site banner

Small-Scale Question Sunday for February 23, 2025

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.

1
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

It was very clear, and I know about the free rider problem from undergraduate economics. I am actively choosing to be a free rider, and relying on others to do what I am choosing not to. That's what free rider means. Other people are paying, I'm choosing not to.

I'm doing that because I am an individual, not a herd animal, and the things I do must actually benefit me in order for me to do them. I have no shepherd who owns me and is responsible for the herd to which I belong. There exists the possibility of a world where I do things for others altruistically, but that world is not this one, and the conditions for such a world are far from being met.

Defect is the rational response to defection, and tit for tat wins iterated prisoner's dilemmas.

the odds of your child getting an autoimmune disease from vaccines is so low that the general benefit of them getting sick less often outweighs it.

I don't trust your calculations, mostly because I don't fear the diseases or believe in their prevalence. I see the risks as miniscule, but deliberately overblown in order to create a far response and enforce compliance. There is no guarantee I even encounter measles or hepatitis or haemophilic influenza b, but if I take the vaccine there is a 100% exposure rate to the contents of the shot.

Furthermore, my children can simply get the shots later in life, when they are grown and have a much larger body mass with which to accommodate, after development has been mostly completed.

The eczema finally went away, and there's no way to know the counterfactual, but I think if we were on schedule I'd still be seeing rashes all over the back and legs and ankles.

I don't trust your calculations

You can't trust what I haven't presented. I could do so, and I strongly expect to be correct, but I already do enough trawling of medical literature when I'm being paid for it.

It's your child, and I have some respect for your right to make decisions on their behalf, even if I think they're bad decisions.

Furthermore, my children can simply get the shots later in life, when they are grown and have a much larger body mass with which to accommodate, after development has been mostly completed.

My man, you're going from wrong to confused. There's good reason why you don't see doctors or nurses pull out dose calculators to account for body weight when giving every vaccine I can think of it. It's because it doesn't matter. If little Tommy is 4'6 and 35 kilos or 4'9 and 45 makes next to no difference, and this holds true once you're past the size of a premature infant on death's door, going to a land whale who needs a mobility scooter. Vaccines aren't like paracetamol, the dose-response curves are VERY different when it's the immune system we're talking about. Someone with a peanut allergy isn't twice as likely to die if you give them two peanuts versus one.

The eczema finally went away, and there's no way to know the counterfactual, but I think if we were on schedule I'd still be seeing rashes all over the back and legs and ankles

You're not doing a good job at probabilistic reasoning, but an eczematous rash is a minor vaccine reaction, and of very little consequence. If it was life threatening, I presume you'd have pointed that out, and even then, you'd be better off consulting your pediatrician about whether they could narrow it down to a particular constituent of the two common rotavirus vaccines in the States (fetal bovine serum or porcine circovirus, if I had to guess from looking at composition), and take precautions when administering future vaccines with similar compositions. Believe it or not, most doctors would be happy to answer those questions and offer reassurance if warranted, especially if you're paying them.

I think you can use this sort of pseudo-science to justify vaccines post hoc. You can also use the same pseudo-science to justify not taking them at all.

I know quite a few people who got lasting side effects from the Covid vax, and it’s nearly heretical to talk about it. (These are people I know IRL, not internet reports) That alone makes me extremely skeptical about anyone saying how there are ~zero risks from any and all vaccines. Why is there a giant propaganda campaign to cover up the risks? Am I just some crazy statistical outlier who knows 3+ people very closely who’ve been vaccine maimed, even though it “hardly ever occurs” in the general population? I wouldn’t bet on that

People win the lottery despite the odds not being in their favor.

If you've bought a ticket, and then you find a million pounds in your bank account, then congratulations, knowing that the odds were stacked against you doesn't mean you've not won.

I know literally zero people who have been "vaccine maimed". I used to be responsible for a COVID ICU before vaccines too, and I can definitely tell you that I saw plenty die of it.

It is far more likely that you are either:

  1. Lying. On the internet, anyone can be a dog, or claim to be one.

  2. Mistaken.

  3. Surrounded by people who are mistaken or lying.

Assuming 150 people you could "closely know" (Dunbar's number as a first approximation), then someone, somewhere, out there in the world will find 3 people who were harmed by vaccines. Because vaccines are not perfectly safe, and I've never claimed that. If you consider people who are mistaken about their illness being caused by a vaccine, then the number skyrockets.

I don't know one single person who had lasting adverse effects from the vaccine. This includes professionally. I do know many with acute effects (including myself).

I've also met a few people who have made claims of adverse effects but they've all been clearly mistaken (typically it involves active mental illness, or sometimes other clear medical causes of the problem which they attribute to COVID).

I'll be real with you, I find the fact that you're being downvoted so heavily rather frustrating.

We're both doctors, and we're not perfect. Most doctors aren't perfect either, but I would expect you'd agree with me when I say the majority of our colleagues are smart, conscientious people who genuinely want to do right by the people who see them.

We've conceded that vaccines have risks. We've pointed out scenarios where vaccination might be technically net positive, but of such minuscule effect that people shouldn't run around screaming because they've missed a shot. We've pointed out circumstances where the calculations change, and that vaccination schedules are made for the whole population, and not just for conscientious upper middle class nerds who take care of their health.

If I was being paid at US rates, you'd bet I'd walk any neurotic person through an entire questionnaire that ticks off boxes and adds up net QALYs for any given vaccine. This isn't really feasible at scale, and mass media is necessarily something that must scale and reach the LCD.

Yet I see more FUD than I want to here. Somehow the whole profession is discredited by covid, even though quite a few doctors would happily tell you that the way the pandemic was handled was far from perfect.

It all strikes me as a gross over-correction. The public should trust the medical field and the US government less because of our errors, but some people are throwing out the unvaccinated baby with the bath water.

I know we've got more than our fair share of contrarians, the Motte encourages their presence, but damn.

The impression I've gotten in my time here is that most people are pretty much just smart enough, with a side helping of tech-bro-ism.

Medicine seems easy/simple from the outside in a large part because most people here are young and healthy and don't interact with the complicated parts of the field. Most people here also don't exist in fields where a lit review is a thing (in a large part because most of the people who do that are far left at this point). A half assed opinion piece is considered an authority and their's no need to read primary source material or contra narrative information critically.

We (docs) also get used to hardcore digging in because of skin in the game. If I pick the wrong medicine my patient fucking dies. That means I'm naturally going to have much more "informed" commitment to my medical views (even when they turn out to be a wrong) than somebody arguing on the internet without significant consequence.

Add in the political climate - nothing I say when defending medicine is going to do anything to separate me seeming like one of "those" COVID people to skeptics.

All those types of things together and more and you get my downvotes and the vitriol.

You should use this as a Gell-Mann Amnesia moment however. As my media diet continues to improve I get access to more and more better primary source material and you see things like rampant factual inaccuracy here on other topics outside of medicine that I've just happened to have been informed about.

We are still pretty good here! But outside of a few reliable posters you'll see a lot of very confidently stated low information stuff being promulgated.

Ultimately most of the people still complaining about COVID are having a tantrum. I get why they are having a tantrum, I was not happy about some of the policy decisions - but it's still a throwing the baby out with the bathwater moment.

Fortunately for my sanity, I've filtered my Twitter feed to the extent that the most profound cases of retardation miss me haha.

Add in the political climate - nothing I say when defending medicine is going to do anything to separate me seeming like one of "those" COVID people to skeptics.

This is what irks me the most. Short of going full Dr. Phil and taking up full-blown vaccine denialism, what can I say to people with that mindset and convince them? It's an utter mode collapse, there are certainly people in this thread who have views more nuanced than "all vaccines are amazing and harmless" and "vaccines are designed to turn you into a gay frog", but it confuses me.

I'm rather fortunate that medicine was never this politicized either in India or the UK. There isn't the same degree of digging in of heels and treating arguments as soldiers rather than an attempt to establish empirical fact.

COVID lockdowns were a bust, but even if they'd curbed the disease, I'm unsure if it was worth it if it pissed off tens of millions of people in the States to the point that even basic medical knowledge became untrustworthy.

Do these people not note that there are >180 other countries out there? If vaccines were a scam or net harmful, then you'd find at least a few countries that rejected them wholesale. The only ones without state vaccination programs are absolute basket-cases, and even they have the sense to accept foreign medical aid.

If it makes you feel better you can usually have a healthy conversation about this in real life if you are sufficiently skilled, I've converted anti-vaxxers before, but it's nearly impossible to do online for all the reasons most things with any amount of heat are nearly impossible to do online.

Additionally most people have some things they are absolutely retired about, with many people feeling hopelessly abused by social justice and modern leftist politics they are likely going to be retarded about anything that touches that stuff at all.

I do wonder if some of your surprise comes from being in India during COVID - the way things felt in the UK or US vs India may make for some difference in experience or expectation?

More comments