Warning about Covid Vaccine.

Ever read the side effects listed with any random basic medicine? I'm talking about over the counter stuff like pain killers, fever reducers and allergy medication.
There are usually dozens of possible side effects listed from mild: "insomnia" "fatique" "dizziness" etc. to more serious sounding things like "diarrhea" "fever" "headache" ... and towards the end you can often see some real scary shit like: "paralysis" "internal bleeding" and even "death".

But are there any negative side effects?

It's certainly possible, and there *is* a historical precedence for that having happened, but without some kind of data I would be very hesitant to support that kind of statement.
Regardless, you'll have to concede that testing and contact tracing is preferable to the lack of either when it comes to containing an outbreak.

Hard disagree.
Listening to a scientific consensus is *always* wiser than ignoring it. I'm sure there are specific events in the past that can be used to claim the opposite, but they are a tiny minority. Data, research, debate, and peer review will beat out political expediency 99.99% of the time.  Anti-science is anti-smart.

I don't know if the US and Europe have the infrastructure for test and trace that Korea does. The degree to which everything revolves around smartphones, Naver, Kakao, phone verification, transit, and phone-based transactions means tracing was already pretty much going on, you just needed all that data centralized.

Of course you listen to scientific opinion, then you listen to the scientific opinion of someone else in the same field that says something different, and then a 3rd scientist. And then you listen to scientists in other fields all make their pitches. And after listening to that mass of experts, each claiming to be the smartest and backed by science, you go with your gut. It's what every human being on Earth does with that amount of data and different points of view.

Of course you listen to scientific opinion, then you listen to the scientific opinion of someone else in the same field that says something different, and then a 3rd scientist.

_{coastal elite chiming in here...}
you suggest there are three equally sized groups of scientists saying three different things. if 10 dentists tell me i need a root canal and 1 tells me im all set my "gut" does not join the decision-making process

_{coastal elite chiming in here...}
you suggest there are three equally sized groups of scientists saying three different things. if 10 dentists tell me i need a root canal and 1 tells me im all set my "gut" does not join the decision-making process

If we go back to the initial panicky days at the start of corona, consensus was not that clear. Projections were all over the place.

This wasn't a situation where scientific opinion was unified. There wasn't even enough data and info to form an actual scientific opinion.

Furthermore, simply because one view is larger than the other does not make that view scientifically true.

And again, this applies to just one branch of science. You still have to account for scientists and experts in different fields.

If we go back to the initial panicky days

we need not go that far back to find people who disagree with (very very) scientific findings.

And again, this applies to just one branch of science. You still have to account for scientists and experts in different fields.

are we talking philosophy of science or denialism in the age of the 'rona? i dont particularly care what neil da grass (blazeit) tyson has to say about the 'rona. i'm sure it's interesting, but i treat his scientific opinion re: the 'rona like i treat my dentist's opinion about dermatology (probably more informed than yours or mine, but not as informed as a dermatologist).

we need not go that far back to find people who disagree with (very very) scientific findings.

The opinion of various health officials and experts was all over the place, including recommended measures. Certainly it has moved in a general direction since then (and I'm not talking things like treatments, but broader policy), but we've seen different policies all over the place (which is a good thing, you have to experiment).

are we talking philosophy of science or denialism in the age of the 'rona? i dont particularly care what neil da grass (blazeit) tyson has to say about the 'rona. i'm sure it's interesting, but i treat his scientific opinion re: the 'rona like i treat my dentist's opinion about dermatology (probably more informed than yours or mine, but not as informed as a dermatologist).

How to deal with Corona is an epidemiological issue. It is also a public health issue. It is also a health care administration issue. It is also a mental health issue. it is also an economic issue. It is also an issue of things like energy, transportation, logistics, agriculture etc.

If an epidemiologist says "We need to completely shut everything down. Now. Total shutdown for 2 months. If we don't, we'll have 500k dead" Do you instantly accept what they have to say? No, you have to consult with other experts and scientists in other fields. That's when someone mentions that completely shutting everything down would wreck the food supply and energy sectors leading to mass starvation, deaths from heat or cold, etc something on the level of 5 million dead. Then the public and mental health officials point out that shutting everything down like that would lead to a wave of suicide and ODs leading to 100k deaths. Then doctors in other fields point out that many patients won't go to the hospital or be able to afford treatment and the number of deaths over time will be 100k. Then a criminal justice expert pipes up that confining all those people could lead to a rash of domestic violence incidents as well as theft which could lead to civil unrest. Then those scientists and experts all start arguing and shouting with each other and forming factions around various proposals. Eventually you get some decision that pleases one group and pisses off another.

And that's why "listening to experts" or "listen to the scientists" is such an empty, hollow thing to say. It doesn't mean anything. You think the Trump administration wasn't listening to scientists and experts? No. They just listened to one faction of scientists and experts and another faction had a different opinion so they'll just accuse whoever made the decision of not listening to scientists. and experts.

The opinion of various health officials and experts was all over the place

really missed my point there

And that's why "listening to experts" or "listen to the scientists" is such an empty, hollow thing to say.

but its really not when so many people truly don't listen to the experts. which experts do the anti-vaxxers listen to? very specific scientists (errr... a "faction") for sure. can you really say the vax and anti-vax are both listening to science without relying on some stupidly reductive definitions?