influence (because too young) of their religious caretakers.
Others might feel/believe/‘know’ that Jesus will protect them.
Others might not have the capacity to weigh all the facts.
Plus, IQ isn’t really a merit.

I get your point though; and I think there is plenty stupidity going on in some anti-vaxxers.

I don’t think it’s IQ. I think it’s an inability to evaluate sources of information. It’s a critical thinking skill that is woefully lacking. The internet was a paradigm shift, and many people were never educated in techniques for evaluating sources. They would pull out the encyclopedia and look up the answer.

There has also been a massive anti-intellectualism propaganda push, deliberately targeted at breading mistrust of science. There is a narrative that the government can never be trusted and is always incompetent (trust corporations instead!). Mainstream media has also been a major culprit. Their shift towards sensationalism, irresponsible coverage of preliminary scientific papers, and “both-sidesism” has eroded trust in institutions like the CDC. Fauci isn’t blameless either. There is also a vacuum of reputable media outlets. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 has allowed a massive consolidation of news media to a handful of corporate giants.

This is the culmination of many failures and of problems going unaddressed for decades.

Without quantifiable evidence, I’ll say that’s an unfair statement. And let’s not forget there are different types of intelligence. Plus, easily swayed or too trusting does not necessarily equal unintelligent. Furthermore, if you are any of those things, could you not be convinced by either pro or anti vax sentiment?

No.

I agree with @gorillapaws. That being said, a lot of the anti-vaxxers here ‘just happen’ to be the more anti-government types like homeschoolers, hippies/off grid, alternative lifestyles, etc…

Back in December 2019 I read on BBC.com that China was having big problems with Covid.
Presumably anyone that can read, could have seen the same articles and taken advance precautions.

So what you appear to be saying is that anyone that doesn’t agree with you, is stupid. Is that about right? That being the case, I guess I’ll just say, “I agree with you!”

I hope so.

Because unlike my real score, it wud make me a jenyuss!

I can see why you asked, and it does seem like an easy inference. But no, I don’t agree.

I take the same position that I had to recognize decades ago with respect to religion: knowing, as I did, numerous true believers who were intelligent, educated, and genuinely committed to the truth of their (to me) irrational beliefs, I had to look elsewhere for a correlation.

Here are three books that influenced my view of this seeming paradox in recent years:

The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark (Carl Sagan, 1997)
Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time (Michael Shermer, 2002)
Believing in Magic: The Psychology of Superstition (Stuart A. Vyse, 1997)

On the subject of why smart people believe seemingly weird or stupid things, these and other writers are pretty much in consensus: highly intelligent people arrive at their beliefs emotionally just as much as everyone else does, but they’re really, really good at rationalizing and defending those beliefs.

And, of course, the more they dig in and invest in those beliefs, the less likely they are to change them.

Why did Trump get booed in Alabama? Dr. Frankenstein would know the answer.

So it must be pastors preaching to their congregations? When I was going to church, I would have disregarded what the pastor said.

Was that comment for me, @Dutchess_III? No, I’m not saying pastors are responsible for this vaccine mess. Maybe some are, maybe not. I’m saying that I drew a parallel among true believers of various categories and suggested that the same principle applies: smart people can believe false things because they use their brains not to arrive at their beliefs but to defend them.

One component is it’s a test of religiousity that has been specifically packaged for certain religious groups.

The Republican Party used this tactic to tie together God, Country, Capitalism, and freedom for 30 plus years now. They used wedge issues like abortion to cement things. A part of the Libertarians are similar.

Covid was marketed early on as purposely being used to destroy Capitalism, which means destroy America. Anything associated with covid now can be turned into an act against the beliefs of these people.

It’s emotional and has to do with identity and trust. The people they trust are telling them not to get vaccinated. It’s not necessarily IQ, it’s how they think of the world.

Being very religious is not the same as the religiousity I’m talking about.

My reporter in Kenya specifically told me some pastors are telling their congregations to not get vaccinated. It’s around the world. He’s a Christian and went for his shot as soon as he could. It’s a subgroup, but a large group that ties religion and everything COVID together.

Edit: this personality is an easy target to enlist in a cause and get them to spread the message, whatever the message is. Then they are locked in, it becomes very hard to change their beliefs since they were one of the leaders spreading the message.

Probably not an IQ test, but certainly a measure of rationality.

Can you elaborate on what you read. Is there any more to this other than “as asked”?

It was just a casual comment by a random Facebook user. Don’t even remember what the post was.

In everything I’ve read, excluding topics of race, there is a correlation between height and IQ and little else.

In regards to @Zaku‘s rather offensive post, I offer the following link, showing that California is near the bottom in IQ scores with Louisiana and Mississippi.

https://www.inc.com/bill-murphy-jr/we-compared-average-iq-score-in-all-50-states-results-are-eye-opening.html

@Zaku What if it is CNN, HuffPo, WaPo, NYT, MSNBC that are lying to you? Does that mean that your IQ is really lower than you believe?

The easy answer is yes, but I know some very intelligent people who refuse to get the vax.

@filmfann And a not so small percentage of healthcare workers are so against it they’re leaving their jobs en mass. All with nursing degrees, at least.
Marines are against forced vaccinations.
Truckers striking 8.31 due to forced vaccinations.

My doctor asked me if I was vaccinated recently. I told him no. He asked “Not yet?” And I responded “Not yet and maybe not at all.”. He was curious about that so I told him my concern. It has to do with the mRNA technology. I did some research and found out it has been evaluated since 1990. I cannot find any case where it even passed animal testing. And now they are pushing it onto humans, doing animal testing concurrently. My doctor told me the technology has been around a long time. So I asked him…what has it ever been used for before? Maybe he has information I don’t. He could only look disturbed…he had no answer for it. So…does that mean my IQ is low? I merely question what is being pushed. I’m looking for answers to basic questions. So how is that bad?

It means you have comprehension issues.

@seawulf It doesn’t mean any one thing, no matter how much we collectively dumb it down or rationalize it.
I’ve listened to so many doctors argue against it, I even forwarded to our fluther doc.

What’s interesting is contemplating a future where THEY are proved right.

@seawulf575 so how exactly do your reservations about the vaccine translate to refusing to wear a mask?

As I’ve said in response to other questions on this topic, I think the resistance largely comes from people desiring control over their lives and not wanting to be told what to do. Having the vaccine made into a requirement just strengthens that sense that you’re losing control over your life, your body, your future (the pandemic itself was already a major blow to agency and autonomy). Yes, I’m sure some people are buying into wacky conspiracy theories about Bill Gates and microchips and that’s why they won’t get vaccinated, but I don’t think that accounts for all or even most of the resistance and opposition to vaccine mandates that we’re seeing.

@Demosthenes but what about the masks?

These are people who keep their pants on in public, right? and wear shoes in restaurants, and fasten their seat belts on an airplane? Maybe they even send their kids to school dressed to comply with some dress code?

There is nothing about a mask that threatens control over your life, your body, your future. I do not see why rejecting one means refusing the other. What is wrong with asking people to talk sense?

@kneesox Well, most of those other things we’ve all grown up with, it was ingrained in us in a young age and hasn’t been any other way for a long time. Mask-wearing came up suddenly and we don’t tend to like to change anything about the way we’ve been living our lives for years. I also think the messaging around masking, i.e. “do it to protect other people!” was never going to meet with success here. We’re not an altruistic society. So people who are already mistrustful of the government were primed to politicize this and see mask-wearing as admitting you’re a freedom-hating commie pussy woke liberal. :/

And the thing is, also important to remember that a lot of people who are hesitant and haven’t been getting the vaccine are people of color, so might want to check yourself before you start implying people who aren’t getting vaccinated are stupid.

@Demosthenes Regarding the masks I think they turned that into the secret handshake. Or, lack of a mask anyway. When everyone was wearing masks in stores then the people who didn’t wear a mask could give each other the nod. They were the most extreme people who just flat out refused to do anything to make others more comfortable.

@seawulf575 “What if it is CNN, HuffPo, WaPo, NYT, MSNBC that are lying to you? Does that mean that your IQ is really lower than you believe?”
– Those do sometimes lie and mislead about some things, but not anything like how blatantly Fox News does, and particularly not about Covid-19 vaccines or safety measures.
– Also, I don’t fully trust those sources.
– I also said I thought it was about disinformation and denial rather than IQ. And about “cultural intelligence”, by which I mean, the people who believe the messages of alt-right media and conversations may not be unintelligent per se, but they tend to be willing to believe those messages, which pretty objectively are unintelligent messages. Like Trump is a messiah, or that he actually gives a damn about people other than himself, or that the vaccines or Covid are conspiracies, or that Biden is a radical socialist, or that Biden is responsible for negative aspects of the withdrawal (from an occupation Bush started BTW) from Afghanistan (that Trump started and committed the US to BTW), or that the Capitol insurrectinists were just tourists. Ad nauseam.

@seawulf575 “I merely question what is being pushed. I’m looking for answers to basic questions. So how is that bad?”

96% of physicians are fully vaccinated (The other 4% are either Dougie Howzers and too young for the shot, got their medical degrees from ECPI or finished in the bottom of their class—probably). That fact should communicate something very important. What goes through your mind when you read that stat? Do you really believe that the Google searches you did somehow outweigh the collective judgment of 96% of physicians in the US? are you really that arrogant?

None of us are experts in all subjects. Your family physician isn’t an expert in virology or genetic engineering. But when there is a consensus among experts who know a hell-of-a-lot more about this stuff than you or I do, that’s worth paying attention to. It’s not 100% proof, but it sure is a fuck-load of supporting evidence.

Why is it a bad thing to ask questions? Well there’s an unspoken subtext in there that @seawulf575 and his laptop with Google going in his browser is somehow “more in the know” than the millions of collective hours of professional education, studies, ethics and research that is involved in ultimately producing public health recommendations.

@Desmosthenes What happened to black people to make them vaxx hesitant? Oklahoma. How can anyone blame them or mock the hesitancy?

I think most of us do understand hesitancy but for some reason many are blaming our people (victim-shaming) rather than the government. It’s very disconcerting, the lack of understanding in a supposedly ‘woke’ society.

@KNOWITALL What happened in Oklahoma?

” I did some research and found out”

@seawulf575 Everyone will have their own personal heuristics for ‘seeking and evaluating information’, and some will be better at it than others.

But laypersons at home don’t really ever do research. Research, at least valid research, is what scientists and academics do either professionally, or as part of their studies.

There are methodological guidelines to follow, there’s proper sampling, controls, control of variables, experimentation, proper statistical analysis, and finally some conclusion that may be tentative or confident, and may include caveats and consideration for further research in the area—and at the end of that there’s peer review, and later research that will replicate or not replicate the conclusions.

Just googling something and spinning some doubt about what you found isn’t research, and then confronting one doctor with what you supposedly found (which he can’t verify on the spot, and isn’t in his specific field of knowledge) isn’t really confirmation of what you “found out”. Even educated medical professionals aren’t all walking encylocopaedias ready to refute or confirm whatever the hell you found out with “your research”.

Can’t we include this response (@Kropotkin)‘s in the Fluther website guidelines?
Excluding name.
Just go with “Dear member…”
I think it’s very well written and totally accurate.

@Kropotkin Really excellent answer, I would just add that “valid research” requires the researcher to approach the subject with intellectual honesty. That means being willing to admit that many of their assumptions and beliefs are, in fact, inaccurate and even flat-out wrong. Cherry picking examples to support one’s pre-conceived conclusion and dismissing any evidence that contradicts those pre-conceived conclusions isn’t intellectually honest. It certainly isn’t “research.”

@JLeslie Actually I was referring to the Tuskegee study in Alabama.
I literally had a black friend tell me that’s why so many are not getting vaxxed that he knows, he’s in Texas.

@gorillapaws This is exactly why it’s important to look for a proper meta analysis on a subject when available. A single study can be tainted with bias if the researchers are either in error or externally motivated.

@KNOWITALL Yes, Tuskegee still plays a part in the Black community. I had a friend who worked with Black prisoners about ten years ago and they still talked about Tuskegee. He was there to educate them about HIV. With the vaccine I don’t think that Tuskegee is as much of an influence as we might think since white people are lining up for the vaccine, Black people are not being singled out, but I can understanding distrusting the government or medical community.

I think it has more to do with fear based on community gossip.

@JLeslie I’m taking his word on it because he is black, involved in his coommunity and has no reason to lie.

@Blackwater_Park “This is exactly why it’s important to look for a proper meta analysis”

I completely agree, but even these have their own pitfalls. Meta-analysis can suffer from the File Drawer Effect for example.

@KNOWITALL I don’t think he’s lying. I just think there are also other reasons. Some of the same reasons the white people aren’t getting vaccinated.

@kneesox My reservations about the vaccine don’t have anything to do with my disagreement with masks. Study after study after study says that masks don’t do much of anything and may make things worse. But that is an entirely different conversation. This one is specifically about vaccines.

@gorillapaws so you are a “just press the I-believe button and don’t ask any questions” kinda person. Got it. I am not. And when I tell my doctor of my concerns and he has absolutely no answer other than to look troubled, it tells me he did zero research and only went with what he was told. Face it…I asked him what else mRNA had ever been used for before. It is a simple question. If it is as safe and as reliable as it is being touted, it should have been used before…at least once. But he couldn’t come up with a single thing.

But look at your arguments. First you tell me that 96% of physicians are vaccinated like it really means something. Then you turn around and tell me their opinions aren’t reliable since they aren’t virologists or genetic engineers. So what does that tell YOU? It could tell you that they bought into the hype and automatically trusted something named “vaccine”. Since we all know vaccines have been around for a long, long time and have been proven to be useful and successful, it would be normal for them to accept it without a lot of question.

None of this has to do with me thinking I’m smarter than the doctors. It has nothing to do with me believing my Google searches (which I don’t use Google, by the way) are better than research. It has to do with me, as a sane, rational human being, asking some basic questions about something they want to put into my body to fundamentally alter my immune system. And those questions were not answered even poorly. They just plain weren’t answered. What does that tell YOU?

@Kropotkin you are absolutely right about research. Which I find particularly funny. When I show studies about masks…RCT studies which are considered the gold standard…that shows they don’t work, people like you tote out an “evidence based” evaluation and act like that is the end all be all. So be honest…you really don’t care about facts, you care about narrative.

@Kropotkin AND don’t forget another part of scientific methodology. When you come up with what you think is an answer, you have to TRY to disprove it. And questions such as the one I asked are one of the first things to be done…ask the basic questions. You do testing and challenge the assumptions and even the initial results. You do all this so that it can easily be proven when something is true. So far none of that has been done. But you are more than willing to take “results” that meet the standards being presented to us as facts.

@seawulf575….you make your decisions in a void, solely based on emotions. Then you run around finding obscure articles calling them “proof.”

@seawuflf575 “Study after study after study says that masks don’t do much of anything and may make things worse”
– Not to be rude or anything, but getting this far, and looking at what you linked, I can’t help but wonder if you are incapable of understanding those reports, are taking someone else’s word for what they say, or lying?

Your first two links are studies about risks of open surgical wound infection from doctors wearing disposable face masks when they treat patients with such wounds, not about Covid-19 and social distancing shoppers etc. The third link is about Covid-19, but after reading it for a while, what I’ve read says masks do help. And “These transmission dynamics support precautionary universal masking of the public to prevent transmission.”

(So often when I indulge an alt-Right forum poster by reading the articles they link as evidence, the articles actually say the opposite of what the poster says they mean. My favorite was the fellow who posted “proof” that election results in Arizona were fraudulent, but the article was about how even the Republicans who ordered the “Cyber Ninja” investigation were admitting that that investigation was incompetent and wasn’t showing any fraud etc.)

@seawulf575 You linked one irrelevant study on masks from 1991, and then managed to make incorrect inferences out of all three, so forgive me I think you’re actually shit at finding out anything or assessing anything outside of whatever your personal area of expertise is with any discernable degree of competence.

@zaku Yes, because open surgical wound infection is nothing like Covid-19. I mean, after all , they were looking at bacterial infections, not viruses. Forget for a moment that bacteria are about 1000x larger than viruses. So yeah, I can see where that would throw you off. Oh wait! That means if they aren’t good for bacteria then they are even worse for viruses. Huh. Imagine that.
And the last one actually is a study of studies. And let me accurately quote you their conclusions:
“There is limited available preclinical and clinical evidence for face mask benefit in SARS-CoV-2. RCT evidence for other respiratory viral illnesses shows no significant benefit of masks in limiting transmission but is of poor quality and not SARS-CoV-2 specific. There is an urgent need for evidence from randomized controlled trials to investigate the efficacy of surgical and cloth masks on transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and user reported outcomes such as comfort and compliance.” Maybe rather than trying to find one thing that you like and concluding that is the result of the study, you ought to leave it up to the experts.

@Kropotkin And you have, other than attempting to insult me, have actually said NOTHING that refutes anything I stated, much less what the studies showed. All you managed to do is use a lot of words to say “I don’t like what you presented”.

And in the end, I think I have proven sufficiently at this point that most of you really do believe that vaccines have become an IQ test. If you don’t go along with the popular tripe and the official narrative, you must have a low IQ. It really doesn’t matter what else is presented to any of you.

@seawulf575 There wasn’t anything unlikeable with the studies you linked. It’s just a bit sad when there are many recent studies and numerous meta analyses that are Covid-19 specific, and instead of citing anything recent or specifically relevant to the pandemic, you included a study about post-operative wound infections from 1991.

@Kropotkin And once again you are using a lot of words, but really are missing the point. Or are purposely trying to mislead others on these pages? Maybe. But look at what you are really saying. Current “studies” are often “evidence based” whereas the two of the ones I showed were RCT. Evidence based is effectively anecdotal. They started with a conclusion and picked data that would support that conclusion. An RCT is an actual, honest-to-God study, with controls and biases accounted for, not to mention other possible interferences accounted for to the best extent possible. So what you are trying to tell everyone is that you believe anecdotal evidence over true scientific research.

“so you are a “just press the I-believe button and don’t ask any questions” kinda person. Got it. I am not.”

Two points on this:

1. It’s not a “blind faith” it’s a rational risk-assessment based on many beliefs, and assumptions about the world, motivations, knowledge of how science works, how healthcare works, the motivations behind physicians, laws and ethics in medicine, the kinds of skills and training physicians and public health officials are required to learn, my personal critical thinking toolkit that took education, practice and hard work to develop, etc.

2. Are you SURE you’re not the kinda person to push the “I-believe” button? When you get on an elevator, do you inspect the cabling and motor bearings, read the service record, research the engineering firm that designed it, read up on studies for the safety of that model of elevator? What about when you get on a plane? When you buy over-the-counter medicine do you research the supply chain, the manufacturing process of the supplier, test for contaminants, comb through medical literature to determine the safety/efficacy of your aspirin for headaches? Do you do a physical inspection of every bridge before you drive/walk over it, checking the welds, reading the reports from the inspectors?

The reality is we’re ALL push the “I-Believe” button kinda people. Life would be impossible in the modern world if we didn’t put trust in institutions, standards organizations, inspectors, researchers, experts and others who are all much smarter than us in their respective fields of expertise. It’s not a “blind trust” though. We’re able to understand that we can trust them because we know the incentives, educational requirements, laws and safeguards that are in place to justify that trust. Don’t fool yourself. You absolutely are pushing the “I-Believe” button all day long.

“First you tell me that 96% of physicians are vaccinated like it really means something.”

It DOES mean something. It means not only are they putting their professional reputations on the line by advocating for vaccines, but that they have so much confidence in the safety of the vaccine that they’re also willing to expose themselves to the vaccine. This proves that they hold a sincere belief that the risks from vaccination pale in comparison to the risks from infection of Covid. The fact that you don’t think it “means something” is an indication that your critical thinking skills need work.

“I asked him what else mRNA had ever been used for before. It is a simple question. If it is as safe and as reliable as it is being touted, it should have been used before…at least once”

It’s been used for years in animal studies. It is a newer technology and human trials necessarily move slowly than animal research. The gravity of the pandemic was of sufficient concern to push through the usual red tape. I can certainly understand someone being reluctant to participate in the early trials, but by now the safety and efficacy is firmly established. Your doctor may not be familiar with all of the details, but he’s networked with plenty of people who are familiar through professional organizations, state and local health boards, and his professional network of colleagues. He doesn’t have to review all of the literature because he understands the rigor and standards involved in human trials. He learned about that in med school. He also understands that if there were serious concerns about safety and efficacy, that he would be made aware of them through those same sources. He also doesn’t inspect elevators before entering them.

“Then you turn around and tell me their opinions aren’t reliable since they aren’t virologists or genetic engineers.”

I never said their opinions aren’t reliable. You’re straw-manning. A consensus doesn’t require all individuals to fully understand all aspects of all evidence.

“It could tell you that they bought into the hype and automatically trusted something named “vaccine”.”

Think about the underlying assumptions required for that statement to be true. That hundreds of thousands of highly educated and trained physicians with millions of years of collective experience all decided not to look into the data and research and simply inject the vaccine into themselves based on “hype?” The fact that you consider this as a possibility, is unbelievably revealing about the assumptions you have.

“Since we all know vaccines have been around for a long, long time and have been proven to be useful and successful, it would be normal for them to accept it without a lot of question.”

That’s not how it works. There are lots of questions. If you’ve ever sat in on a CME lecture to providers you would know there are ALWAYS lots of questions.

_”...asking some basic questions about something they want to put into my body to fundamentally alter my immune system.”

You are constantly putting things into your body that “fundamentally alters” your immune system. Every breath you take has all kinds of foreign particles. Every bite of food you eat has some surface contaminants. Every sip of liquid you drink has foreign particles. Your immune system isn’t static, it’s in a perpetual state of “alteration.”

“And those questions were not answered even poorly. They just plain weren’t answered. What does that tell YOU?”

I don’t know for sure, but my inclination is that your physician has limited time to spend with you, and decided you weren’t worth the effort to explain all of the reasons why you’re wrong. I can’t say I blame him if that is what was going through his head.

“When I show studies about masks…RCT studies which are considered the gold standard…that shows they don’t work, people like you tote out an “evidence based” evaluation and act like that is the end all be all.”

As I’ve explained to you before RCTs are basically impossible to conduct to establish the efficacy of masks in source control. It would require an entire quarantined town of study participants over a very long period of time to get enough data. That’s why the only RCT studies available on the subject are basically inconclusive, biased, and mostly worthless. The absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence. You can’t conclude “masks don’t work” because you’re not able to find RCTs that show a benefit.

“Forget for a moment that bacteria are about 1000x larger than viruses. So yeah, I can see where that would throw you off. Oh wait! That means if they aren’t good for bacteria then they are even worse for viruses. Huh. Imagine that.”

This is a perfect illustration of how a lay-person with an incomplete critical thinking toolkit can convince themeslves they’re right when they’re completely fucking wrong. The surgical study tells us as much about the efficacy of mask wearing as source control prevention of covid transmission in public as this study does: in other words it tells us fuck all. But for the hell of it, and to help illustrate the point of the OP’s question let’s dive in.

1. I don’t have access to the full text of the article, do you?
2. How are the patients being controlled for postoperative infection outside of the operating room?
3. What is the baseline rate of postoperative infection for general surgical procedures? The data I found suggested this rate was 2–4% but it was from a study nearly 3 decades after the one you provided. So the rates of infection in the study you provided didn’t demonstrate any effect, possibly because none of the surgeons participating were symptomatic with contagious respiratory bacterial infections? Was this tested for? In all likelihood, the variance you’re seeing between the treatment and control groups are the result of infections that occurred once they left the hospital. It’s a tiny effect size, and is basically a meaningless result—as the authors concluded.
4. Bacteria are larger than viruses, but DROPLETS are much larger than bacteria, and DROPLET transmission from the infected to the uninfected are what’s being prevented with masks. You’re talking about aerosols.
5. The surgeons in the study were much closer than 6 feet to their patients (I’m assuming they weren’t using robots)
6. You can’t infer conclusions about the efficacy of masks when studied in one context when used in a completely different one.

Did any of these questions occur to you as a self-proclaimed “sane, rational human being?” Those studies don’t show that masks don’t work, they are inconclusive. Proving a lack of efficacy (which is what you’re claiming) is very different than proving nothing at all (which is what your studies are showing).

I recall getting my first Pfizer dose and having a brief chat with a nurse about vaccine hesitancy.

Her words: “I never knew there were so many stupid people until this pandemic.”

The virus itself is small enough to slip between the threads of the mask but the virus isn’t floating about all by itself. It’s carried within the water droplets that people sneeze or cough out. The water droplets can’t penetrate the mask. And the viruses in the water droplets are not like sperms, wiggling and wiggling to get out. They are inert.

When someone uses as an example that they asked their doctor about the technology of the Covid vaccine, and the doctor couldn’t provide a sufficient answer, that tells me nothing. Maybe the doctor is a podiatrist and not a virologist. Maybe the doctor isn’t reading up all the time. Maybe the doctor realized that having discussions like this aren’t fruitful. Maybe the doctor is thinking about how he can’t wait to get this patient out so he can have lunch or dinner or coffee or chat with the nurses. Who knows. There are any number of reasons why one doctor wasn’t willing to engage in a debate about vaccines on any one day.

I swear that Alex Jones fucker and alternative news outlets have caused at least 75% of this “vaccine hesitancy.” It’s really gullibility + reckless open mindedness and the complete failure of our education systems to teach critical thinking in any systematic way to blame and not low IQ. The mind of a conspiracy cultist is a little more complex than being..stupid.

@seawulf575 Dutchess and Gorillapaws covered the droplet point. Yes, the last study is a study of studies, but the part I mentioned isn’t the only part that says masks are worthwhile, and nothing shows that masks aren’t worthwhile as something to recommend or even require in places where you have many strangers in the same space and infected people otherwise might cough or sneeze.

And for the overall picture, why on earth are you going to such lengths to argue about masks, other than it’s the fad of other people who listen to Fox and Trump and so on? How can you, thinking for yourself, think that the whole health care profession would be… what? ... part of a conspiracy? ... incompetent and foolish and not able to find and understand research better than you can? What? What do you think the deal is, and why would it be important? Other than that doctors actually have medical educations and clinical experience and care about saving lives and are making their best recommendations for what people should do?

@seawulf575 You say your doctor looked troubled when you asked him your question and you interpreted it as he was clueless and poorly informed, basically. Did it ever cross your mind that he looked troubled when he realized you were probably not just asking a question but going to argue with anything he said? Doctors are rather overwhelmed right now. There time is limited and he had no use or time to argue. In any case, I doubt he is or has ever been a medical researcher. More like a family doctor who bases his decisions on the best scientific knowledge at hand and that it may not always agree with your interpretations? Of course this is a rhetorical question as I’m sure seawulfie will come up with a glib answer that refuses to admit that, yeah, maybe he was interpreting the doctor’s response the way he wanted to interpret.

@gorillapaws you are good, but you make some ties that don’t really match. You talk about using an elevator as an “I-Believe” situation. I don’t consider that anywhere near the same as believing the vaccines are safe. I had to qualify on repairing elevators when I was in the navy. I understand how they work. I know about the safeguards they have in place. I understand the risk assessment in using an elevator. It is possible it could fail, but highly unlikely. Now…tell me you understand the vaccines that well. Tell you what, I will ask you the same question I asked my doctor: What has mRNA ever been used for before? It is a simple question. To put it into your elevator example, it would equate to “have you ever seen where an elevator was used? ” And of course there will be the follow up questions…did it work as it was supposed to? How many times did it free fall to the bottom during testing and if it did, did they work out the bugs? So when you can answer that simple question about the vaccines, you can start to put it into the same category as an elevator.

You came close to trying to answer it, but you once again left off key points. You never did tell me what it has been used for. You said it was used for animal trials. That isn’t an actual use, it is a test. And as far as I can find out, it has never been allowed to progress past animal trials because the negative results of the animal trials showed a plethora of nasty, life threatening side-effects. AND, if you want to believe that the animal trials were all okay and now we are actually doing human trials, then riddle me this: why did all the pharma companies start animal trials again at the same time they were starting to inject humans? If the animal trials were complete and satisfactory, why would they need to repeat them?

The statement about 96% of physicians you managed to clip off the part where you contradicted yourself in your previous post. You copied and pasted the first part of my statement but then left off “Then you turn around and tell me their opinions aren’t reliable since they aren’t virologists or genetic engineers.” You still never actually addressed that. You just tried to side step it by burying it in a page full of other silliness.

As for you lame attempt at discrediting a controlled study conducted by a reputable group and peer reviewed for accuracy, it is just that…lame. I can read the report. You can too since I gave a link to it. I notice you did NOT actually read it or if you did, you opted to try snowing everyone into believing it wasn’t accurate. So let’s dig into some of your lame assumptions:

Bacteria are larger than viruses, but DROPLETS are bigger than both. That is true. But now look at what the actual results of the study showed: wearing masks resulted in more cases (and a higher percentage) of post operative infections than when the surgical staff and other care givers wore none. So the DROPLETS are meaningless. I know, DROPLETS are a great talking point and something you hear all the time. But it is not scientifically proven. Here I am, providing you with actual scientific evidence proving your beliefs are wrong…and you are trying to justify why it can’t be true. IF DROPLETS were the issue, then that same mask would work for both bacteria AND viruses. Because if you bothered to actually read the study, you would find that DROPLETS and moisture from the staff was one of the things they were actually testing…to see if the mask did anything to stop it. And yes, the surgeons WERE closer than 6’ from their patients. ALL the surgeons. Those that wore masks AND those that didn’t. So your claim is just a lame attempt to deflect. The conditions were as close to the same as is humanly possible to equal as they could be. And the large number of cases studied helps negate any variability in that arena.

And interestingly you try negating the entire study by saying you can’t infer anything because it wasn’t used to study Covid. That is wrong on every level. You were the one that talked about DROPLETS, and that was what the test was all about. So are DROPLETS a contributor to Covid? Nod your head, it is likely a yes answer. So yes, you CAN infer that if the results of the impact of DROPLETS in this test also apply to other situations where DROPLETS are a factor.

And yes, many of those questions DID go through my mind. They had to for me to be able to show that the test applies to mask efficacy as it applies to spreading disease. The problem you seem to have is that the test results do NOT support your narrow, I-Believe viewpoints. And I don’t believe you are psychologically capable of questioning your beliefs.

@Zaku I think the real question is “Why aren’t you questioning anything you hear from the government or from the MSM?” Masks are a symptom of what is wrong right now, not the cause. When the government says “you have to wear a mask! It protects us all!” but the science points to a different answer, why are you so reluctant to question them or why are you so ready to blindly ignore the science in favor of believing what you are told?

@AlaskaTundrea So let me see if I can interpret what you are saying. It is okay for the doctor to push the vaccine, but not to answer questions about it. It is totally appropriate for him to push the vaccine as a great thing, but he is not actually qualified to know anything about it because he is likely not a virologist or a medical researcher. Of course if he isn’t well versed in the actual vaccine, why would he ask me why I would hesitate to get it? I mean, that would just lead to questions, right? A discussion? That could take his time. But then, if he isn’t well versed in the vaccine, why is he so adamant that it is safe and beneficial with no lasting side-effects. After all he is likely not a virologist or a medical researcher, right? So what is it you are actually trying to say? that only virologists or medical researchers have answers about the vaccine? If that is the case, why are we hearing from doctors that don’t fit those categories at all?

See, I told you seawulfie would come up with some supposedly glib answer that basically says nothing. If nothing else, he’s proven why any doctor whose time and energy is limited and probably stretched to the breaking point right now wouldn’t care to argue something with him. Good job, wulfie. Thank you for proving my exact point that wasting time arguing with you is futile and no matter what is said you’ll twist things around to suit your stance. Stay well.

@AlaskaTundrea speaking of glib answers that basically say nothing….congrats. You are right on point.

I can’t give @AlaskaTundrea any more GAs.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ @seawulf575 you once again proved the point that only your POV is correct. jk

@seawulf575 Is it the needles you’re so scared of, or is it something else you’re terrified of?

There have been over 2billion doses of mRNA vaccines administered. Over 350 million in the USA alone. There have been only statistically negligible “links” to negative events, which amount to records of things that happened to follow the vaccine, and with no evidence of any causal link.

Your rejection of vaccination, and your assertion that they’re untested and unsafe, are claims utterly devoid of merit and with no rational basis to them whatsoever.

@Everyone – From some of the responses to this post, it’s hard to tell if people are discussing intelligence or something else.

So I’ll just pretend it’s a normal conversation…

“Sorry to interrupt, but I couldn’t help hearing all the shouting. Can I ask – If you think vaccinations or masks aren’t a good choice for you, what precautions are you taking? And how do you think other people should protect themselves?

“Oh, and when you’re finished do you mind putting all your signs in the recycling?”

Thanks.

@Tropical_Willie I just gave @AlaskaTundrea a GA just for you!

@Kropotkin I have explained my reasoning ad nauseum. The fact you want to try ignoring it is on you, not me. But I think it speaks more to YOUR IQ than mine.

@seawulf575 Your “reasoning” was nonsense with a load of faulty inferences. You just didn’t understand the responses and refutations.

@Kropotkin So your assumption that I am just afraid of needles is what…sound logic? Reliable inferences? Please. Stop trying to act like you are right. I have asked the question: what has mRNA technology ever actually been used for before? Answer that and we can have a solid discussion. Trying to change the subject or show me articles that talk about how long it has been worked on is nothing but dodging the actual question. And if you CAN’T find anything it was used for before, how can you possibly claim it is safe for use now? What is your basis?

Wow, thanks for all the GA’s. To be honest, I don’t take wulfie seriously but tire of the same ol’, same ol’ talking in circles. Always trying to turn the questions/observations back on those who disagree or, like me, don’t take him seriously. The air of superiority is tiresome. I’m sure he’ll have a glib comeback for this, too. Ha

@seawulf575 The technology has been in development for years, but these vaccines are the first widescale application.

They passed clinical trials. They’ve been approved for use the world over. Over 2,000,000,000 doses of mRNA vaccines have been administered worldwide with overwhelming success. Their safety and efficacy are being demonstrated daily.

It’s quite baffling how you seem so scared of them and keep questioning their safety, on the basis of what? The novelty of the technology?

I mean, yeah. They’re safe for use. I had mine months ago, and was positively impatient to get them. So has my mother, my half-sister, my nephew, and other relatives and friends.

Over 2 billion doses and basically no verifiable deaths or serious complications from them. Compared to the risk Covid causes, opting for any of the vaccines to reduce risk of serious illness and mortality (as well as help protect others) seems like a really fucking obvious thing to do, and not doing so seems like a really dumb and wrong thing to do.

P.S. I don’t have to “act” like I’m right—- that’s what you do.

Hear hear @Kropotkin.

@Kropotkin The technology has been in development for years. Since 1990. But these vaccines are the first widescale application. They are the FIRST application. The development could never get past animal trials. Mainly what was stopping the progression was long term, severe effects in the animals. And they started animal trials as they started human trials this time around. They have administered a bunch of doses around the world. True. But it is also, hands down, the most damaging vaccine this country has ever seen since the start of the VAERS database. So there are risks associated with the vaccines, even in the short time they have been out. So let me ask…do you really believe they are safe? Based on what….good press?

This entire thing has been politicized so far out of normal that anything you hear about the vaccines that are a negative are extremely diluted. The story of the vaccines was that they were going to keep people safe from getting the disease and spreading it. And it would likely be almost as effective at future variations of the virus. Now we are finding that those that got inoculated are pretty much just as likely to get the disease and they can spread it. And the efficacy against the virus fades relatively quickly. And it isn’t as effective against the variants. So the initial story was a lie. But to help hide the truth, the CDC has changed how they report cases. It used to be if you tested positive, it was a case…period. Now the CDC doesn’t count it as a case unless it leads to hospitalization or death. But they keep telling us that the vaccines are protecting us and that you are less likely to be hospitalized or die from the virus if you are vaccinated. Then the CDC puts out the number of breakthrough cases. And those numbers tell a whole different story. They showed something like 6500 breakthrough cases that resulted in about 6200 hospitalizations and 1200 deaths. Doing the math looks like if you get a breakthrough case after being vaccinated, you are almost certain to be hospitalized and have a significantly higher chance of dying than if you were not. Now I recognize that the reason for these staggering percentages is that the CDC changed how they report cases. But that opens up the question of what would the real breakthrough case numbers look like if they went back to reporting cases as anyone that tested positive?

All in all, what you have is experimental drugs, the technology for which was never proven safe. You have a government pushing these drugs under emergency use to allow human trials to be conducted. (Yes, you are a lab rat). They aren’t being honest about their reporting which makes no sense unless they are trying to create a narrative and therefore everything they tell you is likely tainted. And you ask me why I don’t trust the vaccines?

And, BTW, I notice you answered the question I asked but were trying to hide the answer. What has mRNA ever been used for before? Nothing. Thank you for making my point.