The facebook posts typically reference one of several organised groups of hundreds of working doctors, some of whom claim to have directly observed high levels of concerningly-serious adverse reaction, even among small sample groups (eg, small town doctors who vaccinated many in the town).
If a doctor is recommending you don't take it based on their experience and expertise, it carries a bit more weight than "something you read on facebook". And if you can't trust doctors now, who may even be your own doctor, why would you trust anyone else, or "some other doctor"?
This is not something that can be resolved by bullying or mandates. It can only be resolved by open dialogue and debate between the two sides, which thus far, has been prevented.
Censorship and stifling of debate only hardens the opinions of either side.
It also makes no sense - many areas have massive resistance, no matter what has been thrown at them - proving the fear of "if we let them talk freely they'll influence others and go off and do whatever they want!" isn't founded. Basic human psychology, along with experience, shows the reverse has proven true.
If you stop people who are suspicious of something from being able to talk about what they're suspicious of, they get even more suspicious of it.
Certainly, there is no other time in history widespread censorship has resulted in anything other than widespread division, suspicion and ultimately, violence.
If employers mandate based on this approval, it will likely just result in mass walk-outs.
> This is not something that can be resolved by bullying or mandates. It can only be resolved by open dialogue and debate between the two sides, which thus far, has been prevented.
Your second claim is massively untrue: all of the information is public and actual medical doctors overwhelmingly support vaccination and bend over backwards trying to help patients understand it (note that most of the high profile objectors either aren't real MDs and/or are speaking far outside of their area of expertise). The problem is that many people are defining “open dialogue” as meaning that untrue statements they make need to be taken as seriously as the consensus of the scientific community.
The first is rather debatable: mandates have been highly effective everywhere they've been tried because they shift the cost calculation to “do I feel strongly enough about this that I'm willing to give up something I like?”.
Presently, no one can post certain peer-reviewed science from well-known and respected medical journals on any social media account, or speak of them on YT, because of widespread censorship of certain topics.
It's not possible to have anything remotely resembling a "debate" in such a climate.
Mandates have not been effective. Nothing that's been done can be said to have been "effective". We are apparently in an even worse place now, even with vaccines, than we were last year.
In reality though, we aren't.
The pathology of the virus is well-understood, as are the mechanisms to defeat it. But we're not allowed to talk about it.
It'd all be over in weeks if we were - as we saw in India recently, in all provinces but the one that stuck with the dogma.
If a doctor is recommending you don't take it based on their experience and expertise, it carries a bit more weight than "something you read on facebook". And if you can't trust doctors now, who may even be your own doctor, why would you trust anyone else, or "some other doctor"?
This is not something that can be resolved by bullying or mandates. It can only be resolved by open dialogue and debate between the two sides, which thus far, has been prevented.
Censorship and stifling of debate only hardens the opinions of either side.
It also makes no sense - many areas have massive resistance, no matter what has been thrown at them - proving the fear of "if we let them talk freely they'll influence others and go off and do whatever they want!" isn't founded. Basic human psychology, along with experience, shows the reverse has proven true.
If you stop people who are suspicious of something from being able to talk about what they're suspicious of, they get even more suspicious of it.
Certainly, there is no other time in history widespread censorship has resulted in anything other than widespread division, suspicion and ultimately, violence.
If employers mandate based on this approval, it will likely just result in mass walk-outs.
Minds are not won by force.