1/
This is a word salad.
There is a whole part of the report on ethics but it tells nothing.
What does it mean concretly ? It means that you have sentences in which you cannot write the opposite or a different thing than what is written.
This is a word salad.
There is a whole part of the report on ethics but it tells nothing.
What does it mean concretly ? It means that you have sentences in which you cannot write the opposite or a different thing than what is written.
https://twitter.com/LughSpear/status/1432663259061100547
2/
Example: "Public health action requires careful judgement and acceptance of responsibility
for the outcomes.". Can you imagine a document in which it is written that you are going have a "careless" action, and without accepting any responsability ? No: so this sentence is void
Example: "Public health action requires careful judgement and acceptance of responsibility
for the outcomes.". Can you imagine a document in which it is written that you are going have a "careless" action, and without accepting any responsability ? No: so this sentence is void
3/
Another example: "The timeline for work should be realistically set."
Have you ever red a guideline recommending "irrealistically set" timelines?
Another example: "The timeline for work should be realistically set."
Have you ever red a guideline recommending "irrealistically set" timelines?
4/
Moreover terms are never precisely defined. What does mean "accepting any responsability" from a practical point of view?
The same goes for empty wordings like "to protect and promote the welfare of individuals, communities and the population as a whole".
Moreover terms are never precisely defined. What does mean "accepting any responsability" from a practical point of view?
The same goes for empty wordings like "to protect and promote the welfare of individuals, communities and the population as a whole".
5/
What exactly is the meaning of "protect" in this context? Are there legal recourse? Under which juridiction? Who is going to enforce the rule? etc.
It is up to you to decide what "proportionate" means and so on...
How can it be called a "guideline" it guides nothing.
What exactly is the meaning of "protect" in this context? Are there legal recourse? Under which juridiction? Who is going to enforce the rule? etc.
It is up to you to decide what "proportionate" means and so on...
How can it be called a "guideline" it guides nothing.
6/
There are also contradictory injunction. Example:
"Individual vaccination status is private information, and protections need to be in place
to ensure that no individual is forced to disclose or publicly display a DDCC:VS to access any public area
or activity"
There are also contradictory injunction. Example:
"Individual vaccination status is private information, and protections need to be in place
to ensure that no individual is forced to disclose or publicly display a DDCC:VS to access any public area
or activity"
7/
But when you are waiting in line you know the "individual vaccination status" of the people around you. You just have to open your eyes and ears. By definition if they are used to control entry to places like movie theaters, bars, restaurants the screening process and
But when you are waiting in line you know the "individual vaccination status" of the people around you. You just have to open your eyes and ears. By definition if they are used to control entry to places like movie theaters, bars, restaurants the screening process and
8/
its outcome are public. Unless they are held in a private room. Is it credible? It is not even clear that it is what is suggested.
its outcome are public. Unless they are held in a private room. Is it credible? It is not even clear that it is what is suggested.
9/
The ethical view in this document is myopic. Ex:
"A long-term view would consider the
potential advantages of a DDCC:VS for strengthening the health system, such as enhancing the
immunization information system and its interoperability across jurisdictions"
The ethical view in this document is myopic. Ex:
"A long-term view would consider the
potential advantages of a DDCC:VS for strengthening the health system, such as enhancing the
immunization information system and its interoperability across jurisdictions"
10/
The frame is already utilitarian (which is a thing that can be discussed in itself) and the scope limited (benefits in terms of health system: no mention about other dimension of life that are not linked to health).
The frame is already utilitarian (which is a thing that can be discussed in itself) and the scope limited (benefits in terms of health system: no mention about other dimension of life that are not linked to health).
11/
All in all it looks like those advertisments disguised as reportings. There is no interesting information beyond the fact that it "normalizes" (I hate to have to use this term but it looks adequate here) the idea of "health certificate" as a part of modern life.
All in all it looks like those advertisments disguised as reportings. There is no interesting information beyond the fact that it "normalizes" (I hate to have to use this term but it looks adequate here) the idea of "health certificate" as a part of modern life.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
