|
They're selling a product that works.
This isn't a statement of fact. It's an opinion. Do you really believe that two jabs is not enough to fight Omicron but two jabs plus a booster is?
How much they should be making off it is another question, and quite orthogonal to whether or not your or I or anyone should accept the product.
Another opinion, and once even more clear. How much money a company makes from vaccines most certainly does factor into my decision. Let's just say for argument's sake it's a million pounds. Clearly this is economically unsustainable and would have much more severe impacts than simply not having the jab. So how much is too much?
btw they should be making nothing from it. Zero profit. They can make money in lots of other ways, and indeed do so. This is not a critical aspect of their business model. But again, that's an opinion, not a fact.
btw, just to put this in perspective, they've spent an order of magnitude less on the vax rollout for a product that works than they did on the test and trace system that doesn't work.
Points out massive corruption, proceeds to argue in favour of government and pharmaceutical companies.
My trust isn't "blind," it's based on the fact that scientists are saying it's a good idea, scientists who dedicate their lives to knowing this stuff. If scientists were saying "well, this vaccine looks pretty dodgy, don't get it", I wouldn't.
This "trust the science" thing is very misguided. Science is often wrong. Science is not about fact. It's about understanding as best we can, which requires hypothesis, experiment, all these kind of things. And science is very often wrong, especially when conclusions are drawn prematurely. The science could be saying something completely different tomorrow.
I trust the moral integrity of the vast majority of scientists and doctors. That's not the same as trusting the vaccine.
You want the freedom to fail to do your part in a public health measure. That's like wanting the freedom to drive over the speed limit because you don't trust the gov't to set the correct limit.
Nonsense. I want the freedom to decide what goes into my body. That's not the same as the freedom to go as fast as I can.
Let's say there's a serious population decrease and the government legalises rape as a means to increase the population. You're ok with this, right? It's for the greater good, in fact it's a moral duty to be fucked, right?
I accept that the purpose of this specific policy is for the greater public good.
You just answered that for me.
That doesn't mean I accept any or all of their protester-jailing, refugee-drowning, MP-slash-lobbyers, or other, fucked up policies.
But you still trust them to make decisions based on the "greater good" when we both know they only make decisions that benefit themselves.
|