Maybe you’re right….but then again, there’s a distinct lack of virologists, epidemiologists, biochemists …generally lots of “ists” on one side. Maybe it’s just a coincidence though.
|
|
|
Covid booster
- Thread starter TK4
- Start date
Maybe you’re right….but then again, there’s a distinct lack of virologists, epidemiologists, biochemists …generally lots of “ists” on one side. Maybe it’s just a coincidence though.
The devil's advocate argument is self-preservation. If covid is either not a big problem or there are no useful treatment/prevention options, why are we paying all of those people (and giving them power)?
Mad Mike
Well-known member
To me its a matter of responsibility.
As a society we have lots of freedoms, but at the intersection of freedoms, security and order we find rules and reasonable expectations for societal responsibilities too.
My feeling is if you want to enjoy the benefits if society, you have to accept some responsibility, and some limitations on your freedoms. You always have the freedom to go somewhere where the limitations are less. You can't fire a rifle or ride an ATV on the street in Toronto for obvious reasons, you can in Minden...if you need that freedom, Minden is calling.
I see COVID and vaccinations as the same. The GTA is a tight space and every person is a link in a network that Corona virus can traverse. Break the network with vaccinations and we lower infections, hospital and morgue visits. I see vaccination as one of the responsible things one does in exchange for enjoying the benefits living in our society offers.
A side benefit is you might not die on this hill if you get vaxed.
I don’t really care about hurting anyone’s feelings over this anymore. I work with scientists. Me and my colleagues teach future and current doctors. Some of my colleagues work in this area. My friends are epidemiologists and pharmaceutical professionals in different countries. All of us, including the students, are vaccinated without issues. Many of us got the booster in the past few days. The only complaint all of us have is why science suddenly is unfashionable to some and why a proportion of the public prefers to believe in unsubstantiated gobbledygook from uneducated idiots over people who have literally spent their lives studying these things at the highest level.
48Connor
Well-known member
Ugh I was 5 minutes away from there yesterday, why not then ffs...
Either way my work is giving out booster shots the first week of January, so I'll just sit tight until then. Gotta do it, might as well get paid for it.
Sadly, the politicians are putting themselves between the scientists and the policies (or wastes of skin like Tam are far more concerned with politics than science or health) and they fit nicely into your "unsubstantiated gobbledygook from uneducated idiots" category.
Last edited:
Policy always muddies the waters. Dig deep enough and there is a consistent message, you might need to see it without the political lens.
Mad Mike
Well-known member
We rely on scientists to be facilitators, they are called upon to educate, advise, and roll out actionable plans and advice. The also have to deal with distructive behaviors. As a group, I'd give scientists an F during the pandemic. I suspect the poor communication has created some of the doubt, and opened the door for anti-vax and conspiracy theorists.
Those uneducated idiots understand enough about communication to discredit the experts.
I’m not sure I agree. I listen to Chris Smith Dr Chris Smith - Networks of evidence and expertise for public policy a Cambridge virologist and a few others. Mostly Brits, and they have been consistent. They are fine with criticizing the politicians where it’s needed. Listening to it from the Brit end has been more eye opening seeing what the scientists suggest and then watching politicians screw it up, usually to slink back and reinstate the scientific advice, only now too late. This guy Professor Jonathan Van-Tam is one of the senior advisors to the government and he’s been pretty good too. He’s trotted out by the bozo Boris Johnson but he gives a frank run down of the issues.
I can’t think of an expert that hasn’t been on point. Even Fauci in the US who has had arguably the hardest time of things has been pretty consistent.
Over here we have a slightly different kind of system it seems. One where the message is sent even more from central command through a bunch of filters controlled by people watching poll meters and not reading science papers.
Edit: I am going to admit that I don’t pay as much attention to Tam or others here. They are on much tighter leashes than they should be. If I listen to Canadian doctors/scientists in the media I choose the ones that have infectious disease specialties currently working in hospitals. These people know what’s happening on the ground out of sight of the general public.
Last edited:
I can point to experts that have been on point, I can point to experts that are promoting quack science. Is Tam not an expert? If so, why tf is she leading the science policy in Canada? Imo, she should have been fired on day one of the pandemic when she placed cultural sensitivity at the top of her priority list. That probably endeared her to JT. The CMOH should not give a flying ^(*&*& about cultural sensitivity or politics, they should follow the science.
I’ve got nothing against Tam. I think she has a difficult job as a puppet mouthpiece for a government that appears to put poll numbers over public health policy. I just think she’s muzzled to the extent that you have to either read between the lines, or find someone with expertise in the field not under the influence of the government that can talk more freely.
Then you should have something against Tam. If she is muzzled to the point where she can't do her job, the correct course of action is a very public denunciation of politics over science even if that may cost you your job (see Fauci).
You’re not wrong. I don’t think she has that kind of “**** it” character though. Fauci did…just made me like the guy more.
Mad Mike
Well-known member
I'm sure most of us could care less about the UK - the NHS is not exactly shining examples of public health.
You're a teacher, you know being on-point is the easy part, that's just stating facts. Understanding the audience, setting expectations, educating laymen, managing disruptions, but most important is winning hearts and minds = you must earn trust to lead.
Still an F.
I’d take a Cambridge virologist over quite a few others. The UK has been more entertaining on several fronts, that’s why I pay more attention. You should pay attention too …what’s happening there is happening here a few weeks/a month later.
This is, tangentially, another reason to be vaccinated fully
www.bbc.com
Omicron: South African scientists probe link between variants and untreated HIV
Covid variants may be mutating inside people with suppressed immunity.
www.bbc.com
I learned many years ago not to argue with people that make no effort to recognize another point of view. Their mindset is to win the argument, not to find out what is right.
Unfortunately I don't have time to get a degree in macro biology so I have to trust others and their logic. So far the logic of masks, distancing and vaccines seem to be working in the short term (2 years). Maybe in a few more years it will turn out to be a mistake, just like putting out every forest fire has created tinder boxes of too many forests.
However a responsible person would not dump the results of their mistake on another person without providing for future compensation. We insure our vehicles so in case of an at-fault the other person gets compensation. I've had two jabs and a third scheduled so I have mitigated future damage to others. If it was a mistake and my head falls off in two more years it doesn't hurt anyone else.
If an anti vaxxer harms others because they made a bad decision how does the injured party collect for damages? Not all anti vaxxers are dirt poor losers but the ones I know personally are. What does one get when the person being sued for damages lives in their mother's basement?
The problem today is largely aesthetics. We judge and hire people based on looks and manner instead of proven ability. There are rare exceptions so the end result is weasels rising to the top. It's very common for a talented person to be a good carpenter, doctor, accountant or biologist. They are happy to just do their job without the BS required for advancement to management. Then there are the less talented who know how to get into the limelight and plagiarize the works of others. We have lost the ability to recognize the weasels. We support and elect them because they look and talk nice, telling us the lies we want to hear.
Few of us are trained to judge our professionals by results. We choose politicians, investment advisors, lawyers and even spouses based on first impressions. I don't know if that extends to picking a heart surgeon out of a line-up. "Candidate four, step forward and turn to the left. You look cool. You can replace my heart valves."
So much this. Delivery and demeanor count for more than content and actual ability for so many people.
One curse of higher education is that it creates a communication gap between the the gownies and the townies. The less educated paraphrase things that are further paraphrased until the message is lost. Bleach and light bulbs.
The average person just wants the Cole's Notes version and many don't have the brain power to grasp things at the PhD level. Just in basic communications people commonly use the wrong words or improperly understand them. Minute vs moment, how long is indefinitely, effect vs affect, define promise, how big is huge, Brand new in box only used once.
|
|
|
|
|