> It’s funny though how you say this phrase for a vaccine and not for the hundreds of other riskier situations you face daily. “I drove a car…risk was worth it I decided”.

epistemic risk is fundamentally different from empirical risk

you started off strong with the max level condescendence and ignorance

but I do agree with the rest of the message, roughly at least

Thanks, had a good read up on epistemology.

Of course you made a decision, unless you are an automaton? (ignoring the question of free will here). If the vaccine killed 90% of those who took it, you would of course take it, because "vaccines are just something you do"? No, you evaluated the risk.

And yes, driving a car absolutely is a risk, as is just about everything.

> If the vaccine killed 90%

Yes I would take it. Because if there is a vaccine available and recommended to the general population that has 90% kill rate, the thing it’s protecting against would undoubtedly have a higher kill rate then this. End of days scenarios we would be talking about nonetheless.

So you are the type of person who will always do anything the authorities tell you to do. I suppose we are not likely to see eye to eye.

No the implication is a vaccine mandate in itself implies a calculated risk assessment that is sufficiently obvious it doesn’t make sense to use it as a basis for discussion.

Precisely.

> people want to go against things because of the people telling them to do something.

Yes, it's reverse psychology. The effect is to maximize death rates among the demographic group to which anti-vax has been successfully marketed.

> SJWs shouldn’t tell me.

SJWs aren't the ones campaigning for vaccines. Center-left technocrats are. Big difference.

That's true, but they are the foot soldiers for the technocrats. Like Mao's Red Guard, they are the ones enforcing it on the ground, ousting dissidents and running the struggle sessions. They humiliate, bully, ostracize, get people fired, destroy reputations. Without them the technocrats would have far less power.

No, I don't think so. The radical extremes give energy to each other. They're a problem for centrists.

It's been interesting to watch the center attempt to embrace enough of the (further) left to address the legitimate concerns (and remove fuel from the fire), without swallowing the poison.

It's also been interesting to watch Trump et al conflate the radicals with the center. They say nonsense like "Nancy Pelosi's far-left agenda", and people believe them. What absurdity.