48:19 Tegnell hade alltså aldrig hört talas om försiktighetsprincipen, slog upp begreppet i flera olika källor, och lyckas ändå totalt missförstå principen. Att denna mannen basade för smittskyddsstrategin under hela pandemin förklarar varför Sverige hamnade där vi hamnade.
Det är synd om människan sa August Strindberg för drygt hundra år sedan, tänk vad rätt han hade ! En sak är då helt säker, det nedlagda Sinnessjukhuset Beckomberga eller några andra nedlagda Sinnessjukhus behöver inte återöppnas i dagens 100% DÅRHUS Sverige i totalt fritt fall. Känns verkligen bra att INTE längre vara ung att snart ha gjort sitt på denna planet med den framtid som väntar inom Globalistfamiljens diktatoriska världsordnindagens och ekonomi som nu snabbt införs. Vad är och hur ser en s.k högerextremist ut som dagens vidriga avkommor från farsoten 68-Vänstern alltid tjatar om så fort sanningen sägs ? Mvh/ F.d SD-väljare. AFS-medlem sedan 2018.✊✌🇸🇪
I wasn't very impressed with this conference--maybe I missed some key parts listening on double speed and skipping through a few parts. It appeared that almost all the disciplinary philosophers (whether normative ethicists or applied ethicists) were utilitarians? Not sure about Munthe? The non-utilitarians were mostly disciplinary medical ethicists and public officials, no? Sure, non-utilitarians typically have a foot in moral particularism so not so surprising that the non-utilitarians would be more applied, but really they couldn't find some non-utilitarian academic philosophers to talk about any mildly abstract? A few points I took note of: - Tännsjö claimed that dignity wasn't a useful concept that added anything beyond doing-allowing distiction or doctrine of double effect. No one really responded to this though the moderator did force him explain a bit, which he eventually did by saying that you could answer the "short-stature" case with a doing allowing distinction for harm. This was not really responded to by later speakers much? Again that's probably because there weren't any later talks at an even mildly theoretical level. - Juth, who talked about prioritization of health care workers, said that in the specific legal context of his application, the principle of dignity was actually precisely defined in the laws in terms of not being allowed to use a certain list of characteristics as determinants of priority level (e.g. age, job, gender, race). -I believe the Italian ethicist Palazzani said that she and her committee rejected using certain characteristics like age as determinants of priortization and instead recommended using clinical need or something. She did not specify further what clinical need means--does that fact that someone was going to die anyways in a month factor into "clinical need"? -The Irish ethicist O’Sullivan seemed to say she recommended a holistic or case-by-case approach that balanced many factors. How would that work? You say groups were concerned about being discriminated against but you said you won't do that, you will be holistic. Well, if we don't know how you are going to make decisions, its hard to believe that your not discriminating in some respect. Why not tell us what it is? On the other hand, I understand some degree of holism and case-by-case is necessary in practice. - One of the officials (was it O'Sullivan or Buyx?) talked frankly about the issue of reassuring the public versus being open with the public about uncertainty on the other.
Problemet med alternativ medicin och naturliga läkemedel är att det inte går att ta patent på och göra pengar men det kostar att certifiera ett läkemedel så big pharma skrattar hela vägen till bankens som systemet är idag. För en bredare syn på problemet se detta ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-ySnk-f2ThpE.html
