Nope. You voluntarily made the claim that you were "not antivaxx". I merely clarified for you that your previous acceptance of other vaccines has nothing to do with the definition of "antivaxx" in today's COVID context.
You are clearly anti-COVID vaccines, as indicated by a number of your comments here. That makes your assertion that you are "not antivaxx" untrue in any contemporary discussion.
Relentlessly searching for ways to discredit COVID vaccines and spreading FUD are not mere "hesitance".
If you find the plain identification of your own behavior "insulting", then I would offer that you consider not engaging in that behavior.
> You are clearly anti-COVID vaccines, as indicated by a number of your comments here. That makes your assertion that you are "not antivaxx" untrue in any contemporary discussion.
> Relentlessly searching for ways to discredit COVID vaccines and spreading FUD are not mere "hesitance".
Critical skepticism is an important element of science.
Do No Harm is a key part of the Hippocratic Oath
Just like Informed Consent with Medical Ethics.
> Informed consent is the process in which a health care provider educates a patient about the risks, benefits, and alternatives of a given procedure or intervention. The patient must be competent to make a voluntary decision about whether to undergo the procedure or intervention. Informed consent is both an ethical and legal obligation of medical practitioners in the US and originates from the patient's right to direct what happens to their body. Implicit in providing informed consent is an assessment of the patient's understanding, rendering an actual recommendation, and documentation of the process. The Joint Commission requires documentation of all the elements of informed consent "in a form, progress notes or elsewhere in the record." The following are the required elements for documentation of the informed consent discussion: (1) the nature of the procedure, (2) the risks and benefits and the procedure, (3) reasonable alternatives, (4) risks and benefits of alternatives, and (5) assessment of the patient's understanding of elements 1 through 4.
[1]
> It is the obligation of the provider to make it clear that the patient is participating in the decision-making process and avoid making the patient feel forced to agree to with the provider. The provider must make a recommendation and provide their reasoning for said recommendation
> Critical skepticism is an important element of science.
There's a continuum here. I guess we might say that at one end is blindly trusting whatever you're told, and at the other end is skepticism to the point of divergent irrationality, e.g. believing the Earth is hollow because you haven't personally been to the North Pole to check for a big hole leading to Inner Earth (where the meat goes on the outside of the sandwich). Of course, satellite imagery is all doctored to cover up the truth.
Interestingly, those extremes seem to curve back toward each other.
Skepticism is important, but it can be taken to harmful extremes, and it's important to examine "skeptical" impulses to make sure that's actually what they are. When you find yourself clinging to a "skeptical" position as evidence to the contrary continues to mount, squeezed into an ever-tinier corner of what-ifs and statistical improbabilities--or just cherry-picking data and presenting it out of context to rationalize your position--you have to know when to throw in the towel.
---
The above is presented as a reply to your comment about critical skepticism being important, because I think that's a line that's often used to defend irrational positions, often to the point of doing real harm when it's deployed in the public discourse. But I am not talking specifically about COVID or anything to do with it, so--again--please don't imagine that I've made any substantive statement wrt. the efficacy and/or risk profile of COVID vaccines, because I haven't.
You really could save a lot of time by just saying you're "anti-vaxx".
Maybe you're not familiar with the contemporary meaning of the phrase, but it perfectly encapsulates your behavior here and throughout HN.
Antivaxx is a syndrome. Some tell-tale symptoms are:
1) a scattershot litany of objections based on vague pseudo-scientific conclusions, cherry-picked de-contextualized data, and deployment of hypotheticals that, in total, amount to FUD;
2) Antivaxx denialism: that is, retreating to a position of nuanced skepticism when called on their clearly manic anti-vaccine FUD tactics, "hey, I'm just cautious/hesitant/skeptical".
3) an effort to characterize COVID vaccines as somehow nefarious or "illegitimate" versus previous vaccines because they seek primarily to prevent serious disease;
4) a relentless emphasis on natural immunity as superior to vaccines;
5) and the dispositive test that is perhaps the gold standard for an antivaxx diagnosis: deploying a range of pseudo-ethical arguments that seek to paint COVID vaccines or their advocacy as somehow immoral. This is usually deployed via vague rantings that, say, inexplicably invoke the Hippocratic Oath.
Nope. You voluntarily made the claim that you were "not antivaxx". I merely clarified for you that your previous acceptance of other vaccines has nothing to do with the definition of "antivaxx" in today's COVID context.
You are clearly anti-COVID vaccines, as indicated by a number of your comments here. That makes your assertion that you are "not antivaxx" untrue in any contemporary discussion.
Relentlessly searching for ways to discredit COVID vaccines and spreading FUD are not mere "hesitance".
If you find the plain identification of your own behavior "insulting", then I would offer that you consider not engaging in that behavior.