> Stop feeding the antivaxxers then.

Why should anyone take you seriously after reading this sentence? Although you may not intend this, how am I to know that you aren't implying a level of dishonesty in what I've shared? Because that certainly seems to be what you are saying. Do you think that I think that I'm feeding "antivaxxers" and not being forthright about it? I just don't find it productive when you and countless others make such a statement. In fact I'm not even sure what you define as an "antivaxxer". If you are going to call me out, at least be a bit more precise.

If there's something I said that suggests that I'm merely feeding antivaxxers, or doing so in a way that goes beyond what the system has already done to feed the so-called antivaxxers, by all means, tell me how I'm the problem.

> We do precautionary actions that may not save us all the time. Seatbelts, shelter in place during tornadoes. Crossing at intersections. Just because these activities fail for a lot of people doesn’t make the practitioners sheeple. This insistence that all of the societal technology that we’ve developed that got us from 100,000 humans to 7 billion is bad is pastoralism at best, a suicide cult at worst.

I don't think we would have enacted seatbelt laws if the tradeoff was severe restrictions on civil freedoms and possible damage to society as opposed to, you know, the minor inconvenience of just putting on the belt. And putting on a seatbelt isn't really the same argument as injecting a rushed vaccine using technology that hadn't yet been deployed to humans on a wide scale, as well as being at the point of coercing people to do so.

That's a tangent I shouldn't have just entertained, though, because I am not necessarily here to debate such nuances. My point isn't really to argue for or against vaccines per se, despite my having shared some of my personal perspective on the matter. The point that I was making is that both the conspiracy-level skepticism and the science/vaccine zealots are all a result of the same thing, and if we don't wake up to all the extreme divisions we are seeing, it's not going to matter what we do. Vaccines, Vitamin D, whatever. If too many of us can't agree on anything, and the system is operating in such a way where the division is seemingly intentional, how exactly can we blame people in either camp from going to the extreme?

> “sheeple”

This is not a word that I used and, if you reexamine what I've contributed to this thread, you will see that I'm not condemning people in any such way. While I do believe that most people respond to systemic control beyond a point I consider reasonable, I no longer dismiss this as a character flaw more than a symptom of the information age.

I'm sorry if I am reading too far into what you are saying here. I'm just not sure exactly why you brought that up.

> Going back to pre-enlightenment society will reduce us to just another animal.

Agreed. While I think we need to be far more careful about the road we choose to go down as a post-enlightenment world (assuming you were referring to the Age of Enlightenment and the philosophy that came from it), we can't go back and I don't think it would actually be desirable to go back.