38:20

It's funny how you'll hear from people that the climate always has been changing because most of the time these people don't even know how the Water Cycle works from Elementary School. let alone Geological Chemistry. Someone who constantly talks about Chemt-Trails and yet denies or doesn't understand the Carbon Cycle.

Bloody globalist n@zi freaks 😠

CHICLAYO PERU 🇵🇪 🤝 LARVIK NORWAY 🇳🇴 🇳🇴 🇳🇴 🇳🇴 🇳🇴

The climate is supposed to change . It always has and always will . Our culture has become dark and superstitious, not unlike ancient cultures who thought they had to engage in human sacrifice to ensure a good harvest . We just have shinier toys , but are every bit as ignorant and wicked .

Please tell me the time that the climate on this earth didn’t change.

©️3:22

This is all propaganda and LIES!!!

Ethics and climate change do not belong in the same postcode never mind the same sentence. Climate change bs is just another control/money making scam.

Canada today has over 318 billion trees. This is more than Canada had when I was born in 1961. Also there are more trees today in Europe than there was 200 years ago. This is because much of Europe was deforested because people needed trees to use for the wood for fires. And then oil came along and people started using that. That's one of the reasons why there are more trees in Europe today. Also nuclear power gave Millions and millions of Europeans warmth and energy. Of course you know if you are reading this that Germany had been shutting down nuclear plants and now more people will be using tree wood to heat their homes this winter. They could easily use the energy pumped through the Nord stream to pipeline. But NATO and the world economic forum and the European Union want to play games with people's lives like a big chess game where the elite people don't lose

Whatever happened to global warming. If it was in error from years ago why is climate change not in error now

Look at those clowns caring about climat change while sanctioning russia just to use dirty power, a nuke will fix you and your problems don't worry.

And some censorship too, looking at the comments

13,000 views, 24 likes

Vampires

How about the ethical perspective of the ELITES CLIMATE MODIFICATION PROGRAMS that are dumping tons of chemicals & toxins into the atmosphere??

health impacts of the ELITES CLIMATE MODIFICATION PROGRAMS... that's what we need to be discussing.

Nobody believes in climate change anymore sorry kiddos.

BS! 💩

Every ten years or so the fear mongers unload on us ,pay them little to no mind, none of it has ever happened 80 years old this year ,lived through all they claim would kill us, the earth goes through cycles, it will let us know when it's time to reset, there have been more than one other race before us

All oncologists should listen to this if they really want to help their patients.

Maybe you could answer the following questions for me. Supposing there was a country with a stable population 80 million people. They had a life expectancy of 80 years with the age groups evenly distributed through the population. The life expectancy in this country was to be reduced to 79 years over four years by a disease which targeted the elderly. (1) What would the excess mortality have been over those four years? (2) How should such a transformation be managed? Incidentally the life expectancy in Ireland increased by 2.5 years over the last twelve years,vastly swelling a cohort of people with challenged immune systems. What changes were made to accommodate for this? (3)Can life expectancy not decrease? Do you believe absolutely that these experimental vaccines developed over 10 months are an elixir when after 30 years no vaccine has been found for HIV?

Denne pandemi er kun for å innføre eID og full kontroll fra World economic forum og deres smart city agenda 2030 etter Kina metoden. Folk dør daglig og skades for livet av eksperimentell genterapi. Satan verk med Terrorister i alle ledd, Norge er okkupert!

Are you planning to discuss the vaccination? I am no specialist in bio or medical fields. I am an Engineer and I am used when designing and validating a certain process for mass production to reduce the variables to minimum as possible. Even so, some mass production processes are hard to have a capability that we consider acceptable statistically speaking. Our target is to eliminate defects in mass production... I am wondering about the vaccines! So much money was invested it is sure, more money that we normally have even in a rich multinational company to develop those processes... anyway how can we pass for mass vaccination when I am sure (even not being a specialist) that very less knowledge between the interaction of the vaccine and a multitude of variables existent in a human body is known?! Am I wrong? Media speaks very less about it, there is no debate, no contradictory, only the vaccine as solution for all our problems...

I am the first one! Greetings from Portugal 🇵🇹

MATTI HÄYRY RESPONDS TO COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS Background I published my first thoughts on the topic in two open-access articles in April and May: “The COVID-19 Pandemic: A Month of Bioethics in Finland” www.cambridge.org/core/journals/cambridge-quarterly-of-healthcare-ethics/article/covid19-pandemic-a-month-of-bioethics-in-finland/AAB9DFABFEA34D8F0AF6E313B6D994BC and “The COVID-19 Pandemic: Healthcare Crisis Leadership as Ethics Communication” www.cambridge.org/core/journals/cambridge-quarterly-of-healthcare-ethics/article/covid19-pandemic-healthcare-crisis-leadership-as-ethics-communication/CE6B85449991BF962CF232B2FC9CB9C1 These provide the background of the more concise video presentation. Thank you all for your insightful comments and questions. Below, I try to respond to them the best I can. Answers to NCBio commentators Eyja Margrét Brynjarsdóttir (commentary in the video) MH: Yes, you are absolutely right. Maximin is not the right answer to everything, for many reasons. For one thing, it is really a quite timid principle. I have once jumped from an airplane at the altitude of a thousand meters. With a parachute and a spare, but in the worst case they would both have failed, and I would have encountered the ground rather too speedily. Still, I did it, might do it again, and so do many other people. Which leads to your question, “Which outcome is the worst?” Both fact and value issues prevent us from giving universal answers. In my choice, though, I think that it worked. It was a well-defined situation, and it was pretty clear that the health factor was more important than the learning outcome. Mind you, I am not sure that I made a choice or a decision at all. I thought I did, while I was going through my map of ethical theories, but afterwards I began to doubt that. What if I had made up my mind, on whatever grounds, already in the morning, when I first heard of the new restrictions, and the ethics exercise was just rationalization? This is a possibility, but I do not think that it dents my message. Governments may also make their decisions on “whatever grounds”, but I still think that it would be nice if they could, even if afterwards, explain how they see that their choices fit on the ethical map. That would give me, a citizen, a better idea of the leaders I am following and obeying. You drew attention to transparency. Can governments tell the truth? A very good question. “We are now opening up the economy to give financial support to big multinational corporations at the expense of our vulnerable citizens.” Can they stand up and say things like that? Well, my question is, if they cannot, why are they our government? They are supposed to have our support, after all. And, I have been told, “liberal democracies” (whatever that means) require transparency, or truthfulness, of their governments. I am not sure that this answers your question, but that is what I thought about transparency when I added it into my list. Madeleine Hayenhjelm (commentary in the video) MH: You promised to complicate the conceptual ground, lift the gaze to more important things, and pose a question. And you did. Excellent. The conceptual ground is muddled, no question about that. Policy X can mean many things to different actors. This is, in fact, why I did not bring up the herd immunity strategy that Barack Obama just told the world Sweden has been following. You and I know that although Anders Tegnell [others: If you don’t know who that is, google him] may have talked about it a few times the Swedish as well as the Finnish approach can be placed under “confine and mitigate”, albeit that the more specific tactics have varied from country to country. Should we study previous policies that have created the current crises instead of focusing on the decision making now in exceptional circumstances? Yes, absolutely, and that has been my plan all along, only I have not gotten that far. We have a pretty good idea that without meat eating, we would not have these recurring epidemics and pandemics in which a virus mutates and jumps from nonhuman animals to human ones. So why are we still tolerating wet markets and promoting factory farming and industrial meat and dairy production? The fact is, though, that “we”, through our governments and our actions, do, and I do not see an easy way out of the situation. By insisting that governments should place themselves on the ethical map and reveal their values, I am trying to use COVID-19 policies as a lever to change attitudes towards other global crises. Climate change springs to mind. If I could get public authorities to confess that health utilitarianism works in the current health crisis, I could argue that it would work to support climate efforts, as well. Only that it does not work quite like that. Health utilitarianism seems to have a limited life span, as people want to get back to normal - infecting one another with diseases if that’s what it takes to have an after-ski party. There, now I have definitely written myself into a cul-de-sac. Maybe that is why I have not been able to proceed on this path. (Continued in the next comment.)

Answers to live chat questions during the event Pekka Louhiala: It seems to me that one hidden aim of the activities has been to avoid the moral catastrophe that the ICUs would be full and the really hard choices at the individual level were to be made. MH: Yes, in the beginning, during March-May, this was probably one of the main factors in Finland (and in many other countries, as well). And it may yet make a comeback now that contagions are spreading again. It seems, though, that people forget this concern as soon as the situation is even slightly better. The panic melted away during the summer, and people used phrases like “Now, after corona, ...” although they should have known fully well that the second wave was coming. People may also become numb to this consideration, if the situation continues to be bad for a longer period of time. “Yeah, well, that’s bad, but so are unemployment, bankruptcies, and plummeting stocks.” But yes, it was and is a mighty motivational force. Mark Cutter: Would your decision making matrix have been different or had a different outcome rationale if either you or your students had been in a vulnerable group. I am wondering about it’s utility for evaluating policy decision making in relation to disabled people and other vulnerable groups. MH: The consideration of the vulnerable was inbuilt to my own choice. I understood the maximin principle in the Rawlsian sense, requiring us not only to avoid the worst outcome but also to avoid deteriorating the situation of the already worst off. In my mind, that would cover disabled people and other vulnerable groups. No one in the class was over 70, nor were there any detectable disabilities, but as I could not know about possible pre-existing health conditions, that made it all the more important not to expose anyone to the virus. Governmental decisions based on health utilitarianism can be a different matter entirely. If the priority is in maximizing Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALYs), young people will, as a rule, be preferred to old, healthy to sick, and abled to disabled. That, I suppose, is why we have laws balancing decision making so that it cannot be based solely on QALY calculations and comparisons. Joona Räsänen: Matti, should wearing face masks be mandatory now or if things get worse or can we trust that people make the right choices freely? Chantal PatelI: Is it ethical to impose the wearing of masks when there is little evidence as to its effectiveness?? MH: The Finnish mask situation has been confusing from the beginning. As someone who has followed the situation closely since March, my hunch is that the motives for not even recommending the use of face masks early on were mixed, but probably healthcare-need-driven. “Let us not tell them to wear masks, lest they do what they did with toilet paper, and hospitals will run out of them.” How things developed from there constitutes, in my opinion, an early failure in communication that has repercussions now, during the second wave. Governmental agencies drew attention to scientific reports that doubted the protective value of face masks to those wearing them, if used inexpertly. Chantal, that scientific opinion has not gone anywhere, and I am guessing that this is the motivation of your question. The justification given now is different, though. The current logic is: “My mask protects you; your mask protects me.” In Finland, that is, and maybe in countries where mask use has already become popular. I am not sure that this is the best basis for a prompt to use something that I see as too expensive, inconvenient, or culturally alien. The “Robbers and terrorists wear masks” attitude sits, I believe, firmly in some Finnish minds. Anyway, the Finnish government’s mistake was to employ the “It does not protect the wearer” argument. They could have told us that they do not have enough of them. We might then be more amenable to use them voluntarily now. Joona, the matter of mandatoriness. The Finnish government probably cannot introduce that regulation, because they would then have to provide them to all, and this would be too costly. The human rights lawyers would have another field day, too. “Intolerable restriction of civic liberty! And what if someone swallows the mask and dies?” And there are issues in implementing the order. Would the police be enforcing the order? How good would that be for their popularity? So, we need to reformulate your question. My answers here are a response to a general “Everyone has to use a mask always” rule. Made more specific, the regulation, even mandatoriness, could work. Shops, theaters, sports events. Definitely maybe. Eve Gunson: A difficulty of using Hayry's grid to help leaders, is that it offers only conditional answers. The problem for crisis leaders is that they do not really know; their position is a political choice. MH: I am sure that you are right. Your comment makes me realize that I do not want to help leaders. I want to help citizens. If leaders had an obligation to reveal the ethical bases of their choices, citizens would know what they are about and/or be more lenient in the face of inconvenient restrictions. The first part there might present a problem. Leaders do not necessarily want us to know why they are doing things. We might disagree and vote them out. But that, I believe, would be par for liberal democracy. Unless we get that, what is our political system? Yes, my model offers only conditional answers. If you want to prioritize care, do this-and-this. If you want to prioritize the letter of the law, do that-and-that. But this is my point exactly. When they make their political choice, I want to see them struggle to explain it in ethical terms. In other words, you are right. I hope my response clarified my twisted position. Truls Petersen: Matti, we have heard that “the Swedish way” was grounded in a liberal culture, ie to inform and advice but to avoid prohibitions etc. How do you compare Finland and Sweden on this aspect? Thanks! MH: It is an easy comparison to adopt. Probably too simplistic, though, and possibly downright mistaken. First, the easy adoptability. Yes, Finland is still a paternalistic country where the majority of people swear by their authorities, and Sweden has evolved further on the road of liberalism. Then, again, Finns, too, know how to complain about restrictions. And Swedes, too, know how to follow their leaders. One difference here might be that many people in Sweden believe that their country is a good one and better than most others. So, if their leaders choose a public health strategy that differs from the rest of the world, they have confidence that the rest of the world is wrong. They are, in one commentator’s words, “trusting and unflappable”. People in Finland, not so much. We do what our authorities tell us to do, but perhaps with less assurance in our own greatness. Except when it came to our original all-female panel of key cabinet ministers. Then many of us felt that we were leading the world towards a better day. I have myself identified yet another feature that could make the difference. Sweden is a traditional eugenic welfare state, which aims at wellbeing for all (contributing citizens). At least according to my personal sources, people in Sweden, apart from Anders Tegnell in public, were not devastated by the death toll of the elderly in care homes. My sources may be skewed, but if their “They were seriously old, really, and would have died soon, anyway” take is anything to go by, that marks a difference. People in Finland could not bring themselves to say such things. But, as said, this is based on anecdotal evidence, and I could be wrong.

I so wish this would have worked out differently. You obviously had so much more to offer than this short time on earth gave you opportunity to, Anne Sofie ♥️😔

❤

great job:)