It's the same idea though, and should still be called out. It's people who have unqualified medical opinions, and who are then often spreading that opinion to others as if it's useful.
Let the agencies figure it out, pay attention to the latest recommendations from them, and go with that. Anything else is just the blind leading the blind and should be called out.
(Just using masking as an example, if any onlookers strongly believe that masking is efficacious for the stated purpose just imagine I gave a different example, although I don't see how anyone could reach that conclusion about masking specifically based on the research literature out there which is neutral at best)
Or as another example, the CDC loves to try to encourage people to take the flu vaccine, and yet I was shocked to discover that it takes 71 flu shots to prevent a single flu case, 29 flu shots to prevent one ILI (this is a better number than the flu case number since really we care about ILI in general, but even so 29 is an abysmal number), AND that regardless of the mediocre reduction in cases/ILI, it makes essentially no difference in hospitalizations.
Citation on the flu vaccine stuff: https://www.cochrane.org/CD001269/ARI_vaccines-prevent-influ...
--
I didn't realize until this year how much of "public health" involves (a) actively and intentionally lying to the public (for example, if you read about the AIDS crisis you learn about the "noble lies" told about who was vulnerable as well as the not-even-noble lies like when Fauci told people you could get AIDS from close contact with someone with AIDS when the scientific evidence showed that to be false), and (b) is really a giant marketing campaign for various big pharma interests (I say that as someone who is an unashamed free-market capitalist, not that the US is actually a true free market when it comes to the pharma/medical industry)
I'm insisting that the average unqualified individual should not think they have a better chance of being correct over the authorities in question.
There's no other rational option for unqualified individuals than to listen to medical authorities unless you have a medical degree yourself and have read and analyzed the research yourself.
Critically the problem with your reasoning is the last sentence. No, you do not need to have a medical degree to be right when a doctor is wrong; ask anyone who’s had a medical issue that all doctors agree does not exist.
Despite how much smarter and informed humanity is, we still make decisions based on trust. Science can only explain so much and runs out of answers eventually.
Iatrogenesis rivals strokes as a cause of death. Most doctors are just slavishly following official doctrines from authorities, and sometimes those authorities get it wrong. We don't even have to look to the Before Covid Times to see examples!
Yes. That's correct. That doesn't change what I said.
Answer me this: why do you think unqualified individuals are better suited to get it right?
Just because there are examples in the past of people who went against the recommendations who ended up being right, doesn't mean you should take everything else into your own hands. Unless, of course, it's literally your job.
It’s a subtle, but IMO important distinction. If people wanna rationalize not getting the shot based on their own misunderstanding of the science, that’s fine. That’s okay.
We don’t need universal understanding here for the vaccine to do it’s thing. Let those who want to get it, get it. And those who don’t, to not get it.
Most to the point, declining to take painkillers does not adversely impact other people's health.
This is not a good analogy.
eta: ironically, the problem with the opioid crisis was not too much regulation and oversight by "the authorities", but too little; too much freedom for doctors to prescribe stronger painkillers, and for patients to request them.
There are other sources of information besides the public health agency of your particular country, for example public health agencies in other countries, or directly looking at the stats and research papers. In this case, looking at the stats makes it blatantly obvious that your risk from the J&J vaccine is much, much lower than your risk from getting COVID, so if your choice is "J&J" or "no vaccine for another month or two", you should probably pick J&J.
