Originally Posted by
Lead Balloon
I'm not trying to make a point about Covid vaccines.
I've been trying to make a point about why healthy scepticism is justified - the clue is in the word 'healthy' and why it is counter-productive to accuse any sceptic of being a conspiracy theorist or anti-vaxxer or both. And for some reason people seem to pick the bits out of my posts that suit their argument and ignore the other bits.
Let's take a simple and factual example. The NSW CHO takes a different view to the QLD CHO as to the age group which may appropriately be given the AZ vaccine. Why is that?
I'm not suggesting a 'conspiracy' or 'corruption' or that one of the CHOs is a lizard person from the planet Coosebane. If they are both looking at the same data, how do they come to a different view? If they are looking at different data, why are they looking at different data?
If the explanation is that they just come to different views based on the same data but make different judgments about the risks and rewards implicit in the data, then - please - don't come here anonymously and make absolute statements about what everyone should believe and accuse anyone who's sceptical about that of being a conspiracy theorist or an anti-vaxxer.
Any data set is open to different interpretations.
One of the big mistakes of this whole period has been too many voices.
It has lead to an understandable confusion about what is the real message. Because there hasn’t been one.
ATAGI should have provided advise to the government on the AZ vaccine behind closed doors and the Government should have made the political , I stress political ,decision about what to do with it. But they didn’t. Really really dumb.
But that doesn’t mean the science is wrong.
Just very badly presented and managed.