|
|
|
|
|
|
by Tagbert
1736 days ago
|
|
|
I think IMTDb’s point is that it is not the facts that are changing as different people argue for or against booster shots. They are arguing over whether they are “necessary” or “better used to fight variants” which are value judgements. this is a disagreement of which strategy to take, not about the facts. |
|
|
1. People (especially experts) are legitimately debating the facts, i.e. what the effect of a booster shot is (not "arguing", this is just the normal scientific process)
2. People also have to make a value judgement about whether we shouldn't now first vaccinate third-world countries instead of getting booster shots, based on our current understanding of 1 (although this isn't purely for ethical reasons, the world doesn't really want the virus to spread and mutate in other regions either)
And for both of these orthogonal issues, most people don't fall into any of the two extreme camps described in GP's post.