The Archregimancy wrote:Oh Vassenor....
When you start to post developed, coherent arguments rather than one-sentence rhetorical questions, decontextualised re-hashes of something you read on Twitter, or misrepresentations of what other people are saying, I can assure you that we'll pay attention.
In the meantime, you can continue to expect that your posts will be treated by all ranges of political opinion with the respect and sincerity that they so richly deserve.
I think we've crossed the line from commentary to outright attack here.
Especially with the context that attack posts against me are somehow OK.
The Archregimancy wrote:Dakini wrote:When you say things like "the science at the time did suggest..." this suggests that the science at present no longer considers it so, which would suggest that a change of tactics would be a good idea. Do you have any sources that suggest it is still currently considered a good idea by experts?
If I can offer an external thought from someone not involved in this argument, it strikes me that we potentially have a misunderstanding here.
It doesn't look to me as if Dakini is questioning the science.
Instead what seems to have happened is The Nihilistic view wrote an entirely justified anti-Vassenor post that simply reinforced that the vaccination strategy was legitimate given the available scientific knowledge at the time.
Dakini wasn't questioning this, but simply thought that "the science at the time did suggest" might imply that our understanding has changed. The question 'Do you have any sources that suggest it is still currently considered a good idea by experts?' struck me as an innocent request for more information over whether the state of medical knowledge has since changed or not. It didn't seem to me to be intended to challenge either the state of scientific knowledge or The Nihilistic view's initial post.
So Dakini slightly misunderstood what The Nihilistic view was trying to emphasise, yes; but I think Dakini's post was misread in turn.
A simple 'no, there's been no change in the available evidence' might have been enough. I think you might all have become a little overheated for nothing on this one.
On a related note, the UK is not the only country in Europe using a 12-week gap between vaccinations. Finland, that notorious centre of right-wing populist anti-science politics, is also using a 12-week gap.Finland defends 12-week interval
Earlier this year Finland extended the gap between vaccine doses to three months. The country is now administering around 80,000 second jabs weekly, according to Kontio.
"The pace will slow down for a few weeks, although incoming vaccine volumes are growing. Deliveries will speed up even more in early June, which is when things will even out again and the pace of first shots will accelerate," she explained.
Kontio told Yle she believed Finland’s vaccination strategy of implementing 12-week intervals between first and second doses had been a good idea.
"At this moment studies show that over three months antibodies don’t decrease to a level that would significantly weaken protection. From the perspective of long-term cover, this bigger gap could even be better," she explained, defending Finland's strategy.
Kontio also speculated that other European countries may introduce longer intervals between shots to maximise the number of people getting their first inoculation.
https://yle.fi/uutiset/osasto/news/finl ... n/11916223
We can no doubt now look forward to Vassenor attacking a country with one of the most efficient public health systems in Europe for its right-wing incompetence.
