Believing in experts

[HarleyDog]

(07-03-2023, 09:59 PM)Dill Wrote:
I wasn't going to argue "they had a choice," I was going to argue that three million saved outweighs three deaths.

Why am I wrong to think that three dead is a better outcome than THREE MILLION dead? How does one argue the opposite "evenly"?

Also, murder requires an INTENT to kill, doesn't it? Do think those administering vaccines wanted to kill people? 
Wouldn't it be better to just withhold the vaccine, then MORE would die?


Do you think British, French, German and Japanese researchers were biasing their H research because "Trump believed in it"?
They weren't interested in saving lives? No one reviewing their research would notice? 

Actually, your link shows it did get a chance.  As does my link to the Lancet below.

As epidemiologists tote up the consequences of multiple studies, we see that it failed.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanam/article/PIIS2667-193X(22)00085-0/fulltext

The growing consensus seems to be that the failure is a lesson in rushing to treatments based on anecdotal evidence.

H is one of those "mistakes of science" now, as in your links above,
but it occurred precisely because people were not following scientific protocols for development of effective treatment. 

It should not be used to knock science, but to make sure science, not politics and panic, are at the front of pandemic response.

Final question: An effect cannot precede a cause. So how can a current variant "cause" a previous one?

3 million vs 3 are not factual numbers. Throw in the correct amount of deaths it caused.

The idea of withholding the vaccine so more would die is silly. But not as silly as forcing someone and killing them.

I’m ok with science being at the front of the pandemic. But only with freedom of choice without threats, politics or panic. More people died because of politics than anyone is willing to admit.

As for the last question, I didn’t say that. I referred to each variant was a product of the one before it.