Open question: when to consider that the COVID-19 pandemic is over and no longer requires special measures?

[Janic]

Rajqawee »20/01/22, 13:16

Kierzek at the end of the video: "what if we hadn't been wrong?"

good intervention and it is not a no vaxx for all that!

This is a question I asked ABC, pedro, izy, and others: you who generally defend the policy, and if you were simply wrong?

It's useless for several reasons:
a) they are hypochondriacs, it is a mental pathology, so no hope of changing their minds
b) they are the influencers whose increase Buzyn had announced on social networks. Convinced of being right or "subsidized" for that, therefore hopeless either and therefore above all political.
c) they are set up in these social networks by BP and therefore remunerated to counterbalance the no vaxx discourse. to avoid losing customers and therefore financial.
d) a mixture or an accumulation of the preceding ones.

[Obamot]

What a stupid bitch this journalist is, she constantly cuts him off when what he says doesn't suit her, deep into the anxiety-provoking narrative, really, he says it doesn't make sense to do mass tests, she brings it up again 4 times, he explains to the second that the hospital should be reinforced and she breaks her reasoning 2 times by talking about the aspect “terrible deprogramming of operations”.

[Janic]

Obamot »21/01/22, 06:04

obamot

What a stupid bitch this journalist is, she constantly cuts him off when what he says doesn't suit her, deep into the anxiety-provoking narrative, really, he says it doesn't make sense to do mass tests, she brings it up again 4 times, he explains to the second that the hospital should be reinforced and she breaks her reasoning 2 times by talking about the “terrible aspect of the deprogramming of operations”.

it is above all a victim of the incessant conditioning of the authorities and the media to orders with a single and unique anxiety-provoking discourse. So the average Beijinger is afraid like during a tsunami or a fire and therefore his reason no longer works normally like for the funny people here.

[Obamot]

Yes indeed when you have no information it is understandable, but this doctor is a "knowledgeable" he is not there to give "an opinion", she acts as if she was attacking a political program (the liberticidal drift question is tangent, she can't say that she doesn't know the risk since she asks the question! editorial line of the chain decided it (it is enough to see Pujadas on LCI which changed angle to be convinced of it...

For 2 years, there have been enough scientific experts who have expressed themselves... Where I agree with you is that what sheep are lacking above all: it is discernment...

[Rajqawee]

Yes indeed when you have no information it is understandable, but this doctor is a "knowledgeable" he is not there to give "an opinion", she acts as if she was attacking a political program (the liberticidal drift question is tangent, she can't say that she doesn't know the risk since she asks the question! editorial line of the chain decided it (it is enough to see Pujadas on LCI which changed angle to be convinced of it...

For 2 years, there have been enough scientific experts who have expressed themselves... Where I agree with you is that what sheep are lacking above all: it is discernment...

It's a major recent development in our society, I think: the questioning of what experts say. People are now used to being able to challenge any opinion and have their own on everything. We can no longer say I don't know. And, moreover, we are more accustomed to having clear-cut opinions (like a Jancovici or a Raoult who express their position bluntly).

Well, that's exactly it: a guy who says clearly - with competence, knowledge and legitimacy to back it up - why the government's strategy actually makes no sense, but a journalist doesn't tell herself that she doesn't have none of the qualities required to challenge your interlocutor...

[Obamot]

Indeed. And it makes an unforgivable journalistic fault, since the journalist must in reality let the listener construct his opinion. For that, journalistic ethics would like it to give a contradictory voice by calling on another interlocutor to oppose scientific arguments in a balanced debate. But Kierzek is very very good, he responded tit for tat.

And this may well mean that the experts themselves, who have fun following political positions, are in very bad faith or very incompetent, because the information is available and the fraud glaring. Dr. Blachier, who went straight to port, and returning to starboard (with the annual “vaxchination”, and this while he said “that he wouldn't bully his kids”! And if covid has served as an indicator, lies in the press are endemic (at a gigantic percentage, and for decades...) and the awakening via big-data is difficult, because it sets a new requirement for "accuracy ” previously unknown. (and in this case, held by the Anglo-Saxons, big-data still only says what we want it to say, alas it can lie too...)

When we hear some of the Comedy-Club contradict with simple "copy/pasted" and then accuse us of "plagiarism", when none are regularly able to support the debate, it's hilarious...

[Rajqawee]

At the limit, she could challenge him by saying "but you are against the grain of many of your colleagues", if that were the case. It's within his area of ​​expertise.
Well obviously the problem is that there are not too many doctors left to defend:
-non-targeted vaccination
-the password (regardless of the version)
- the management of the public hospital

Of course, it complicates

[Obamot]

To defend what and on what relevant basis?

Because there, it is the base which is likely to be missing (the “relevance” of the pharmas having sunk to peak…)

[Rajqawee]

To defend what and on what relevant basis?

Because there, it is the base which is likely to be missing (the “relevance” of the pharmas having sunk to peak…)

The only thing that remains to be defended, on a relevant basis, is: who are the people with the broadly positive benefit/risk (to offer them the vaccination).
Then: how do we rebuild our public hospital, firstly, to be able to manage its missions correctly, including with seasonal effects (covid or not...), but also to make it more resilient in the event of an unforeseen overload (we do what when sars-cov-3 arrives?)

[Obamot]

Here is the spectacular demonstration of Canadian truckers against medical discrimination!