I’ve always been bothered by the way "Safe and effective" continues to be used in reference to these shots. Not just because it is propaganda, but because safe and effective are two entirely different things. Some may consider these shots ineffective, yet safe, and vice versa. Yet, the terms always appear together, as if if one is true, …
I’ve always been bothered by the way "Safe and effective" continues to be used in reference to these shots. Not just because it is propaganda, but because safe and effective are two entirely different things. Some may consider these shots ineffective, yet safe, and vice versa. Yet, the terms always appear together, as if if one is true, so must be the other.
An “ill person” poses a “public health risk.” But an asymptomatic individual is ill, yet poses no risk in this context. We’ve seen “ill” people quarantined for no good reason throughout the pandemic. It’d be nice to have some clarity on who might be considered ill enough to pose a public health risk.
In the Annex 2 decision tree, I’m concerned about notification regarding “Any event of potential international public health concern . . .” This seems pretty broad to me. Some have suggested that shootings are an international health concern. Could this language be used to circumvent our second amendment rights?
I’ve always been bothered by the way "Safe and effective" continues to be used in reference to these shots. Not just because it is propaganda, but because safe and effective are two entirely different things. Some may consider these shots ineffective, yet safe, and vice versa. Yet, the terms always appear together, as if if one is true, so must be the other.
An “ill person” poses a “public health risk.” But an asymptomatic individual is ill, yet poses no risk in this context. We’ve seen “ill” people quarantined for no good reason throughout the pandemic. It’d be nice to have some clarity on who might be considered ill enough to pose a public health risk.
In the Annex 2 decision tree, I’m concerned about notification regarding “Any event of potential international public health concern . . .” This seems pretty broad to me. Some have suggested that shootings are an international health concern. Could this language be used to circumvent our second amendment rights?
You had me at "In the Annex 2 decision tree"... swoon!!