Hacker News Reader

Another issue with these "just asking questions" posts (some call them JAQing off) is that they often aren't in good faith and even when they are they create the false impression of an even debate on things that really are mostly settled.

I think these subjects that require a lot of care and can have a lot of impact based solely on rhetoric are really not what blogs and rapid response commentary excels at.

I'm happy at least there is enough detachment here for it to be realized, in most other places this would be drowned out in the echo of bickering.

For very controversial topics I would expect high-quality sources to protect their reputational downside by taking conservative stances. In that case I think it’s fine to see some medium-quality outsider sources and use my own noodle. That satisfies my own intellectual curiosity.

I see your point but from my perspective, in most places there's a trickle of good stuff and a flood of junk. I try to offset that by occasionally reading a virology or epidemiology paper myself and listening to TWiV when I get the time. The thing that's striking to me is how different that picture is from middlebrow sources, in which I include a lot of the mainstream press. For example, their scare stories every time a new variant comes out is cookie-cutter journalism (and is basically crying wolf for when something notable does happen, like delta).

> From my observations, the best lens for understanding vaccine denial (or other related forms of Covid denial) is religious belief.

How about the popular opinion that "vaccines are always good and should never be questioned no matter what"? Do you treat that as religious belief as well?

Sure, if that's the belief that's actually driving decisions. It certainly isn't the way I approach things. I eagerly sought a vaccine (my appointment was 10:20am on the first day I was eligible) because the safety and efficacy was demonstrated by data from trials conducted with a high level of scientific rigor, plus observational studies from places that had gotten there early. It was thrilling to see the early data out of Israel that showed such a strong vaccine effect from their age-stratified rollout.

And to further support my point, I wouldn't recommend anyone get CureVac - from the data we have now, that looks like a dud, even though it is an mRNA vaccine with some similarities to the others.

My guess is that that there is a deeper underlying question: should we trust the scientists and institutions who do these trials. And on that my personal belief is that yes we should, but we should also be skeptical and hold them accountable. They make mistakes - the recent aducanumab decision looks like a big one - so I am definitely not arguing we should uncritically accept everything they do and say. But when they do it right, as has happened with vaccines in the US, we should celebrate, not undermine, that.

I do appreciate that trust in people and institutions is a personal thing and there are reasons for it to vary.

>[...] because I do not believe they are consistent with HN's mission to feed intellectual curiosity

Let others decide, whatever fills your curiosity is different than mine and that's a good thing. You are not the arbiter of knowledge.

I am not, but I can downvote things that I think degrade the quality of discussion, which in my personal opinion includes a great many Covid threads. Others of course can submit and upvote stuff they find is interesting. If you have good stuff that challenges the conventional wisdom, please post it, as I actually seek out that kind of material (for example, Alina Chan's Twitter feed, which in my opinion is the best skeptical source on the lab leak theory).