In a way you are right, perhaps the really crazy ones are those who have much to lose in their questioning of the mainstream narratives, highly educated professionals whose jobs are related to the subject matter.

Perhaps I didn't pick the best time to suspect Group Think. But I do hope you are honest enough to accept that it is a legitimate concern. Science is not immune to it.
Consider how many scientists were resistant to change their mind about Einstein's Theory of Relativity.
I'm not convinced the Majority is right the majority of the time. At least not on contentious or subtle issues.

Good article here which describes that sort of thing: https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/science/articles/pandemic-science

The same apolitical scientist could be attacked by left-wing commentators in one place and by alt-right commentators in another. Many excellent scientists have had to silence themselves in this chaos. Their self-censorship has been a major loss for scientific investigation and the public health effort. My heroes are the many well-intentioned scientists who were abused, smeared, and threatened during the pandemic. I respect all of them and suffer for what they went through, regardless of whether their scientific positions agreed or disagreed with mine. I suffer for and cherish even more those whose positions disagreed with mine.

Indeed, it's scary and tragical that many well intentioned scientists receive various negative labels for giving their professional opinions on the matter just because it doesn't fit the widely accepted narrative.

But I do hope you are honest enough to accept that it is a legitimate concern. Science is not immune to it. — Yohan

Never said it was.

Yeah, because we’re all convinced you two care about scientists being abused. If you are, then it’s funny you should exclude the more glaring example: the case of Dr. Fauci, who has received numerous smears and death threats for months, for doing nothing more than giving the current medical understanding, over and over again. Or the thousands of others — like the head of the CDC and its other employees.

Creationists love to paint themselves as oppressed martyrs fighting for truth as well. So do Holocaust deniers. So do flat earthers. Wait— so does every pseudo-scientist and Qanon conspiracy lunatic out there. Hmm…

Talk about scary and tragic.

Yeah, because we’re all convinced you two care about scientists being abused. If you are, then it’s funny you should exclude the more glaring example: the case of Dr. Fauci, who has received numerous smears and death threats for months, for doing nothing more than giving the current medical understanding, over and over again. Or the thousands of others — like the head of the CDC and its other employees. — Xtrix

So just because I didn't name names, didn't give particular examples which are countless, but was speaking in general, I'm somehow dishonest? What a silly incorrect conclusion you've come to.

No, it isn't incorrect. Given what you're said prior, this is the correct conclusion. Wormy people like you want to try to hide your very obvious prejudice, and appear as neutral/objective when confronted on it.

You've deliberately taken the side of a minority medical position, and now go on harping about how they've been mistreated for "not following the mainstream narrative."

Gaslight somewhere else.

Just ignore me from now on, ok?

Just ignore me from now on, ok? — RAW

When you stop posting nonsense on my threads and mentioning me in your comments, you got it. :ok:

When you stop posting nonsense on my threads and mentioning me in your comments, you got it. :ok: — Xtrix

Based on your childish immature unfounded unnecessary rudeness and arrogance from the very first reply on, but more because of your very poor reasoning (maybe few others spot the irony you've created here and have a good laugh as I did), rest assured I'll stay the fu*k away from your threads and comments on this forum.

Wormy people like you — Xtrix

Are you serious?

very poor reasoning — RAW

:lol:

Coming from you, this really means a lot. I'm devastated.

You keep up the good fight of defending quackery because it goes "against the mainstream narrative." Excellent "reasoning."

childish immature unfounded unnecessary rudeness and arrogance — RAW

Wasn't that a Rolling Stone song?

Are you serious? — Philofile

Yes -- and who are you? Odd that you jump in the middle of this after joining the forum 2 hours ago.

I find it interesting that AJJ, Yohan, RAW, and now Philofile are all relatively new members who have come out of the woodwork to pursue this crusade of ignorance and championing of woo-woo.

Not a coincidence. Probably banned members reconstituted. All the more reason to take with a grain of salt.

For those truly interested, and not simply trying to dig in and defend an ignorant position, here's an excellent summary by Dr. Suppinger:

As a doctor, I have recently been asking my patients whether they have gotten a COVID-19 vaccine or made a plan to do so. Initially, some expressed reluctance or just wanted to “wait and see.” This is understandable, given the unprecedented speed with which the vaccines were developed. While I was happy to get my shot as soon as I could, I understood why some others felt uncomfortable getting it right away. Now that almost 150 million Americans have received at least one dose of a vaccine, some are feeling a little more confident about getting it, too.

But the negative responses from patients have shifted somewhat in recent weeks. A number of those who haven’t been vaccinated are saying that they have no intention of doing so — ever. One common reason is that they just don’t perceive much of a threat. As case counts continue to decline, some younger patients think their risk of severe disease or death is so low that it’s just not worth it. Conversely, some elderly patients tell me that they just don’t get out and about very much, so they don’t think it’s likely they will be exposed.

It’s frustrating to realize that the elusive herd immunity we all thought would hasten a return to our pre-COVID lives may never be achieved, by our own collective choice. On the other hand, I am relatively healthy and have been vaccinated, so my chances of survival if I contract COVID are excellent. Why should I care if some people don’t want to get vaccinated? Here’s three reasons why I do care:

1. People who are elderly or immunocompromised may not have as robust an immune response to vaccination as a young, healthy person in a clinic trial. Getting more of the population vaccinated adds a layer of protection for those most vulnerable. And while some elderly people may not go out much, almost no one lives in complete isolation; small family gatherings over the holidays likely fueled the winter surge. In other words, if you won’t get vaccinated to protect yourself, consider doing it to protect your grandmother.

2. While FDA authorization for children ages 12-15 is beginning, children under age 12 cannot get vaccinated yet. The risk of severe COVID symptoms in children is low, but it’s not zero. The virus has also been linked to a potentially serious condition in children called Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in Children (MIS-C). Until children can get vaccinated themselves, the best way to protect them is to vaccinate adults around them.

3. Viral replication is suppressed by mass immunization, which may slow down the emergence of additional viral variants over time. While no vaccine is perfect, so far, symptomatic disease has been very uncommon in those who are vaccinated. However, it is not clear how well the vaccines will perform against all of the SARS-CoV-2 variants, so suppressing viral replication and preventing new ones from emerging helps to protect us all.

It’s important to remember that getting vaccinated is not just about protecting yourself; it’s also about protecting those around you. In the long run, we will all benefit from herd immunity. The question that remains is whether we can actually get there.

http://www.williamsonherald.com/opinion/commentary-why-should-i-care-if-others-get-vaccinated/article_96e737c2-b369-11eb-90ce-c79d7571ff9a.html

Last Scenario then I give up:
There is a fight between Person 1 and Person 2.
Person 3 is going to bet on who will be more likely to win based on randomly receiving 1 of the following pieces of information:
Person 1 has some advantage over Person 2 in some area
Or
Person 2 has some advantage over Person 1 in some area

Person 3 has told us before he is given one of the pieces of information, that he believes that, absent of all other information, if he knows one Person has any advantage at all over the other Person, it would be a safer bet to go with the Person with the known advantage. He admits he wouldn't necessarily know the exact degree of the advantage, but that he would be justified in claiming there would be some over-all total advantage.

Therefor, we know ahead of time what Person 3 will bet on if he receives either piece of information.
Because we know this, we know that the odds of him betting on either of the persons would be 50%.

Will Person 3's guess have a higher chance of being right in either case of him receiving the First or Second piece of information? There doesn't seem to be. As far as we know, whichever piece of information Person 3 receives, will have no bearing on who will be more likely to win. The, as far as know, 50% odds, would not be influenced in the slightest.

If this is wrong, then please show me how. Anyone.

Last Scenario then I give up — Yohan

I stopped reading around this point. I’m not going over it again. If you are legitimately struggling with a truism, I wish you well in working that out.

You don't really need to go this far, your first approach was fine.

Probabilities are a function of variables. The variables which make an expert more likely to be right are things like; diligence, lack of conflict of interest, peer review, a good understanding of statistics and experiment design, a secure position (like a tenure) not reliant on frequent publication, a willingness to be wrong, a wide field of funding sources, pre-print publication, a good network of peripheral experts independent employment etc.

There simply isn't a mechanism whereby the agreement of a majority of one's peers could affect the likelihood of a theory being right. Most theories which differ do so because of underdetermination of data, not because of some error, but even if it were, despite @Xtrix's bizarre notion, we don't all check each other's work.

There simply isn't a mechanism whereby the agreement of a majority of one's peers could affect the likelihood of a theory being right. — Isaac

There is, as demonstrated over and over again. This is why consensus is important and, within science, taken very seriously indeed. This is exactly why experiments are conducted in multiple settings, with multiple research teams. When results are duplicated, the likelihood of the original results being accurate are further confirmed.

When 97% of climate scientists from around the world have reached consensus, it's more likely this is true than if there were 30% agreement. If 97% experiments gave the same result, confidence is higher than if 20% of experiments gave the same result. Etc.

But the original question -- which you can't seem to understand -- was about what laymen should do when no other information is available: go with the overwhelming scientific and medical consensus, or go with the minority view? The answer to that, I believe, is simple and straightforward. Sorry that you struggle with it.

There simply isn't a mechanism whereby the agreement of a majority of one's peers could affect the likelihood of a theory being right. — Isaac

Not a mechanism, no, not in the sense that what someone else thinks has a causal bearing on whether what you think is true. (There's actually stuff about that -- can't quite place it.)

But from a simplistic population point of view, why not? Why can't we be happy to tell the story of science this way: 99 guys believed in phlogiston and 1 didn't; smart money was that he was wrong, but it turns out he was right. Probability isn't destiny. The unlikely-to-be-right, unlike the impossible-to-be-right, can, and now and then should, turn out to be right.

I think what you're saying is that there is a better way to assess those likelihoods than just counting heads, and that's fine. Better than fine. But the important thing is that your likelihood function be properly calibrated, right? There are probabilities between 0 and 1, and if you think your model shouldn't leave room for the unlikely to turn out to be right, you're doing it wrong. The question is whether the unlikely turns out to be right as often as you predicted it would, neither more nor less.

Wasn't electric shock treatment for Shell shocked soldiers a consensus?
Or how about when gay people were called mentally ill and tried to be medically cured?
Phlogiston anyone?!
How much medical science has been shown to be absolute dogshit.
So this bullshit about people who don't trust the medical system being labelled derogatorially just shows the ignorance of these science/pharma industry/witch doctor bootlickers for what they are. Ignorant wimps.
Man up,and trust your immune system and personal intelligence.

Medical science being wrong in the past isn't reason to dismiss medical science today. Presumably you see a doctor when you're sick and take prescribed antibiotics if you're diagnosed with a bacterial infection? Your natural immune system isn't always enough. That's why medicines — including vaccines — are a thing and make a huge difference.

See this for example.

Accelerated immunization activities have had a major impact on reducing measles deaths. During 2000– 2018, measles vaccination prevented an estimated 23.2 million deaths. Global measles deaths have decreased by 73% from an estimated 536 000 in 2000* to 142,000 in 2018.

@Michael
It is definately a reason to mistrust big pharma and mainstream medicine.
No I don't see doctors or take their antibiotics.
When I'm sick,which is very rare,or have a sports injury I heal myself with nutrition,exercise and will power.
If need be I use some over the counter or underground medicine. Only sources I trust.
But bottom line,its my choice.

No I don't see doctors or take their antibiotics.
When I'm sick,which is very rare,or have a sports injury I healy myself with nutrition,exercise and will power. — Ambrosia

That's unwise.

If need be I use some over the counter or underground medicine. Only sources I trust.

What do you look for in a source for it to earn your trust?

@Michael
Well I'm very healthy.
Why are you so concerned about my health but not freedom?

I'm concerned about both. But when you balance the health risks of not being vaccinated (sickness, long term problems, even death) and the costs of getting vaccinated (a couple of hours of your time, maybe a bus ticket or petrol) then the rational decision is to get vaccinated.

You're free to drink bleach, but I'd strongly recommend against it.

@Michael
There is no risk.
I only take medicine when I'm sick,and even then only if I feel the need.
My lifestyle and fitness regime is better than 99% of the folks yapping about health.
Really,you think everyone should vax because you THINK it's safer for you that way.
Sorry,I don't live life in fear like a pussy.
I would rather you concern about freedom than my health.
Nor am I swayed in the slightest by your appeal to "rational decision". I'm a better rational judge of my health than you,wouldn't you say,Big brother?
And your comment about bleach is irrational and stupid.

I'm a better rational judge of my health than you — Ambrosia

Then why do you oppose the vaccine? I assume it's because you believe one of these:

1. The vaccine offers no additional protection and so is unnecessary
2. The vaccine is dangerous
3. The additional protection from the vaccine is marginal and so not worth my time getting

Which is it? Or is there another reason I'm not seeing?

@Michael
I see no danger from colds.
Vaccines are unnecessary against potential colds.
They do not work.
A cold is not dangerous unless you are already very ill.
Colds are natural.
I don't wear a cast before I hurt my leg,just in case!
I don't believe in germ theory. That's nonsense from monsieur pasteur.
Plus,your not the judge of my health.
You wanna take vaccines,go ahead your free. I believe they are useless. And yes,you can get adverse reactions in some cases.
I'm not getting in the way of your choice. You can do the same to me.

I see no danger from colds.
Vaccines are unnecessary against potential colds. — Ambrosia

Yes, because colds aren't very dangerous. I don't know if anyone has ever died of a common cold. Lots of people have died from measles and COVID, though. Are you saying that there is no danger from measles and COVID?

They do not work.

Not against colds as far as I'm aware, but they work against measles and COVID.

I don't believe in germ theory.

Why not?

I don't wear a cast before I hurt my leg,just in case! — Ambrosia

But presumably you would wear a helmet when riding a motorbike, or when working on a construction site?