| ▲ | cogman10 3 hours ago | |||||||||||||
That's a false dichotomy. If the results showed that mRNA vaccines had negative health outcomes, then the obvious next question to ask is "are they worse or better than COVID's health outcomes?". If they are better then yeah, I'll still say take the shot. If the negative outcomes only occur in certain demographics, then I'd say they should limit their exposure to the shot. The most common skeptic position that I've seen (which admittedly isn't all of them) is that the shots should be banned altogether until they can be proven 100% safe for everyone. Very similar to the general vaccine skeptic position. It ends up being a moving goalpost as well. A truth seeking individual realizes that very few things in the world are black and white. They avoid trying to frame things as a black and white. Nobel and villainous framing. If you are truth seeking, you won't try to turn a non-binary evidence into binary thinking. | ||||||||||||||
| ▲ | CWuestefeld 3 hours ago | parent [-] | |||||||||||||
The most common skeptic position that I've seen (which admittedly isn't all of them) is that the shots should be banned altogether until they can be proven 100% safe for everyone. That's not what I've seen. I live in very-red Tennessee. What I see is more like what you said yourself: If they are better then yeah, I'll still say take the shot. If the negative outcomes only occur in certain demographics, then I'd say they should limit their exposure to the shot. The conclusion to this (within my bubble) being: since covid risk to young children is negligible, why the heck are you requiring them to get a shot? | ||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||