Thread by @Mellis40682979

@EthicalSkeptic How is it not also a human rights crime for colleges to imprison students against their wills:
- without providing overwhelming, or indeed any evidence whatsoever, of the health danger the “cases” and the virus itself pose to the community; and
@EWoodhouse7 @MorningAnswer

@EthicalSkeptic @EWoodhouse7 @MorningAnswer - based upon mandatory asymptomatic testing against CDC guidelines and for which no validation info is provided on infectiousness of those with positive tests?
@SWAtlasHoover @princesseffel @boriquagato @AlexBerenson @brithume

@EthicalSkeptic @EWoodhouse7 @MorningAnswer Under the standards colleges are using now to imprison students and destroy their mental health and educational experiences, they could just as well terrorize students for suspicion of athletes foot.

@EthicalSkeptic @EWoodhouse7 @MorningAnswer They suspect lots of students may have it, it’s contagious, and it causes a sometimes painful itching rash not requiring hospitalization.

@EthicalSkeptic @EWoodhouse7 @MorningAnswer BEFORE taking draconian action on health situations, college administrators have two undeniable obligations:
The first is to clearly and unequivocally verify the health risk to the community of the condition they propose to address.

@EthicalSkeptic @EWoodhouse7 @MorningAnswer How seriously ill are people - hospitalizations, deaths, etc?
Not just whether some often unreliable test can detect athletes foot, and that athletes foot can spread, but IS IT DANGEROUS?

@EthicalSkeptic @EWoodhouse7 @MorningAnswer Are lots of students and professors and others who may contract it at risk of serious illness and being hospitalized or dying as a result?

@EthicalSkeptic @EWoodhouse7 @MorningAnswer This priority is ESPECIALLY true if the measures proposed to address the disease are draconian. Absent compelling evidence of severe adverse health consequences of the condition, why is it being addressed so differently from other conditions with similar health risk profiles?

@EthicalSkeptic @EWoodhouse7 @MorningAnswer Has ANY university provided convincing information regarding the serious health danger of the virus to their community? Why not?

@EthicalSkeptic @EWoodhouse7 @MorningAnswer The second unequivocal obligation is, if draconian measures are to be imposed to address the alleged “dangerous” condition, they must first be compelled to show that any severe measures proposed will be effective limiting the most serious health consequences of the condition,

@EthicalSkeptic @EWoodhouse7 @MorningAnswer and that such measures outweigh unavoidable devastating concurrent consequences of the measures proposed. Do the adverse mental health consequences, damaging health consequences of foregone medical procedures and exercise,

@EthicalSkeptic @EWoodhouse7 @MorningAnswer diminished educational and beneficial social interaction experiences, loss of personal rights and freedoms, etc. unquestionably outweigh the verified benefit of the proposed remedies?
Is there a single university that has satisfied that obligation?

@EthicalSkeptic @EWoodhouse7 @MorningAnswer If the condition is not demonstrably extraordinarily dangerous - dangerous, not merely contagious; AND if draconian containment measures provide no meaningful benefit - questionably limiting contagion of a non-lethal non-dangerous virus is not a material benefit

@EthicalSkeptic @EWoodhouse7 @MorningAnswer - while causing other devastating adverse consequences, such an approach verges on a massive human rights crime.

@EthicalSkeptic @EWoodhouse7 @MorningAnswer The metaphorical equivalent of giving a hammer to a lunatic, telling him to use it to lash out at rain falling on students to protect them from the dangers of becoming wet. Once the rain has ceased and the lunatic tired you see the horrific damage done.

@EthicalSkeptic @EWoodhouse7 @MorningAnswer @threadreaderapp unroll please