Yeah, let's step up the non medical stuff:
Do you use seatbelts?
Do you have a gun in the house?
And we are paying for this non medical CDC paperwork through "health care costs".
I'm not following. My intended point was that maybe our problem is that we took family care docs out of the vaccine process. Medicine used to be considered complicated enough that we wanted experts we personally trusted. Perhaps we're flailing because there's too much conflicting info out there for non experts to process, but we're also understandably suspect of many of them cause of the additional info about their history, background and financial connections we now all have access to.
So maybe it's a fool's errand, but isn't there an intersection here? Experts are needed because of all the info, but nobody trusts experts because of all the info. If we can overcome that with a personal relationship to experts, then whatever people decide, would at least be more reasonable, right?
And while I do think vaccinations are the way to go, I'm not intending to imply that our inability to get to herd immunity is the problem. It's more the vehemently different perspectives on what the right thing to do is that fucks with me, which should be a more fact-based decision than something like abortion etc.
The problem is the one-size-fits-all advice that we're getting from the so-called experts: just get the damn vaccine. Or else.
And the fact that third parties are now requiring you get these experimental jabs make this far more complicated than getting advice from an expert you trust, assuming you can even find one.
Yeah @Sophistifunk that's basically what I said.
It's impossible to make a truly informed decision because of all the forces at play that are hell-bent on you getting this jab. Why, we can only speculate, but I'm pretty sure our health is NOT among the reasons, or they'd be mandating some things that might actually improve our health.
whatever experts truly think, they should say. whatever businesses owners want to do, they should have the right to. but it's a lot tougher when that business has a near monopoly over online communication. or when a government thinks it's truly trying to help people and not technically violating any laws in the process. but attempts to manipulate people are both immoral imo and tend to erode trust (which is becoming our most vital commodity).
Like I said, I wouldn't trust most doctors. Not even my own, though he did do me a solid by putting that I had an allergy to "statins" in my chart after I told him in no uncertain terms would I take them.
But yeah, if I had a relationship with an expert I trusted, I would be more likely to take their advice.
@wjmaggos as someone who had a family member who was strung out on a shit load of meds by a doctor that solved everything with more pills, I think "medical professional trust" is a more complex problem than you're letting on.
That's the struggle. It's all about trust. Being a doctor etc isn't enough when there's always one to say anything and you can find out they have connections to some shady group/person or reason to lie.
@wjmaggos Huge numbers of people are confined to these narrow networks where they can't choose their own doctor. Medicare for All would undoubtedly expand their options.
@wjmaggos Much of what I've read here is... troubling, as an expat Canadian in the UK.
I have more options than many of you, it seems (and have had, for my whole life). And I still have faith in the universal healthcare system here, based on both my reading and personal experience.
That said, it was alarmingly easy to get anti-depressants. I absolute believe -- two years on -- that I needed and need them, but, well, I would've envisioned a different route to getting them.
a place for liberal values on the #fediverse