Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?
This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.
Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I'm just wanting to point out- if you're trying to convince a vaccine skeptic who's mistrustful of vaccines to vaccinate their kid, this is an absolutely terrible argument to make even if you believe it.
I haven't gotten a flu shot in probably 20 years, and nobody I know has unless they're an RN or over 60. Don't make already falsified arguments like 'the flu shot is very important'(this is a different thing from 'the flu shot is good' or 'it would be a better world if everyone got their flu shot') if you want to convince someone already skeptical.
That was written before I realized how adversarial this was going to be.
The argument for the flu shot is:
-Risks are nearly zero. RNs are often actually very resistant to getting the flu shot. MDs roll our eyes at them because the reasoning is always "I'm a bitch" type complaints. Typically saying that they don't like shots for instance, or that the injection site hurts. I don't think I've ever met any physician who has treated a patient who has had an actual adverse reaction. Some people do get an immune response (aka feel a little sick). If you feel a little sick from the flu shot that's good evidence that you would feel even worse with the actual flu. The response to feeling a little sick should not be whining, I admit this is some boomer energy on my part.
-The flu shot can potentially help save you. If you have significant risk factors it can save your life. Not every person with significant risk factors knows they have significant risk factors. Diabetes for instance can go a long time without getting diagnosed if their primary care follow-up is poor.
-The flu shot can potentially help you out a lot. Evidence is a bit more squishy on this but that's because "I felt like ass for a three days" vs. "I felt mildly bad for one day" is extremely expensive to research and not worth it from a public health perspective, but I know personally not needing to call out work and be miserable for a few days is worth the mild inconvenience of other people.
-You can potentially help other people. If you getting less
virulentin some way prevents you from transmitting it to someone else than that is a good thing. Especially in general plague sources like children.-Research shows that the flu shot still has some utility even when we get the mix wrong for that year, it just isn't as much.
-Even when we get the mix wrong the right mix for the vaccine you still have is still going around in the population getting people ill.
TLDR: You should get the flu shot, the risks to you are near zero and if you are healthy and well the expected benefits are also low but your health is the most important thing most people own so you should take appropriate gambles.
However it is a known problem that people are willing to be lazy about their personal health in a way that they aren't with say their personal finances. Shrug
All have been informed that this is how this person views you. They are not interested in speaking to any intelligent, rational individual with the means and conscientiousness to care for their personal health. Instead, everything they say is tailored to their perception of the lowest common denominator member of the general public.
Has anyone ever dealt with a call center? You know that feeling of, "Motherfucker, I am intelligent and experienced enough to know that I don't need your script; I need a capable person who is willing to have a rational discussion about my very non-standard problem"? Have you ever just hung up and called back until you found such a person? Or tried to use tricks to escalate your way to finding such a person?
It is a pretty valuable skill to be able to assess another person's capability and perspective. Yes, this is the case even when you are trying to interact with someone because you actually need a person with greater knowledge and experience than yourself. The person you're talking to could secretly be the most knowledgeable person, able to effortlessly solve your problem, but if corporate is mandating (and effectively enforcing) that they read from a script instead, it is important to be able to understand this and seek out alternatives. It's no different if that mandate comes from inside the house, and there's just something about their worldview that is equally constraining.
Many doctors (apparently this one) are unfortunately like that. I had an experience once with a doctor-adjacent specialist. I knew approximately nothing about his specialty, but I very quickly learned that his entire specialty was built around one type of procedure. Literally everything else he did was to determine whether you would be a good candidate for that procedure and/or what minor variants might be involved. Yes, there was still a lot of value in getting his consultation, but it was also important to understand what he is about, what his perspective is, the way in which his every thought is shaped. He would be very valuable in one very specific way and approximately useless for anything outside of that lane.
Common investment advice is to take deep consideration of heterogeneity. "How do you differ from most of the market?" Statistics being what statistics are, there are many things in which you may not substantially differ. So, I would not give anyone mass advice as to how they should or should not invest. Similarly, I wouldn't give anyone mass advice as to how they should or should not interact with doctors like these. Just be aware of what it is that you're dealing with, be knowledgeable about your own self, and good luck out there.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link