Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman
An extremely flawed interpretation. I’m unsurprised.
If there’s nothing positive to offer it could simply be a case of having exhausted every viable or credible option. The inherent contradiction of trying to stop variants abroad, while allowing unmitigated spread at home. Indeed, as we’ve got “immunity” the evolutionary pressure means it’s far more likely to appear in a vaccinated or population with (sometimes multiple) previous infections.
You don’t confer rights to anyone to criticise anything.
The only practical purpose of testing is to delay (in the order of hours and days rather than weeks or months). What would we do with that time? What mitigations to slow such spread once it inevitably enters our population would have political or popular support?
|
I suspect the essence of what he was saying was that you’ve lost the right to be taken seriously, and it’s easy to see why based on the above.
You’ve been peddling the same cocktail of cynical pessimism since day one of the pandemic and to be honest for me at least it has just become background noise. A sustained discussion ought to move forward in order to maintain interest but you’re still re-hashing the same complaints, namely ‘policy is flawed, vaccines don’t work, there’s no immunity’
If you’d ever taken the trouble to explore nuance with regard to this subject there might be some basis to debate how well or how poorly the various medical and political responses to the pandemic have performed. But you’re still banging on the same way, despite the fact that blind Freddie can see this population isn’t susceptible to covid in anything like the way it was 2 years ago. There is still an important debate to be had about what worked well and what could have been done better but I’m struggling to see what contribution you have to make to that.
In that sense I think you have ‘lost the right to criticise’.