What do you feel will be different post-Covid?
- Thread starter Pinga
- Start date
Welcome to Wondercafe2!
A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!
Lastpointe
Well-Known Member
No it is not. But it will become an annual vaccine like the flu shot I expect
i think we will see a lot more flexiblility with work, meetings, zooming, And that may have a benefit of allowing people from different parts of the country to meet more easily and join in on discussions. Universities will Be able to have the options of students from around the world taking classs without moving here.....
i think we will see a lot more flexiblility with work, meetings, zooming, And that may have a benefit of allowing people from different parts of the country to meet more easily and join in on discussions. Universities will Be able to have the options of students from around the world taking classs without moving here.....
ChemGal
One with keen eye
- Pronouns
- She/Her/Her
Classes sure I think there will be more online options with flexibility for interschool options. I don't think there will be a lot of foreign off campus students though beyond what has happened. I hear ot many issues in terms of students being expected to be online at certain times despite time differences concerns about cheating unreliable internet etc etc. It's a ways off of getting that system done well.
Everything has to go .... thus it does ... devil of a metaphor!
BetteTheRed
Resident Heretic
- Pronouns
- She/Her/Her
Yes, although working off site is often quite possible, at least for much of the time, on-line learning is much more of a mixed bag.
There are talents, there are non-talents, there are learning styles. My last years at the College were spent in an environment pushing on-line course development, which may have been prescient, but had VERY uneven results for students.
Ritafee
Is Being Human
As the events of the past year have borne out, the public are more than willing to consider the previously unthinkable.
Forced vaccination. Immunity passports. The erection of a biosecurity state. Death panels.
The eugenics-infused philosophers of bioethics are now on the verge of gaining real power.
Forced vaccination. Immunity passports. The erection of a biosecurity state. Death panels.
The eugenics-infused philosophers of bioethics are now on the verge of gaining real power.
BetteTheRed
Resident Heretic
- Pronouns
- She/Her/Her
Vaccinations in order to cross country borders are not "forced", they've been very normal for a long time. There's lots of countries which provide a list of recommended and required vaccinations; almost all African countries require yellow fever vaccinations.
Mendalla
Happy headbanging ape!!
- Pronouns
- He/Him/His
Some Latin American ones, too, though none that I've been to. Mrs. M had to get something done when she went to Cameroon years ago. I, sadly, have yet to set foot on that continent.
Ritafee
Is Being Human
A statement which encapsulates the medical and legal basis of the biosecurity state:
‘In the context of highly infectious disease, every person is at risk of infection and a potential threat to the life and health of others — a person’s default state is of a nature and degree to warrant immunisation.’
‘In the context of highly infectious disease, every person is at risk of infection and a potential threat to the life and health of others — a person’s default state is of a nature and degree to warrant immunisation.’
Ritafee
Is Being Human
‘Should a Covid-19 vaccine become available at scale, we cannot expect sufficient voluntary uptake. It is necessary for the Government to consider a policy of compulsory vaccination, with appropriate exceptions.’ Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics
The fact the entire medical establishment has unhesitatingly signed up to this medical experiment is evidence of one thing: that all its bodies and their representatives are now following Government directives rather than any recogniseable scientific procedure, and in doing so have reneged on their Hippocratic oath to care for the best interests and medical safety of a population.
Pathologising Dissent
In saying so, I have identified myself as suffering from ‘vaccine hesitancy’, a term that has gained popular acceptance and use with worrying ease and speed. Defined by the World Health Organisation as ‘the reluctance or refusal to vaccinate despite the availability of vaccines’, behind this branding of a choice as a pathology there lies the additional accusation of a conspiracy, which the authors of the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics response are quick to conjure into reality:
‘Vaccine hesitancy in respect of COVID-19 may arise because of the influence of anti-vaccination movements, the uneven demographic distribution of Covid-19 morbidity and mortality risks, or the mistaken belief that COVID-19 immunity has already been acquired.’
All these statements, however, are contestable at best, and at worst deliberately misleading. Reservation about taking a vaccine produced in such an unfeasibility short time by an industry synonymous with corruption and law suits from which only its vast profits allow it to escape prosecution, for a sickness to which 0.? of the population is at risk even after being infected (and only 0.? of those under 70 years of age), does not immediately qualify the person holding these reservations as the member of an ‘anti-vaccination movement’. And since there is no evidence that any of the COVID-19 experimental injections on the market do anything to stop transmission of the coronavirus, questioning why the other 99.?? per cent of the population not at risk from infection should take it is not only entirely rational but a question the authors attempt to brush over with this accusation of ‘vaccine hesitancy’.
Finally, numerous eminent epidemiologists, immunologists, biochemists and disease modellers from across the world have argued precisely that a large percentage of the population already had or has since acquired immunity to SARS-CoV-2, and the authors of this report provide no justification for their casual dismissal of this vastly important point — on which rests the very basis of mass-vaccination, compulsory or otherwise — and the empirical data on which it is based.
Indeed, perhaps the greatest reason for what they dismiss as ‘vaccine hesitancy’ is the presence of such unquestioned suppositions in a document by academics and lawyers advocating compulsory vaccination — that, and the seeming ease with which these Oxford doctors of medical ethics jump to the violence consequent upon their recommendations.
And now consider the growing number of medical reports that equate refusal to comply with coronavirus-justified regulations with mental deficiency and sociopathic behaviour.
‘Would you support or oppose the Government making it legally compulsory for all people to be vaccinated against COVID-19?’
‘And, once a vaccine has been found, would you support or oppose the Government prosecuting and fining people who do not get a vaccination against the coronavirus?’
The fact the entire medical establishment has unhesitatingly signed up to this medical experiment is evidence of one thing: that all its bodies and their representatives are now following Government directives rather than any recogniseable scientific procedure, and in doing so have reneged on their Hippocratic oath to care for the best interests and medical safety of a population.
Pathologising Dissent
In saying so, I have identified myself as suffering from ‘vaccine hesitancy’, a term that has gained popular acceptance and use with worrying ease and speed. Defined by the World Health Organisation as ‘the reluctance or refusal to vaccinate despite the availability of vaccines’, behind this branding of a choice as a pathology there lies the additional accusation of a conspiracy, which the authors of the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics response are quick to conjure into reality:
‘Vaccine hesitancy in respect of COVID-19 may arise because of the influence of anti-vaccination movements, the uneven demographic distribution of Covid-19 morbidity and mortality risks, or the mistaken belief that COVID-19 immunity has already been acquired.’
All these statements, however, are contestable at best, and at worst deliberately misleading. Reservation about taking a vaccine produced in such an unfeasibility short time by an industry synonymous with corruption and law suits from which only its vast profits allow it to escape prosecution, for a sickness to which 0.? of the population is at risk even after being infected (and only 0.? of those under 70 years of age), does not immediately qualify the person holding these reservations as the member of an ‘anti-vaccination movement’. And since there is no evidence that any of the COVID-19 experimental injections on the market do anything to stop transmission of the coronavirus, questioning why the other 99.?? per cent of the population not at risk from infection should take it is not only entirely rational but a question the authors attempt to brush over with this accusation of ‘vaccine hesitancy’.
Finally, numerous eminent epidemiologists, immunologists, biochemists and disease modellers from across the world have argued precisely that a large percentage of the population already had or has since acquired immunity to SARS-CoV-2, and the authors of this report provide no justification for their casual dismissal of this vastly important point — on which rests the very basis of mass-vaccination, compulsory or otherwise — and the empirical data on which it is based.
Indeed, perhaps the greatest reason for what they dismiss as ‘vaccine hesitancy’ is the presence of such unquestioned suppositions in a document by academics and lawyers advocating compulsory vaccination — that, and the seeming ease with which these Oxford doctors of medical ethics jump to the violence consequent upon their recommendations.
And now consider the growing number of medical reports that equate refusal to comply with coronavirus-justified regulations with mental deficiency and sociopathic behaviour.
‘Would you support or oppose the Government making it legally compulsory for all people to be vaccinated against COVID-19?’
‘And, once a vaccine has been found, would you support or oppose the Government prosecuting and fining people who do not get a vaccination against the coronavirus?’
Wow. And so many consider them incompetent. Who knew?