I agree that anything so out of the realm of the norm is not helpful. The same is true of denying viruses. Even if it were the case that viruses don't exist or that viruses are less harmful or whatever and however one's theory goes, the premise sounds loony enough that this should not be anyone's starting point.
I agree that anything so out of the realm of the norm is not helpful. The same is true of denying viruses. Even if it were the case that viruses don't exist or that viruses are less harmful or whatever and however one's theory goes, the premise sounds loony enough that this should not be anyone's starting point.
I think a good starting point with covid-19 is the premise of how people can be excluded from society anytime in the future merely on the basis of whether they wish to take any particular vaccine. The only reason there are no exclusion policies for the bivalent booster currently is because too few people were willing to take it. However, should one's rights to access society be determined merely by how many people agree with a specific government policy?
I agree that anything so out of the realm of the norm is not helpful. The same is true of denying viruses. Even if it were the case that viruses don't exist or that viruses are less harmful or whatever and however one's theory goes, the premise sounds loony enough that this should not be anyone's starting point.
I think a good starting point with covid-19 is the premise of how people can be excluded from society anytime in the future merely on the basis of whether they wish to take any particular vaccine. The only reason there are no exclusion policies for the bivalent booster currently is because too few people were willing to take it. However, should one's rights to access society be determined merely by how many people agree with a specific government policy?