How much of the COVID narrative was false? When did those in power know it? How much contrary information has been hidden to maintain the narative?
It now looks more likely than ever that COVID 19 is a result of something in a lab in Wuhan, and that the US likely funded at least part of the research.
We're now seeing more evidence that HCQ and Ivermectin do have positive affects on COVID 19.
We're now seeing more and more countries abandoning lock downs and restrictions as innefective?
We now know that COVID deaths were reported in a misleading fashion that overstated the number of people who actually died specifically from COVID.
We now know that co-morbidities were more significant than was first thought.
We now are seeing evidence that lock downs had little effect on COVID mortality.
Given the information that is slowly coming out, why are we still trusting the same folks who peddled so much bullshit?
Why do we keep seeing powerful politicians violating the mask rules they enforce on others?
Why did left leaning "evangelical" pastors and leaders jump so uncritically on the bandwagon of spreading propaganda under the guise of pastoral care?
Lots of questions, lots of things about the narrative that aren't being borne out by experience.
Apparently, polling is now "the science" being used to start eliminating mandates in blue states. either that or it's easier to get rid of mandates, than to expect the DFL powerful elites to live by the mandates they impose on others.
Is it possible that all of the mask mandates will be lifted before election day in Nov?
If so, does that mean that the DFL governors that lift them are trading lives for votes?
Will anyone ever suggest that Biden is directly responsible (like the did with Trump) for the 600,000 COVID deaths since he took office?
12 comments:
While I don't fault clergy for not being medical professionals, and are no less prone to succumbing to the fear-mongering of those promoting the narrative, I do fault them for not striving to seek out and defend the facts which have been denied us by those promoters of the narrative...just as I expect it of myself and everyone else. The biggest supporters of those who promote the narrative were once of that august "question authority" faction of the populace, many of whom now populate the very party that demands compliance or else (for low intellect Louisville citizens, that means "Democrats"), that we question nothing they say.
For those who wish to pretend Trump was so lacking in his response to the pandemic, the only legitimate complaint an honest person can make is that he chose Fauci as the go-to guy in the battle against the virus. Had there been an actual medical person in the lead...someone not so concerned about self-promotion and with such a terrible track record with regard to past situations...more people would still be alive, fewer people would have lived in less fear with regard the virus, and it would likely be well in our rear-view mirror a year ago. And since the election, we can't even say Biden was "leading from behind". His failures go beyond that.
I fault clergy for uncritically accepting what Collins told them and using the power and influence of their pulpits to push a narrative that was never as cut and dried as it was presented.
While I agree that putting Fauci in this position of COVID czar who can't ever be questioned, was a huge mistake on Trump's part. However, I'd like to think that if he knew then, what we know now that he wouldn't have made the same choice. I do think that Biden made a mistake in automatically keeping Fauci.
On the other hand, Trump's decision to allow the states great leeway and control in how they responded to COVID was one of his best decisions. It doesn't take much to understand that what works in urban NY, might not work in rural Idaho.
It is amusing to see more of Fauci's past blunders, and wonder why he's still got this job and is (one of) the highest paid government employees.
Craig... "Why did left leaning "evangelical" pastors and leaders jump so uncritically on the bandwagon of spreading propaganda under the guise of pastoral care? "
If by "propaganda," you mean they listened to and heeded the advice of medical and epidemiology experts, they listened to experts because that's rational.
The question, then, is why do non-experts think they know better than experts? Why is disagreeing with non-experts in favor of experts not considered rational by the conspiracy theorists?
If you're not an epidemiologist or otherwise an expert in this field, you watching rightwing videos online is not doing "research," and doesn't make your hunches any more rational.
It's my understanding Lord Fauci is indeed the highest paid bureaucrat in the nation.
Trump was equally in the wrong for not getting rid of the guy, and his partners Birx and the other guy I can't recall at the moment. When he took on Scott Atlas for a time, he should have removed the other three based on Atlas' assessments, which he explained in his recently released book on the experience, and even at that point I think we'd now be in better shape as a nation.
And yes, we're in agreement on the poor behaviors of the clergy with regard to this issue. Except for that Polish pastor in Canada who's a freakin' hero for throwing out officials trying to force him into compliance with restrictions. He did it twice on video and I think he is now suffering from legal repercussions.
Unfortunately, the question I'm addressing is, "Why did a bunch of evangelical pastors and influencers jump to uncritically do the bidding of the federal government?
Especially since we're finding out that so much of the narrative from the "experts" was wrong.
Can you identify the names of people who were verifiably experts in COVID-19 prior to 2019?
If Fauci is an expert, why is there so much video evidence of him being wrong about things?
What's interesting is that (in light of recent research) we've learned that the experts were wrong about lock downs, and wrong about Ivermectin. This notion that we should uncritically listen to experts seems naive at best.
Of course, other countries listened to the experts as well, and have come to different conclusions, I guess that means that those experts are wrong, doesn't it?
Craig... "If Fauci is an expert, why is there so much video evidence of him being wrong about things?"
sigh. Fauci IS an expert in epidemiology.
YOU are not. Marshal is not. Fox News is not. Q-Anon is not, of course. Trump is not.
The way things work in science is that experts go with the best information and data they have at the moment. Later on, if more data suggests better information, experts and scientists go with the latest, best information and data. Changing opinions as more data comes in IS how science works.
I'm surprised that, as an adult who is educated, you didn't know that.
"The question, then, is why do non-experts think they know better than experts?"
The question is, why you think "experts" means there are none with expertise who disagree with whatever it is you're selling? From the beginning there were those who disagreed with the bureaucrat Fauci, like the two doctors from Bakersfield, CA. who immediately rejected the push for masking.
Whenever Dan cites "experts" or uses the term, he's attempting to stifle legitimate discussion and objection under the pretense that no expert is expert who disagrees with the experts he cites. It's intellectually lazy at best.
At some point doesn't being an expert mean being correct?
It seems strange that an "expert" in epidemiology would contradict himself so often, and be wrong so regularly.
Hell, back in the day Fauci thought you could get AIDS from sitting next to someone. But he's an expert.
How can someone be an expert in a disease that didn't exist 2 years ago?
Why is Fauci THE EXPERT, and why should all the other epidemiologists (who, by your definition, are also experts) not be listened to?
Are you really suggesting that other countries who have followed their own experts and come to different conclusions about how best to deal with COVID are wrong?
Have you missed the recent evidence that shows Fauci was wrong about lock downs, and wrong about Ivermectin?
Again, Dan's citations of experts is just an attempt to stifle objections to and criticisms of that which Dan favors or promotes. He rejects experts who don't support or enable his perverse ideology because they contradict his ideology...not because they're wrong in their conclusions based on their expert understanding of a subject. To Dan, such learned people are dismissed as outliers for no legit reason but that their expertise disproves what Dan wants and needs to be true.
Art,
What's interesting is that Dan hasn't actually addressed the questions asked in the post. Nor has he addressed (let alone answered) and questions in the comments. I wonder what conclusions can be drawn from that?
This notion of automatically supporting the "experts" simply because they've been anointed "experts" doesn't seem like a reasonable course of action. The notion that questioning of these "experts", is wrong also seems strange. The notion that the only people who can question these "experts" are other "experts" seems like it just leads to blindly accepting what the "experts" who support your prior biases say without question.
I asked Dan about the "experts" in other countries who disagree with Fauci, and are recommending different actions than Fauci. Are those "experts" not really "experts"? Are the "experts" in Japan that have provided data regarding alternate treatments not "experts", have their studies been proven wrong? Are the folks at John's Hopkins not "experts" enough?
As we've seen, following the advice of people who are "experts" in one narrow field has had adverse consequences in other areas of life. We've seen massive economic damage, damage to our students education, increases in suicides, just to name a few. Yet, we still hear the same old crap from the same old "experts".
Finally, what are we to do with the (leftist) politicians who advocate all sorts of draconian measures be imposed on those they rule, while flouting those measures publicly. The reality is that the more we learn, the more we find that those that questioned the "experts" were not as crazy as they were portrayed. Unfortunately, the "experts" have forced a "vaccine" on people, while exempting those who manufacture the "vaccine" from liability, what could possibly go wrong with that?
And I didn't even mention the fact that the "experts" are choosing to ignore or downplay the natural immunity that comes from having had COVID or that occurs in a % of the population.
Post a Comment