3 ms·

I’m not jumping the gun - the net deaths can be negative yet it is still the case that what we witnessed was a massive, arguably unprecedented failure of medica

by gfodor 4y ago

I’m not jumping the gun - the net deaths can be negative yet it is still the case that what we witnessed was a massive, arguably unprecedented failure of medical ethics, the defense of body autonomy, the scientific process, the culture of healthy skepticism and debate, and basic decency and opposition to dehumanization campaigns. All due to fear and righteousness, as it often is.

AlexandrB 4y ago
If the numbers come out that net deaths are sharply negative, do you think we should similarly condemn those that spread fear and misinformation about the safety and efficacy of the vaccine? Or are "skeptics" immune from repercussions for their actions in this case?
- gfodor 4y ago
  The former group has been condemned, banned, ostracized, and dehumanized. To the degree any of them were acting on bad faith or in violation of their oaths, yes they should be condemned. But the deepest crimes lie elsewhere, by those in power who coerced others into taking drugs they did not want, who used ends-justify-the-means reasoning to violate ethics as physicians or public health officials, and who now continue to try to suppress, deflect, and gaslight us from recognizing the real events which actually occurred and which we are morally obligated to correct for our children.
  - AlexandrB 4y ago
    Agree to disagree, I guess. I'd rather give the benefit of the doubt to those acting on the best information available at the time rather than "influencers" raising "concerns" based on nothing but their gut instincts. Or to put it another way, how many vaccine skeptics were pushing for the heavy use of masks, better HVAC systems in buildings, and social distancing when possible? Because I've noticed a large correlation between those that spoke out against vaccines and those that spoke out against any preventative measures at all - regardless of how benign.
    - gfodor 4y ago
      You’re just cherry picking - there have been plenty of people raising basic concerns about the bioethics of mandating an emergency use medicine using a new technology for a rapidly evolving respiratory virus. There have also been prominent public officials saying things like “the unvaccinated cannot be trusted.” You should not let tribalism get in the way of seeing the full picture of what happened.
- chedca21 4y ago
  Did their stances actually contribute to public health policy, if so then they bare responsibility unfortunately. Armchair biosecurity advocates should be left off the hook.
manwe150 4y ago
I would agree with klipt: why were so many influential figures allowed to spread disinformation based apparently on misunderstanding mathematics, the scientific process, and just caring about general health and welfare? It was said once that 5 deaths is a tragedy, but 500k is just a statistic (as a justification of genocide). This is possibly why the 5 deaths in the article possibly from the vaccine is apparently more terrifying.

by gfodor 4y ago

AlexandrB 4y ago

If the numbers come out that net deaths are sharply negative, do you think we should similarly condemn those that spread fear and misinformation about the safety and efficacy of the vaccine? Or are "skeptics" immune from repercussions for their actions in this case?

gfodor 4y ago
The former group has been condemned, banned, ostracized, and dehumanized. To the degree any of them were acting on bad faith or in violation of their oaths, yes they should be condemned. But the deepest crimes lie elsewhere, by those in power who coerced others into taking drugs they did not want, who used ends-justify-the-means reasoning to violate ethics as physicians or public health officials, and who now continue to try to suppress, deflect, and gaslight us from recognizing the real events which actually occurred and which we are morally obligated to correct for our children.
- AlexandrB 4y ago
  Agree to disagree, I guess. I'd rather give the benefit of the doubt to those acting on the best information available at the time rather than "influencers" raising "concerns" based on nothing but their gut instincts. Or to put it another way, how many vaccine skeptics were pushing for the heavy use of masks, better HVAC systems in buildings, and social distancing when possible? Because I've noticed a large correlation between those that spoke out against vaccines and those that spoke out against any preventative measures at all - regardless of how benign.
  - gfodor 4y ago
    You’re just cherry picking - there have been plenty of people raising basic concerns about the bioethics of mandating an emergency use medicine using a new technology for a rapidly evolving respiratory virus. There have also been prominent public officials saying things like “the unvaccinated cannot be trusted.” You should not let tribalism get in the way of seeing the full picture of what happened.
chedca21 4y ago
Did their stances actually contribute to public health policy, if so then they bare responsibility unfortunately. Armchair biosecurity advocates should be left off the hook.

manwe150 4y ago

I would agree with klipt: why were so many influential figures allowed to spread disinformation based apparently on misunderstanding mathematics, the scientific process, and just caring about general health and welfare? It was said once that 5 deaths is a tragedy, but 500k is just a statistic (as a justification of genocide). This is possibly why the 5 deaths in the article possibly from the vaccine is apparently more terrifying.