But as an alternative, for instance because you lack time, there's also the possibility to listen to experts.
Preferably a large collective of experts, preferably more than less consenting on the interpretation of a preferably large amount and high quality of underlaying evidence.
Preferably nót just a few (i guess wrongly motivated) experts (and others) having found a few often low quality or willfully misinterpreted, misrepresented or even made-up studies and "evidence" that help them to (cultivate, maybe also monetize) dissent.
Because without having compelling evidence (which is the case here, although it is not always easy to find out.) that makes this dissent, although maybe financially or politically lucrative when sufficient people "do their own research" too hastily, of very low quality.)
On this subject (covid, vaccines) the by far most comprhensive evidence is by and large behind public health authorities (as long as they are not yet taken over, that is..)
It may not deliver 'the truth'. But i believe (un)fortunately we can not make things much true-er than that.
(A reason why i believe people shouldn't use concepts like 'the truth' in the first place..
('True'and 'false' on the other hand are okay i.m. not so h.o.))
It may even come out as having been wrong in hindsight. It probably won't have been perfect (like most things aren't). But following public health advice in this is the best bet you can take, is my momentary conclusion.
Btw, the rise of expertise has i.m. even less h.o. to do with the hugely sped-up big bang of creation of knowledge of the last centuries, which expanded the universe to proportions outward and inward never perceived/conceptualised before. So too, the language to describe that, and the need to use that language in stories with as much inner consistency as possible, in order to be able to speak about 'understanding', and (thusly) be able to do practical things with that understanding.
(Although i may have a limited view on 'understanding'.)
This also meant the vanishing of the kind of people that in their time still could maybe even quite realisticly (although i do wonder) be perceived as people "that knew all knowledge in the world".
The last persons of whom that was said also lived a few centuries ago, i understand. Seems logical to me. Since then there is too much knowledge to be known for one person.
Nowadays nobody knows more than a tiny fraction of total knowledge.
Hence specialization.
(And also btw the need for e.g. government agencies, and what some call the "deep state".)
Your individualistic, autonomistic ideals assume that knowing everything to make best informed decisions about everything is still possible.
It isn't.
It's only possible if you do your own research so well that you become actually an expert yourselve. And that means so much work it will be near to the only thing you can be an expert in.
(Also this will make you change your views on the subject, i believe. But that's my , though by now somewhat more informed, prejudice.)
So in short, i hope you do your own research at least better. And otherwise listen to common public health advice (at least, in states where "they" have not taken over power yet..). Because by and large the best evidenced (large, while still integrated) expert-story is behind it..
Before the pandemic i just would have assumed this.
After the nuisance of having had to "do my own research" according to those calling for that, i (more) know this, at least for this pandemic.
BTW THIS IS NOT TO DENY EXPERIENCED, LET ALONE ACTUAL/PROVEN OR PLAUSIBLE VACINATION DAMAGE ON AN INDIVIDUAL LEVEL. THIS HAPPENS.
Nor that this should not be researched, or compensated when proven or made sufficiently plausible. The point is: this rresearch happens ongoing, all the time! By public health authorities. Point is also that much experienced vaccination-damage is proven wrong.
BUT ON A POPULATION LEVEL (for the group as a whole, by average) THE MOMENTSOME VACINATION RISKS MAY START TO OUTWEIGH IT'S BENEFITS FOR SOME GROUPS IS ONLY AFTER BOOSTER+ALREADY ACQUIRED IMUNIZATION (by vaccination and/or infection)
This is , again on group-level, true for all age groups!
Actual discussion/debate is only about where this moment lies, and for which age/risk-groups.
(This is also a point where the individual vs. collective- question steps in. It's a hard problem in an individualized culture. Because in this case (covid), results of mitigation -efforts are best when done collectively..
Of course low-risk -groups have less benefit than high-risk-groups. And in some cases a higher vax-risk than others. Although even then still lower than the benefits.
Plus, one could choose another vaccine with no heightened risk, in theae instances. Public health advises that all!
So, initially average individual and collective benefit are in line until (far or less far) after boostering.
ALSO THIS IS NOT TO DENY ACTUAL RISKS WITH CORPORATE LOBBYING OR INFLUENCE AND MONEY, REVOLVING DOORS, THE BIG MONEY PART OF BIG FARMA (which imo is more part of BIg Money, than having to do with the farma itselve) OR OTHER BIGS, OPIOIDS ,bad medicines still marketed,and over-medication, MULTINATIONALS, GLOBALIZATION,TECHNOLOGY, LACK OF DEMOCRATIC CONTROL, ETC. ETC. that inspire so many conspiracy/bad intention assumptions and hypotheses (which may in part be right, although not yet proven (and certainly not as proven as the conspiracies/bad intentions from another side)).
To hold these e things at bay is btw also a collective effort.
This is just about what is the better information on the vaccines.
(On the other hand, i also believe we do need more people being experts in bigger pictures.
Also because of the downside of these developments, like climate-change, pollution and (over-)exploitation, need more than only expertise in detail..
The downside of this creative big bang has i.m.o. not so much to do with the expanded knowledge itselve, but with the fact that it apparently allways has to be exploited commercially, even to the brink of human survival or environmental collapse, wthout an eye for the costs.
Thr same developments that made it possible to acquire amounts of (personal, material) wealth on this extremie scale, may/could render this also obsolete, and also irresponsible (?)
Wow and so to do you.........
No, i hope you do your own research better.
But as an alternative, for instance because you lack time, there's also the possibility to listen to experts.
Preferably a large collective of experts, preferably more than less consenting on the interpretation of a preferably large amount and high quality of underlaying evidence.
Preferably nót just a few (i guess wrongly motivated) experts (and others) having found a few often low quality or willfully misinterpreted, misrepresented or even made-up studies and "evidence" that help them to (cultivate, maybe also monetize) dissent.
Because without having compelling evidence (which is the case here, although it is not always easy to find out.) that makes this dissent, although maybe financially or politically lucrative when sufficient people "do their own research" too hastily, of very low quality.)
On this subject (covid, vaccines) the by far most comprhensive evidence is by and large behind public health authorities (as long as they are not yet taken over, that is..)
It may not deliver 'the truth'. But i believe (un)fortunately we can not make things much true-er than that.
(A reason why i believe people shouldn't use concepts like 'the truth' in the first place..
('True'and 'false' on the other hand are okay i.m. not so h.o.))
It may even come out as having been wrong in hindsight. It probably won't have been perfect (like most things aren't). But following public health advice in this is the best bet you can take, is my momentary conclusion.
Btw, the rise of expertise has i.m. even less h.o. to do with the hugely sped-up big bang of creation of knowledge of the last centuries, which expanded the universe to proportions outward and inward never perceived/conceptualised before. So too, the language to describe that, and the need to use that language in stories with as much inner consistency as possible, in order to be able to speak about 'understanding', and (thusly) be able to do practical things with that understanding.
(Although i may have a limited view on 'understanding'.)
This also meant the vanishing of the kind of people that in their time still could maybe even quite realisticly (although i do wonder) be perceived as people "that knew all knowledge in the world".
The last persons of whom that was said also lived a few centuries ago, i understand. Seems logical to me. Since then there is too much knowledge to be known for one person.
Nowadays nobody knows more than a tiny fraction of total knowledge.
Hence specialization.
(And also btw the need for e.g. government agencies, and what some call the "deep state".)
Your individualistic, autonomistic ideals assume that knowing everything to make best informed decisions about everything is still possible.
It isn't.
It's only possible if you do your own research so well that you become actually an expert yourselve. And that means so much work it will be near to the only thing you can be an expert in.
(Also this will make you change your views on the subject, i believe. But that's my , though by now somewhat more informed, prejudice.)
So in short, i hope you do your own research at least better. And otherwise listen to common public health advice (at least, in states where "they" have not taken over power yet..). Because by and large the best evidenced (large, while still integrated) expert-story is behind it..
Before the pandemic i just would have assumed this.
After the nuisance of having had to "do my own research" according to those calling for that, i (more) know this, at least for this pandemic.
BTW THIS IS NOT TO DENY EXPERIENCED, LET ALONE ACTUAL/PROVEN OR PLAUSIBLE VACINATION DAMAGE ON AN INDIVIDUAL LEVEL. THIS HAPPENS.
Nor that this should not be researched, or compensated when proven or made sufficiently plausible. The point is: this rresearch happens ongoing, all the time! By public health authorities. Point is also that much experienced vaccination-damage is proven wrong.
BUT ON A POPULATION LEVEL (for the group as a whole, by average) THE MOMENTSOME VACINATION RISKS MAY START TO OUTWEIGH IT'S BENEFITS FOR SOME GROUPS IS ONLY AFTER BOOSTER+ALREADY ACQUIRED IMUNIZATION (by vaccination and/or infection)
This is , again on group-level, true for all age groups!
Actual discussion/debate is only about where this moment lies, and for which age/risk-groups.
(This is also a point where the individual vs. collective- question steps in. It's a hard problem in an individualized culture. Because in this case (covid), results of mitigation -efforts are best when done collectively..
Of course low-risk -groups have less benefit than high-risk-groups. And in some cases a higher vax-risk than others. Although even then still lower than the benefits.
Plus, one could choose another vaccine with no heightened risk, in theae instances. Public health advises that all!
So, initially average individual and collective benefit are in line until (far or less far) after boostering.
ALSO THIS IS NOT TO DENY ACTUAL RISKS WITH CORPORATE LOBBYING OR INFLUENCE AND MONEY, REVOLVING DOORS, THE BIG MONEY PART OF BIG FARMA (which imo is more part of BIg Money, than having to do with the farma itselve) OR OTHER BIGS, OPIOIDS ,bad medicines still marketed,and over-medication, MULTINATIONALS, GLOBALIZATION,TECHNOLOGY, LACK OF DEMOCRATIC CONTROL, ETC. ETC. that inspire so many conspiracy/bad intention assumptions and hypotheses (which may in part be right, although not yet proven (and certainly not as proven as the conspiracies/bad intentions from another side)).
To hold these e things at bay is btw also a collective effort.
This is just about what is the better information on the vaccines.
(On the other hand, i also believe we do need more people being experts in bigger pictures.
Also because of the downside of these developments, like climate-change, pollution and (over-)exploitation, need more than only expertise in detail..
The downside of this creative big bang has i.m.o. not so much to do with the expanded knowledge itselve, but with the fact that it apparently allways has to be exploited commercially, even to the brink of human survival or environmental collapse, wthout an eye for the costs.
The developments
Thr same developments that made it possible to acquire amounts of (personal, material) wealth on this extremie scale, may/could render this also obsolete, and also irresponsible (?)