• CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    5 hours ago

    I think the amount of harm he might do could be very extensive. Since he will be in position of power and the assumed authority that (low info) people will attribute to him, he doesn’t even have to ban vaccines outright. All he has to do is throw just enough shade on vaccines to have people opt out for four years (or longer) and have herd immunity for several diseases plummet.

    Things were already bad enough with a lot of dipsticks thinking they don’t need to vaccinate their kids, the antivaxxer conspiracy theories accelerated during Covid.

    This guy could cause a lot of death in America and abroad (again). I cannot imagine what he might do were we to have a bird flu. He might kill as many people as donvict himself did, and as far as I know donvict killed more Americans than any other person in history.

    • Plebcouncilman@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 hours ago

      I don’t want to get behind this type of thinking. I get it, I really do. I would also like to shake sense into people. But as you’ve seen that doesn’t work.

      I believe that all people should question authority and they should inform themselves using the proper sources without taking what anyone says at face value. Authorities will more often than not simplify and remove all nuance when communicating information to the masses and this is the root of the increased mistrust in vaccines with Covid came from. Authorities stated as facts things that they did not know were facts and overstated the effectiveness of the vaccines and then tried to silence the fact that in a small number of people the vaccine did cause cardiovascular issues. The government should have been upfront about that and explained why the trade off was worth it, but they didn’t because they erred on the side of thinking that people are complete morons. They may be, but we need to give them the benefit of the doubt.

      IMO, and this is maybe off topic but official authorities should have open and long panels in podcast format discussing why they take the decisions they take and explaining the people the benefits and risks, inviting dissenters and proponents so that people can make the most informed decision. Not for every decision of course, but at least for those health related decisions that affect everyone we should.

      I know many or even most will not do the right thing and inform themselves properly. But I also cannot stop believing that people are capable of finding good information and making the best decisions with the evidence available if we make that information easily accessible with all possible considerations. Because if I believe that people cannot make good decisions, then I necessarily also have to believe that we should limit the participation in our democratic society to only those who demonstrate this aptitude and I really really don’t want to believe that.