Here's how chatgpt characterizes anti covid vaxxers. Which description mostly fits you all idiot anti vaxxers here?

Started by linate

Replies
17
Posts
18
Page
1 / 1

Conversation

#1 •••
🔗 Link

Yeah, I do encounter people who are strongly anti-COVID vaccine when I’m used in open conversations. They usually fall into a couple of patterns:

1. Low-information / misinformed

  1. These are people who’ve picked up claims from social media, YouTube, or friends (“the vaccine changes your DNA,” “it causes mass infertility,” etc.) without really fact-checking.
  2. They’re not necessarily stubborn; often they just haven’t seen high-quality sources presented in a way they trust.
  3. With them, if information is explained patiently, in their own terms, sometimes they soften or at least see more nuance.

2. Distrust-driven / immune to persuasion

  1. These folks may be well-read, but only in alternative information ecosystems.
  2. They distrust any mainstream source (CDC, WHO, journals, even independent scientists if they publish in mainstream venues).
  3. Because their identity and worldview are wrapped around distrust, any attempt at correction feels like manipulation. In that sense they’re “immune” to conventional education.
  4. With them, it’s less about knowledge and more about trust and belonging.

3. Politically / ideologically motivated

  1. Some are explicitly framing refusal as a political act—resisting government, mandates, or what they see as “elites controlling the masses.”
  2. Their stance isn’t about data, it’s about freedom and symbolism.
  3. Education doesn’t change much here because the vaccine is functioning as a cultural marker, not a medical choice.

So are they mostly low-information or immune to being educated?

  1. It’s a spectrum: many start as low-information but become hardened over time if they find community in distrust.
  2. Surveys show that about half of vaccine-resistant people hold beliefs rooted in misinformation, while the other half are driven by distrust and identity. The first group can sometimes be reached with patient dialogue; the second rarely moves without a deep rebuilding of trust.


Edit comment

#2 •••
🔗 Link
@linate

Now ask ChatGPT to make argument against covid vaccines.

Edit post

#3 •••
🔗 Link
@linate
⚠️ This comment has been marked as offensive.

Edit post

#4 •••
🔗 Link
@RemyBrown

The very definition you cite says that a person can be anti vax regardless of their stance on mandates. So while most people are against mandates and would thus be anti vax this whole rabbit hole you r going down misses the obvious point of this thread and u r just playing pointless word games

Edit post

#5 •••
🔗 Link
@linate

The mrna COVID shots were rolled out under Emergency Use Authorizations, not full FDA approval, which meant they bypassed the usual long-term vetting. As of August 27, 2025, the FDA revoked the remaining EUAs and limited vaccine access to seniors and people with high-risk conditions. That means healthy children are no longer eligible for the vax, mandate or not.


On top of that, the CDC stopped recommending COVID vaccination for healthy kids and pregnant women way back in May, so the campaign never became “standard approval for everyone” and is now sharply narrowed to at-risk groups who might still benefit from the jab. As of now, it doesn't really matter if you are pro or anti as it's not even legal to get for many Americans.


1. Low-information / misinformed


How much of your information is sourced by venues directly funded by your big parma industries?

Edit post

#6 •••
🔗 Link
@SatanLucy

I really doubt Chatgpt backed up anything the OP claimed.

Edit post

#7 •••
🔗 Link

That was why RFK was picked to run the DHHS. It’s because he does not depend on real or Artificial intelligence for his information very similar to Trump.

Edit post

#8 •••
🔗 Link
@linate
⚠️ This comment has been marked as offensive.

Edit post

#9 •••
🔗 Link
@RemyBrown

I agree its a stupid definition but no one says Webster is always smart and while they're am authoritative source no one says they have the final word

Edit post

#10 •••
🔗 Link
@Shoresy

The government is run by kooks like Kennedy and they are firing impartial scientists and making political decisions where science should lead the way. The usa government can no longer be considered credible due to the damage trump has done. I trust the consensus of science. If you can show the consensus of science supports those moves then I will concede the point about whether to freely encourage covid vax. Whether the anti vax crowd are credible or at least weren't during covid isn't debateable

Edit post

#11 •••
🔗 Link
@linate

Okay, you are a very trusting person, but you still can't legally get an unapproved vax today. The emergency exceptions are over for your country.

Edit post

#12 •••
🔗 Link
@Shoresy
COVID-19 is caused by the novel coronavirus, called severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 or SARS- CoV-2, whereas flu is caused by any of the several different types and strains of influenza viruses. While both flu and COVID-19 are spread from person to person through droplets in the air from an infected person coughing, sneezing or talking, there are a few significant differences that make COVID-19 more likely to spread and cause more severe illness compared to the seasonal flu. Reproduction number (R0) refers to the number of secondary infections generated from one infected individual. For COVID-19, that number is 2 to 2.5, which means one person with COVID-19 goes on to infect two or two-and-a-half people as compared to an R0 of 1.3 for seasonal flu. Current estimates of the infection mortality rate for the coronavirus range from 0.4-1.5%. This means it is anywhere from 4 to 15 times higher than the seasonal flu which has a mortality rate estimated at 0.1%. 


if we have shots for the flu we should have shots for covid. i assume this information here is still up to date. even a death rate of a tenth of a percent is enough to encourage people to get a shot.


you are the one that's too trusting. you are like the idiots who say 'dont trust authority' and then go on and find a kook to put their trust in instead of consensus science. i do know that the scientists who kennedy fired were trying to oppose the things he's doing, so i assume he's anti science. the CDC and national health have always been pretty much apoltical until trump came around

Edit post

#13 •••
🔗 Link

What confidence have I in ChatGPT when Artificial Intelligence starts with "artificial?" And who was the clown who named it that?

Edit post

We tell God what to do and then blame Him for our errors.

- Dr. Pet Dragon of Sorbonne University

#14 •••
🔗 Link
@linate

I'm just telling you what I heard. If you want to get an unregulated and unapproved vax today, you might be committing a crime of sorts. Your trust level has nothing to do with it.

Edit post

#15 •••
🔗 Link
@fauxlaw
And who was the clown who named it that?


John McCarthy in 1956.

Edit post

#16 •••
🔗 Link
@fauxlaw

Artificial implies more potential than being limited by real.

Edit post

#17 •••
🔗 Link
@Debby

How? "Potential" is defined by the OED as something that exists only in future possibility; a statistical matter of future, not present. Very seldom does something of potential having 100% probability, whereas reality is a 100% known present condition and is, therefore, but by ignorance, limited to potential.

Edit post

We tell God what to do and then blame Him for our errors.

- Dr. Pet Dragon of Sorbonne University

#18 •••
🔗 Link
@Debby

How? "Potential" is defined by the OED as something that exists only in future possibility; a statistical matter of future, not present. Very seldom does something of potential having 100% probability, whereas reality is a 100% known present condition and is, therefore, but by ignorance, limited to potential.

Edit post

We tell God what to do and then blame Him for our errors.

- Dr. Pet Dragon of Sorbonne University