Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?
This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.
Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
When vaccinating your kid (a US citizen) what vaccination schedule should you go with?
The standard US one
The standard of a different country which you think is better run (I picked Denmark)
Something else
I had a discussion with Grok 3 about this, and it seemed like it wanted to defend the US schedule (35 shots) until I pressed it about the Danish schedule (11 shots). Then it claimed that US schedule is necessary in the US because of different socioeconomic conditions. It seems like the US recommendations are based on helping the underclasses. For example, Hep B. My wife doesn't have Hep B. My kid won't get Hep B as a child. But a kid whose mom is a prostitute very much needs to be vaccinated for Hep B at birth.
In any case, after the censorship and disinformation promulgated by the US health agencies during the pandemic, I don't trust them. And clearly there is a corrupting profit motive here too. In this corrupted epistemic environment we simply don't know what the effects of giving kids 35 vaccine shots (plus annual flu and Covid shots) will be. I make no strong claims about vaccine injuries, and I think most vaccines are net positive. But I think, for my child, the Danish schedule + chicken pox is sufficient. At a minimum, I am deadset against any Covid vaccines. Can't say I look forward to arguing with nurses about this.
Please please please follow the vaccination schedule.
Pediatricians take a 6 figure pay cut because of how much they care about protecting kids, everything on there is for a reason - COVID nonsense aside.
If you have something specific other than COVID you have concerns about you should dig into that separately.
Keep in mind we've already started to have things like Measles outbreaks because of people become vaccine hesitant. Many of these disease are very deadly.
You also may introduce logistical problems down the line as your kid can't go to certain schools or get certain jobs (like healthcare) without jumping through extra hoops.
Also considering almost every kids gets this stuff we'd know about problems for the older stuff at this point.
People are becoming vaccine hesitant because the medical system flushed its credibility down the toilet over a cold from China. I remember when you had to be a hardcore conspiracy nut not to get vaccinated, or the kind of crunchy rich housewife who bought stuff from goop. Back in the day was, Mississippi had the highest vaccination rate in the country.
Yes and it's idiotic.
COVID was actually very bad and I'm not going to be able to convince you because you were locked inside along with everyone else when it was bad. No, no, I'm not going to be able to convince anyone still complaining about COVID at this point so let's move on.
Medicine is obviously politically compromised when it comes to culture war topics.
The correct response to 2 is to have a high degree of suspicion when you see recommendations about trans people or whatever not ignore general and uncontroversial medical advice.
A reasonable middle ground is to do things like actual independent high quality research (like a lit review on pubmed) or ask someone who is not politically compromised (me! me!).
Just because someone was wrong one time or on one category of things doesn't mean you stop listening to them for everything. That's woke thinking and I expect better of us.
In which regard? I strongly suspect I agree with you here; this statement is too ambiguous without clarification to be able to truly tell.
Agreed.
Agreed. Now define uncontroversial.
If only it was legal to do so.
P(politically compromised | states is not politically compromised) > P(politically compromised | does not state is not politically compromised)
It does mean I trust everything they say less, yes.
The solution to "our experts can't be trusted when the topic is political" is not to always ignore experts, that's going to result in more incorrect decision than listening to experts even when they are wrong.
"trust less" does not imply "always ignore". The input is still taken into consideration; it is weighted less than it would otherwise be.
Someone stating something results in upweighting to some extent or another all hypotheses that are compatible with that observation. (Assuming you have made sure your hypotheses are not overlapping.)
In this case, someone stating a falsehood on something political results in upweighting the hypothesis that they are incorrect on political matters and correct on apolitical matters, as this is compatible with said observation. It also results in upweighting the hypothesis that they are incorrect on political matters and incorrect on apolitical matters, as this is also compatible with said observation.
[N.B. I have stated nothing here about how much said updates change the weighting.]
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link