Um….I went back to the reply to the previous article I posted with the link to the view of Dr. Roger Hodkinson, and saw there were 14 replies to it. I didn’t read them yet because it’s late and probably some argument etc. 😐
He draws a clear distinction between those vulnerable and those not. I think we can all agree on this at least. After that there are a lot of questions, a lot of uncertainty, as pertains to the rest of the population , as pertains to testing efficacy and statistics, as pertains to sequela and strain. That is not even including arguments over how effective various measures are or might be.
It does need arguing, we deserve clearer answers and clear accountability and explanation for the methods and policies that are being enacted by various governments.
Just to repeat that I really don’t have a set answer one way or the other. There won’t be a single answer either, but I think we should expect any given to remain within a broader level of reasoning, and unfortunately I am not finding this from mainstream presentation, which seems to have turned into an extreme, met by an equally adamant counter-reaction. That the middle ground is not discussed I find disturbing, and suspicious – it is the “duty” of media and of government to validate their relative approaches.
Drama, real world drama, is not automatic validation of the way it is presented, or to whatever measures are chosen as reply.