This week’s poll
Should spreading anti-vaccine misinformation be criminalised?
https://www.bmj.com/
Duh - Should spreading PRO-vaccine misinformation be criminalised?
There are plenty of other biased or stupid aspects to this poll question worthy of the Daily Express - but even if the missing qualifiers were added, overall it’s a very hostile and aggressive notion to put around.
Then again maybe it’s better to see such an attitude, if it exists, in the open. The BMJ thinks vaccines should have a free ride. Oddly enough the BMJ’s Associate Editor, Peter Doshi, has been asking lots of pertinent questions, and one devout pro-vaccine column I saw labelled him ‘anti-vax’. Maybe the poll question is meant as a shot across his bows. Anyway, with the vote open to the public, the No’s are winning at the moment.
1 Like
Sane goats - 85%, sucker sheep - 15%, currently.
Pleased to see the no:yes ratio at 85:15
I expect YouGov will be able to come up with a more trustworthy result though.
Meanwhile, in Wokeistan: It is only a matter of time before we turn on the unvaccinated | Nick Cohen
1 Like
That’s a devious and inciteful Mark Anthony of an article. Friends, Don’t tar the anti-vaxxers, just because they are putting our lives at risk! And then, don’t roll them in feathers afterwards.
There’s a wonderful reply to this question posted by Dr. Apple…
https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n272/rr-5
" Rapid Response:
Re: Should spreading anti-vaccine misinformation be criminalised?
Dear Editor
As these days I’m more of a student of language than medicine, I noted Professor Mills’ use of the term libertarian in association with anti-vacciners. An association whose juxtaposition leaves little doubt that condemnation of the one requires condemnation of both. Libertarianism, to remind readers, is a political philosophy that upholds liberty as a core principle and goes on to commit to freedom of choice, free association and political freedom. Dubious aspirations indeed and with those pesky consequences that some people hold views which others find unacceptable. Professor Mills does elswhere acknowledge that criminalisation of free speech can have drawbacks - she alludes to Russia - but feels that there are circumstances where what she might call countering misinformation but others might call censorship is justified.
It will be for lawyers to devise the legal framework for defining, policing and punishing disinformation. They may explore whether, for example, a throwaway remark querying the efficacy of the Astra Zeneca vaccine in over 65s meets the threshold of disinformation and, if so, merits a fine, an ASBO or 2 years in jail. Or whether arguing against compulsory vaccination in certain occupations is disinformation enough to attract a £10,000 fine, 10 years in jail or maybe a day of hate on Twitter. They too can consider the mechanism for bringing such incidents to the attention of the relevant body (staffed with the totally certain, of course). An app perhaps. I’d suggest the Systematic Transmission About Suspicious Information app. Stasi has a certain ring to it. I seem to recall hearing it before.
Clearly more thought is called for. Helpfully some preliminary thought on some consequences of putting public policy above personal freedom was carried out by Mr George Orwell. He would well recognise the inversion of language such that a concern for freedom becomes suspicious and where suppression of free expression become an aspiration. But no doubt he too was one of those libertarians.
21 February 2021
Michael Apple
GP retired
Watford, Herts"
I’m glad he hasn’t retired from writing letters, at least 
3 Likes