INTL 3:770/1 3:770/3   
   REPLYADDR tnp@invalid.invalid   
   REPLYTO 3:770/3.0 UUCP   
   MSGID:  c0ca8eb6   
   REPLY: <5b323cec42bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> cb595422   
   PID: SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
   On 13/02/2024 21:32, Bob Latham wrote:   
   > Right so there is a video that shows presidents, prime ministers   
   > doctors and professors all claiming they didn't say it stopped you   
   > getting covid. Then the video goes on to show them all saying exactly   
   > that.   
      
   Again, you are confusing facts with narratives.   
      
   And expecting politicians to tell the complicated truth, which at that   
   point they don't even know,  rather than a simple narrative they think   
   the plebs will understand.   
      
   You are inferring far too much from human weakness. And expecting far   
   too much from 'experts'   
      
   I don't know what you are actually referring too, but at leats in my   
   personal memory all I saw was a lot of politicians in a panic, and a lot   
   of epidemioligsts with some extremely sketchy models, all of which said   
   (in the case of the UK), that if something wasn't done, deaths were   
   likely to exceed 50,000, and the peak rate of the sperad would   
   completely overwhelm the hospitals.   
      
   And the only real tool of merit at their disposal at that time was   
   lockdown and social distancing. Which would *reduce*  (not eliminate)   
   viral load  so that hopefully they would catch it* less*, and catch it   
   *less severely*. This is not a *qualitative* issue.  It's not a catch   
   it/dont catch it or a die/dont die binary outcome. It's quantitative.   
   Less likely to catch it, less severe if you do.   
      
   Its not the politicians fault per se that the world is full of   
   ArtStudents™ who want clear simple qualitative answer - four legs good,   
   two legs bad etc.   
      
   People like to think in simple terms, and counting up to two is hard for   
   some people, and beyond ten with their socks on,  beyond the realms of   
   possibility.   
      
   They want an  answer to the impossible question 'am I safe or not?' - as   
   it seems, do you.   
      
   No one is ever safe from anything. Its the same BS in the climate change   
   narrative. Its not a question of whether or not any particular thing is   
   happening. Mostly *every* thing is happening, its a question of *how   
   much* is it happening.   
      
   I call this insistence on using simple binary logic coupled with an   
   emotional narrative as ArtStudent™ thinking, because it is utterly   
   characteristic  of people with reasonable intelligence education and   
   training but who don't  grasp and never have grasped the idea of   
   quantity properly. Who cant see risk beyond a 'its not safe/its safe'   
   dichotomy.   
      
   If you dont want to be referred to that way stop displaying the clear   
   signs that you are one of those people.   
      
   Those measures gave time for vaccines to be developed. Vaccines were   
   supposed to do the same as lockdown. Reduce (but not eliminate) the   
   speed of spread, and the severity of infection. Of course the speed at   
   which they were rushed into place meant that massive long term tests   
   were skimped.   
      
   *HOWEVER* the trials did show that they were in general less dangerous   
   than getting infected.   
      
   Once again, ArtStudents™ then attack this by saying 'well you don't know   
   that they did anything, because there were no countries that didn't   
   vaccinate' etc etc. And its easy to spin that into a conspiracy theory   
   about injecting whole populations with mind control chips etc.   
      
   And saying (since they have *denied* the efficacy of the vaccines) that   
   the only effects were side effects of a negative nature.   
      
   Look. I am at some level an (amateur) philosopher, and this is all   
   covered by the 'problem of induction' or the impossibility of proving   
   any inferential  conclusion to be true.   
      
   Almost any scenario, right down to being ruled buy giant invisible   
   lizards, is *possible*. In the end you have to select an interpretations   
   that is demonstrably not false, at least, and that's what science is.   
   Our best shot.   
      
   If you start with a metaphysical assumption that they, the blob that   
   runs things, are smart, devious and lying to you at every turn, and that   
   *everything* that happens is, if not by God's Design, at least the   
   design of some evil Illuminati, then you will arrive at the position you   
   seem to have arrived.   
      
   But I've met these people, I've observed how they think, I've observed   
   what they understand, and let me assure you, that while they  are   
   devious and prone to lying at every turn, smart they ain't.   
      
   They are clumsy, inept, ignorant, greedy corrupt and venal, and a   
   combination of arrogance because they are on the winning side, and   
   paranoia because they subconsciously realise how little they deserve to   
   be, and how just one election can change it all.   
      
   What they say is not therefore the truth, it is simply whatever they   
   think at the time is likely to be the least politically damaging, so   
   they construct a simplistic emotional narrative around the facts and   
   hope the fuck that the plebs believe them.   
   Some do, some instantly disbelieve them on *everything*, on principle,   
   and the rest of us try to distil the wheat from the chaff, the data from   
   the carefully crafted bullshit, and act accordingly. Supporting   
   whichever bunch of cunts seems to be leading towards a slightly better   
   outcomes than the other bunch, so to speak.   
      
   In the case of Covid, they clearly didn't plan it, and didn't realise   
   what the implications were, and so left many of the decisions to the   
   medical professionals. Who did what medical professionals do, tried to   
   save lives *no matter what the cost*.  So lockdown was economically very   
   very damaging. Then big pharma got into the act with some vaccines that   
   were at least partially effective, then they did what they do best,.   
   made as much money by as much lobbying and passing of brown envelopes   
   under the table as *they* could...This isn't a particularly Grand   
   Conspiracy. Its a shabby little play of corrupt human beings struggling   
   to maintain their jobs, status, power and wealth in the face of a   
   situation they didn't anticipate.   
      
   That is my conclusion based on what I understand of biology,   
   epidemiology, computer modelling , exposure to the Great and the Good,   
   and exposure to the boardrooms of companies which have massive income   
   streams.   
      
   In short the usual buggers muddle of insufficient data, insufficient   
   analytical skills, incompetence, opportunism, greed and insecurity.   
      
   Welcome to the RealWorld™   
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
   --   
   New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in   
   the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in   
   someone else's pocket.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)   
   SEEN-BY: 10/0 1 15/0 90/1 103/705 105/81 106/201 128/260 129/305 135/225   
   SEEN-BY: 153/757 7715 218/0 1 601 700 840 870 930 220/70 221/1 6 226/17   
   SEEN-BY: 226/30 100 227/114 229/110 112 113 200 206 307 317 400 426   
   SEEN-BY: 229/428 470 550 616 664 700 240/1120 266/512 267/800 282/1038   
   SEEN-BY: 291/111 292/854 301/1 113 812 310/31 320/219 322/757 335/364   
   SEEN-BY: 341/66 342/200 396/45 460/58 633/280 712/848 770/1 3 100   
   SEEN-BY: 770/330 340 772/210 220 230 5020/400 1042 5058/104 5075/35   
   PATH: 770/3 1 218/840 221/6 301/1 218/700 229/426