I'm trying to get to the point of all this scepticism. OK, to recap. Somehow a dangerous novel virus cropped up and the boffins thought it might be helpful to limit social interaction to curb the spread of the virus, this could be considered as a trade off, there would be costs and benefits to such a policy. Sceptics thought it had been too readily assumed that the policy was an automatic 'good thing', so we entered the initial phase of scepticism.
Phase 1 scepticism; concerning lockdown.
We sceptics thought the pros and cons should be investigated more before we make the assumption that restrictions really are a net benefit. The policy seemed to divide the population around political lines, with lefties eager to adopt the intrusive restrictions while Conservatives were generally more sceptical. I still stand by the original idea that the country was too quick to accept that lockdowns were a beneficial policy.
Phase 2 scepticism; concerning vaccination.
But as time passed, and lockdowns gradually eased, other policies have been tried. Drug firms devised vaccines.Hence we got Phase 2 scepticism. And the same argument has occurred again, with some believing the pros and cons of vaccination should be investigated more thoroughly before we make the assumption that general vaccination is a net benefit.
Phase 3 scepticism; concerning vaccination certification
And then the notion of vaccine certification hove into view, and we saw Phase 3 scepticism, where the sceptics felt the pros and cons of vaccination certification should be investigated more before we make the assumption that vaccination certification is a net benefit.Can you see the pattern?
Phase 4 scepticism; concerning antiviral medicines
And now we have the first of a bunch of antiviral medicines; molnupiravir, I have already seen mutterings about Phase 4 scepticism over antiviral medicines, where sceptics felt the pros and cons of antiviral medicines; e.g. molnupiravir should be investigated more thoroughly before we make the assumption that anti-viral medicine is a net benefit. I think phase 4 is unnecessary, we farm out safety and efficacy judgements to the FDA and the MHRA. It is right to farm out these matters, and we have to trust the experts at some point , else we will iterate forever on new phases of scepticism. Is there any way to conclude these speculations?Surely there must come a point where all this scepticism starts to die down, or is this a game that we will play forever?
I'm trying to get to the point of all this scepticism. OK, to recap. Somehow a dangerous novel virus cropped up and the boffins thought it might be helpful to limit social interaction to curb the spread of the virus, this could be considered as a trade off, there would be costs and benefits to such a policy. Sceptics thought it had been too readily assumed that the policy was an automatic 'good thing', so we entered the initial phase of scepticism.
Phase 1 scepticism; concerning lockdown.
We sceptics thought the pros and cons should be investigated more before we make the assumption that restrictions really are a net benefit. The policy seemed to divide the population around political lines, with lefties eager to adopt the intrusive restrictions while Conservatives were generally more sceptical. I still stand by the original idea that the country was too quick to accept that lockdowns were a beneficial policy.
Phase 2 scepticism; concerning vaccination.
But as time passed, and lockdowns gradually eased, other policies have been tried. Drug firms devised vaccines.Hence we got Phase 2 scepticism. And the same argument has occurred again, with some believing the pros and cons of vaccination should be investigated more thoroughly before we make the assumption that general vaccination is a net benefit.
Phase 3 scepticism; concerning vaccination certification
And then the notion of vaccine certification hove into view, and we saw Phase 3 scepticism, where the sceptics felt the pros and cons of vaccination certification should be investigated more before we make the assumption that vaccination certification is a net benefit.Can you see the pattern?
Phase 4 scepticism; concerning antiviral medicines
What you are actually seeing here is not scepticism. It is objection plain and simple.
Scepticism is about asking questions and looking at facts. People around here are not doing that..they make up their own facts to match their opinions. They mine social media to find suitable facts that fit their needs.
I suspect they often don't even believe it, but reference it anyway.
By the way, you missed phase 0 from the list.....denial.
I would say, we have to continue to be very careful. The trust that has been lost by the government, the NHS and Western pharma companies will take a generation or more to restore. Censorship and other civil rights violations need to be scrapped, they made the medical issues possible and from a long term perspective they are more damaging than the medical issues.
>we have to continue to be very careful
no! it is wiser to be incautious now and let nature take its course, since it is the precautionary principle that got us to this point. The politicians and scientists were being very careful, as you solemnly advise, and that has resulted in the UK having strong restrictions ,a depleted economy as well as very high death rates. Continuing to be very careful is a recipe for even more fear uncertainty and doubt. The vast majority of the public approved of lockdowns and vaccination. The best experts agree, the time for being very careful is over. It is time to quit all the care and learn to live with the virus, which means ignoring it and getting on with life.
@ewloe the "precautionary principle" is just a rhetorical trick, which is clear because they don't use cost-benefit analysis which would be fundamental to any genuine caution. If it is to mean anything, the "precautionary principle" has to be equally applied to the problem and the solution.
I could have got over the feelings I had re lockdowns if they had stopped after the first one. It wasn't just social interactions that were suspended it was much much more than that and very damaging to society in so many ways. A large part of the reason they were accepted by people was the fear mongering propaganda put out by the government.
I have always been sceptical about health care, obviously there have been lots of advances in medicine but big pharma exists to make prophets and initially they were not interested in producing vaccines, they only committed to it when government and charitable trust money was handed to them so they wouldn't have to take any losses, and when they were indemnified from any legal actions by respective governments. As an aside Statins are another area, where big pharma push their products when the evidence that they have much of a measurable effect doesn't exist. I prefer to make my own decisions on what drugs I take and don't automatically trust my GP. Also you cannot deny that long term data of the safety of these vaccines cannot exist because they haven't been around long enough.
Vaccination certificates - give me one reason for them to be of any use.
New medicines now arrive when for the last months use of existing meds has been suppressed despite real world data suggesting they probably save lives and are extremely unlikely to cause any damage, more profit again and no long term data on use, certainly not when used in combination with the numerous other drugs people may be taking.
So forgive me but until proven wrong I will remain sceptical to anything this government wants to push.
@sunjor you chose this one .. you deserve them. they have no needd to care aif you trust them, they have power, you have power to choose. you fucked up if you do not like that perhaps go live in country without voting? your choice.
It will be interesting what the lockdown/covid19 vaccine/vaccine certification/ molnupiravir sceptics make of this: flu vaccine on top of covid19 vaccine. They steadfastly maintain that nothing could ever be useful unless it is ivermectin?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-58836218
Will we need to call them the lockdown/covid19/flu vaccine/vaccine certification/ molnupiravir sceptics? It's getting a bit long?
I didn't choose them neither did the majority of the voting public.
