Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

SnooPuppers1978 t1_j2myl19 wrote

I think what also needs to be understood is that not all anti vaxxers believe in chips or population control. Most are concerned about the side effects and usual big pharma incentives for profit over human lives being at play. So if you talk about chips etc you are going over the heads of those people who are majority of the unvaccinated. They don't believe there is a conscious conspiracy, but just the way incentives are aligned makes the situation be like it is.


Zetkin8 t1_j2qs92c wrote

On the other hand, those people don't understand that some of their concerns are equally ridiculous as chips. I've read such wild theories that mRNA will stay in your genome etc. Those theories require a severe lack of understanding of high-school-level biology and most of them fall apart when you consider that the virus also contains RNA.

>the way incentives are aligned makes the situation be like it is.

What incentives are there for public medical agencies to approve a potentially harmful drug? What incentives are there for the government to pay for the vaccines? It sounds like you don't share these concerns or borderline conspiracy theories, but none of this makes any sense if you think about it. If all politicians in the world suddenly owned shares of those 6 pharmaceutical companies who produced the first vaccines, wouldn't there be much easier ways to funnel money into their pockets? Why take the long route via medical agencies that require studies when you just can subsidise their "research" and give them cash?


SnooPuppers1978 t1_j2t5t0i wrote

I haven't personally worked in government agencies or anything government related so I wouldn't know how everything works there. I have worked only in corporate World. I imagine it's similar for many people. From corporate experience I have seen some bizarre incentives for instance where results based on amount of people make 0 sense whatsoever. As a naive person I would imagine that everyone tries their best, but really it's politics, coasting and fake achievements, right. It doesn't matter what you do, it matters what it seems like you do and to whom. So I know that in certain circumstances incentives can be lined up in such a way that there's no conspiracy, but the whole outcome is bizarre. But it's combination of very many things and explaining, figuring out or even trying to solve the issue is herculean task and if somebody could solve it, they would be a trillionaire.

It may seem like I just spoke whole nothing about nothing, and it shouldn't matter, but if anyone is in such an experience where people you would think are smart, make a lot of money, but the output is non-sensical, it might be hard to believe that something in the government or even on the science level works much better than that. Actually, the larger the corporation the more ridiculous things seem to be at times, because the easier it is to hide things if you are skilled and the less anyone cares.

It could be a situation where nobody has full access to anything to question something confidently. Or only very few people know everything and it would take again herculean effort to understand what exactly is happening. There's a bystander effect everywhere, where any specialist or expert thinks that surely somebody else has validated all of it, and I don't have to bother with it, because I don't have an incentive to do so. So for example it could be lack of incentives to validate everything when validation would take huge amount of resources. And if you notice a discrepancy somewhere somehow, the incentive is always to convince yourself that you are just missing something and ignore that, because surely some other smarter people somewhere have already dealt with this.

So all of it could bring a situation where something that could potentially cause harm is not detected, because people on collective level assume that somebody else validated everything when really there wasn't no one with access to collective data incentivised to do so. For instance a situation where Entity A creates a product B, where there's other Entities from C to D validating the product B, but everything is under a strong time pressure, and financial incentives are always aligned as such that you should give benefit of the doubt to product B, because if product B doesn't succeed, it's actually harmful for both A and the C-D validating it, because the C-D validating, if they have a track record of being too critical, they could miss future business opportunities etc. Then regulators E validating product B will already see data that is polished with benefit of the doubt, and they don't have time to fully question it, it could be that there's inherent bias to approve the product B because of good relationship and networking dynamics between the people etc.

So I'm not saying this is how it is, but this is one way I could see something that could cause harm being not detected by a whole mass of people without a huge conspiracy going on.


Zetkin8 t1_j2t7ndz wrote

That's a lot of "could"s... Yes, I agree that nonsensical incentives exist. But I fail to see what this would even look like to provoke something with the same outcome as a vaccine conspiracy.

Also, those things exist in politics. Take laws governing sexual offences for example. If I was in charge and pushed a reform that protects victims better, my political opponent could claim that such crimes went through the roof while I was in office. But I truly lack the imagination for such a situation in a medical agency. I'd expect my career to be over if I gave a green light for the admission even if I could've known better. Especially in such a high-profile case.


SnooPuppers1978 t1_j2tb136 wrote

> with the same outcome as a vaccine conspiracy

Depends on what you consider a vaccine conspiracy? Bad biological takes like you said above, yes, I would agree is unreasonable. But for example general fear of undetected adverse issues, either short or long term. Is that a conspiracy?

> I'd expect my career to be over if I gave a green light for the admission even if I could've known better.

There could be no clear single approver, since 90%+ of people are approving, everyone could be just going with the flow. It's a safe approval to take, because everyone agrees to approve it, it would be much riskier to go against the grain unless you are 100% confident that you are in the right to go against the grain. But also again I'm not trying to convince such a thing could be possible. I don't know if it is, I haven't worked as a scientist in medicine. I could only speculate.

But then, it's not about whether it really is feasible for this to be like that, but more about how a general person would be able to tell that this is not the case. So maybe you've done the whole process of developing the vaccine, led the trials from phase 1 to phase 3, dealt and audited all the subcontractors, then worked together with regulators and governments and you know that for sure there's no way something really bad could be missed.

How can a normal person know that this process is validated to such extent if in their own personal life they have seen bizarre things happening first hand especially under time and deadlines pressure, that a naive person would never expect to happen if they have full trust in systems?