[ad_1]
Um … I went back to the answer to the previous article I posted with the link to Dr Roger Hodkinson’s point of view, and saw that there were 14 responses. Haven’t read them yet because it’s late and probably an argument etc.
It makes a clear distinction between the vulnerable and those who are not. I think we can all agree on that at least. After that there are a lot of questions, a lot of uncertainty, as far as the rest of the population is concerned, as to the effectiveness of the tests and the statistics, as to the sequelae and the strain. This does not even include arguments about the effectiveness or potential of various measures.
We have to argue, we deserve clearer answers and clear accountability and explanation for the methods and policies adopted by various governments.
Just to reiterate that I really don’t have a fixed answer one way or the other. There won’t be a single answer either, but I think we should expect any data to stay within a larger level of reasoning, and unfortunately I can’t find that in the mainstream presentation, which seems to be. became an equally categorical negative reaction. That common ground is not discussed, I find worrying and suspect – it is the “duty” of the media and the government to validate their relative approaches.
Drama, real-world drama, is not an automatic validation of how it is presented, or any measure chosen as a response.
[ad_2]
Source link