[Randosaurus]

yet interestingly, if they weigh those odds and come down on the side of waiting for more information, you come after them and tell them they're wrong while simultaneously telling them they must weigh the odds.

You don't actually want them weighing the odds, you just want to imply they're wrong without being histrionic about it.

[acdha]

No, I want them to weigh the odds in a rational manner. We have a ton of data and it's been well analyzed at this point, consistently supporting the vaccines being safe and effective.

When asked, the person I was responding to admitted that they didn't do that but were instead relying on “common sense”. If they had some real data, a concern based on some real mechanism which would explain why it's risky for them personally in a way that doesn't show up in the population-level statistics, etc. that could be something to discuss because there would be a claim which could be evaluated scientifically.

[Randosaurus]

> When asked, the person I was responding to admitted that they didn't do that but were instead relying on “common sense”. If they had some real data, a concern based on some real mechanism which would explain why it's risky for them personally in a way that doesn't show up in the population-level statistics, etc. that could be something to discuss because there would be a claim which could be evaluated scientifically.

They did exactly that, to quote them:

"I use my common sense to know that a vaccine that didn’t even begin testing before spring 2020 does not have a long enough track record to assure safety."

No reasonable person is going to interpret this as "they admitted they didn't weigh the risks".

My favorite part is how you set the bar to "something that can be evaluated scientifically", without also admitting that __"SCIENCE", IS IN THE MIDDLE OF EVALUATING__.

This is the reason no one trusts people like you, your willingness to dishonesty and misrepresentation makes you untrustworthy. Nothing anyone says will change anything other than the bar you claim others should be clearing, said bar just so happening to cause everyone to land on your opinion.

Not even the CDC takes a stance as strong as yours.

[acdha]

> No reasonable person is going to interpret this as "they admitted they didn't weigh the risks".

You know, you can see what I actually wrote in the quote — note the key word missing from this paraphrase: rational. I am certain that they made a subjective assessment of the risks — my point was that they hadn't critically analyzed that decision but still want it to be treated as equal in merit to the scientific consensus.

A key part of science is testing your beliefs: that's what the scientists who've spent decades working on mRNA vaccines did, that's what the extensive trials leading up to approval were for, and it's quite telling that you are both not doing that and trying to claim that ongoing monitoring means that the results of that earlier work are unreliable. Yes, scientists are still evaluating evidence — that's what they do! — but when it consistently points to the same conclusion over a long period of time and has been used to make accurate predictions, it starts to be considered a consensus.

[LargoLasskhyfv]

Like gambling much? This is just showing the tip of the iceberg you're dealing with:

[Imagine Staff of Aeskulapius here] http://biochemical-pathways.com/#/map/2

Vaguely remembering things from

[·] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_Biology_of_the_Cell_...

which I've read about 1997 while designing and implementing compute-clusters for a biotech startup,

I've come to the conclusion it would be wise to wait.

While I'm not up to date on biotech anymore, I'm still sceptic.

My strategy so far is to avoid unnecessary contact with the beta-testers, wearing masks, and so on.

OTOH I've never had a flu-shot. But also no flu since eons.

Maybe because I'm bicycling in all weather?

I don't care. Call me a member of the control group :-)

[Randosaurus]

> I am certain ...

We are all aware you are certain.

I think the worst part of your entire post is that your argument boils down to it being irrational to wait until more complete information is known.

Let me quote them again so we're clear on the context that started this conversation.

> ... a vaccine that didn’t even begin testing before spring 2020 __does not have a long enough track record to assure safety__.

Lets consider how you responded

"why do you feel more qualified to say it's unsafe than the people who have spent their entire careers focused on it?"

I would love for you to explain why that's a reasonable response to what the other poster said. Or explain how the other posters statement is irrational.

Because that's the major problem people like you have. You even start attacking me for the egregious wrongthink of not calling someone irrational for having the opinion that we can't be assured of its safety __YET__.

And I realize I'm not going to get through to you, but here's an observation for you.

When you start lumping such middle-of-the-road opinions in with people who believe covid can be spread through 5G networks it's possible you're part of the problem.