Quote:
Originally Posted by jimjamuser
Emotions and misinformation can trump (no pun intended) logic and science. We are in Abe Lincoln's "you can fool some of the people all of the time" phase. Soon with enough DEATHS and hospitalization ALL of the people will be convinced to get vaccinated. But, likely by then, the VIRUS will have moved on and become stronger - maybe enough to require a NEW vaccine. Hope the UNvaccinated can find a way to rewind the clock to the days when America was really Great.
|
The reason I originally posted the University of Wisconsin example was to point out the fundamental illogic of this debate as it appears here. The Wisconsin folks, we have to assume, are intelligent people: they wouldn't be at the University otherwise. Some number of them, for reasons we do not know, have decided not to get the vaccine, but we must assume that their reasons make as much sense to THEM as ours do to any one of us. They can probably spout numbers, statistics, trends, etc. as impressively as any of the folks who post here, and I'll bet a dollar to a doughnut that they're just as sure they are right as any of the folks here.
The only rational argument that the pro-vaccine people can offer up is, basically, preponderance of the evidence. But even that is suspect: we see scary numbers of people being diagnosed with the Delta variant of COVID, but the evidence as to the death rate of that variant is all over the board: do a Google search and see what you come up with. As they say, figures lie and liars figure. The ONLY common "argument" I've seen here is, basically, that they're wrong because they a) don't have the correct information, b) have been lied to, c) are stupid, or d) you fill in the blank.
The irony is that they, as in the folks at U of W, can say the exact thing about any person here, with as much (or as little) accuracy.
So who gets to decide which arguments are based on "emotion and misinformation" and which are not?