"The rationale is that if they are recommended to everyone, the high-risk groups are more likely to accept them."
That has to be the most utterly idiotic reasoning I've come across in a public policy debate. It completely ignores all of the other issues like the risks arising from the medical intervention, the cost (financial) of purchasing and administering 'vaccines' for the entire population, etc etc. I think Canada has ordered millions of these dangerous products for 2023, despite COVID being a non-issue.
I recall talking to a health care economist about a decade ago. She was very open about the need to limit health care spending, as health care is a bottomless pit. In particular, health systems have to make a decision about how much end of life care is appropriate since EOL care costs are extremely high. Sometimes you can't afford to embrace a novel medicine or treatment method generally as it simply costs too much.
With the COVID, the untold trillions spent on interventions was a complete misallocation of resources. Put aside fraud, put aside the fact that the shots are dangerous. Assume for a moment that the shots actually worked. It was completely irrational to spend that much money to help a few 78+ year olds with multiple health conditions live a couple of additional years. You are talking about a non-productive segment of the population. If you are going to spend that sort of money, you spend it on the people who actually make society run, or on children.
Nice job, Thorsteinn. You condensed the issue to its one core question with this sentence:
A more fitting title for the MedpageToday article would therefore have been: "Should Scientists be Allowed to Tell the Truth?"
If you think about, everything in the last three years has been designed to support lies. There are no incentives for telling the truth - only obvious disincentives.
The problem of lying predates the Covid-19 "pandemic" of course. I lean to the cynical, but in my dealings with authority begin with the assumption that everything is a lie or a half-truth until proven otherwise. If one begins with the admittedly uncharitable premise that an individual or group is motivated by greed or desire for power, it explains a lot of behavior. Of course, this doesn’t mean that every doctor or corporation is out to screw you, or that some of their goods and services aren’t actually of a net benefit. The point I’m hoping to drive home is that you simply cannot trust anyone or anything unquestioned. There are almost always hidden agendas, some of which may not be to your benefit.
And that proverbial light at the end of the tunnel? Is it really daylight, or is it an oncoming freight train?
“According to Offit...the rationale is that if they are recommended to everyone, the high-risk groups are more likely to accept them.”
Offit changing his tune like a chameleon changes colors. He knows he has blood on his hands. Revising rationale won’t wash it away, Offit. Enjoy your millions while you still walk free.
For understanding a problem, I recommend perspectivism (google it). In so many words, this and similar mental tools merely note that each person (group, etc.) views the world differently, often dramatically differently than others do. At this level, there is no "right" or "wrong." We are simply interested in assessing how a player views the game. For example, if we imagine ourself as a Pharma corporation, their prime motives are likely to promote their product, to maximize income and influence. It would be natural they might resort to any means to achieve such goals. It may sound callous, but logically concerns such as the safety, efficacy or cost of a product would not be top priorities. Why would they be? An organism’s primal instincts are to survive, preferably to grow, to expand its powers, and to reproduce. Any benefit (or harm) that occurs to others is incidental.
Sure, another player (e.g. the vaccine skeptic) may label Pharma's behavior as "evil" or "deceptive." And it probably is -- from that other player's perspective. But from the top-level veiw, Pharma is simply acting in its own best interests. A disinterested observer would no more villify Pharma as "evil" than he would a lion killing an antelope for dinner as being "evil.." It's not right or wrong, it just IS.
In contrast, the stereotypical patient would likely prioritize obtaining the best medical care possible. Problem: given a choice, he’d prefer that this be delivered at no cost to him and at zero risk.
The average doctor or nurse wishes to “survive” – this might mean simply keep his job. He’s probably concerned about self-esteem; keeping in the good graces of the boss, the state medical board, and his colleagues. These, and other drives, channel the doctor to behave in certain predicable ways, choosing some courses of action and shrinking from others.
A member of a regulatory body might be dominated by an urge to not “rock the boat,” therefore overlooking flaws and failings of his colleagues, even if they are misbehaving doctors that, in theory, he is supposed to punish. Or perhaps she’s an idealist, motivated primarily by a desire to obtain increased respect from radicals, and she seeks out real or imagined cases of wrongdoing by doctors.
Note this above analysis – to the extent it’s accurate – is by no means praising or pardoning the behavior of a player. Indeed, the very concepts of morality, of ethics, and so forth are purely arbitrary human standards. That doesn’t mean they don’t have any value, for by definition, they are yardsticks by how “we” (which, if one be honest, is just another group, therefore a perspective) view matters.
At the perspectivism level, we are merely interested in laying bare the actual or plausible motives for why each player behaves the way he does. Doing so will often give great insight into the overall “truth” of a complex reality.
That video is shocking to watch. He is a public health official that boldly admits to lying, he asserts that he did so in the public's best interest, and implies the public wants him to do so. That's the level of disdain elites have for the public.
We in the US, and the west more broadly, have regressed into a politically infantile state. For the vast majority of scientists, the obvious answer to the question: ""Should Scientists Openly Debate Vaccine Policies?" is: "If the government says its OK for us to openly debate vaccine policies.".
"The rationale is that if they are recommended to everyone, the high-risk groups are more likely to accept them."
That has to be the most utterly idiotic reasoning I've come across in a public policy debate. It completely ignores all of the other issues like the risks arising from the medical intervention, the cost (financial) of purchasing and administering 'vaccines' for the entire population, etc etc. I think Canada has ordered millions of these dangerous products for 2023, despite COVID being a non-issue.
I recall talking to a health care economist about a decade ago. She was very open about the need to limit health care spending, as health care is a bottomless pit. In particular, health systems have to make a decision about how much end of life care is appropriate since EOL care costs are extremely high. Sometimes you can't afford to embrace a novel medicine or treatment method generally as it simply costs too much.
With the COVID, the untold trillions spent on interventions was a complete misallocation of resources. Put aside fraud, put aside the fact that the shots are dangerous. Assume for a moment that the shots actually worked. It was completely irrational to spend that much money to help a few 78+ year olds with multiple health conditions live a couple of additional years. You are talking about a non-productive segment of the population. If you are going to spend that sort of money, you spend it on the people who actually make society run, or on children.
Nice job, Thorsteinn. You condensed the issue to its one core question with this sentence:
A more fitting title for the MedpageToday article would therefore have been: "Should Scientists be Allowed to Tell the Truth?"
If you think about, everything in the last three years has been designed to support lies. There are no incentives for telling the truth - only obvious disincentives.
The problem of lying predates the Covid-19 "pandemic" of course. I lean to the cynical, but in my dealings with authority begin with the assumption that everything is a lie or a half-truth until proven otherwise. If one begins with the admittedly uncharitable premise that an individual or group is motivated by greed or desire for power, it explains a lot of behavior. Of course, this doesn’t mean that every doctor or corporation is out to screw you, or that some of their goods and services aren’t actually of a net benefit. The point I’m hoping to drive home is that you simply cannot trust anyone or anything unquestioned. There are almost always hidden agendas, some of which may not be to your benefit.
And that proverbial light at the end of the tunnel? Is it really daylight, or is it an oncoming freight train?
“According to Offit...the rationale is that if they are recommended to everyone, the high-risk groups are more likely to accept them.”
Offit changing his tune like a chameleon changes colors. He knows he has blood on his hands. Revising rationale won’t wash it away, Offit. Enjoy your millions while you still walk free.
For understanding a problem, I recommend perspectivism (google it). In so many words, this and similar mental tools merely note that each person (group, etc.) views the world differently, often dramatically differently than others do. At this level, there is no "right" or "wrong." We are simply interested in assessing how a player views the game. For example, if we imagine ourself as a Pharma corporation, their prime motives are likely to promote their product, to maximize income and influence. It would be natural they might resort to any means to achieve such goals. It may sound callous, but logically concerns such as the safety, efficacy or cost of a product would not be top priorities. Why would they be? An organism’s primal instincts are to survive, preferably to grow, to expand its powers, and to reproduce. Any benefit (or harm) that occurs to others is incidental.
Sure, another player (e.g. the vaccine skeptic) may label Pharma's behavior as "evil" or "deceptive." And it probably is -- from that other player's perspective. But from the top-level veiw, Pharma is simply acting in its own best interests. A disinterested observer would no more villify Pharma as "evil" than he would a lion killing an antelope for dinner as being "evil.." It's not right or wrong, it just IS.
In contrast, the stereotypical patient would likely prioritize obtaining the best medical care possible. Problem: given a choice, he’d prefer that this be delivered at no cost to him and at zero risk.
The average doctor or nurse wishes to “survive” – this might mean simply keep his job. He’s probably concerned about self-esteem; keeping in the good graces of the boss, the state medical board, and his colleagues. These, and other drives, channel the doctor to behave in certain predicable ways, choosing some courses of action and shrinking from others.
A member of a regulatory body might be dominated by an urge to not “rock the boat,” therefore overlooking flaws and failings of his colleagues, even if they are misbehaving doctors that, in theory, he is supposed to punish. Or perhaps she’s an idealist, motivated primarily by a desire to obtain increased respect from radicals, and she seeks out real or imagined cases of wrongdoing by doctors.
Note this above analysis – to the extent it’s accurate – is by no means praising or pardoning the behavior of a player. Indeed, the very concepts of morality, of ethics, and so forth are purely arbitrary human standards. That doesn’t mean they don’t have any value, for by definition, they are yardsticks by how “we” (which, if one be honest, is just another group, therefore a perspective) view matters.
At the perspectivism level, we are merely interested in laying bare the actual or plausible motives for why each player behaves the way he does. Doing so will often give great insight into the overall “truth” of a complex reality.
"Should Scientists Be Allowed To Tell The Truth?" This is a stupid question... simply because the word 'truth' can't be used in a science context.
This is why this happened from March 2020 till Yesterday...
https://postimg.cc/Mf8fk00W
That video is shocking to watch. He is a public health official that boldly admits to lying, he asserts that he did so in the public's best interest, and implies the public wants him to do so. That's the level of disdain elites have for the public.
We in the US, and the west more broadly, have regressed into a politically infantile state. For the vast majority of scientists, the obvious answer to the question: ""Should Scientists Openly Debate Vaccine Policies?" is: "If the government says its OK for us to openly debate vaccine policies.".
That is not hyperbole.
Why bother writing about the comments of Offit ?
I would offload him from any conversation on vaccines.
Period.