Vaccine propaganda wars!

What's Hot
This is interesting in that someone somewhere is prepared to spend significant sums of money trashing the vaccines. 

https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-57928647

My Trading Feedback    |    You Bring The Band

Just because you're paranoid, don't mean they're not after you
0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
«13

Comments

  • LegionreturnsLegionreturns Frets: 7751
    And this one highlights the hard of thinking nature of some. 

    Imagine thinking a Sci fi film plot is evidence?! 

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-58164833

    My Trading Feedback    |    You Bring The Band

    Just because you're paranoid, don't mean they're not after you
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • HeartfeltdawnHeartfeltdawn Frets: 19802
    And this one highlights the hard of thinking nature of some. 

    Imagine thinking a Sci fi film plot is evidence?! 

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-58164833

    Remember that back in the day there was quite a number of believers who said Close Encounters of the Third Kind and ET were paving the way for a future government to tell the world that we are not alone... 


    Reubicado en Dagobah.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 1reaction image Wisdom
  • SimonhSimonh Frets: 675
    There are significant profits in the supply of covid vaccines - it is no surprise to see companies trying to rubbish their competitors
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • chris78chris78 Frets: 5196
    What’s more worrying is that YouTube/Facebook/Twitter etc have decided they have the right to censor certain views.
    Facebook and Twitter have been taking down posts, YouTube have even gone as far as to ban sky news Australia who have allowed people to express views that don’t fit the “approved” narrative. Sky have now taken down the “offending`’ posts.
    Those views might be bollocks, but I was always taught to hear both sides and then make up my own mind through reasoning. Having a solitary viewpoint thrust on us used to be called totalitarianism. Now the media report it gleefully and proudly. Scary 
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 8reaction image Wisdom
  • LegionreturnsLegionreturns Frets: 7751
    chris78 said:
    What’s more worrying is that YouTube/Facebook/Twitter etc have decided they have the right to censor certain views.
    Facebook and Twitter have been taking down posts, YouTube have even gone as far as to ban sky news Australia who have allowed people to express views that don’t fit the “approved” narrative. Sky have now taken down the “offending`’ posts.
    Those views might be bollocks, but I was always taught to hear both sides and then make up my own mind through reasoning.
    You may have been taught that, but there are clearly a significant number who can't seem to reason, and are happy for their minds to be made up for them by "influencers".

    That's all well and good unless that endangers other people. 

    My Trading Feedback    |    You Bring The Band

    Just because you're paranoid, don't mean they're not after you
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 2reaction image Wisdom
  • steven70steven70 Frets: 943
    edited August 11
    Removed. It's a trap.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • JezWyndJezWynd Frets: 5010
    chris78 said:
    Those views might be bollocks, but I was always taught to hear both sides and then make up my own mind through reasoning. Having a solitary viewpoint thrust on us used to be called totalitarianism. Now the media report it gleefully and proudly. Scary 
    Problem is that lots of people get caught up in feedback loop of Facebook's devising, where all they hear is 'vaccine is a govt plot'. When that's amplified by their news channel of choice - Fox News - where opinion hosts (acting like they're news anchors) tell them the vaccine is unsafe, then lots of people shy away from vaccine and it cannot work as intended.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 1reaction image Wisdom
  • chris78chris78 Frets: 5196
    Interesting posts from @Legionreturns and @JezWynd ;
    Who gets to decide who has the right view though?
    Every dictatorship always says they’re “protecting” people. 

    People who vote for censorship like this and try and justify it might do well to remember that the church used to burn people at that stake for having “heretical” views including arguing that the world wasn’t flat. 
    0reaction image LOL 1reaction image Wow! 6reaction image Wisdom
  • LegionreturnsLegionreturns Frets: 7751
    chris78 said:
    Interesting posts from @Legionreturns and @JezWynd ;
    Who gets to decide who has the right view though?
    Every dictatorship always says they’re “protecting” people. 

    People who vote for censorship like this and try and justify it might do well to remember that the church used to burn people at that stake for having “heretical” views including arguing that the world wasn’t flat. 
    In science, opinions aren't relevant and shouldn't be given equal weight with demonstrable research and facts. 

    Giving the views of a 30 year virologist/ epidemiologist and some bloke on you tube with no qualifications equal weight in a discussion is demonstrably mad. 

    My Trading Feedback    |    You Bring The Band

    Just because you're paranoid, don't mean they're not after you
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 11reaction image Wisdom
  • RonantianRonantian Frets: 883
    With vaccines, or any other medical issue, it’s a case of facts versus misinformation.

    During the course of the pandemic it is quite clear that global vaccination programmes are being undermined by misinformation on social media packaged as expert advice. 

    It’s ridiculous to suggest that factual information backed by clear scientific evidence should be given an equal footing with deliberate misinformation backed by completely unverifiable claims. Particularly when discussing complex medical/scientific issues in which the audience lacks the foundational knowledge to differentiate between accurate and inaccurate information.

    Social media are being compelled to act like a responsible publisher by hiring fact checkers to regulate information published on their forum. The publisher is responsible for ensuring that deliberate misinformation is not presented to its users.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 6reaction image Wisdom
  • KilgoreKilgore Frets: 4803
    chris78 said:
    Interesting posts from @Legionreturns and @JezWynd ;
    Who gets to decide who has the right view though?
    Every dictatorship always says they’re “protecting” people. 

    People who vote for censorship like this and try and justify it might do well to remember that the church used to burn people at that stake for having “heretical” views including arguing that the world wasn’t flat. 
    It's been widely known since the 6th century BCE that the world is a globe. Both early and medieval church fathers taught as much.

    Maybe Sky News should invite you on to discuss alternatives to the "approved" narrative of medieval history.  ;)
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • StratavariousStratavarious Frets: 1675
    You need a brain before you can be a critical thinker..  


    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • chris78chris78 Frets: 5196
    Kilgore said:

    It's been widely known since the 6th century BCE that the world is a globe. Both early and medieval church fathers taught as much.

    Maybe Sky News should invite you on to discuss alternatives to the "approved" narrative of medieval history.  ;)
    Apologies, I was thinking of the church’s belief in the 17th century that the earth was the centre of the universe and everything else revolves around it. Wasn’t it Galileo that spent the rest of his life in prison for disagreeing?

    In science, opinions aren't relevant and shouldn't be given equal weight with demonstrable research and facts. 

    Giving the views of a 30 year virologist/ epidemiologist and some bloke on you tube with no qualifications equal weight in a discussion is demonstrably mad. 
    If opinions weren’t relevant in science, there would have been no such thing as human progress. There is rarely such thing as “the science.” On covid especially, there are a wide variety of opinions, but those who don’t fit the official narrative are being censored. Imagine we’d listened to “the science” about not ending lockdown. Those scientists who said we were embarking on an immoral experiment look like total twats now along with the scientists predicting 200,000 infections a day and how ever many thousands of deaths a day they said would happen when lockdown ended. Whoops.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 2reaction image Wisdom
  • GandalphGandalph Frets: 747
    chris78 said:
    What’s more worrying is that YouTube/Facebook/Twitter etc have decided they have the right to censor certain views.
    Facebook and Twitter have been taking down posts, YouTube have even gone as far as to ban sky news Australia who have allowed people to express views that don’t fit the “approved” narrative. Sky have now taken down the “offending`’ posts.
    Those views might be bollocks, but I was always taught to hear both sides and then make up my own mind through reasoning.
    You may have been taught that, but there are clearly a significant number who can't seem to reason, and are happy for their minds to be made up for them by "influencers".

     Are there any bigger “influencers” than the www.bbc.com/news nowadays?

    They certainly don’t offer a balanced view on world affairs.  
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 6reaction image Wisdom
  • chris78chris78 Frets: 5196

    Ronantian said:
    With vaccines, or any other medical issue, it’s a case of facts versus misinformation.

    During the course of the pandemic it is quite clear that global vaccination programmes are being undermined by misinformation on social media packaged as expert advice. 

    It’s ridiculous to suggest that factual information backed by clear scientific evidence should be given an equal footing with deliberate misinformation backed by completely unverifiable claims. Particularly when discussing complex medical/scientific issues in which the audience lacks the foundational knowledge to differentiate between accurate and inaccurate information.

    Social media are being compelled to act like a responsible publisher by hiring fact checkers to regulate information published on their forum. The publisher is responsible for ensuring that deliberate misinformation is not presented to its users.
    Disagree. What would be reasonable would be for governments to actually put both sides to the story allowing people to make an informed decision. They’re doing no such thing. There’s a massive propaganda campaign instead. Do you know how many people have died from vaccine side effects or what age they were? I certainly don’t and it’s impossible to find that info from a reliable source. I do know that the cdc have published info about adverse effects of a serious nature, which while rare, have affected thousands of people in the US. I know the bmj published a Norwegian study where in a small sample of care home residents, between 10-35% of the deaths may have been as a result of the vaccine.
    I’m pro vaccine and have had both doses as has my wife, but if governments aren’t going to be honest about adverse effects, I can’t imagine me consenting to having my kids vaccinated given they have next to zero risk from covid. If, on the other hand, the government gave me accurate figures about the incredibly low risk I’m sure vaccines have, I’d be way more likely to give consent. People resort to misinformation when official information isn’t trustworthy and it’s hard to conclude that the official information is trustworthy currently.
    0reaction image LOL 2reaction image Wow! 3reaction image Wisdom
  • StratavariousStratavarious Frets: 1675
    chris78 said:

    Ronantian said:
    With vaccines, or any other medical issue, it’s a case of facts versus misinformation.

    During the course of the pandemic it is quite clear that global vaccination programmes are being undermined by misinformation on social media packaged as expert advice. 

    It’s ridiculous to suggest that factual information backed by clear scientific evidence should be given an equal footing with deliberate misinformation backed by completely unverifiable claims. Particularly when discussing complex medical/scientific issues in which the audience lacks the foundational knowledge to differentiate between accurate and inaccurate information.

    Social media are being compelled to act like a responsible publisher by hiring fact checkers to regulate information published on their forum. The publisher is responsible for ensuring that deliberate misinformation is not presented to its users.
    Disagree. What would be reasonable would be for governments to actually put both sides to the story allowing people to make an informed decision. They’re doing no such thing. There’s a massive propaganda campaign instead. Do you know how many people have died from vaccine side effects or what age they were? I certainly don’t and it’s impossible to find that info from a reliable source. I do know that the cdc have published info about adverse effects of a serious nature, which while rare, have affected thousands of people in the US. I know the bmj published a Norwegian study where in a small sample of care home residents, between 10-35% of the deaths may have been as a result of the vaccine.
    I’m pro vaccine and have had both doses as has my wife, but if governments aren’t going to be honest about adverse effects, I can’t imagine me consenting to having my kids vaccinated given they have next to zero risk from covid. If, on the other hand, the government gave me accurate figures about the incredibly low risk I’m sure vaccines have, I’d be way more likely to give consent. People resort to misinformation when official information isn’t trustworthy and it’s hard to conclude that the official information is trustworthy currently.
    Got any links to evaluate the veracity of your claims?
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • CirrusCirrus Frets: 6670
    chris78 said:
    Disagree. What would be reasonable would be for governments to actually put both sides to the story allowing people to make an informed decision.
    What if there are more than 2 sides though? What if it's actually a complex web of individual trends, facts, value judgements resulting in a rich and nuanced perception of reality and allowing for an almost infinite variety of opinions and beliefs about the best course to proceed, and boiling all that down to 2 opposing sides actually does an incredibly wide ranging topic a disservice?
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 3reaction image Wisdom
  • chris78chris78 Frets: 5196

    Got any links to evaluate the veracity of your claims?
    Here’s the cdc reporting https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/adverse-events.html

    BMJ https://www.bmj.com/content/373/bmj.n1372

    Just to be clear, I’m saying it’s rare and I’m not trying to be anti-vax so don’t take this as me doing a cols and claiming that a study with a tiny sample somehow justifies a view. I’m just making the point that the info isn’t out there or easy to find and it should be.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • Cirrus said:
    chris78 said:
    Disagree. What would be reasonable would be for governments to actually put both sides to the story allowing people to make an informed decision.
    What if there are more than 2 sides though? What if it's actually a complex web of individual trends, facts, value judgements resulting in a rich and nuanced perception of reality and allowing for an almost infinite variety of opinions and beliefs about the best course to proceed, and boiling all that down to 2 opposing sides actually does an incredibly wide ranging topic a disservice?
    What if being on a guitar forum manz self help forum gives you special powers???

    Bye!

    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • chris78chris78 Frets: 5196
    Cirrus said:

    What if there are more than 2 sides though? What if it's actually a complex web of individual trends, facts, value judgements resulting in a rich and nuanced perception of reality and allowing for an almost infinite variety of opinions and beliefs about the best course to proceed, and boiling all that down to 2 opposing sides actually does an incredibly wide ranging topic a disservice?
    It almost certainly is. That’s why we should be treated like grown ups, not children who need protecting.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
Sign In or Register to comment.