Get Vaccinated

In its quest to find balance in news stories as well as depth, we may have given some voices, some quasi-experts the appearance of credibility and trustworthiness. The rough draft of history strikes again.

It's the usual talk of the (more) affluent (begging the question with "we"), i.e. the small percentage (upper middle class) who got plenty of money and use up most of the resources, but we digress...

Really?  Is that what you want to hold up and measure against the risk of vaccinations? ffs

By that standard, ALL professions and occupations are more risky than getting a vaccination. 

C'mon now.  Think about it.

I had thought you would be referencing how fracking may be dangerous to the environment, and/or the hazards of the inadvertent release of sour gas... 

Well, hey, in my own I way, I own a set of blinkers too!

Gotta tune out the idiots on whatever side of the fence I may be on!
 

 

No existing evidence I am aware of supports such a claim.

certain liberals take a holier-than-thou, smarter-than-thou approach and tarnish with broad strokes ALL conservatives.  

Why is that?  I am not being a smart ass, that is a legitimate question because I don't see that.  Are you trying to tell me that civilization as we know it, if not for the discovery of the frakking process would not be able to exists??  I doubt that.

Fracking or nuclear, more atmospheric carbon or spent uranium. Or we can all stop using electricity. 

There are places that have figure it out:

"Electricity production in France". Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 via Wikimedia Commons. 

Why is that?  I am not being a smart ass, that is a legitimate question because I don't see that.  Are you trying to tell me that civilization as we know it, if not for the discovery of the frakking process would not be able to exists??  I doubt that.

You may think that is working out for ya, but folks in Russia and Japan (and soon to be the West coast of US) would probably disagree. You can have all of the scientific safety assurances you want, but when you build Nuclear power plants in the path of tsunamis, near or on top of fault lines or volcanoes kinda renders all science and safety assurances moot.

Interesting analogy to be had here:  Fracking is definitely not 100% safe, but given the current state of things it is absolutely necessary.  Vaccinations are also not 100% safe, but also absolutely necessary.  Vaccines are far safer than Fracking, and the impact is human life, so the scales are a bit off. But they are both things we need to be doing to maintain our standard of living.

Here's a more nuanced look at the issue of the disparity between public opinion and scientific knowledge, based on both political persuasion and scientific literacy.

One of the fascinating findings is that, while progressive ("Egalitarian communitarian") folks tend to adjust their views to better conform to scientific understanding when they become better informed (as with nuclear power safety opinions), conservative ("Heirarchical individualist") folks tend to cling even more tenaciously to misguided notions when they become better informed.

My hunch is that actual science is ignored by a politically diverse array of people, who make their judgements based on arbitrary factors like peer pressure, religion, and the all-powerful "just want it to be true (or not true)" plus a natural resistance to change in belief that we're all subject to.

Some of the article is nevertheless written *as* red meat, designed to get the audience to cheer and mock, but overall, it's right. I think it stumbles (for example) when it says fracking is safe, no question. If the author wants to accept preliminary data as settled science, that's his business, but I think a wiser person would be a bit hesitant to throw in 100% with either side right now. 

I will immediately close my mind and my ears to anyone who suggests that frakking is safe. This is nothing but proof and verification of being an energy company or partisan right wing shill.

Overall this is correct. I'm not sure when exactly the vaccination issue became associated with left/right polarization, because my feeling has always been that it's driven by hippies. Although my co-worker who is rabid right is also hyper nuts over vaccines and voodoo herbal crap too. To quote something I literally just now heard, "I cancelled her shots appointment this weekend," talking about her 8-month old girl. When the flu started going around, she gave everyone in the family "silver biotics." (Note that it says they claim that their product is non-toxic, even when taken at doses 100-200 times the recommended adult dose... which means it's just water).

My hunch is that actual science is ignored by a politically diverse array of people, who make their judgements based on arbitrary factors like peer pressure, religion, and the all-powerful "just want it to be true (or not true)" plus a natural resistance to change in belief that we're all subject to.

Some of the article is nevertheless written *as* red meat, designed to get the audience to cheer and mock, but overall, it's right. I think it stumbles (for example) when it says fracking is safe, no question. If the author wants to accept preliminary data as settled science, that's his business, but I think a wiser person would be a bit hesitant to throw in 100% with either side right now. 

Overall this is correct. I'm not sure when exactly the vaccination issue became associated with left/right polarization, because my feeling has always been that it's driven by hippies. Although my co-worker who is rabid right is also hyper nuts over vaccines and voodoo herbal crap too. To quote something I literally just now heard, "I cancelled her shots appointment this weekend," talking about her 8-month old girl. When the flu started going around, she gave everyone in the family "silver biotics." (Note that it says they claim that their product is non-toxic, even when taken at doses 100-200 times the recommended adult dose... which means it's just water).

My hunch is that actual science is ignored by a politically diverse array of people, who make their judgements based on arbitrary factors like peer pressure, religion, and the all-powerful "just want it to be true (or not true)" plus a natural resistance to change in belief that we're all subject to.

Some of the article is nevertheless written *as* red meat, designed to get the audience to cheer and mock, but overall, it's right. I think it stumbles (for example) when it says fracking is safe, no question. If the author wants to accept preliminary data as settled science, that's his business, but I think a wiser person would be a bit hesitant to throw in 100% with either side right now. 

I know what you mean, and before the NIH existed all of the research had to come from the military or private entities and scientists (e.g. Jonas Salk). What troubles me is prospective candidates using the vaccination issues as political fodder.   It seems there are a number of people out there who desire polarity among the masses, I guess they have their reasons.