3 ms·

That's oversimplifying it. It's not that decisions are "unscientific" because the science isn't rock solid. Politicians and authorities have the unenviable job

That's oversimplifying it. It's not that decisions are "unscientific" because the science isn't rock solid. Politicians and authorities have the unenviable job of having to make decisions that some times have to precede science. Acting out of caution is a thing. Besides, it's not as if you ask scientists their response would always be "well our science won't say very much until a year from now, so of course we recommend the status quo until we know more!" Scientific consensus and consensus among scientists can be two different things (i.e., scientists may well agree or even recommend politicians and authorities to do X, well in advance of science being clear).

ls15 5y ago
I agree, but I meant something else and I probably was not clear with my wording: I think that there is a witch-hunt against people who are considered to think unscientifically, but the hunters do not have a solid scientific basis for their battle calls themselves. I find that ironic and tragic at the same time. People in this thread and elsewhere attacked Djokovic for avoiding the vaccine, but nobody was able to provide evidence that would explain why Djokovic needs to be vaccinated, given his condition and history. It boils down to "the rules are the rules" and "same rules for everyone". Read that with Hanna Ahrendt's voice. Pure ideology and decoupling from actual reasoning and common sense. We are supposed to base medicine on science, not on ideology, aren't we?
- alkonaut 5y ago
  The difference between saying "Well now there is omicron and I'm young and healthy and have just had covid so I should do some back-of-the-napkin-math" versus "I don't believe in the idea of vaccinating populations as soon as the individual risk outweighs the population risk" (i.e. antivax) is pretty large. Novak is now in the former category, but he was in the latter - which is why I don't want to give him the benefit of the doubt any more.

ls15 5y ago

I agree, but I meant something else and I probably was not clear with my wording: I think that there is a witch-hunt against people who are considered to think unscientifically, but the hunters do not have a solid scientific basis for their battle calls themselves. I find that ironic and tragic at the same time. People in this thread and elsewhere attacked Djokovic for avoiding the vaccine, but nobody was able to provide evidence that would explain why Djokovic needs to be vaccinated, given his condition and history. It boils down to "the rules are the rules" and "same rules for everyone". Read that with Hanna Ahrendt's voice. Pure ideology and decoupling from actual reasoning and common sense. We are supposed to base medicine on science, not on ideology, aren't we?

alkonaut 5y ago
The difference between saying "Well now there is omicron and I'm young and healthy and have just had covid so I should do some back-of-the-napkin-math" versus "I don't believe in the idea of vaccinating populations as soon as the individual risk outweighs the population risk" (i.e. antivax) is pretty large. Novak is now in the former category, but he was in the latter - which is why I don't want to give him the benefit of the doubt any more.