I doubt a single one of the COVID conspiracy theory nutters out there could even answer this quiz, and this is just the basic level.

@freemo I didn't know I needed qualifications to decide if I want to buy a product or not.

@Eris You dont. But you do need to understand a topic if you expect to state facts about said topic.

@freemo Fact: For every life saved with vaccines, 5 people die from the vaccines.

@Eris Thanks for proving my point, that people too stupid to pass the above test will also be too stupid to assert actual facts correctly.

@freemo Your only point seems to be vague condescension against anything contradicting you.
If it's not a fact, say how. If you can't say how, I'll assume you're full of shit.

@Eris I've addressed this topic in detail dozens of times on my time line. Every time the anti-vax morons just spew nonsense and ignore or arent smart enough to comprehend the reality. So yes at this point I stopped putting int he effort because its a waste of my time.

@freemo @Eris why do you invite further discussion if ur intention is to simply ignore it where it doesn't agree with ur existing stance

@Oblivia

I didnt invite further discussion. Quite the opposite. The OP shows the basic level of knowledge a person needs to have before even approaching the subject, of which most anti-vaxers dont have. So it explicitly suggests people unable to pass the test DONT discuss it, the opposite of inviting it.

@Eris

@freemo @Oblivia You don't need qualifications to discuss things. We're gonna discuss it whether you like it or not. You can either engage in that discussion or admit that you can't handle it and hate free speech.

@Eris

You dont need to understand a topic to discuss it, no. But you look like an idiot, and are an idiot, if you assert things as facts on a subject you dont understand.

@Oblivia

@freemo @Eris if layman are unable to properly understand the subject, how can they give informed consent to participation in the trial of this drug

@Oblivia

A person doesnt know how to do heart surgery, yet can give informed conscent to have surgery.

@Eris

@freemo @Eris a person can be shown in great detail what will happen to them during that procedure, they will be given resources and access todecades of documentation on the risks and outcomes if they need more info to decide. its a bit different when there is no such documentation available yet

@Oblivia

In that case you have a person defering to an expert. They dont understand the surgery or its technicals in any sense, they simply trust the risk assesment and details given to them by a professional. No different than with vaccines really, a person typically wont understand the subject, but they can defer to their doctors risk assesment and side effects and other details to make an informed decision despite not understanding the subject.

@Eris

@freemo @Eris which still relies on the availability of data on previous medical outcomes, which takes years to gather. that can't be said of a new drug still in testing phase

@Oblivia

Informed conscent doesnt mean you know enough to be an oracle. It means you know the risks we do know, and the risks of the unknown. Knowing its a new drug and that that infers certain risks of the unknown is part of informed conscent, and a perfectly reasonable rason to be hesitant.

I'm not vaccinated, I have no intention of vaccinating until we have better data and the vaccines are out longer. I am not against anyone who is vaccine hesitant or doesnt want tog et vaccines. I am against the idiots spewing misinformation as a means to justify the that decision however.

@Eris