Then, they were not experts.
And thus you listened to people that didn't know about the consensus at the time. Because experts - US or France - at the time explained clearly that they didn't know, but there was a big chance that it reduced transmittion. And thus that preventive measure were needed.
Yes, they were rare.
Severe, but rare. What Andrea Crisanti did, is defend the vaccine but explained by caution that - even if rare - other vaccine than Astrazeneca should be prioritize with young people if given a choice.
You have to understand that while there is a consensus, it's always evolving with new informations. So yes, there might have been an error of communication, but in this specific case. And with this context it's perfectly understandable as there was a URGENT need to stop the virus from destroying our civilization.
--
What you are doing in reality is not a deep look at the problem that was covid and the communication around the importance of the vaccin, that was far from perfect in many cases. What you do is a systemic attack on scientific principls on the basis that some people said wrong things and because you are lazy to take a deeper look into what the consensus says, or the context behind those discourses.
Yes, people make mistake, even scientists, noone is perfect, but science is STILL the one things that will help you to understand the world correctly in its most fundamental aspect.
So you can swallow back your cherry picking that is mainly based on fear propagated by complotists and science deniers and start listening really to what scientific are saying outside of the barriere of instantaneity.
When I say that my basis is science, I do not only talk about the method, the practice or the consensus, but the knowledge of the CONTEXT behind said practice as well.
Science requieres times and researches. Social progress need urgent actions. Both are needed for us leftists. So we are basis on reasonning on both those principles.
And thus you listened to people that didn't know about the consensus at the time. Because experts - US or France - at the time explained clearly that they didn't know, but there was a big chance that it reduced transmittion. And thus that preventive measure were needed.
Yes, they were rare.
Severe, but rare. What Andrea Crisanti did, is defend the vaccine but explained by caution that - even if rare - other vaccine than Astrazeneca should be prioritize with young people if given a choice.
You have to understand that while there is a consensus, it's always evolving with new informations. So yes, there might have been an error of communication, but in this specific case. And with this context it's perfectly understandable as there was a URGENT need to stop the virus from destroying our civilization.
--
What you are doing in reality is not a deep look at the problem that was covid and the communication around the importance of the vaccin, that was far from perfect in many cases. What you do is a systemic attack on scientific principls on the basis that some people said wrong things and because you are lazy to take a deeper look into what the consensus says, or the context behind those discourses.
Yes, people make mistake, even scientists, noone is perfect, but science is STILL the one things that will help you to understand the world correctly in its most fundamental aspect.
So you can swallow back your cherry picking that is mainly based on fear propagated by complotists and science deniers and start listening really to what scientific are saying outside of the barriere of instantaneity.
When I say that my basis is science, I do not only talk about the method, the practice or the consensus, but the knowledge of the CONTEXT behind said practice as well.
Science requieres times and researches. Social progress need urgent actions. Both are needed for us leftists. So we are basis on reasonning on both those principles.
They spoke in tv, contributed to law making and were considered the scientific consensus.
If you criticised them you were considered an anti vax.
Why are you contesting me on something you don't know?
The scientists in this got driven by money and power to just say what put them in the right spotlight.
And given nobody has the tools to distinguish a priori between a scientist in bad or good faith, a good rule of thumb is to distrust anyone who is profiting from saying what they say.
All the scientists who pushed fake narratives like immunity got retarded with government seats or similar.
If you criticised this or refused to get the vaccine you would lose your job
