One of the most basic introductions to science is that the questions are just as important as the answers. In other words, science lives on challenges and uncertainties, not on absolutes and certainties. The challenge of current knowledge is a basic presupposition for the progress of science. exactly why, Science is not a place for the masses And certainly, science is not a place to be absorbed.
Since the beginning of the pandemic, every time a relevant scientific question arises, people begin to publish answers, often hasty and based on ideological premises. Every time a scholar expresses his opinion, a torrent of comments comes immediately, most of them attempting to qualify or exclude the messenger, without any interest in the message. For example, every time I show a file My opinion about closures And about the outrageous ineffectiveness of the early treatment, she was immediately attacked by a digital militia. Usually the attacks are against me, not the thoughts I express.
But the interesting thing is that this behavior is not limited to deniers. On the contrary, as a reactive mechanism, many people who have put themselves in the position of anti-denial have recently adopted the same modus operandi. In the same week, someone who applauds you can upset you, if your opinion does not fit your convictions and convictions (I repeat: often hasty and built on ideological premises).
with arrival omicron variable, once again The questions are just as important as the answers:
1. Variable omicron More transferable than “previous versions” Who is the virus?
2. Variable omicron More violent than “earlier versions” Who is the virus?
3. As existing vaccines Do they protect against an omicron variant?
Brazil and the world need scholars (not fans) to get these answers.
Since the discovery of the new variant, scientists have been searching for answers, very quickly, to such questions. There are still more doubts than certainties, which is quite understandable for such a last alternative. What is incomprehensible is the amount of hate speech about every scientific opinion issued in that period.
Some colleagues participate strongly Preliminary studies show that Omicron appears to be more transmissible of previous versions of the virus, but they accuse those who share (also preliminary) studies of suggesting that the new variant may not be more aggressive than previous versions of the virus.
When a scientist dares to suggest that the efficacy of current vaccines may not be high against the new variant, the researcher is accused of attacking the immune systems. Now, all available studies on the Delta variant have shown that the vaccines have decreased efficacy on Delta, compared to previous versions of the virus. Our role is to recognize this and work to improve vaccinations, not attack the scientists who have identified this lower efficacy.
Safe doses of common sense and calm are needed for science to continue to play its part during the pandemic. Dealing with virus and deniers is complicated enough. We don’t need to face the masses either.
Current link: Did you like this text? A subscriber can issue five free visits to any link per day. Just click the blue F button below.
“Entrepreneur. Music enthusiast. Lifelong communicator. General coffee aficionado. Internet scholar.”