Letter from a professor


We have read in recent days several interventions by university professors opposed to the Italian Green Pass.

Yet, dissent breaks through where critical thinking is exercised. Or where one feels responsible for those who listen to us. Or both (if you have head and heart).

For those who were lost I propose here the intervention of Andrea Zhok, professor of Moral Philosophy at the University of Milan, published on theAntiplomatic and titled “Why is the Italian green Pass an unacceptable initiative and should be repealed?”

We have spent many words, perhaps too many, to explain its contours, implications, to show its terrible political, moral and strategic significance

Let us now try to take the path of a minimalist, direct, perhaps more understandable topic.

 1) premise: The green Pass requirement represents a serious violation of personal freedom. Forbidding the access of a young person to a library or a gym, of a student to the university, or even threatening with the loss of work and salary a teacher are acts of extreme gravity, very heavy discrimination, non-formalisms, not trifles.

 2) to justify a discriminatory act of this gravity there must be bomb-proof motivations, not conjectures, not illusions, not wishes. Such a restriction of freedom can only be justified if it is indisputable that it is the only, or at least the best, method available to prevent the freedom of someone (the discriminated against) from causing harm to someone else (the inclusive).

 This motivational background requires two conditions:

 2.1) it must be evident that the access of the excluded (no GP) to a certain place can create a damage to the present that the access of the included (Yes GP) does not create. So, if a child is ill, and his illness is contagious, we need to resort to his exclusion from the class, on the basis of the fact that his access to the class would jeopardize the health of others, while the access of a healthy child would not.

 2.2) it must also be incontrovertible that there are no alternative paths, equally passable, which could allow not to proceed with the act of exclusion. In the event that there is a simple and non-burdensome way to ensure that the child is no longer contagious to others, insisting on not admitting it would be an unjustifiably discriminatory act.

 3) neither the first point nor the second correspond to the state of affairs in the present case of the green Pass “anti-Covid”, focused on the vaccination.

 3.1) first it is not true that the access, suppose, of an unvaccinated student poses a threat to the health of those present in a classroom that a vaccinated student would not pose. The hypothesis on which such a procedure could be based is that, as is the case with other vaccines, here too the vaccine eliminates the possibility of the vaccinated being contagious. However, this fact is today denied beyond reasonable doubt: those vaccinated with current anti-Covid vaccines can perfectly transmit the virus. Epidemiological data and laboratory tests from various countries have largely confirmed this.

 As to how and how the dissemination takes place, the data are still controversial. Some studies indicate the presence of an equivalent charge infective in subjects vaccinated and non-vaccinated (see references in the comments) to some replicate that but, perhaps, the duration of the contagion is less; others counter that, on the contrary, the relevant permanence of the virus in the cable oropharyngeal in the absence of symptoms, kept under control by the polio vaccine, is of vaccinated of superdiffusori.

 Here we are on the level of conjecture.

 The solid fact is that an unvaccinated person who enters a vaccinated environment may perhaps fear for himself (they are protected, he does not), but in principle does not pose a threat to the vaccinated other than that which would be represented by the entry of an additional vaccinated.

 3.2) but before embarking on the usual conjecture-based struggle, let us ask ourselves whether the discriminating solution that has been adopted has no alternatives. Now, it happens that a non-discriminatory alternative, and above all much safer for all, exists. If we really want to minimize the risks of contagion in certain environments, the high road is not the vaccine, but a quick buffer for everyone. It is also an option in many countries. In Austria, for example, if you want access to a gym or spa or a concert make a salivary swab at the entrance (free), or bring the result of a recent one. This method is simple, non-invasive, non-burdensome, does not discriminate against anyone and is by far a guarantee of better contagion containment.

 4) conclusion.

 If the intent of the Green Pass is said to provide a garrison of security, its current form is in bankruptcy, unjustifiable, and severely discriminatory manner: does not guarantee anything in terms of reduced access of the virus in certain areas and neglect of alternative solutions that provide guarantees much higher.

 Of course, if the intention is not that stated, then the punitive character reserved for the strategy of the tampons, conceived as a small torture (nasal molecular tampon) against the citizen (we have the most expensive tampons in Europe) is explained.

But here we enter on an exquisitely political plane, of which public health arguments simply represent the fig leaf, and of which we have discussed other times.

PS. In the attached photo an article from truth signed by two professors of UniDolomiti, the philosopher Lorenzo Maria Pacini and the Constitutionalist Daniele Trabucco.

For years we have been talking to our students in classrooms about democracy, resistance, freedom, and now should we become complicit in what is diametrically opposed to all this?

Original source: https://blog.ilgiornale.it/locati/2021/09/02/lettera-di-un-professore/

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

More from Italy's Fight for Freedom: