I don't accuse people of killing people.
Although there are statistics that demonstrate a very compelling correlation between the rise of the anti-vax movement, and increased excess mortality from preventable childhood disease; so I probably could argue that in a more general sense with a sound evidentiary position to support it.
My argument is that the duty to prevent foreseeable loss of life can be held as incompatible with the right to personal choice; and that we have a nuanced legal and ethical position around that already...
There is limited evidence to suggest vaccination reduces transmissibility, so the balance of evidence to date suggests vaccination is a social good.
The UK is currently running "Challenge Trials" where healthy unvaccinated volunteers are exposed to COVID to determine pathogen dose response, which will be followed by similar trials in vaccinated individuals to determine pathenogenic load and shedding, from which we can get an accurate picture of how much transmission would be reduced.
I don't mandate anything, I asserted the nature of our current national position on a complex moral/ethical issue, and made reference to evidence of where you could see that played out in our laws, if you so chose to look.
If you mean I'm mandating vaccination, then you only need to read the three posts in which I explicitly state I disagree with it to realise that's not the case.
My issue is with your representation of a complex ethical issue in an unhelpfully black and white way to support your position as being "right", when in fact there cannot be a "right answer" because it goes beyond facts into social attitudes and personal beliefs... Which David Hume articulated as the "Is-Ought Problem"
My argument isn't with your position on vaccination, but with your failure to faithfully represent the complexity of the moral issues inherent with taking any position on it.
Can you point to a body of credible scientific evidence which contradicts the Chief Medical Officer?
I'm not familiar with any such information, and have been following the COVID related preprints and papers in the Lancet, Nature, etc.
The WHO has flipped flopped more times than a gymnast over masks, lockdowns etc Treatments like Hydroxychloroquine advocated by many Drs were demonized and some lost their jobs for suggesting it and now after January 20th 2021 they were proven to be correct.
AHA! "The mainstream media" the telltale phrase which instantly explains so much.
AHA your response tells me your not objective, not open minded and you stereotype nor free thinker.
I too have a suspicion of the media, but am generally comfortable that their reporting is accurate on the key facts, and comfortable verifying things independently (such as reading the scientific papers at source, and running my own stats on published data) when they don't seem consistent, or appear to be turning into opinion.
Doing that has broadly supported my view that the media is more inadequate than it is misleading, and there isn't some kind of conspiracy to suppress information or deceive us on a grand scale.
So the second you talk about "the mainstream media", rather than a specific failing you can point to it makes everything you've said up to that point sound much less credible...
The mainstream media do not report news objectively anymore they do not investigate they all are telling a story, the same story morning noon and night.
Although there are statistics that demonstrate a very compelling correlation between the rise of the anti-vax movement, and increased excess mortality from preventable childhood disease; so I probably could argue that in a more general sense with a sound evidentiary position to support it.
My argument is that the duty to prevent foreseeable loss of life can be held as incompatible with the right to personal choice; and that we have a nuanced legal and ethical position around that already...
There is limited evidence to suggest vaccination reduces transmissibility, so the balance of evidence to date suggests vaccination is a social good.
The UK is currently running "Challenge Trials" where healthy unvaccinated volunteers are exposed to COVID to determine pathogen dose response, which will be followed by similar trials in vaccinated individuals to determine pathenogenic load and shedding, from which we can get an accurate picture of how much transmission would be reduced.
I don't mandate anything, I asserted the nature of our current national position on a complex moral/ethical issue, and made reference to evidence of where you could see that played out in our laws, if you so chose to look.
If you mean I'm mandating vaccination, then you only need to read the three posts in which I explicitly state I disagree with it to realise that's not the case.
My issue is with your representation of a complex ethical issue in an unhelpfully black and white way to support your position as being "right", when in fact there cannot be a "right answer" because it goes beyond facts into social attitudes and personal beliefs... Which David Hume articulated as the "Is-Ought Problem"
My argument isn't with your position on vaccination, but with your failure to faithfully represent the complexity of the moral issues inherent with taking any position on it.
Can you point to a body of credible scientific evidence which contradicts the Chief Medical Officer?
I'm not familiar with any such information, and have been following the COVID related preprints and papers in the Lancet, Nature, etc.
The WHO has flipped flopped more times than a gymnast over masks, lockdowns etc Treatments like Hydroxychloroquine advocated by many Drs were demonized and some lost their jobs for suggesting it and now after January 20th 2021 they were proven to be correct.
AHA! "The mainstream media" the telltale phrase which instantly explains so much.
AHA your response tells me your not objective, not open minded and you stereotype nor free thinker.
I too have a suspicion of the media, but am generally comfortable that their reporting is accurate on the key facts, and comfortable verifying things independently (such as reading the scientific papers at source, and running my own stats on published data) when they don't seem consistent, or appear to be turning into opinion.
Doing that has broadly supported my view that the media is more inadequate than it is misleading, and there isn't some kind of conspiracy to suppress information or deceive us on a grand scale.
So the second you talk about "the mainstream media", rather than a specific failing you can point to it makes everything you've said up to that point sound much less credible...
The mainstream media do not report news objectively anymore they do not investigate they all are telling a story, the same story morning noon and night.
Last edited by a moderator:
. I’m only surprised David Icke wasn’t called as an expert witness ...
