On the subject to resistance to the vaccines: I have a young relative (early 20s) who has decided he doesn't want to have the vaccine because he's been fed some nonsense on social media about the vaccines causing Parkinson's disease, information which he says comes from a scientific paper.
My question is: how best to combat this? I realise that shouting at him and telling not to be so stupid (my preferred option, TBH) might not be entirely optimal. Engage with the 'scientific paper' and try to refute it? Point out that the MHRA, FDA, EMA, WHO, and every other regulator around the world say that the vaccines are safe, recommend them, and that they know a hell of a lot more about this than some random guy on Facebook? Bribery? Blackmail? Point out he won't be able to travel without the jabs?
It's a tricky one, because one is trying to counter the irrational with the rational.
Find out what the scientific paper was. If is anything like what the troll farms were posting during the American elections, chances are it is bent out of all recognition and really showed an association of some other vaccine with some other disease. And in the unlikely event it is genuine, even without trying to refute it, you could direct him to a different vaccine.
And then there is the whole travelling and not dying thing.
I'm afraid many people dont believe what organisations like WHO say any more so that's out. To be fair to him his decision is rational for himself given his extremely low risk of dying from covid
True but what I was getting at was based on when Plato (RIP) used to post alt-right pro-Trump anti-Hillary conspiracy stuff on here, and when you followed her link to a tweet to a web page and watched a 30-minute video, it was often unrelated or the opposite to what she said it was. So the first question is whether the paper actually does show an association between a vaccine and Parkinson's. And even if it does, there are lots of other vaccines to choose from.
Even if the link is rubbish he is making a decision that's rational for him. It should be respected
What does it mean for something to be "rational for him"? If I believe something rationally based on reasons that are mistaken, I want somebody to tell me how they're mistaken, so that I can rationally believe something that's right instead of something that's wrong. I don't want people to respect my bad information.
If it's not rational but it's just what he thinks, well no, that's not what "rational" means
I have encountered the belief that "I'm entitled to believe in what I want and presenting facts that contradict that is rude" - it is a rather interesting position. Some take the view that presenting information against their beliefs is an assault - a violation of "their" space.
On the subject to resistance to the vaccines: I have a young relative (early 20s) who has decided he doesn't want to have the vaccine because he's been fed some nonsense on social media about the vaccines causing Parkinson's disease, information which he says comes from a scientific paper.
My question is: how best to combat this? I realise that shouting at him and telling not to be so stupid (my preferred option, TBH) might not be entirely optimal. Engage with the 'scientific paper' and try to refute it? Point out that the MHRA, FDA, EMA, WHO, and every other regulator around the world say that the vaccines are safe, recommend them, and that they know a hell of a lot more about this than some random guy on Facebook? Bribery? Blackmail? Point out he won't be able to travel without the jabs?
It's a tricky one, because one is trying to counter the irrational with the rational.
Find out what the scientific paper was. If is anything like what the troll farms were posting during the American elections, chances are it is bent out of all recognition and really showed an association of some other vaccine with some other disease. And in the unlikely event it is genuine, even without trying to refute it, you could direct him to a different vaccine.
And then there is the whole travelling and not dying thing.
I'm afraid many people dont believe what organisations like WHO say any more so that's out. To be fair to him his decision is rational for himself given his extremely low risk of dying from covid
True but what I was getting at was based on when Plato (RIP) used to post alt-right pro-Trump anti-Hillary conspiracy stuff on here, and when you followed her link to a tweet to a web page and watched a 30-minute video, it was often unrelated or the opposite to what she said it was. So the first question is whether the paper actually does show an association between a vaccine and Parkinson's. And even if it does, there are lots of other vaccines to choose from.
Even if the link is rubbish he is making a decision that's rational for him. It should be respected
What does it mean for something to be "rational for him"? If I believe something rationally based on reasons that are mistaken, I want somebody to tell me how they're mistaken, so that I can rationally believe something that's right instead of something that's wrong. I don't want people to respect my bad information.
If it's not rational but it's just what he thinks, well no, that's not what "rational" means
Perfectly rational for him given his low risk of dying from covid especially if he has concerns about vaccine safety
But those concerns are based on fake information. How can he make a rational decision if that is the case?
On the subject to resistance to the vaccines: I have a young relative (early 20s) who has decided he doesn't want to have the vaccine because he's been fed some nonsense on social media about the vaccines causing Parkinson's disease, information which he says comes from a scientific paper.
My question is: how best to combat this? I realise that shouting at him and telling not to be so stupid (my preferred option, TBH) might not be entirely optimal. Engage with the 'scientific paper' and try to refute it? Point out that the MHRA, FDA, EMA, WHO, and every other regulator around the world say that the vaccines are safe, recommend them, and that they know a hell of a lot more about this than some random guy on Facebook? Bribery? Blackmail? Point out he won't be able to travel without the jabs?
It's a tricky one, because one is trying to counter the irrational with the rational.
Find out what the scientific paper was. If is anything like what the troll farms were posting during the American elections, chances are it is bent out of all recognition and really showed an association of some other vaccine with some other disease. And in the unlikely event it is genuine, even without trying to refute it, you could direct him to a different vaccine.
And then there is the whole travelling and not dying thing.
I'm afraid many people dont believe what organisations like WHO say any more so that's out. To be fair to him his decision is rational for himself given his extremely low risk of dying from covid
True but what I was getting at was based on when Plato (RIP) used to post alt-right pro-Trump anti-Hillary conspiracy stuff on here, and when you followed her link to a tweet to a web page and watched a 30-minute video, it was often unrelated or the opposite to what she said it was. So the first question is whether the paper actually does show an association between a vaccine and Parkinson's. And even if it does, there are lots of other vaccines to choose from.
Even if the link is rubbish he is making a decision that's rational for him. It should be respected
Should it? I don't know. Arguably, for almost any disease, it is rational for *me* not to be immunised provided everyone else is. I get all the herd immunity with none of the side effects. Is it a tragedy of the commons thing? Is there a philosopher in the house?
Indeed you could make a case about whether there is a need to vaccinate 20 somethings at all if the over 50s are predominantly vaccinated. One mans rationality is another's insanity
That's easy, there is a strong case given that some over 50s cannot be vaccinated due to other conditions. They'll only be protected if herd immunity is reached, and that requires a high fraction of the population immunized given the R number for the current strain.
On the subject to resistance to the vaccines: I have a young relative (early 20s) who has decided he doesn't want to have the vaccine because he's been fed some nonsense on social media about the vaccines causing Parkinson's disease, information which he says comes from a scientific paper.
My question is: how best to combat this? I realise that shouting at him and telling not to be so stupid (my preferred option, TBH) might not be entirely optimal. Engage with the 'scientific paper' and try to refute it? Point out that the MHRA, FDA, EMA, WHO, and every other regulator around the world say that the vaccines are safe, recommend them, and that they know a hell of a lot more about this than some random guy on Facebook? Bribery? Blackmail? Point out he won't be able to travel without the jabs?
It's a tricky one, because one is trying to counter the irrational with the rational.
Find out what the scientific paper was. If is anything like what the troll farms were posting during the American elections, chances are it is bent out of all recognition and really showed an association of some other vaccine with some other disease. And in the unlikely event it is genuine, even without trying to refute it, you could direct him to a different vaccine.
And then there is the whole travelling and not dying thing.
I'm afraid many people dont believe what organisations like WHO say any more so that's out. To be fair to him his decision is rational for himself given his extremely low risk of dying from covid
True but what I was getting at was based on when Plato (RIP) used to post alt-right pro-Trump anti-Hillary conspiracy stuff on here, and when you followed her link to a tweet to a web page and watched a 30-minute video, it was often unrelated or the opposite to what she said it was. So the first question is whether the paper actually does show an association between a vaccine and Parkinson's. And even if it does, there are lots of other vaccines to choose from.
Even if the link is rubbish he is making a decision that's rational for him. It should be respected
Should it? I don't know. Arguably, for almost any disease, it is rational for *me* not to be immunised provided everyone else is. I get all the herd immunity with none of the side effects. Is it a tragedy of the commons thing? Is there a philosopher in the house?
Indeed you could make a case about whether there is a need to vaccinate 20 somethings at all if the over 50s are predominantly vaccinated. One mans rationality is another's insanity
That's easy, there is a strong case given that some over 50s cannot be vaccinated due to other conditions. They'll only be protected if herd immunity is reached, and that requires a high fraction of the population immunized given the R number for the current strain.
Problem with that is the vaccines are not stopping transmission so this tiny number of people will still be vulnerable. Not so easy is it...decisions decisions
They are reducing transmission. You make it sound as though they have no effect.
On the subject to resistance to the vaccines: I have a young relative (early 20s) who has decided he doesn't want to have the vaccine because he's been fed some nonsense on social media about the vaccines causing Parkinson's disease, information which he says comes from a scientific paper.
My question is: how best to combat this? I realise that shouting at him and telling not to be so stupid (my preferred option, TBH) might not be entirely optimal. Engage with the 'scientific paper' and try to refute it? Point out that the MHRA, FDA, EMA, WHO, and every other regulator around the world say that the vaccines are safe, recommend them, and that they know a hell of a lot more about this than some random guy on Facebook? Bribery? Blackmail? Point out he won't be able to travel without the jabs?
It's a tricky one, because one is trying to counter the irrational with the rational.
Find out what the scientific paper was. If is anything like what the troll farms were posting during the American elections, chances are it is bent out of all recognition and really showed an association of some other vaccine with some other disease. And in the unlikely event it is genuine, even without trying to refute it, you could direct him to a different vaccine.
And then there is the whole travelling and not dying thing.
I'm afraid many people dont believe what organisations like WHO say any more so that's out. To be fair to him his decision is rational for himself given his extremely low risk of dying from covid
How do you know? He might have a whole list of current conditions.
Maybe but unlikely. We are talking about an average 20 something here
But again not known for sure. And I also don't think a decision made using false information can ever be rational.
"You're being irrational" and "your so-called source is just fake news" are unlikely ever to persuade him.
Ask him for the reference, read it with an open mind, and tell him what you think about it.
I recently watched an anti-vaccination video - it was one that "social media" had been criticised for giving oxygen to, featuring Thomas Cowan - and the speaker went "If you've read [Rudolf] Steiner, you'll understand that the heart is not a pump". On that basis I feel justified in calling him a f***ing loony or, in the event that he's not, then a deliberate liar, and, whichever it is, in calling people who are taken in by him idiots.
On the subject to resistance to the vaccines: I have a young relative (early 20s) who has decided he doesn't want to have the vaccine because he's been fed some nonsense on social media about the vaccines causing Parkinson's disease, information which he says comes from a scientific paper.
My question is: how best to combat this? I realise that shouting at him and telling not to be so stupid (my preferred option, TBH) might not be entirely optimal. Engage with the 'scientific paper' and try to refute it? Point out that the MHRA, FDA, EMA, WHO, and every other regulator around the world say that the vaccines are safe, recommend them, and that they know a hell of a lot more about this than some random guy on Facebook? Bribery? Blackmail? Point out he won't be able to travel without the jabs?
It's a tricky one, because one is trying to counter the irrational with the rational.
Find out what the scientific paper was. If is anything like what the troll farms were posting during the American elections, chances are it is bent out of all recognition and really showed an association of some other vaccine with some other disease. And in the unlikely event it is genuine, even without trying to refute it, you could direct him to a different vaccine.
And then there is the whole travelling and not dying thing.
I'm afraid many people dont believe what organisations like WHO say any more so that's out. To be fair to him his decision is rational for himself given his extremely low risk of dying from covid
True but what I was getting at was based on when Plato (RIP) used to post alt-right pro-Trump anti-Hillary conspiracy stuff on here, and when you followed her link to a tweet to a web page and watched a 30-minute video, it was often unrelated or the opposite to what she said it was. So the first question is whether the paper actually does show an association between a vaccine and Parkinson's. And even if it does, there are lots of other vaccines to choose from.
Even if the link is rubbish he is making a decision that's rational for him. It should be respected
Should it? I don't know. Arguably, for almost any disease, it is rational for *me* not to be immunised provided everyone else is. I get all the herd immunity with none of the side effects. Is it a tragedy of the commons thing? Is there a philosopher in the house?
Indeed you could make a case about whether there is a need to vaccinate 20 somethings at all if the over 50s are predominantly vaccinated. One mans rationality is another's insanity
That's easy, there is a strong case given that some over 50s cannot be vaccinated due to other conditions. They'll only be protected if herd immunity is reached, and that requires a high fraction of the population immunized given the R number for the current strain.
Problem with that is the vaccines are not stopping transmission so this tiny number of people will still be vulnerable. Not so easy is it...decisions decisions
They are reducing transmission. You make it sound as though they have no effect.
Yes but that small number of vulnerable over 50s will still be vulnerable. They are also vulnerable to flu but we dont mandate the flu jab for 20 somethings. Based on your logic maybe we should...decisions..decisions
But dramatically less vulnerable. If we went with your idea and no one under 30 was vaccinated they would have a far higher risk of catching it.
As for flu, covid is much more serious than the flu. But maybe you think they are one and the same?
On the subject to resistance to the vaccines: I have a young relative (early 20s) who has decided he doesn't want to have the vaccine because he's been fed some nonsense on social media about the vaccines causing Parkinson's disease, information which he says comes from a scientific paper.
My question is: how best to combat this? I realise that shouting at him and telling not to be so stupid (my preferred option, TBH) might not be entirely optimal. Engage with the 'scientific paper' and try to refute it? Point out that the MHRA, FDA, EMA, WHO, and every other regulator around the world say that the vaccines are safe, recommend them, and that they know a hell of a lot more about this than some random guy on Facebook? Bribery? Blackmail? Point out he won't be able to travel without the jabs?
It's a tricky one, because one is trying to counter the irrational with the rational.
Find out what the scientific paper was. If is anything like what the troll farms were posting during the American elections, chances are it is bent out of all recognition and really showed an association of some other vaccine with some other disease. And in the unlikely event it is genuine, even without trying to refute it, you could direct him to a different vaccine.
And then there is the whole travelling and not dying thing.
I'm afraid many people dont believe what organisations like WHO say any more so that's out. To be fair to him his decision is rational for himself given his extremely low risk of dying from covid
How do you know? He might have a whole list of current conditions.
Maybe but unlikely. We are talking about an average 20 something here
But again not known for sure. And I also don't think a decision made using false information can ever be rational.
"You're being irrational" and "your so-called source is just fake news" are unlikely ever to persuade him.
Ask him for the reference, read it with an open mind, and tell him what you think about it.
I recently watched an anti-vaccination video - it was one that "social media" had been criticised for giving oxygen to, featuring Thomas Cowan - and the speaker went "If you've read [Rudolf] Steiner, you'll understand that the heart is not a pump". On that basis I feel justified in calling him a f***ing loony or, in the event that he's not, then a deliberate liar, and, whichever it is, in calling people who are taken in by him idiots.
No, and I wouldn't recommend approaching him in that way. I'm just commenting here on how absurd it is to believe crap like that.
On the subject to resistance to the vaccines: I have a young relative (early 20s) who has decided he doesn't want to have the vaccine because he's been fed some nonsense on social media about the vaccines causing Parkinson's disease, information which he says comes from a scientific paper.
My question is: how best to combat this? I realise that shouting at him and telling not to be so stupid (my preferred option, TBH) might not be entirely optimal. Engage with the 'scientific paper' and try to refute it? Point out that the MHRA, FDA, EMA, WHO, and every other regulator around the world say that the vaccines are safe, recommend them, and that they know a hell of a lot more about this than some random guy on Facebook? Bribery? Blackmail? Point out he won't be able to travel without the jabs?
It's a tricky one, because one is trying to counter the irrational with the rational.
Find out what the scientific paper was. If is anything like what the troll farms were posting during the American elections, chances are it is bent out of all recognition and really showed an association of some other vaccine with some other disease. And in the unlikely event it is genuine, even without trying to refute it, you could direct him to a different vaccine.
And then there is the whole travelling and not dying thing.
I'm afraid many people dont believe what organisations like WHO say any more so that's out. To be fair to him his decision is rational for himself given his extremely low risk of dying from covid
How do you know? He might have a whole list of current conditions.
Maybe but unlikely. We are talking about an average 20 something here
But again not known for sure. And I also don't think a decision made using false information can ever be rational.
"You're being irrational" and "your so-called source is just fake news" are unlikely ever to persuade him.
Ask him for the reference, read it with an open mind, and tell him what you think about it.
I recently watched an anti-vaccination video - it was one that "social media" had been criticised for giving oxygen to, featuring Thomas Cowan - and the speaker went "If you've read [Rudolf] Steiner, you'll understand that the heart is not a pump". On that basis I feel justified in calling him a f***ing loony or, in the event that he's not, then a deliberate liar, and, whichever it is, in calling people who are taken in by him idiots.
No, and I wouldn't recommend approaching him in that way. I'm just commenting here on how absurd it is to believe crap like that.
Just to be clear: the only people I was calling idiots were those who are taken in by that particular video by Thomas Cowan. Having watched it I'm in a position to say why it is garbage.
Christ i see GB News have hired another Talk Radio anti-mask, anti-lockdown nutter....any pretense of it being a serious news network is definitely gone (if it was ever true). Its becoming a parody of itself.
Given most people I saw today on the train and in shops had no mask on I would say they are reflecting public opinion
On the subject to resistance to the vaccines: I have a young relative (early 20s) who has decided he doesn't want to have the vaccine because he's been fed some nonsense on social media about the vaccines causing Parkinson's disease, information which he says comes from a scientific paper.
My question is: how best to combat this? I realise that shouting at him and telling not to be so stupid (my preferred option, TBH) might not be entirely optimal. Engage with the 'scientific paper' and try to refute it? Point out that the MHRA, FDA, EMA, WHO, and every other regulator around the world say that the vaccines are safe, recommend them, and that they know a hell of a lot more about this than some random guy on Facebook? Bribery? Blackmail? Point out he won't be able to travel without the jabs?
It's a tricky one, because one is trying to counter the irrational with the rational.
Find out what the scientific paper was. If is anything like what the troll farms were posting during the American elections, chances are it is bent out of all recognition and really showed an association of some other vaccine with some other disease. And in the unlikely event it is genuine, even without trying to refute it, you could direct him to a different vaccine.
And then there is the whole travelling and not dying thing.
I'm afraid many people dont believe what organisations like WHO say any more so that's out. To be fair to him his decision is rational for himself given his extremely low risk of dying from covid
True but what I was getting at was based on when Plato (RIP) used to post alt-right pro-Trump anti-Hillary conspiracy stuff on here, and when you followed her link to a tweet to a web page and watched a 30-minute video, it was often unrelated or the opposite to what she said it was. So the first question is whether the paper actually does show an association between a vaccine and Parkinson's. And even if it does, there are lots of other vaccines to choose from.
Even if the link is rubbish he is making a decision that's rational for him. It should be respected
Should it? I don't know. Arguably, for almost any disease, it is rational for *me* not to be immunised provided everyone else is. I get all the herd immunity with none of the side effects. Is it a tragedy of the commons thing? Is there a philosopher in the house?
Indeed you could make a case about whether there is a need to vaccinate 20 somethings at all if the over 50s are predominantly vaccinated. One mans rationality is another's insanity
That's easy, there is a strong case given that some over 50s cannot be vaccinated due to other conditions. They'll only be protected if herd immunity is reached, and that requires a high fraction of the population immunized given the R number for the current strain.
Problem with that is the vaccines are not stopping transmission so this tiny number of people will still be vulnerable. Not so easy is it...decisions decisions
They are reducing transmission. You make it sound as though they have no effect.
Yes but that small number of vulnerable over 50s will still be vulnerable. They are also vulnerable to flu but we dont mandate the flu jab for 20 somethings. Based on your logic maybe we should...decisions..decisions
But dramatically less vulnerable. If we went with your idea and no one under 30 was vaccinated they would have a far higher risk of catching it.
As for flu, covid is much more serious than the flu. But maybe you think they are one and the same?
Flu kills a lot of people every year especially vulnerable people. So why arent we mandating flu jabs for 20 somethings given you care about these vulnerable people so much
I already addressed that. Covid is much more serious than flu. Even with the lockdowns etc, covid killed more than flu does even in a bad year.
On the subject to resistance to the vaccines: I have a young relative (early 20s) who has decided he doesn't want to have the vaccine because he's been fed some nonsense on social media about the vaccines causing Parkinson's disease, information which he says comes from a scientific paper.
My question is: how best to combat this? I realise that shouting at him and telling not to be so stupid (my preferred option, TBH) might not be entirely optimal. Engage with the 'scientific paper' and try to refute it? Point out that the MHRA, FDA, EMA, WHO, and every other regulator around the world say that the vaccines are safe, recommend them, and that they know a hell of a lot more about this than some random guy on Facebook? Bribery? Blackmail? Point out he won't be able to travel without the jabs?
It's a tricky one, because one is trying to counter the irrational with the rational.
Find out what the scientific paper was. If is anything like what the troll farms were posting during the American elections, chances are it is bent out of all recognition and really showed an association of some other vaccine with some other disease. And in the unlikely event it is genuine, even without trying to refute it, you could direct him to a different vaccine.
And then there is the whole travelling and not dying thing.
I'm afraid many people dont believe what organisations like WHO say any more so that's out. To be fair to him his decision is rational for himself given his extremely low risk of dying from covid
True but what I was getting at was based on when Plato (RIP) used to post alt-right pro-Trump anti-Hillary conspiracy stuff on here, and when you followed her link to a tweet to a web page and watched a 30-minute video, it was often unrelated or the opposite to what she said it was. So the first question is whether the paper actually does show an association between a vaccine and Parkinson's. And even if it does, there are lots of other vaccines to choose from.
Even if the link is rubbish he is making a decision that's rational for him. It should be respected
Should it? I don't know. Arguably, for almost any disease, it is rational for *me* not to be immunised provided everyone else is. I get all the herd immunity with none of the side effects. Is it a tragedy of the commons thing? Is there a philosopher in the house?
Indeed you could make a case about whether there is a need to vaccinate 20 somethings at all if the over 50s are predominantly vaccinated. One mans rationality is another's insanity
That's easy, there is a strong case given that some over 50s cannot be vaccinated due to other conditions. They'll only be protected if herd immunity is reached, and that requires a high fraction of the population immunized given the R number for the current strain.
Problem with that is the vaccines are not stopping transmission so this tiny number of people will still be vulnerable. Not so easy is it...decisions decisions
They are reducing transmission. You make it sound as though they have no effect.
Yes but that small number of vulnerable over 50s will still be vulnerable. They are also vulnerable to flu but we dont mandate the flu jab for 20 somethings. Based on your logic maybe we should...decisions..decisions
But dramatically less vulnerable. If we went with your idea and no one under 30 was vaccinated they would have a far higher risk of catching it.
As for flu, covid is much more serious than the flu. But maybe you think they are one and the same?
Flu kills a lot of people every year especially vulnerable people. So why arent we mandating flu jabs for 20 somethings given you care about these vulnerable people so much
I already addressed that. Covid is much more serious than flu. Even with the lockdowns etc, covid killed more than flu does even in a bad year.
Yes but flu kills many vulnerable too. You are happy for these vulnerable to die when mandating the flu jab for 20 somethings could save many of them....have some heart
It’s a question of proportion. That, and flu vaccines are nowhere near as effective at preventing serious illness.
OT - an awful lot of assumptions being made about the likely scale of LD success maybe 2 years down the road. Deja vu? - Orpington/Ryedale/Chesham & Amersham and many, many more. Also the idea that no-one would work with the Tories? Done that, been there and didn't like the T-shirt. Never say never.
As for Burnham - there's a reason he quit as an MP after losing the leadership election. There's also a reason he is favourite. Labour know they lack a winner but there's thin gruel left in the PP.
I think the LibDems will probably return to the same position they were in in 1979 or 1992 at the next election: i.e. mid teens vote share and 16-20 MPs.
In 1979 the Liberals polled 13% and ended up with just 11 MPs.
Comments
Ask him for the reference, read it with an open mind, and tell him what you think about it.
I recently watched an anti-vaccination video - it was one that "social media" had been criticised for giving oxygen to, featuring Thomas Cowan - and the speaker went "If you've read [Rudolf] Steiner, you'll understand that the heart is not a pump". On that basis I feel justified in calling him a f***ing loony or, in the event that he's not, then a deliberate liar, and, whichever it is, in calling people who are taken in by him idiots.
As for flu, covid is much more serious than the flu. But maybe you think they are one and the same?
Why is the commentary so weird?