Nothing is truly absolute but that last say should be maintained as close to absolute as possible. The WHO has no basis to revoke that for COVID-19 let alone for all viruses which is what this statement does.

To revoke that they would have to make more than a compelling case and there isn't one for this virus.

To understand how strong the argument has to be, if an elderly person would rather have the virus and it has a discernibly high mortality rate for them, perhaps even 100% if they don't want to be treated then the argument that they would survive with the vaccine or have the best chances is moot.

Complications arise with the impact on other people but that's not a blank cheque either. You have to go into specifics. By standard the individual is sacrosanct. However the many are also individuals and the two can clash so sometimes the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few when it comes to cases such as making everyone have to go out of their way to protect a small proportion of the population that instead should protect themselves.

Communist infiltration of health services and Hollywood has created a lot of distortions that breaks this convenance. To give an example in TNG the chief engineer wears a visor because he is blind otherwise. In STD the captain has something wrong with his eyes making him photosensitive. Rather than wearing something everyone else has to sit in the dark.

This is nonsensical. There are real cases you could come up with there the environmental needs of aliens are mutually exclusive but in this case everyone else is made to suffer because of one person that doesn't want to wear sunglasses or something.

We see this with trannies. Everyone else is told they have to sacrifice to go along with the delusions of a few people. This is itself a radical interpretation of the communist mantra from those according to their capability to those according to need.

If the WHO were trustworthy and actually had a good reason they wouldn't have to use forceful methods like this which tells you immediately that they lack a justification. We see no explanation of this new protocol in this situation. Merely the elimination of choice. If they had a good reason force wouldn't be required as most people would go along with it.

I think when people thought the virus is over 10% deadly rather than around the same as flu when properly treated then they might more openly consider that the harm of reducing choice in this fashion for specific intents and purposes a lesser evil but we've know now for over a year now that it's a specific category of the population impacted and that with proper treatment the mortality rate can be brought down to about the same as flu.

The elimination of choice is incredibly destructive. I had no problem a year ago going in and getting the virus then staying in isolation. Could be at home or a camp. I would also have no problem in receiving this form of the vaccine in helping to improve research on how it spreads because it has to be transmitted to me anyway. Removing patient choice and implementation of a medical dictatorship that's pathologically risk averse to the point of enhancing risks through not taking the smaller risks needed to understand and tackle the bigger risks they have made the crisis ten times worse than it need be.

Nothing is truly absolute but that last say should be maintained as close to absolute as possible. The WHO has no basis to revoke that for COVID-19 let alone for all viruses which is what this statement does.

To revoke that they would have to make more than a compelling case and there isn't one for this virus.

To understand how strong the argument has to be, if an elderly person would rather have the virus and it has a discernibly high mortality rate for them, perhaps even 100% if they don't want to be treated then the argument that they would survive with the vaccine or have the best chances is moot.

Complications arise with the impact on other people but that's not a blank cheque either. You have to go into specifics. By standard the individual is sacrosanct. However the many are also individuals and the two can clash so sometimes the needs of the many out way the needs of the few when it comes to cases such as making everyone have to go out of their way to protect a small proportion of the population that instead should protect themselves.

Communist infiltration of health services and Hollywood has created a lot of distortions that breaks this convenance. To give an example in TNG the chief engineer wears a visor because he is blind otherwise. In STD the captain has something wrong with his eyes making him photosensitive. Rather than wearing something everyone else has to sit in the dark.

This is nonsensical. There are real cases you could come up with there the environmental needs of aliens are mutually exclusive but in this case everyone else is made to suffer because of one person that doesn't want to wear sunglasses or something.

We see this with trannies. Everyone else is told they have to sacrifice to go along with the delusions of a few people. This is itself a radical interpretation of the communist mantra from those according to their capability to those according to need.

If the WHO were trustworthy and actually had a good reason they wouldn't have to use forceful methods like this which tells you immediately that they lack a justification. We see no explanation of this new protocol in this situation. Merely the elimination of choice. If they had a good reason force wouldn't be required as most people would go along with it.

I think when people thought the virus is over 10% deadly rather than around the same as flu when properly treated then they might more openly consider that the harm of reducing choice in this fashion for specific intents and purposes a lesser evil but we've know now for over a year now that it's a specific category of the population impacted and that with proper treatment the mortality rate can be brought down to about the same as flu.

The elimination of choice is incredibly destructive. I had no problem a year ago going in and getting the virus then staying in isolation. Could be at home or a camp. I would also have no problem in receiving this form of the vaccine in helping to improve research on how it spreads because it has to be transmitted to me anyway. Removing patient choice and implementation of a medical dictatorship that's pathologically risk averse to the point of enhancing risks through not taking the smaller risks needed to understand and tackle the bigger risks they have made the crisis ten times worse than it need be.

Nothing is truly absolute but that last say should be maintained as close to absolute as possible. The WHO has no basis to revoke that for COVID-19 let alone for all viruses which is what this statement does.

To revoke that they would have to make more than a compelling case and there isn't one for this virus.

To understand how strong the argument has to be, if an elderly person would rather have the virus and it has a discernibly high mortality rate for them, perhaps even 100% if they don't want to be treated then the argument that they would survive with the vaccine or have the best chances is moot.

Complications arise with the impact on other people but that's not a blank cheque either. You have to go into specifics. By standard the individual is sacrosanct. However the many are also individuals and the two can clash so sometimes the needs of the many out way the needs of the few when it comes to cases such as making everyone have to go out of their way to protect a small proportion of the population that instead should protect themselves.

Communist infiltration of health services and Hollywood has created a lot of distortions that breaks this convenance. To give an example in TNG the chief engineer wears a visor because he is blind otherwise. In STD the captain has something wrong with his eyes making him photosensitive. Rather than wearing something everyone else has to sit in the dark.

This is nonsensical. There are real cases you could come up with there the environmental needs of aliens are mutually exclusive but in this case everyone else is made to suffer because of one person that doesn't want to wear sunglasses or something.

We see this with trannies. Everyone else is told they have to sacrifice to go along with the delusions of a few people. This is itself a radical interpretation of the communist mantra from those according to their capability to those according to need.

If the WHO were trustworthy and actually had a good reason they wouldn't have to use forceful methods like this which tells you immediately that they lack a justification. We see no explanation of this new protocol in this situation. Merely the elimination of choice. If they had a good reason force wouldn't be required as most people would go along with it.

I think when people thought the virus is over 10% deadly rather than around the same as flu when properly treated then they might more openly consider that the harm of reducing choice in this fashion for specific intents and purposes a lesser evil but we've know now for over a year now that it's a specific category of the population impacted and that with proper treatment the mortality rate can be brought down to about the same as flu.

Nothing is truly absolute but that last say should be maintained as close to absolute as possible. The WHO has no basis to revoke that for COVID-19 let alone for all viruses which is what this statement does.

To revoke that they would have to make more than a compelling case and there isn't one for this virus.

To understand how strong the argument has to be, if an elderly person would rather have the virus and it has a discernibly high mortality rate for them, perhaps even 100% if they don't want to be treated then the argument that they would survive with the vaccine or have the best chances is moot.

Complications arise with the impact on other people but that's not a blank cheque either. You have to go into specifics. By standard the individual is sacrosanct. However the many are also individuals and the two can clash so sometimes the needs of the many out way the needs of the few when it comes to cases such as making everyone have to go out of their way to protect a small proportion of the population that instead should protect themselves.

Communist infiltration of health services and Hollywood has created a lot of distortions that breaks this convenance. To give an example in TNG the chief engineer wears a visor because he is blind otherwise. In STD the captain has something wrong with his eyes making him photosensitive. Rather than wearing something everyone else has to sit in the dark.

This is nonsensical. There are real cases you could come up with there the environmental needs of aliens are mutually exclusive but in this case everyone else is made to suffer because of one person that doesn't want to wear sunglasses or something.

We see this with trannies. Everyone else is told they have to sacrifice to go along with the delusions of a few people. This is itself a radical interpretation of the communist mantra from those according to their capability to those according to need.

If the WHO were trustworthy and actually had a good reason they wouldn't have to use forceful methods like this which tells you immediately that they lack a justification. We see no explanation of this new protocol in this situation. Merely the elimination of choice. If they had a good reason force wouldn't be required as most people would go along with it.

I think when people thought the virus is over 10% deadly rather than around the same as flu when properly treated then they might more openly consider that the harm of reducing choice in this fashion for specific intents and purposes a lesser evil but we've know now for over a year now that it's a specific category of the population impacted and that with proper treatment the mortality rate can be brought down to about the same as flu.

Nothing is truly absolute but that last say should be maintained as close to absolute as possible. The WHO has no basis to revoke that for COVID-19 let alone for all viruses which is what this statement does.

To revoke that they would have to make more than a compelling case and there isn't one for this virus.

To understand how strong the argument has to be, if an elderly person would rather have the virus and it has a discernibly high mortality rate for them, perhaps even 100% if they don't want to be treated then the argument that they would survive with the vaccine or have the best chances is moot.

Complications arise with the impact on other people but that's not a blank cheque either. You have to go into specifics. By standard the individual is sacrosanct. However the many are also individuals and the two can clash so sometimes the needs of the many out way the needs of the few when it comes to cases such as making everyone have to go out of their way to protect a small proportion of the population that instead should protect themselves.

Communist infiltration of health services and Hollywood has created a lot of distortions that breaks this convenance. To give an example in TNG the chief engineer wears a visor because he is blind otherwise. In STD the captain has something wrong with his eyes making him photosensitive. Rather than wearing something everyone else has to sit in the dark.

This is nonsensical. There are real cases you could come up with there the environmental needs of aliens are mutually exclusive but in this case everyone else is made to suffer because of one person that doesn't want to wear sunglasses or something.

We see this with trannies. Everyone else is told they have to sacrifice to go along with the delusions of a few people. This is itself a radical interpretation of the communist mantra from those according to their capability to those according to need.

If the WHO were trustworthy and actually had a good reason they wouldn't have to use forceful methods like this which tells you immediately that they lack a justification. We see no explanation of this new protocol in this situation. Merely the elimination of choice.

I think when people thought the virus is over 10% deadly rather than around the same as flu when properly treated then they might more openly consider that the harm of reducing choice in this fashion for specific intents and purposes a lesser evil but we've know now for over a year now that it's a specific category of the population impacted and that with proper treatment the mortality rate can be brought down to about the same as flu.