I assure you that you are putting more thought into semantics than I am. I am aiming to have a conversation. I am not a poet. I do not load my words with hidden meanings. If I don't know each of the names of the people who lobby against restrictions, I will look for an accessible word to refer to them collectively.
I'm not seeking to prove anything. I was merely pointing out that the practice of ignoring most of the community and blindly trusting the ones who support your narrative is a tendency of conspiracy theorists. It is also a tendency of pop science reporting, though.
That's a whole lot of assumptions there being lobbed from the moral high ground. I am not, in fact, getting my information from "the administration" (and I'm unsure of what in my posts got you to that conclusion). Both they and I are aligned in where we are getting our information from, however, which is the entire field of research on the subject. And yes, that includes John Ionnidis et al. From the beginning, research on this subject has been developing at an insane speed. As is common in this sort of thing (research on a raw and novel topic), early results have had divergent results. Not all scientists agree. Conclusions have varied from one extreme to the other, leaving scientists on either extreme perhaps feeling overlooked or ignored if they are egotistical. What doesn't make sense is to take one extreme as the truth and throw out the entire rest of the field. The revelation that a scientist is not being blindly believed because of his track record is a very, very good thing from the perspective of how science is done. Scientists are merely spokespeople for their work, and do well not to forget that. It is not about people, it's about their work.
Decisions are being made that appear to contradict certain scientists' findings because the field, as a whole, has reached a divergent conclusion. It happens. I have been in symposia where two scientists are going at each other over the structure of water molecules and the air-water interface after each had been studying the same thing for a decade. Being wrong is not an indictment, either. Whatever Ioannidis' findings, his work is valid and valuable to the scientific community, and helps to inform and further the field's knowledge. His results are part of the general conclusion. They just shouldn't be seen as the conclusion itself.
I'm having a tough time following what you're talking about through most of this, but I'm not arguing that actions are beyond reproach, I'm saying that the intent is. The same is not true for Mr. Galati unless he really is just requesting an amendment in the way the process is being followed. His words and actions (and everything I find out about the guy) suggest a lot more than that, though, and a lot more that is socially detrimental and personally rewarding than anything else.
You hope it is sarcasm because it is an exception to your rule? I highlight those specifically because they do not come from a contract. Freedom in any society is restricted in cases where our choices affect others negatively or infringe on the freedoms of others. You did not respond to that. And when you talk about those contracts, where is the contract where we agreed that a licence should be necessary? Why can I only sign up for "the Army" instead of starting my own? Those are collective social decisions.
Another way to look at the topic of freedoms is this: we are truly free to do anything (including murder). We are also free as a society to choose how we deal with the choices of individuals. We choose to lock up criminals and strip them of their freedom, and we choose what the criteria are to make someone a criminal. The only real restriction on our freedom as a society is the constitution, but we as a society chose circumstances where exceptions could be made to those restrictions.
I do agree with you that vaccines likely won't be made mandatory through legislation, at least not in the near future. But that doesn't mean that it wouldn't be morally or ethically correct. You invoke the slippery slope fallacy when talking about bubble wrap. When we find things like vaccines that have a well-understood positive influence on public safety without a downside, it should be a no-brainer. I think there is an interesting parallel with the issue of blood transfusions for children of Jehovah's witnesses that has repeatedly come up in courts. I think the general conclusion right now is that it is lawful to force a child to receive transfusions even against their will if it has life-altering consequences not to. Perhaps one day the same will apply to vaccines.
This is a bit lazy and unsubstantiated. You spend a great deal of time putting words together to try to create the impression that you have done your research and are more informed, but then you throw out statements like this, or "social distancing has been shown to be ineffective," or the popular lines about collateral damage or the intentionally myopic statements about the disease's preference to attack the elderly.
At the end of the day, Canada developed its initial approach based on the warning from Italy. Whatever we say and whatever we choose to deny, the situation in Italy with healthcare overrun, patients being denied treatment and being left to die in tents due to lack of available equipment, doctors unable to protect themselves from contracting the disease, students being put into the field full-time out of need.... all of that indicated the risk of taking only minor precautions. It undermines any statement of "none of this is making a difference." On top of the toll in terms of human life, consider the collateral effects in terms of mental health and trauma experienced by the average Italian during the worst of the outbreak.
The initial reaction was extremely harsh in terms of our freedoms, sure, but since then we have been lifting those restrictions gradually based on improved research and a better, more informed risk assessment. The changing of messages along the way may seem to belie the failing of science, but in fact this is a very good case study in scientific research doing its job. It is a gradual process that constantly improves and refines and sometimes contradicts itself. In the absence of proof, the government is doing its best to apply risk assessment and think about probabilistic conclusions. Where they have forced people to sacrifice, they have looked to compensate through government aid. All in all, there isn't much to complain about objectively.
