You shouldn´t believe everything you read or hear online, on TV or in newspaper. That should be obvious. There are gullible people of all kinds. Doesn´t refute anything I stated. People who do not want to take the vaccine do not need studies to justify their view. It is a risk-reward calculation for themselves and society. You cannot prove them wrong just as you cannot prove that participating in traffic is safe.
Sadly, in most countries partisanship has taken control of most people. They are either against or for vaccination mendates based on their affiliation. The current position is by no means obvious. If Trump had opted for a "medical fasicm" approach the fight could be exactly the opposite of what it is today. Let´s not forget that the term "Liberals" comes from liberty and that right-wingers have not always been prononents of freedom. In the very early stages I still remember main stream media outlets making fun of people who wore masks in the streets (at least in Germany). It flipped 180°.
I don't think you're paying enough attention to what Catboy is saying.
"People who do not want to take the vaccine do not need studies to justify their view."
Sure, they can be "justified" in your view, but if they want to convince others that their reasoning is based on
reality then it's pretty important to use logic to do that. The entire purpose of a study is to weed out human error when it comes to judgement.
You're claiming that judgments can be made without science, which I agree with - however, if you want to convince somebody else that your reasoning is actually sound, then you should do yourself the favor using a method that doesn't allow you to fallaciously reach that conclusion.
That's the entire purpose of science to begin with. It's just a method for determining what's real (or, really, getting as close to that as we reasonably can).
In addition to this, saying that nobody has "disproven" your point is a bad angle, imo. If this was a courtroom, and pro-vaccine folks are the prosecutors, and anti-vax are the defense, then it's up to each side to bring their own evidence to the table. Every individual reading this, then, is a judge. It isn't the prosecution or defense's job to necessarily "disprove" the other side. The goal is to provide evidence for your argument so that the judge(s) can make the most reasonable decision based on what's presented to them. If you can manage to outright disprove the other side completely, then that's just a slam dunk.
If I claim I have invisible pixies in my back yard, then you simply cannot
prove me wrong, because it's not falsifiable. But you can look at my lack of evidence and reasonably say that you aren't convinced until I come up with something to allow you to see what I see.
The evidence backing up the efficacy of vaccinations is way,
way stronger than the anti-vax side in my eyes - in fact, the anti-vax side has history of fabricating information to push sales towards alternative "medications". I think hbomberguy on youtube did a great job documenting this:
- he did his homework.
I'll throw you a bone, though. Vaccines haven't been a "wonder cure", and they have been improved over time, with issues along the way. Science is iterative, and we absolutely can fuck up. But, it's not
nearly as bad of a dice roll as ignoring it. When it comes to human judgement versus a method that uses logic and reason to find the best possible answer to these problems, I'm going with science every time. No brainer for me.
So, why are you convinced that vaccines are potentially more risky than not receiving them? Because I see a ton of evidence that shows the opposite. COVID seems to be taking out way more people than vaccines are.