Ethical conundrum - So if you were in charge of a country, faced with a rapidly spreading global pandemic that has already been shown to kill or seriously affect very large numbers of people, what would you have done? Watch the death toll rise and say - 'do no harm'?
The clock was ticking and all leaders, medical professionals and regulators were under huge pressure to do something.
It might not have been the perfect solution but it did save lives, it did prevent serious illness and it did allow lifting of restrictions (and therefore recovery of economies) far sooner than if everyone had just done nothing.
Those that seek to blame the 'big 3' seem to ignore the reality of what was happening at the time and how quickly the virus was spreading.
The prophylactic injections (since you don't like the term vaccination) didn't stop me getting Covid but instead of spending weeks in hospital (as many of similarly aged countrymen did) or dying, I had a mild flu-like episode for 3 days. It's been the same with everyone I know.
For those that have had side effects, I am sorry but side effects go with any drug and are always a risk. Are you saying you wouldn't take any medicine that hasn't had a 100% clean bill of health record with zero side effects?
Last edited by Chock Puller; 25th Jan 2023 at 13:14.
Reason: Argumentative comment that does not add to the discussion.