Some governments, like Sweden for instance, have an official stance which matches the one made on JRE's show regarding Covid, ie: "no need to vaccinate children".
Will those artists ask for their songs not to be played in all those countries ?
Will those artists ask for their songs not to be played in all those countries ?
He thinks that any "young" person (20s and below) should be hesitant on taking the vaccine.
He believes that taking the vaccine is more likely to cause adverse health effects than getting Covid for younger people.
He's convinced that alternate treatments like monoclonal antibodies and ivermectin are a better alternative to the vaccine.
He believes that masks are emasculating and make people look "stupid".
Any form of lockdown is government overreach.
Most of these claims are dubious if not outright false, and these aren't just occasional opinions thrown out during his 3+ hour long conversations, he makes it a point to bring these topics up for a large portion of his interviews. That's ignoring the fact that he brings on guests who have fringe opinions about Covid/vaccination but rarely (if ever since early 2020) interviews experts who are pro-vaccine.
If people want to make Joe Rogan inconsequential to the pandemic they should demand much better quality communication and chaos from our health experts, which has been sadly to date—all over the map.
So are these people are only forced to listen to JRE? Does Spotify have other podcasts that prevent a contrary opinion to JRE?
How do you translate that to "no need to vaccinate children"?
Kids 12 and over we consider “teens”.
That’s how I read that comment, perhaps that is what the commenter meant.
Setting those counter-examples aside - in the relevant interview we know Rogan said, quoting https://www.thewrap.com/joe-rogan-slammed-for-deeply-irrespo... :
> “People are worried about them doing it for their children…. both my children got the virus. It was nothing,” he said. “I mean, I hate to say that if someone’s children died from this. I’m very sorry that that happened. I’m not in any way diminishing that. But I’m saying the personal experience that my children had with COVID was nothing.
He appears to be using the term "children" to mean "minors who are not able to make medical decisions on their own."
His oldest child is 12 years old, which is old enough that the Swedish health authority recommends she be vaccinated.
And remember, this was immediately after saying that healthy 21-year-olds who exercise don't need to get vaccinated - again, counter to the recommendation of the Swedish health authority.
I'll let icare_1er explain how the stance on the JRE matches the Sweden's so well that Joni Mitchell and others should correspondingly stop sales in Sweden. Because I just don't see it.
I am vaccinated and boosted and no longer have minors that I have to make medical decisions for, but if I did I would be weighing all information on the subject available to me before I made a decision to vaccinate my children against Covid-19. The rate of severe disease in healthy children was already so low and—if I am being perfected honest—the fact that the pharma companies behind the vaccines in the US are completely indemnified against lawsuits arising from harm that their vaccines may do would be a big factor in my decision making.
It’s one thing to take a risk with a newly developed medication with my own body, it’s quite another for me to take an unnecessary risk with a new medication with my children’s body.
Since your definition of "children" is 11-and-younger, you appear to agree with the recommendation of Sweden's health authority to vaccinate all teens, and you appear to disagree with the recommendation mentioned on the JRE.
While you may doubt the US medical system, does not the combined views of the rest of the world's medical systems provide a backstop significantly stronger than your and Rogan's non-expert opinion?
However, it is undeniable that the manufacturers have indemnification against any harm their vaccines may cause. If the vaccines are statistically safe, the manufacturers don’t need indemnification. If they are not statistically safe, or if their safety is unknown…they do, otherwise they would not release the product. That fact has to be considered. These companies are making billions at zero risk to them. Healthcare providers have zero risk in the recommendation. Government has zero risk at recommendations. At this point the only person assuming any risk is the patient getting the shot. And if that patient is young and healthy and statistically unlikely to have severe disease from Covid that risk assessment is important, especially for a parent.
Instead, we're talking about two musicians exercising their right of free association to no longer be affiliated with a company who hosts an interview show recommending medical treatment that is at odds with the medical advice of a large number of independent medical systems.
And we're talking about the presumed hypocrisy of those musicians selling songs in Sweden based on the (IMO very wrong) assertion that the position presented in the JRE is the same as that of the Swedish medical authorities.
But if you want to talk about you - what is your solution to the DTP issue that introduced the vaccine courts in the first place? And why do you think the adversarial court model is a better solution than the no-fault system we have?
Ultimately you took umbrage with my explanation of a colloquial definition of “children” that is used where I am from (without even knowing where that is) and then proceeded down a rant about how I am wrong because you are apparently the gatekeeper of the English language or something (I guess).
And now you decide to end with a smartass commentary. I have said what I said, if that doesn’t interest you…oh well, don’t care. If you don’t agree with it…oh well, don’t care. If it offends or upsets you that I would approach vaccinating my own children with an experimental and novel vaccine by wanting to learn everything I can about it, oh well, don’t care.
You can read the comment thread and verify my interpretation, starting from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30128175 . I pointed out that Sweden's policy is not the same as expressed on the JRE even with your definition of what children means because Rogan also says that healthy young adult don't need to be vaccinated, contra Sweden's position.
At https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30130966 you decided to talk about your personal feelings about vaccination of your under-12s.
> I frankly don’t care what any musician does with their art
Then I'm surprised you cared to even read an HN posting explicitly on that topic.
> I do care about attempts to suppress information
HN mods suppress information all the time. Why are you even here?
Should companies be obligated to spread false information? No, of course not.
Should companies face negative consequences for supporting the spread of false information? Yes, absolutely. Quoting John Stuart Mill in "On Liberty", chapter IV: "We have a right, and it may be our duty, to caution others against him, if we think his example or conversation likely to have a pernicious effect on those with whom he associates."
> you took umbrage
You forgot how I pointed out 1) examples of how "children" is used nation-wide to include 17-year-olds, and 2) how Rogan specifically includes a 12 year old in the use of the term "children".
It therefore doesn't matter that in my part of the country "children" only refers to tree frogs. (And if you disagree .. who made you the gatekeeper of English!)
> with an experimental and novel vaccine
When will you no longer regard it as experimental?
And I noticed you still haven't answered my question regarding the potential loss of the DTP supply and how that lead to the vaccine court system you don't like. Nor clarified how the no-fault vaccine court system is worse than the adversarial court system at properly identifying fault in vaccine failures.
Since that's an important topic for the matters you specifically complained about, why don't you want to talk about it?
Have a good day