I think this is one of those cases where if we all do what we want then the collective outcome is worse. Like, that beautiful mind movie. So, on the individual level for everyone hesitancy is rational. Personally, I see it through social contract theory; where if you choose to live in society you ought do what keeps the society alive. The last person to get vaccinated probably won't need it, but we don't know who that is so the only successful approach is over-vaccinating the required number of people. I think we have the right to make selfish decisions and be held accountable for them, so in some sense I agree. — Cheshire

So, for arguments sake, I will go off the deep end here and dive into a theoretical worst case scenario: Strictly hypothetical.
- As per social contract theory, I and my fellow citizens ought to do that which keeps the society alive. Agreed.
Therefore, as per the current narrative, we all roll up our sleeves and get stabbed as required. Yay us. We achieve 98% vaccination rate as desired. We have done our duty to society.

However, as there are no long term effects known, ten years later it turns out that the Mrna technology resulted in a genetic mutation which results in a pronounced decline in fertility, not in us that were vaccinated, but in our children. The already decreasing birthrate decreases to the point that without some form of drastic technological intervention the species will be functionally extinct within 100 years.

Under that scenario, the social contract theory would have us hide in caves rather than get the vaccine.

We do not know the long term effects of this vaccine, this virus, or the technology of the vaccine. It's all pretty new stuff, perhaps mild caution is in order.

That is really all I am saying.

However, as there are no long term effects known, ten years later it turns out that the Mrna technology resulted in a genetic mutation which results in a pronounced decline in fertility, not in us that were vaccinated, but in our children. The already decreasing birthrate decreases to the point that without some form of drastic technological intervention the species will be functionally extinct within 100 years. — Book273

True, we can't know now what we'll only discover in future. On the other hand, there are effectively infinite unseen outcomes of anything. By your own reasoning, you should probably kill yourself in case you case a bus crash in five years, killing dozens. But what if that doesn't happen and you're actually key to a peaceful interplanetary federation and the continued existence of the human race.

This is why ab rectum what-ifs are not something you can act on: for every what-if that leads you one way, there's another what-if that leads you in the opposite direction. A lot of anti-vax bullshit relies precisely on selective counterfactual futures: regard the what-ifs that support my position; disregard the ones that don't.

What's more effective than wild guesses is the facts we have, short of omniscience as they may be, and right now the facts tell us that your probability of infecting yourself and others -- of realistically killing people -- is a lot lower if you get vaccinated. Picking and choosing invented scenarios to forgive yourself for the people you have a very real chance of killing is not compelling.

Agreed. With one exception: I feel no need to forgive myself of anything. Otherwise spot on.

I am not anti-vax. Not at all. However, much like I do not buy the latest, newest model of anything, I will let them work out the kinks before accepting this latest piece of technology.

So...big brother knows best eh. Scary stuff. — Book273

If you actually bother to understand the text I'm writing, I'm talking about the need for experts to be behind the steering wheel and not have morons pulling that steering wheel while the experts are trying to drive. It's dangerous and stupid. It's not about "Big Brother", stop trying to make my argument into something that it's not and understand what I write.

Applicable to you my friend. — Book273

The difference here is that I acknowledge the experts around me and refer to them to conclude what they are actually knowledgeable about. If I make arguments that refer to source material that they produced, then I'm taking the epistemically responsible path of arguing logic out of that knowledge. The difference between me and you is that you just have opinions, you think you know best, but have little to no foundation for that logic. The same goes for every other person who does the same. Armchair experts are called that based on them thinking they know best. The reasonable thinker, however, never position themselves to know past their own knowledge and instead include the consensus of experts into the arguments. So you are comparing apples to oranges while you don't understand the difference.

And yet...you are still posting. Most of your rant is fully applicable to you as well eh. Or is that another irrelevant detail that you will overlook in defense of your position? — Book273

Read above.

It is refreshing to hear someone actually come out and just say that people should not make their own decisions and just follow the leader, because the leader knows best. Appallingly ignorant and short sighted, but refreshing none-the-less. — Book273

Again, read what the fuck I'm actually writing. What "leader" are you referring to? If you're gonna strawman the argument at least try to talk about something I actually write.

There would be no United States if people had listened to what you are pushing. No one can rebel in your philosophy of obedience. How dreary. — Book273

Oh, another unrelated comparison. Read what I fucking wrote stupid.

I am not anti-vax — Book273

No, you're only using their exact rhetoric, wild speculative bullshit, fear-mongering, and total ignorance of the science. It's like a racist who says they're not racist. The proof is in the pudding.

Oh, another unrelated comparison. — Christoffer

There it is. Never gets old eh, back to the old "irrelevant" position. So your position is that it's ok to rebel, maybe, but not now, and not against this, because....it weakens your position?

People need to understand their place — Christoffer

They should sit down and shut the fuck up and let the ones who are actual experts run the show — Christoffer

It's not about "Big Brother — Christoffer

Contradicting yourself their eh. Just saying, pick a direction and stick with it. Either we don't understand our place and should "shut the fuck up" and let someone else take over, (big brother) OR it's not about big brother, which invalidates the first bit.

how do you know the world "would have been fine" — Christoffer

Also; just because you put in parenthesis doesn't make it a quote. I have not used the phrase "would have been fine."

Ghandi rebelled eh. Peacefully, and effectively, but he still disagreed with the powers that were and changed his world.

Mother Theresa worked around the restrictions placed upon her, effectively rebelling against those who would stop her from doing what she thought was right.

You are doing what you think is right. As am I. We will both be ignored by history, and yet, one of our positions will be more accurate than the other, such is the way of things. We are rebelling. Good for us.

Or would you rather someone had told Ghandi

sit down and shut the fuck up and let the ones who are actual experts run the show. — Christoffer

Seems like a bankrupt plan.

There it is. Never gets old eh, back to the old "irrelevant" position. So your position is that it's ok to rebel, maybe, but not now, and not against this, because....it weakens your position? — Book273

You are comparing rebelling against a government fighting for the freedom to fighting scientists and experts who try to fight a pandemic. You're so far off the map now that you've fallen off and you can't even realize it. This is why your comparison is irrelevant. If you can't understand why such a comparison is irrelevant and not valid as a premise to your conclusion, then you're purely delusional.

I cannot argue against something that has no relevance or is unable to follow as a counterargument to what was actually written. You've said nothing of relevance to the point that was made.

Contradicting yourself their eh. Just saying, pick a direction and stick with it. Either we don't understand our place and should "shut the fuck up" and let someone else take over, (big brother) OR it's not about big brother, which invalidates the first bit. — Book273

No, because Big Brother is about a government who spies and controls the people. I'm talking about experts in the field of science and coordinators of medical staff and people fighting the pandemic. I'm referring to morons not being in the steering wheel and instead letting the experts in their fields steer what they have knowledge about. You are talking about government control, it's not the same thing. Are you mentally unable to understand the difference here? You are pretty much proving my point by this extreme inability to understand even the simplest thing.

Also; just because you put in parenthesis doesn't make it a quote. I have not used the phrase "would have been fine." — Book273

You are advocating against restrictions and relevant actions taken to fight the pandemic and your logic was assuming things would have been fine while then saying this:

Really hard to prove how bad things "would have been". Everything runs on modeling and assumptions. — Book273

So, you are basically speculating a scenario that doesn't have any modeling or valid assumptions behind it other than your wild speculation and irrelevant comparisons between apples and oranges, while criticizing a scenario that has a valid foundation of logic based on the facts we actually have about the virus, calling that "hard to prove" because it's out of modeling and assumptions.

If you are only using your uneducated wild speculation as a foundation for what you think would have happened to the world and then dismiss scenarios that actually have facts and knowledge as a foundation, I'd call that a contradictory argument from you, and my parenthesis was to sum up your stance in order to show why your logic failed. I guess it's impossible to, even when it's staring you in the face.

Ghandi rebelled eh. Peacefully, and effectively, but he still disagreed with the powers that were and changed his world. — Book273

Why do you keep bringing up rebelling political injustices when that has nothing to do with the problems of morons standing in the way of experts trying to fight a pandemic? It's like you're unable to understand what we're talking about here? What the fuck has Gandhi to do with Karen's screaming that they don't want facemasks? Or armchair experts spreading stupid bullshit that creates confusion while scientists and experts try to educate the people and stop the pandemic?

Mother Theresa worked around the restrictions placed upon her, effectively rebelling against those who would stop her from doing what she thought was right. — Book273

And one more again

You are doing what you think is right. As am I. We will both be ignored by history, and yet, one of our positions will be more accurate than the other, such is the way of things. We are rebelling. Good for us. — Book273

You are not acting upon the knowledge that we have. You are acting like a moron and have zero foundation as to why. The fact is that you have less probability of being accurate because you don't have any rational deduction behind the things you write. I keep asking for it, but you make historical comparisons to things that have nothing to do with the current situation or problem.

Seems like a bankrupt plan. — Book273

Seems like you should sit down.

I keep asking for it, — Christoffer

yep. And then say irrelevant, or anecdotal. Either way, whatever you dislike, you dismiss.

your logic was assuming things would have been fine — Christoffer

Nope, not ever. You are projecting again. I think the pandemic response will result in more damage than the pandemic would have if there had been no response at all. Check the WHO site for anticipated deaths due to starvation, lack of TB diagnosis and treatment, etc. as a result of all the border closures and crap resulting from the pandemic response. Last I checked the numbers were about 50,000,000.

So, globally, we scrap upwards of 50,000,000 to cover a pandemic that has taken 3.9 million so far. Seeing as I am a population control kinda guy, I am liking your math here. However, since I am also an environmental supporting type...hating the response even more.

Where I work we are seeing adverse reactions to vaccine at 1:5. Not monster life ending stuff, but still, 1:5. Hard to support that. But hey, it's anecdotal right? So ignore it and carry on.

The OP asked for reasons regarding Vaccine yes or no. I am saying no. Do what you like based on the data. Unless you are frontline, your data is filtered. I am taking the data I see, anecdotal as it is, and working from that. And No is what I come up with.

yep. And then say irrelevant, or anecdotal. Either way, whatever you dislike, you dismiss. — Book273

Are you dense? Did you read what I wrote? That you are comparing apples to oranges? Are you unable to understand that such comparisons aren't relevant and not a logical correlating foundation to what you actually concluded? Can you understand this now or should we dance around your inability to understand this simple thing some more? You haven't presented valid premises for your conclusion, fucking get that already. It doesn't matter if you think this yourself, I have deconstructed the argument you've made and showed how it makes no logical sense to compare in the way you do, but you continue like a parrot along the same line of thinking. You are simply just proving yourself to be just stupid now.

Nope, not ever. You are projecting again. I think the pandemic response will result in more damage than the pandemic would have if there had been no response at all. — Book273

Projecting? Isn't you thinking that the pandemic response is more damaging than if we'd not done anything at all... exactly like assuming things would have been fine? Are you actually fucking stupid right now in not understanding that those two basically mean the same thing?

Check the WHO site for anticipated deaths due to starvation, lack of TB diagnosis and treatment, etc. as a result of all the border closures and crap resulting from the pandemic response. Last I checked the numbers were about 50,000,000. — Book273

And you are comparing that to what estimate of death tolls for the virus? Here's your actual argument in philosophical terms:

p1: The seriousness of the virus is not high
p2: The consequences of the pandemic response leads to many deaths (around 50 000 000) due to other global health problems
Therefore, the pandemic response is more damaging than not doing anything at all.

p1 is an assumption you have no supporting evidence for or can point out to be true. It's your own assumption that you have just "guessed". So by that alone, your argument falls. p2. is probably true if you remove the number. However, because you also point to a number of 50 000 000, you need to support that number with relevant statistical linking data. You cannot quantify that data as a direct relation to the pandemic response. You need to establish a direct link to that number, otherwise, you cannot quantify how many deaths are a causation of the pandemic response (this is a classic causation/correlation fallacy). Your conclusion relies on p1 being correct and that the serious consequences of p2 is both directly linked to the pandemic response and that they are worse than anything could be if p1 was false.

So once again, with this extremely low-quality induction, tell me again why you are on this forum?

Where I work we are seeing adverse reactions to vaccine at 1:5. Not monster life ending stuff, but still, 1:5. Hard to support that. But hey, it's anecdotal right? So ignore it and carry on. — Book273

Yes, it's an anecdotal fallacy... again. You think that fallacy exists for everyone else but doesn't apply to you or your argument? You even acknowledge it yourself to be anecdotal but don't understand why it's a fallacy? What level of stupidity are you on?

The OP asked for reasons regarding Vaccine yes or no. I am saying no. Do what you like based on the data. — Book273

But you have no data! You make a correlation/causation fallacy, you use anecdotal evidence, you speculate the severity of the virus without any facts behind it. "Do what you like based on the data" is epistemically irresponsible and also plain wrong. You do what is best according to actual data and understanding that data. This means you need to understand both the action to take and you need to know how to interpret the data. You are unable to do both. The way you describe it is selfish and dangerous to others. Stupid people thinking they know best without actual education, knowledge, or ability to interpret statistical data is the problem I'm speaking about. They need to sit down and stop being so loud.

Unless you are frontline, your data is filtered. I am taking the data I see, anecdotal as it is, and working from that. And No is what I come up with. — Book273

And this is why you are stupid and don't belong on a philosophy forum. Being on the frontline means you also have data filtered as you are only seeing ONE part of a whole, ONE sample of data that is limited and only in context to that situation. It's the exact opposite of the scientific method, the exact opposite of any kind of method of logic to arrive at what can be concluded true.

And once again not able to understand what the anecdotal fallacy is and why it exists.

And No is what I come up with. — Book273

Without any philosophical scrutiny whatsoever. You don't even attempt to follow any kind of philosophical methods needed to arrive at a sound conclusion. You just have an opinion based on anecdotal experience. And without the capacity to understand statistics you think you have support for that opinion, without ever logically create an argument around it.

I'd like to see you actually create an induction argument around your conclusion. Please do that, because you are still on a philosophical forum, so this is a valid request. Put forth the argument and I'll run through why the logic doesn't work.

We do not know the long term effects of this vaccine, this virus, or the technology of the vaccine. It's all pretty new stuff, perhaps mild caution is in order. — Book273

Hence the reason hesitancy is rational on an individual level. But, taking the individual risk or perceived risk was what I thought I owed the people I live around. We know the long term effects of not vaccinating and that is mutating an already easily spread virus; that seems to wipe out the elderly fairly well.

The difference here is that I acknowledge the experts around me and refer to them to conclude what they are actually knowledgeable about. If I make arguments that refer to source material that they produced, then I'm taking the epistemically responsible path of arguing logic out of that knowledge. The difference between me and you is that you just have opinions, you think you know best, but have little to no foundation for that logic. The same goes for every other person who does the same. Armchair experts are called that based on them thinking they know best. The reasonable thinker, however, never position themselves to know past their own knowledge and instead include the consensus of experts into the arguments. So you are comparing apples to oranges while you don't understand the difference. — Christoffer

Is that what the reasonable thinker does? I am no expert in anything but from what I've seen, its the brainless thinkers that tend to buy into experts' so called expertise. I have also seen many examples of experts getting it wrong and leading the brainless followers into shitty situations, which should make anyone with two shits for brains skeptical about anything any expert might claim. Of course, I didn't get my opinion from an expert, so you will probably reject what I'm saying here.

Is that what the reasonable thinker does? I am no expert in anything but from what I've seen, its the brainless thinkers that tend to buy into experts' so called expertise. — Merkwurdichliebe

Is it "buying into"? Or is it compiling the consensus conclusions of people who have studied most of their lives on subjects and science that we only grasp a fraction of? Whenever someone says "so called" expertise my alerts fire up. What is "so called"? If you haven't studied viral diseases, epidemiology, vaccine methods, RND and DNA behavior, and so on at any time in your life, how are you in a position to question these experts' results? And I am well aware of the appeal to authority fallacy, that's why I'm saying "consensus", because a reasonable thinker looks at the results of many within a field of knowledge that the thinker isn't an expert within, and then draws conclusions out of that collectively formed knowledge. And I've yet to see any "brainless thinkers" who buy into expert ideas in any negative ways. It's rather that these "brainless thinkers" buy into pseudo-experts who aren't really knowledgable in their fields but possess a biased opinion that they push with an expert's rhetoric. Hence why the scientific method requires peer reviews and second opinions. The "reasonable thinker" understands this and guards against acquiring biases of their own.

I have also seen many examples of experts getting it wrong and leading the brainless followers into shitty situations, which should make anyone with two shits for brains skeptical about anything any expert might claim. — Merkwurdichliebe

Of course, therefore consensus. If one expert says something, you can conclude that if you are not an expert in the same field, that person might know more than you and you should take note of the knowledge presented. But in order to reach a conclusion that more and more chips away and reveal the truth about something, a consensus needs to be formed among many experts.

Being skeptical is good, but just as handling any knowledge requires rational thought, skepticism requires rationality as well. "Being a skeptic" doesn't mean someone is intelligent or rational. Most conspiracy nuts are highly skeptical. It's how you manage skepticism that is key. I am an extremely skeptical person, which requires me to be smart about how to tackle a certain topic. I need to form an opinion unbiased by myself and with support from facts. The only way to do so is to include experts into forming that opinion with me reviewing the logic of many expert sources and truly understand their conclusions before forming one.

Of course, I didn't get my opinion from an expert, so you will probably reject what I'm saying here. — Merkwurdichliebe

No, I get your point. But I point out that caution needs to be taken if the opinion comes from emotional experience or anecdotal evidence. In any form of arriving at truth, excluding yourself means that both anecdotal and emotional experience is almost always irrelevant to forming a rational and sound conclusion.

The logic of what you're saying is that you shouldn't just listen to someone and take their word as truth. This is true, it's the foundation of "appeal to authority". But just accepting an expert's word is not the same thing as listening to experts and forming an opinion.

The key here is not revolving around any "expert", it's how you treat new knowledge and ideas; If you take anything at face value, you aren't really being epistemically responsible. The same goes for just rejecting everything any expert says. The path to take is to acknowledge your shortcomings in knowledge and only speak as someone who knows when you actually know something. The path is to listen to experts and analyze the truth value without biases of your own. If you have one expert who will earn a fortune on convincing you about a certain "truth", then you naturally have to be very skeptical and wary of any underlying agendas. But if you have 10, 50, 100, or more experts saying the same thing, in different labs, in different nations, independent of each other and with totally different personal goals, all while you have zero knowledge of their field of expertise. Then what is the rational path? To dismiss them all and form your own opinion based on emotional or anecdotal evidence instead? Or listen to everyone, even the ones not involved with the consensus these experts provide? No, in that case, the only two options to have are to either become an expert yourself (a real expert based on education, not an armchair one) or to actually conclude the truth of the consensus.

But then we have those who talk about science as "changing its mind" around different topics. That people present theories that are then rejected and changed. This is true, a topic within science is always changing when new data is presented. This is nothing strange to the ones understanding the process. As mentioned earlier, the process is about chipping away at something until the most likely and clear truth emerges. This is the reason behind what "hypothesis" means and the confusion of what a "scientific theory" is compared to the common idea about "theory". If someone looks at experts and expects that they tell the truth they don't understand how things work, just as much as someone who rejects anything an expert says. Listening to experts requires understanding the process by which they arrive at knowledge. Understanding that if a hypothesis is presented, that isn't pure truth, if a scientific theory is presented that is as close to pure truth as possible with the data set that exists. But with new data, it can change. That doesn't mean the expert is "failing people" with knowledge. It means that if they arrive at new conclusions, the consensus needs to shift and the people need to change their set of facts to work according to new findings.

People just don't like change. They want to get "one" truth" from an expert and when that "one truth" is changed they blame the experts for not knowing "the truth". This is what's degenerate about society right now. People want to know the truth, experts form a consensus and people either A) dismiss that consensus because it's a discomfort in their lives and they won't comply with it out of that, or B) they accept the consensus and get angry when the consensus changes, even though it's totally logical and in-line with the scientific process, or C) They accept the consensus and understand that it can change, adapting accordingly.

Petty people can't accept uncertainty. They collapse under the idea that they need to accept an uncertain factor in their lives. Maybe it's because many in the western world haven't lived in a war in the same way as older generations. They don't have experience with uncertainty. They want control, they want a clear way forward and when that is not possible they collapse into moronic behavior.

So, what is a reasonable thinker? Someone who is morally balanced and can survive any intellectual challenge. Someone who is epistemically responsible, who listens, who forms opinions around consensus results, facts that by human measurements can be considered to be true. Who do anything in their power not to form opinions out of biases, who explain their position without fallacies.

There are experts and then there are those who gather knowledge to form a whole picture. If the expert is the spear, the archer, the soldier, the "compiler" of knowledge is the one forming a picture out of different facts presented by these experts. This is what philosophy is for me. Compiling the knowledge of others who are specialized, into a complete picture. Collaboration in its best form. If a specialized expert forms broad perspectives, they fail. If a "compiler" forms a broad perspective without listening to experts, they fail.

The reasonable thinker is the one who listens to a knowledge consensus, studies the fringe results of combined large sets of facts, and form conclusions out of that. I cannot see a human be any more truthful to the world outside their own mind than that. Anyone who "just have an opinion" without anything more than that, is in my opinion not helping anyone but their own sense of ego. A narcissist of the modern age, irrelevant to arrive at any kind of truth or constructive position for anyone, including themselves.

dying from complications of the vaccine are 112 times more likely than dying from covid itself

That doesn't matter now, does it? If you get side effects because of that super unlucky lottery, then that is not any empirical evidence that the vaccine is worse than covid. Is this how you treat logic? That if something happens to you, then the statistics are wrong? Seriously? — Christoffer

Are you a zombie or something??! is there nobody home there??

I'm not saying that if something happens to me, then the statistics are wrong. Oh god. I'm talking about the way a person handles or is supposed to handle the possibility of experiencing negative side effects of medical treatments.

Here, I started a thread: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/11268/trust-in-medicine-despite-potential-or-experienced-harm-malpractice-or-betrayal

Are you willing to die for others?
— baker

Yes. And you make me laugh. — Tom Storm

Are you willing to die for others?
— baker

I am. It's an old school thing. — James Riley

So, have you wirtten your last will and testament and had it properly legalized? Have you gotten all your affairs in order and cleaned out your house?

dying from complications of the vaccine are 112 times more likely than dying from covid itself — Thinking

It's literally disproven by actual numbers of deaths getting lower when vaccination numbers get higher. So please provide a source for such a specific number.

Are you a zombie or something??! is there nobody home there??

I'm not saying that if something happens to me, then the statistics are wrong. Oh god. I'm talking about the way a person handles or is supposed to handle the possibility of experiencing negative side effects of medical treatments. — baker

Subjective, singular, personal, and emotional experiences are irrelevant when making moral arguments about vaccines, which is what this thread is about. Morality has more to do with what we do against others than our own personal experiences. If someone experiences extreme side effects they might scream at the world "WHY!?" but for all the ones who survive because of the vaccine and the pandemic fading away along with the suffering; all those millions or billions of people who were helped by population immunity and the vaccine will be the sum of the morality around vaccines.

If someone is suffering, the world shouldn't suffer because of that. This doesn't mean we should aim to let some suffer, but the statistics of suffering from the vaccine is blown out of proportion to the suffering of the virus. It's pure anti-vaccer propaganda rooted in irrational fears formed as factual arguments and "news" from such sources. As some US states now face a problem with not being able to vaccinate enough people due to a high number of anti-vaccers present in those states, it becomes apparent that the spread of false statistical interpretations to push an almost religious agenda is becoming rather dangerous. Anti-vaccer propaganda is not something harmless, it is right now actively pushing back the end of the pandemic and risk introducing even worse mutations. It is morally degenerate to oppose vaccines in light of the suffering Covid-19 creates and anyone who's not educated, too stupid or indoctrinated into anti-vaccer propaganda should be shut down when spreading bullshit about the science behind the vaccine.

If you think I'm a zombie for misinterpreting your argument, then maybe elaborate or expand further. I'm no mind reader, I can only read the things you actually write. But good that you started a new thread that's about the things that this thread isn't about.

So, have you wirtten your last will and testament and had it properly legalized? Have you gotten all your affairs in order and cleaned out your house? — baker

Yes. And updated periodically as situations change.