
https://Twitter.com/johndehlin/status/1 ... 9178631171
That was in reference to this ongoing argument over it being unethical and worthy of outrage. Taken as a whole it seems pretty normal use of influential people to be influential. It's gone the rounds and at this point, yeah, it doesn't seem to rise above a rather petty level of complaint given the discussion. I guess that's my honest take, meant as a straight answer to people I respect. It just seems out of scale to the bigger issue of fighting the pandemic which their getting the shot publicly helps.
Ok. What group does podcaster fall in?cinepro wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 12:00 amFor your consideration:
https://Twitter.com/johndehlin/status/1 ... 9178631171
Geez honor. Quit being so petty. This "publicly helps." /shonorentheos wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 12:19 amOk. What group does podcaster fall in?cinepro wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 12:00 amFor your consideration:
https://Twitter.com/johndehlin/status/1 ... 9178631171
That seems to be the difference. In my neck of the woods, "influential people" are arguing for a better distribution of the vaccines, not just bowing to popularity. in my opinion, it is a far more ethical position to take.Taken as a whole it seems pretty normal use of influential people to be influential.
To be clear, if Dehlin were >70 or in a high risk group (other than obesity), it wouldn't be notable.
Medical? I think psychology would be considered essential? I dunno. Just a guess.
Does it make a difference if Dehlin is not currently seeing "patients"...?Jersey Girl wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 2:53 amHealthcare worker who sees patients
https://coronavirus-download.utah.gov/H ... meline.pdf