Poll: Anti-Vax content on AvCanada

[notwhoyouthinkIam]

Well, day 1 post vaccine (pfizer) and apart from feeling that I've been punched in the arm, and a bit of stiffness (Thanks again Pfizer! ) there are no new voices in my head joining the chorus already there, and neither Bill Gates, nor the Bilderbergs have come knocking at my door. So far, so good..

Baaa..

That's good news... but has your wifi and cell reception improved at all?

[rookiepilot]

No one would ever tell them its mandatory to get on an airplane. And no one would question them if they said they don't accept the risks of flying. See how people are usually given choices without scrutiny.

No one’s forcing you to be vaccinated.

Not yet but they’ll make your life so difficult you’ll be forced one way or another.

How?
Cause travel to enter another country is an entitled right?
I'm guessing then you haven't traveled much.
Yellow Fever cards, mandatory for some places.

[montado]

No one’s forcing you to be vaccinated.

Not yet but they’ll make your life so difficult you’ll be forced one way or another.

How?
Cause travel to enter another country is an entitled right?
I'm guessing then you haven't traveled much.

We can't control the regulations of other countries, and its absolutely not a right to enter. China as an example may require you take their domestic vaccine. https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/covi ... index.html

How many shots will a long haul pilot need to get to work?

[Inverted2]

Not yet but they’ll make your life so difficult you’ll be forced one way or another.

How?
Cause travel to enter another country is an entitled right?
I'm guessing then you haven't traveled much.

We can't control the regulations of other countries, and its absolutely not a right to enter. China as an example may require you take their domestic vaccine. https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/covi ... index.html

How many shots will a long haul pilot need to get to work?

The Chinese vaccine can’t be any worse than their baby formula or pet food. Oh wait..........

[youhavecontrol]

First dose of Moderna for me was in January and second one in early February. Feeling great. If people want to post anti vax things, I feel it should be treated with the same response as someone posting about puppies on an aviation forum: "what does this have to do with aviation?" Maybe it doesn't need to be censored, but why is it here in the first place?

[ReserveTank]

I wonder if immunologists have a forum where they debate the merits of an approach ban and bitch about how incompetent pilots are.

Biology and science, both basic and advanced levels are available even in public school. Aviation is not.

[ReserveTank]

Well, day 1 post vaccine (pfizer) and apart from feeling that I've been punched in the arm, and a bit of stiffness (Thanks again Pfizer! ) there are no new voices in my head joining the chorus already there, and neither Bill Gates, nor the Bilderbergs have come knocking at my door. So far, so good..

Baaa..

Good, but I think the going concern are long term effects. These are unknown. Good luck

[Rockie]

[quote=Rockie post_id=<a href="tel:1148645">1148645</a> time=<a href="tel:1616678816">1616678816</a> user_id=5632]
I wonder if immunologists have a forum where they debate the merits of an approach ban and bitch about how incompetent pilots are.

Biology and science, both basic and advanced levels are available even in public school. Aviation is not.
[/quote]

I guess that’s why there are so many immunologists driving Uber to help pay the bills.

[CpnCrunch]

Good, but I think the going concern are long term effects. These are unknown. Good luck

Well, we know in the short-term it significantly reduces mortality and serious complications. And what about the long-term concerns of COVID infection itself? From what we can see, that seems to be more of a potential issue than the vaccine.

[nutlord]

I voted yes. I think that anti-vaxxers are wrong and dangerous to the health of our nation, but free speech is important. Rather than being met with ridicule or simply silenced people should be treated with respect and educated. If you mock someone whenever they're wrong, you breed resentment and that's not constructive for a society.

[AirFrame]

I voted yes. I think that anti-vaxxers are wrong and dangerous to the health of our nation, but free speech is important. Rather than being met with ridicule or simply silenced people should be treated with respect and educated. If you mock someone whenever they're wrong, you breed resentment and that's not constructive for a society.

I wish people would stop implying that free speech means you have the right to post messages on any forum about any topic. You have no such rights here. AvCanada is not a public street corner.

By telling people not to post anti vax (or pro vax, for that matter) on Av Canada nobody's free speech is being impinged. There are lots of places on, and off, the internet where you can stand on a soapbox and shout how stupid you are for anyone within earshot to hear it.

[photofly]

Well, day 1 post vaccine (pfizer) and apart from feeling that I've been punched in the arm, and a bit of stiffness (Thanks again Pfizer! ) there are no new voices in my head joining the chorus already there, and neither Bill Gates, nor the Bilderbergs have come knocking at my door. So far, so good..

Baaa..

Good, but I think the going concern are long term effects. These are unknown. Good luck

These are not new issues.

857703CE-50AD-4A3A-ABD9-4BAB3159AF59.jpeg (641.1 KiB) Viewed 1928 times

[ReserveTank]

Well, day 1 post vaccine (pfizer) and apart from feeling that I've been punched in the arm, and a bit of stiffness (Thanks again Pfizer! ) there are no new voices in my head joining the chorus already there, and neither Bill Gates, nor the Bilderbergs have come knocking at my door. So far, so good..

Baaa..

Good, but I think the going concern are long term effects. These are unknown. Good luck

These are not new issues.

857703CE-50AD-4A3A-ABD9-4BAB3159AF59.jpeg

I doubt that there were many mRNA injections at the time of that publication.

You have no such rights here. AvCanada is not a public street corner.

This is libertarian retardation. "Muh prahvut compunny can do whut it wunts." Sure it can, and then companies make the laws while the government enforces it for them. Karl Marx (have read, don't follow) had an astute understanding about this very thing. Libertarianism is just unrefined socialism. Of course, a company with better oligarchs can decide that this forum is a threat to (democracy, the national health system, the safety of minority populations---pick your poison) and have it shut down, monopolizing and owning speech "rights." Don't agree? Just ask FB, YT, IG, TW, or any other media owned by a Western (well, sort of) oligarch.

[A346Dude]

deleted

[ReserveTank]

It's sad that this is a poll.

Silencing dissenting opinions may feel good in the short term, but it invariably leads to tyranny.

The 55/45 is yet another indication that the West has firmly broken up into 2 parties.

I say make 2 countries out of Canada. The productive parts can belong to those who want a normal life of working and supporting their families. The other half can be "Maskland." In Maskland, they all have to wear double-masks and face shields, even while eating and sleeping. In Maskland, they can be safe 100% of the time, live on some form of government assistance and be certain that self-righteousness is a form of education and qualification. Yes, in Maskland, travel is not allowed except for their basketball teams and celebrity oligarchs, who are the most righteous.

[OneYonge]

I wonder if immunologists have a forum where they debate the merits of an approach ban and bitch about how incompetent pilots are.

This is how silly non-scientist vs non-scientist debates are.
Including non-scientists who think they know better and insist that there are "no debates among scientists".

[RedAndWhiteBaron]

This is how silly non-scientist vs non-scientist debates are.
Including non-scientists who think they know better and insist that there are "no debates among scientists".

In every field, as things move on, there's always a few yahoos left at the end of a debate, yelling at clouds long after every rational person has agreed to move on. So of course there's always a debate; there are geologists still claiming the Earth is flat, for crying out loud (and sadly, I'll bet a few pilots, too). The difficult part is deciding for oneself whether or not the 5% of people holding a contrary opinion actually have merit, or are just yahoos yelling at clouds.

I have a feeling that where the line is between "old man yelling at clouds" and "contrarian with meritorious argument" heavily depends on your political leanings.

[OneYonge]

The difficult part is deciding for oneself whether or not the 5% of people holding a contrary opinion actually have merit, or are just yahoos yelling at clouds.

As a non-expert, how would you know the difference when the 5% "contrarians" are actual experts who know more than you?

If you could dismiss another expert as a "yahoo", that would make YOU the expert.

How can a non-scientist say "the science is settled", when he can see that experts are clearly challenging each other?

[RedAndWhiteBaron]

The difficult part is deciding for oneself whether or not the 5% of people holding a contrary opinion actually have merit, or are just yahoos yelling at clouds.

As a non-expert, how would you know the difference when the 5% "contrarians" are actual experts who know more than you?

If you could dismiss another expert as a "yahoo", that would make YOU the expert.

How can a non-scientist say "the science is settled", when he can see that experts are clearly challenging each other?

I won't believe a geologist or astrophysicist who claims the Earth is flat either, no matter what their credentials are. They're wrong, and that debate is settled. If 5% of them all said the Earth is flat, I would still laugh them out of the room. To be fair though, that one was settled centuries ago. Covid precautions not so much.

And 95% of the experts are calling the other 5% yahoos. I can't believe the 95%, and I can't believe the 5%. So perhaps nobody can be believed. Then what? I make up my own shit, and ignore all expert opinions? That doesn't work either. Fully followed, that would lead to a society where everything is based on personal belief and not facts or evidence. That's what gave us the Dark Ages.

Nope, I choose to believe the overwhelming majority. Or, in purely logical terms, I assign equal weight to every expert. That's 95% of me in favour of wearing masks, and 5% of me against it (assuming the 95%/5% is accurate - I made that shit up). Unless I give the 5% of them a 20X value, that seems pretty clear to me. And I can't give any expert any more value than any other expert, because that would make me an expert.

So - I am 95% in favour of wearing masks, and the experts agree with me.

[BigQ]

Yes, it should be allowed. This is a forum. Where we discuss ideas. In a civil manner.

[OneYonge]

I won't believe a geologist or astrophysicist who claims the Earth is flat either, no matter what their credentials are. They're wrong, and that debate is settled. If 5% of them all said the Earth is flat, I would still laugh them out of the room. To be fair though, that one was settled centuries ago. Covid precautions not so much.

That is an example of Conspiracy Theorist vs Scientist...which is not what we were talking about.
We were talking about Scientists vs Scientists.

It is also irrelevant if a Scientist calls another Scientist a "yahoo", if they don't debunk them as well.

[RedAndWhiteBaron]

I won't believe a geologist or astrophysicist who claims the Earth is flat either, no matter what their credentials are. They're wrong, and that debate is settled. If 5% of them all said the Earth is flat, I would still laugh them out of the room. To be fair though, that one was settled centuries ago. Covid precautions not so much.

That is an example of Conspiracy Theorist vs Scientist...which is not what we were talking about.
We were talking about Scientists vs Scientists.

It is also irrelevant if a Scientist calls another Scientist a "yahoo", if they don't debunk them as well.

But it is what we're talking about. I call the 5% of anti-mask "scientists" conspiracy theorists. But that's not entirely my point.

If 5% of scientists tell me not to wear masks, and 95% of them do, and I give equal weight to all "experts", then I am therefore 95% in favour of keeping masks on. To argue that "there is still a worthwhile debate" is to give far more weight to the 5% minority. The whole "experts disagree so you can't choose which expert to believe unless you're an expert" argument falls flat on its face if you simply give them all equal weight.

And you have to give them all equal weight, because you're not an expert.

[digits_]

I won't believe a geologist or astrophysicist who claims the Earth is flat either, no matter what their credentials are. They're wrong, and that debate is settled. If 5% of them all said the Earth is flat, I would still laugh them out of the room. To be fair though, that one was settled centuries ago. Covid precautions not so much.

That is an example of Conspiracy Theorist vs Scientist...which is not what we were talking about.
We were talking about Scientists vs Scientists.

It is also irrelevant if a Scientist calls another Scientist a "yahoo", if they don't debunk them as well.

But it is what we're talking about. I call the 5% of anti-mask "scientists" conspiracy theorists. But that's not entirely my point.

If 5% of scientists tell me not to wear masks, and 95% of them do, and I give equal weight to all "experts", then I am therefore 95% in favour of keeping masks on. To argue that "there is still a worthwhile debate" is to give far more weight to the 5% minority. The whole "experts disagree so you can't choose which expert to believe unless you're an expert" argument falls flat on its face if you simply give them all equal weight.

And you have to give them all equal weight, because you're not an expert.

The problem with all this stuff, is that we don't get told (intentional or unintentional) the full picture. If a reader is motivated, of average intelligence, and provided all information, it doesn't matter if an argument is made by a scientist or a 5 year old child. If the argument has merit, then you will be convinced, if not, you won't.

The media are a big factor in this. They oversimplify, either themselves or via an expert who tries to make things understandable to the general population, resulting in analogies and simplifications. The discussion is then held about those analogies and simplifications, not about the core issue or the core mechanics of what the scientist is actually talking about.

If news would evolve into some kind of tutorial or lecture, for those who really care, our society would make a giant leap forward.

But I know, that is unrealistic. Which is a shame.

[RedAndWhiteBaron]

If news would evolve into some kind of tutorial or lecture, for those who really care, our society would make a giant leap forward.

But I know, that is unrealistic. Which is a shame.

Well I for one have no wish to be lectured to by the evening news. Your argument here is rather paternalistic.

[mbav8r]

I won't believe a geologist or astrophysicist who claims the Earth is flat either, no matter what their credentials are. They're wrong, and that debate is settled. If 5% of them all said the Earth is flat, I would still laugh them out of the room. To be fair though, that one was settled centuries ago. Covid precautions not so much.

That is an example of Conspiracy Theorist vs Scientist...which is not what we were talking about.
We were talking about Scientists vs Scientists.

It is also irrelevant if a Scientist calls another Scientist a "yahoo", if they don't debunk them as well.

But it is what we're talking about. I call the 5% of anti-mask "scientists" conspiracy theorists. But that's not entirely my point.

If 5% of scientists tell me not to wear masks, and 95% of them do, and I give equal weight to all "experts", then I am therefore 95% in favour of keeping masks on. To argue that "there is still a worthwhile debate" is to give far more weight to the 5% minority. The whole "experts disagree so you can't choose which expert to believe unless you're an expert" argument falls flat on its face if you simply give them all equal weight.

And you have to give them all equal weight, because you're not an expert.

This is a mic drop moment, who could argue against this logic. I like it, if you’re not an expert in the field, give equal weight to each expert and go with the majority, if they are swayed, I too will be!