It’s the only rational explanation.

Discussion (36)¬

  1. Quine Duhem says:

    Author, in the email you write ‘Vaccinate yourself against radicalisation …’ (and I really want to put a ‘z’ rather than an ‘s’ in there).
    Would I be right in thinking that Jesus and Mo are anti-vaxxers?

  2. M27Holts says:

    Its a sad fact that the majority of anti-vaxxers are against the jab on a religious basis…a fact that the media seems loathe to point out as per usual…

  3. Rrr says:

    M27, I do believe you are right – those are facts! I think.

  4. PeterN says:

    From what I can tell, although the majority of excuses given to receive exemptions from vaccinations are on religious grounds, they are not sincere. They are people who say, I don’t want to do that and being told the only way is to have a medical or religious reason. It is much easier to fake a religious reason (since it’s all made up anyhow) so that’s what they do, often at odds with their religious leaders. The religious leaders who are signing those exemptions are either anti-vax themselves for other reasons or are in it for the money. I haven’t seen any major religious segment advocate against vaccinations. Even Jehovah’s Witnesses are allowed to take vaccinations.

  5. Oozoid says:

    “Whenever one tries to suppress doubt, there is tyranny.” – Simone Weil

    Also when people are forced to act against their will, there is tyranny.

    Both are happening right now.

    How many outspoken proponents of covid vaccines actually know what they are talking about, or are able to identify (or understand) any credible study to support their faith which they seek to impose on others? THEY are the new unquestioning believers.

    (I am not anti-vax. I have accepted every vaccine offered to me, even the usless Astra-Zeneca. And I persuaded my children to accept the dangerous Moderna. But I am not so arrogant as to regard as a fool anyone who has the courage to doubt. Nor am I a fascist who would insist they do as I demand because my chosen mainstream media told me what to think.

  6. tfkreference says:

    Oozoid-where do you get your news?

  7. Troubleshooter says:

    Was she being RADICAL…
    or was she being RATIONAL?!?

    Door Number TWO for me, Monty!

  8. Troubleshooter says:

    @Oozoid: Moderna “dangerous?!?” I don’t think so. I got a double-dose of Moderna, first at the end of February, 2021, then a month after, and the most problem I had was feeling “off” the day after the second shot. I should mention that I was part of a massive vaccination event, and if ANYONE had an untoward reaction to the vaccine, I didn’t see it.

    I would heartily suggest you check your facts before making unfounded allegations.

  9. Jveeds says:

    Yes, as with tfkreference, it seems Oozoid may be operating somewhat under the Dunning-Kruger effect*. I’ve seen numerous otherwise very smart and well intentioned people who want to “do their own research” on topics that are beyond their personal scholarly competence. Now, maybe Oozoid IS an epidiomologist who can read and understand the highly technical, peer-reviewed, scholarly journals that weigh the various vaccines. “Doubting” as he says, is usually a good strategy (though I’m not going to doubt about the chances of the sun rising tomorrow or that morning rush hour traffic on my street will suddenly disappear when I need to get to the airport). Case in point: a woman raised as home-schooled in a very evangelical non-vaccinating household who wanted to do her own research on COVID vaccines. But is her expertise in reading the scholarly journals greater than the actual epidiomologists and other subject matter experts…enough to make a truly informed judgment? Sometimes we just have to listen to the experts, recognizing that “the science” often evolves in bits and spurts over time. But if the weather experts on local TV (“mainstream media”) tell me a tornado is on the way, I’m not going to put on my skeptic/doubter hat and say, “Let me just do my own research on this.” (Oh, and I cringe whenever I hear the dog-whistle term “mainstream media” which usually just means “media other than the niche channels I watch”)

    * the cognitive bias whereby people with limited competence in a given intellectual or social domain greatly overestimate their own knowledge or competence under the unfortunately widespread belief that they know more than actual experts.

  10. M27Holts says:

    I have had 2 AZ and 1 pfizer jab. None affected me in the slightest. My observations have led me to believe that a lot of post jab symptoms are psycho-symatic. In fact a bit like distance running, the power to psyche yourself fit has the obvious flip side, a lot of people expecting side effects..and hey presto…

  11. Bvereshagen says:

    M27Holts: I quite enjoy beer and bread. They appear to have no negative effects on me. I would not use my personal experience with gluten to label someone with celiac disease a hypochondriac. Are you seriously suggesting that because something doesn’t impact you negatively that it can’t possibly have deleterious effects on someone else?

  12. LookieLouE1707 says:

    “suppress doubt” is just another gloss on pushing the overton window, which everybody who engages in debate is in favor of. everybody who tries to convince anybody of anything thinks it’s okay to suppress doubt. everybody who argues against it, then, is a hypocrite arguing in bad faith.

    nobody, even the most extreme anarchist, thinks that “when people are forced to act against their will, there is tyranny”. even if all government coercion were abolished less formal means of coercion would be a necessary part of human interaction. every time an antivaxxer goes out in public they force normies to either accept the risk of communicable disease or live in isolation.

    everybody who suggests that they and their side are courageous factfinders more knowledgable than the fascist sheeple they disagree with is stuck so deep in an echo chamber of confirmation bias they have no hope of engaging in rational thought.

    in short, bad-faith debaters like oozoid can be safely dismissed. they don’t even really believe in their own positions, else they wouldn’t feel drawn to dishonest debate tactics.

  13. tfkreference says:

    M27Holts—my wife always complained about jabs. Before she got her Pfizer, I told her, “People who expect side effects get side effects.“ She had none, from any of her three jabs. N=1, but I’m satisfied with the results of the study. (My only side affect was a hangover the day after my first.)

  14. M27Holts says:

    My observation’s are based on experience, plus I had a mates mum, who was a triage nurse in A&E for 40 years. She said that hyperchondria was a lot more common than people thought. Plus in this new age of woke and acceleration of ridiculous folk-knowledge through the social media lenses most of the millenials are fucking hyperchondriacs….

  15. Strobes says:

    Well, there is this headline in the Grauniad: “Covid vaccine hesitancy could be linked to childhood trauma, research finds.”
    It would be nice to find a kinder explanation for the apparent idiocy of anti-vaxxers.
    P.S. I love you lot.

  16. Laripu says:

    Mo flew to Jerualem on a winged horse? That’s nothing. I, and simultaneously many others, once flew to London in a winged metal tube. And at other times to Tel Aviv, Paris, Seoul, Frankfurt, and many other places. Mo is not much of a flier compared to people today.

    It would have been more impressive if Mo had flown on a winged pig… Pigasus.


    Muslims can’t eat ’em, but can they take to the friendly skies on ’em?

  17. Donn says:

    Indeed, Mo’s winged horse is no doubt more evidence of ancient astronauts. Like Ezekiel who was visited by an astronaut with a personal helicopter device, etc. It’s there – if you do your own research!

  18. arbeyu says:

    M27Holts – I hear what you’re saying about hypochondria… I think I’ve caught the covids after every visit to the pub, but it’s only a hangover. Except the one time it was the covids.

    But to be fair, the vaccines are not entirely without side-effects. I think that’s scientifically recognised.

    One of the problems is that we’re not good at judging risk. I read the official NHS list of the side-effects of one of the vaccines, and I was all like JHFC, they give a side-effect as something like “at least one of your arms falling off” but describe it as “extremely rare” – say only one in 100000 people. And I’m thinking, “arm falling off! One in a hundred thousand! Sod that!” I should be thinking 99999 out of 100000 people end up with at least the same number of arms as they started with.

  19. M27Holts says:

    Evidence of Ancient astronaughts…..the mispelling is intentional…

  20. jb says:

    M27Holts — It’s possible that some peoples’ vaccine side effects are psychosomatic, but why would you think it was common? The side effects are widely reported and consistent with what would be expected, while your personal experience is a single data point, which means it’s basically meaningless.

    Here is my meaningless data point: When I got my first shot, last March, I had no expectations about side effects, and when I didn’t feel anything I assumed there wouldn’t be any. Then about 12 hours later, when I wasn’t thinking about it at all, I noticed that “oh hey, my arm is a bit sore”. Second shot the soreness kicked in after about 4 hours, still not too bad, but noticeably worse than the first time around. I finally got a booster shot yesterday, and the soreness was definitely worse again. Not unbearable, but like I had banged my arm hard a few hours earlier and was still feeling it whenever I moved the arm. Plus I had trouble sleeping last nigh (not unusual for me) because I was feeling kind of head-achy (very unusual!). The soreness and headache are going away now, but they’re not completely gone.

    I’ve banged myself up on more than one occasion, and I know what a sore limb feels like. And I never get headaches — that was entirely unanticipated. Sorry, not psychosomatic.

  21. OtterBe says:

    Google ‘arm exercises after COVID shot’ and pick a result from a source you trust.

    We were running 2”(50mm for you colonizers) iron piping the day after my first Pfizer shot, and my arm was sore as hell and felt like a limp noodle: I wasn’t much help. I did the exercises after my second shot, and they worked for me: only the site itself was sore to the touch-and only about as much as a four-day-old bruise. No other reaction to the Pfizer jabs.

    I opted for Moderna for my booster, and am glad I took it on a Friday as I felt like I had a mild case of the flu for 6-7 hours the next day. The arm exercises worked for that one as well.

    Purely anecdotal, of course, but the cost/benefit assessment has me convinced: I’ll be exercising that arm after any future shots.

  22. Son of Glenner says:

    M27Holts: “…the mispelling is intentional.”

    Makes a nice change!

  23. Rrr says:

    I’m not pointing fingers at any particular person or poster here on the topic of amateur interpretation of data from scientific studies.

    One who _is_ actually an amateur but incredibly knowledgeable anyway is the twitterer @enn_nafnlaus — unfortunately I cannot read back more than a few posts now because Twitter has closed for non-logged-in users. So, from memory:

    A smallish study on covid vaccination turned up a small number of adverse outcomes afterwards. Prominent of those more serious were one fractured limb and one child swallowing a coin — hardly direct effects of the injection! 😉 Other than that, mostly mild symptoms like slight fever or headache, some heart palpitation, upset stomach etc.

    Again, apologies for not being able to cite directly. This was in this week I think, but that flow is prodigious to say the least; be warned.

  24. Rrr says:

    Pigasus, I like!

  25. M27Holts says:

    Sorry JB. My sample size is taken from social media. Plus anecdotal evidence from 40 years of triage, where as many as 50% of cases presented were not as severe as the reported symptoms…most humans tell lies and good liars are the ones who convince themselves first psychomatic and placebo treatments are far more effective than people realise. Plus the pain in your arm was due to insufficient muscle mass in the target area. I felt nothing from all 3 jabs whereas my wife had tender pain at injection site…

  26. Rrr says:

    Anecdote: Two days after my second vax I felt a strange bump on the site. Turns out the plaster was still there. 😉

  27. Greenpoisonfrog says:

    I know this Einstein fellow says mass and energy are related but I won’t believe him until I do my own research.

  28. jb says:

    M27Holts — Insufficient muscle mass? I’ve been doing handstand pushups since I was a teenager — I have no shortage of muscle. And how would that account for the progressive worsening of the soreness from one shot to the next? (Same shot. Same arm. Same muscle). And even if insufficient muscle were somehow the issue you would still be wrong, because it would still be real soreness rather than psychosomatic. You aren’t making sense.

    And what do you mean when you say your “sample size” is taken from “social media”? What are you even talking about? Whatever it is, it had better be pretty darn rigorous if you expect me to give it more credence than the CDC’s assertion that certain side effects are “common”.

  29. M27Holts says:

    JB. You know as well as I. That in certain reported instances of side effects x number of reports will be ficticious, whether self delusion or deliberate lies. How do you determine x? I hypothesize that x is in the range of 40-50 but that would be based on extrapolated data based on psychological tests but my sample is limited to the data in the psychological books I own…

  30. M27Holts says:

    And regarding the arm soreness? The physics involved would surely have something to do with soreness at the injection site. Though to be fair. If my mrs bumps her arm on a chair she does bruise spectacularly easy…no way I could be a wife-beater. Me, on the flip-side, hit myself full on the hand with a clawhammer this weekend….a bit of soreness and a bit of redness but no bruising…I must be a terminator and nobody has told me yet?

  31. Deus_Ex_Mamiya says:

    “when people are forced to act against their will, there is tyranny”.

    The unthinking blanket application of this statement is beyond stupid.

    Are speed limits on roads “tyranny”?
    Are income taxes “tyranny”?
    Are the prohibitions on theft, rape and murder “tyranny”?
    Is child protection “tyranny”?
    Is an altruistic public health measure which saves thousands of lives “tyranny”?

  32. Deus_Ex_Mamiya says:

    “How many outspoken proponents of covid vaccines actually know what they are talking about, or are able to identify (or understand) any credible study to support their faith which they seek to impose on others? THEY are the new unquestioning believers”.

    No, THEY are behaving in the most rational way possible. I will explain.

    Science is never 100% settled – its ability to constantly self-correct and self-refine is one of its key strengths. But here’s the wonderful thing: *at any point in time*, the scientific consensus is the *best* description of what is ‘true and real’. It should always be the guide to our actions. The fact that it may later change does not mean that we were 100% correct to trust the consensus of scientific experts at the time, because there was literally no better informed basis for deciding our actions then.

    There are people who should and do question science – those scientists with the training and qualifications to do so. There is a strong career incentive for scientists to be the person or group that discovers flaws or limitations and solves them.

    And then there’s the rest of us. I don’t understand this “must research it for myself to decide if it’s true” mentality, because (a) it takes years of accredited scientific education in that one area to be sufficiently qualified to make an informed judgement call, and (b) you simply don’t need to. Have confidence in the experts. Outsource your decision making to them. I have a PhD in one area of physical science, but when it comes to other areas, like the Covid virus, I have no better knowledge than any other lay person. So I accept implicitly what the scientific consensus is. This is not “faith” or “belief” – it is *confidence* grounded in understanding how consensus is reached via the scientific method. (Evidence builds confidence, while faith is belief without evidence).

    It would actually be *irrational* for a non-expert to approach scientific questions in any other way, because while skepticism is in general a good principle, insufficiently informed skepticism is dangerous; in the worst cases, it leads people down the paths of conspiracy theories.

  33. Son of Glenner says:

    Deus_Ex_Mamiya: After careful reading of your “explanation”, I think I have spotted an unfortunate typo.

    In “… does not mean that we were 100% correct to trust the consensus …” should there not be “not” before the “100%”? That would make more sense in the context of your otherwise excellent argument.

    Sorry to be a nitpicker. I generally proofread my own remarks before submitting, but sometimes bloopers can slip through, as when I recently mis-spelled my own moniker!

  34. theovinus says:

    Deus_Ex_Mamiya: Very well put! I can see myself quoting (or at least paraphrasing) your remarks [with SOG’s “not”] whenever this topic comes up.

  35. Donn says:

    I think we tend to have two guide posts, though – along with scientific consensus, there’s a public health consensus. One factual, the other prescriptive. With considerable overlap, because facts naturally may imply a course of action and hopefully public health advice is based on facts (consensus thereof.)

    What I think we sometimes have to appreciate is that the public health professional can be at times just as far out of his or her competence as I would be if we were talking about viral immunology. When she takes the podium to speak about, say, COVID measures, her mission is to prevent COVID infection at all costs, and she has no way to weigh those costs against risk of infection, nor really is it her job to do so. It’s our job, because there is no science that can tell us how all the things we do, add up to make the best life. We’re going to have a generation growing up out of this that will bear the marks for the rest of their lives, for example; for most of it we probably had no real choice, but it isn’t a laughing matter.

  36. Deus_Ex_Mamiya says:

    > In “… does not mean that we were 100% correct to trust the consensus …” should there not be “not” before the “100%”? That would make more sense in the context of your otherwise excellent argument.

    Thank you, Son of Glenner. Yes, well spotted – there should be a ‘not’ there, to complete the double-negative.


NOTE: This comments section is provided as a friendly place for readers of J&M to talk, to exchange jokes and ideas, to engage in profound philosophical discussion, and to ridicule the sincerely held beliefs of millions. As such, comments of a racist, sexist or homophobic nature will not be tolerated.

If you are posting for the first time, or you change your username and/or email, your comment will be held in moderation until approval. When your first comment is approved, subsequent comments will be published automatically.