MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Questions Of The Day (Politics)
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 184, 185, 186 ... 299, 300, 301  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Grant



View user's profile
Reply with quote

Mick, I’m so sorry that Marina has let you down. That last Guardian article of hers shows that she too has fallen to the Covid hysteria.
I hope I’m around in twenty years to read the countless books that will be written about the great health hysteria of 2020. I must remember to save all my tweets to prove that I didn’t succumb.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

They will show you fell for the equal but opposite silliness, that Covid was nothing much. Why people have to be all this or all the other is quite beyond me. Why can't it be a serious but unprecedented situation that led to precautionary over-reactions? Or the hundred and one other conclusions you might arrive at if you ever tried to do it on your own. No, no, I quite understand. If you want to storm the Capitol you'd look silly doing it on your own.
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Mick Harper wrote:
Why can't it be a serious but unprecedented situation that led to precautionary over-reactions?


Maybe you are onto something, the precautionary principle is important in Science, but precautionary over-reaction is an incredibly poor basis for taking decision in a crisis.

Maybe this is a flaw in ministers following the SAGE science.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

This is roughly my view. Which I arrived at on my own, you understand. But I disagree with your apportioning of blame. The precautionary principle is not used in science, they just dib and dob. It is used by policy-makers when outcomes are incalculable but include disastrous ones. In such circumstances, they cannot dib and dob.

As we have observed many times, SAGE does not include scientists in its ranks. They are all academics, medical practitioners or governmental figures. They all claim to be 'following the science' but they cannot do this because epidemiology (and allied trades) are not sciences, they are accumulations of 'lore'. Quite rational, I hasten to say, but not science in the sense that the scientific method has been applied to their theories.

Frankly, I cannot see that anyone has done very much wrong -- nobody knew (or knows) what the correct course of action was. We may learn from our experience but, frankly, I wouldn't bet on it. "We wuz right," will be the verdict whatever policy any particular body of opinion held. You, Grant, SAGE, Trumpists, Sweden, WHO. Not me though, I kept changing my opinion. So I wuz right too.
Send private message
Duncan71


In: Calgary
View user's profile
Reply with quote

It kind of seems to me that the truest adage is that we always get the government that we deserve. “Government of the people, by the people for the people” may make for a nifty slogan but when have you ever seen a nation ruled by a bunch of ‘Average Joes’? We generally get the group of jerks that we’re most willing to tolerate (or, in some cases, who we most fear).

Democracies formed in the first place as a reaction to the excesses of the cruel elite regimes of yore and a formation of a balance of power amongst the next most established and politically connected elites. One would love to think that it was out of the kindness of their own hearts but that would be missing the point. I dare say it is more likely that it was the by-product of new regimes needing to make significant concessions to the common people in order to stay in power. Call me cynical.

I would go as far to say that the same is true of the communists and other political tribes. Their views came to the fore by being popularly held amongst those who most aspired to grab the reins of power from the previous regime. When events unfolded that allowed them to overthrow the previously established societal elite, the new regime became the new status quo. It may be that which way a nation goes is highly dependent on the prevailing cultural milieu amongst a certain group of upstarts at a given time and in a particular region.


In the past few decades, we have seen a few basic trends in the west:

1) A general takeover of educational and cultural institutions by individuals claiming a progressive agenda who don’t take too kindly to being disagreed with.
2) A severe growth of bureaucracy, debt levels and the welfare state in every western nation regardless of the political leanings of the people in charge.
3) A significant growth in the relative economic clout of corporate conglomerates with a noticeable massing of wealth and political and cultural power in the few individual that control them.

I think it’s safe to say that political regimes historically have been dominated by individuals who rarely share the values of the ruled. Stability has depended on the degree to which the ‘toffs’ have differed in values from the ‘plebs’. Greater distance has generally meant less stability unless the 'toffs' are really tough and determined. The ‘plebs’ will only re-establish themselves when pushed to the extreme or they are seen as useful hammers to use against two or more competing elites. What has been deemed as 'scientifically rational' in most societies has generally depended on the highly subjective personal opinions of this 'connected' class.

Unfortunately, the west has slowly been establishing a group of elites that don’t share the cultural values of the general population. These highly aspirational individuals have largely been incubated in the halls of academia. Little wonder that they don't take too kindly to us pointing out the "emperor's new clothes" of their supposed rationality. I see instability and authoritarianism in our collective futures unless there is a considerable change in attitude in those that see themselves as our betters.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

It kind of seems to me that the truest adage is that we always get the government that we deserve.

Done the maths, have you?

“Government of the people, by the people for the people” may make for a nifty slogan but when have you ever seen a nation ruled by a bunch of ‘Average Joes’?

All the time. Every democracy I know of is ruled by 'Average Joes'. Not kings, not aristos, not the military, not dictators, not revolutionaries, just 'average Joes' who like ruling people. Quite bright ones at the top, quite dim ones at the bottom. I have applied at various levels and at various times myself but have always been found to be 'below average'.

We generally get the group of jerks that we’re most willing to tolerate (or, in some cases, who we most fear).

Sorry? Can you give us some examples? I can't think of anyone who ran on a "Vote for me, I'm tolerable" ticket. "Vote for me. Or else." is quite a nifty slogan but I haven't seen anyone use it yet. Do I need to go on?
Send private message
Duncan71


In: Calgary
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Perhaps I should have been more specific. I was pointing to a trend, not an absolute.

'Average Joes' may make up the rank and file of most parties but they are usually 'led' by individuals who have cash in the bank or are very well-connected to those who do. 'Regular' folks do occasionally make it big but the fact that they like ruling people makes them a bit 'atypical' compared to the rest of us. "Government of the favoured, by the ambitious for the largest donators" might be a bit more accurate.

I can't think of anyone who ran on a "Vote for me, I'm tolerable" ticket.


His name is Joe Biden. Of course, "tolerable" is not what he said but it's why a lot of people voted for him and why he was able to get past the primaries.

It's hardly uncommon for people to vote for the person they find least objectionable to their sensibilities rather than the individual who they think is the most qualified for the job.

"Vote for me. Or else." is quite a nifty slogan but I haven't seen anyone use it yet.


I wasn't only referring to democracies.
Send private message
Grant



View user's profile
Reply with quote

I don’t believe that Covid is “nothing much.” It’s a nasty virus but there was no evidence that it was going to be worse than a number of other flu viruses which we get hit with every ten years or so.

In the absence of that evidence we had no reason to lock down. We did it because the media caused a panic.
Send private message
Duncan71


In: Calgary
View user's profile
Reply with quote

I'm inclined to agree. The media did largely sell Covid as a crisis. They managed to get a lot more buzz than either the swine or avian flus.

Funny that it took place in an election year but I'm not one for conspiracies. (At least, not usually)
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Oh Gawd, now it's the media. Someone called a meeting, did they? "Now look, chaps, the general line to take is in your Briefing Notes docket."
"I object."
"Sorry, Guardian, chaps and chappesses."
"I object."
"Sorry, chap-persons."
Send private message
Duncan71


In: Calgary
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Talk about a strawman. I don't recall either of us stating that all the journalists spoke with one voice and there were no dissenting opinions. I will be sure to list the exceptions by name next time. I can understand being chastised for talking in generalities but can we never mention a noticeable trend? (Like people often have the weekends off.) I respect that you may not see it that way but I haven't finished throwing spaghetti.

There were enough stories out there to at least add to a greater sense of danger than was warranted relative to other previous outbreaks of disease. Perhaps panic is too strong a word.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Talk about a strawman. I don't recall either of us stating that all the journalists spoke with one voice and there were no dissenting opinions.

No, you both did. My broad recollections was: "We did it because the media caused a panic" and "I'm inclined to agree. The media did largely sell Covid as a crisis."

I will be sure to list the exceptions by name next time.

The first time would have been better. I look forward to a list of journalistic outlets that said Covid has been a crisis largely sold to us by other journalistic outlets. I love a good dog-eats-dog story, me.

I can understand being chastised for talking in generalities

No need, they are our stock-in-trade. But we do like evidence rather than simple assertion. Especially when someone is just pushing a standard saloon-bar argument.

but can we never mention a noticeable trend?

I expect so, they are our stock-in-trade. But we do like evidence rather than simple assertion. Especially when someone is just pushing a standard saloon-bar argument.

There were enough stories out there to at least add to a greater sense of danger than was warranted relative to other previous outbreaks of disease.

You mean they reported the facts but did not subscribe to your theory that Covid wasn't up to much? That's certainly true and it is part of AE's brief to complain about undue unanimity in high places. Which, if you look back through this thread, we have complained about quite a lot.

Perhaps panic is too strong a word.

Well, it's not a word that I have heard anybody in a responsible position use -- in the media, in government, in the various professional bodies -- but it is a word constantly on the lips of those accusing these people of all sorts.
Send private message
Duncan71


In: Calgary
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Got it. Provide evidence rather than assertion the first time that I state something.

My 'assertion' of the media referring to Covid as a crisis was based on outlets and organizations like "The New Yorker", "NPR", the "U.N.", the "O.E.C.D.", "The Wall Street Journal", "Human Rights Watch", "Global News" and "CTV News" referring to it as just that. That's not even a comprehensive list.

I didn't say that Covid wasn't up to much. I simply wonder if an outbreak that has been reported to have a infection fatality rate of less than 1% (largely amongst the very ill or elderly) constitutes a 'crisis'. I certainly don't snuff at this number if it's true. One could state that it's a crisis for the groups most affected.

Mortality rates in North America were larger last year than they have been in decades. However, there have been a number of reports stating that deaths from other causes by people that had contracted Covid had been included in the numbers reported as Covid deaths. Other sources have stated that Covid was a significant contributing factor in most of those cases.

There seems to be some confusion from different sources over whether lockdowns have had a significant effect on the fatality rate. Lockdowns did follow reports from the media and various public and private organizations. One could call this 'panic' if there was enough evidence that the actions of the latter actually caused the former. However, is Grant's statement on a lack of evidence for the lockdowns near the mark? Does it follow that lack of evidence for lockdowns means that someone must have panicked the public to think otherwise?
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

My 'assertion' of the media referring to Covid as a crisis was based on outlets and organizations like "The New Yorker", "NPR", the "U.N.", the "O.E.C.D.", "The Wall Street Journal", "Human Rights Watch", "Global News" and "CTV News" referring to it as just that. That's not even a comprehensive list.

Dunc, this isn't evidence. And nobody mentioned 'a crisis'. Blimey, we get ten of them a day. We want to hear your reason for saying something not somebody else's. That's what we mean by an unsupported assertion and it smokes out crazies because the reason, when they even bother to provide one, is usually a) crazy and b) somebody else's. We are simply not interested in either orthodox voices or crazy voices. Although a lot of people here still think they have to give us the benefit of their orthodox/crazy opinions. I call it saloon bar talk because you can hear such arguments anywhere and the AEL ought not to be the forum to air them in.

I didn't say that Covid wasn't up to much. I simply wonder if an outbreak that has been reported to have a infection fatality rate of less than 1% (largely amongst the very ill or elderly) constitutes a 'crisis'. I certainly don't snuff at this number if it's true. One could state that it's a crisis for the groups most affected.

That's saying Covid isn't up to much. Come on, Dunc, get a grip. The world says it's massive, most of us here say it isn't as massive as they think. The crazies say it practically doesn't exist. I notice you started off in the last camp but now, under pressure, you are moving to the centre.

Mortality rates in North America were larger last year than they have been in decades. However, there have been a number of reports stating that deaths from other causes by people that had contracted Covid had been included in the numbers reported as Covid deaths. Other sources have stated that Covid was a significant contributing factor in most of those cases.

You see, you can do it, but you have to be pushed. Now do go on...

There seems to be some confusion from different sources over whether lockdowns have had a significant effect on the fatality rate. Lockdowns did follow reports from the media and various public and private organizations. One could call this 'panic' if there was enough evidence that the actions of the latter actually caused the former but it is irresponsible to state it without evidence.

As you just have. This is meangingless twaddle unless you want to work it up into something untwaddlish. (It sounds like quite an interesting idea.)
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

How is the new post-Trump regime getting on? Having decided that a few nutters making whoopee spinning round in Nancy Pelosi's chair constitutes an armed insurrection, they must take every precaution to defend the Republic. (From Republicans, mostly.) First step, concentrate the DC police force to guard the Green Zone.

"Are you kidding? They'll be swept away like chaff in the wind. Seventy million people voted for Trump and you'd have to be a loony-tune to do that. Plus they think they were cheated. No guessing what they're capable of."
"Mobilise 20,000 National Guard."
"Are you kidding, who do you think joins the National Guard for weekends of live fire manoeuvres?"
"Yeah, right, Trump-supporting gun-nutters. Tell the FBI to vet the names of the National Guard."
"We'll have to mobilise more National Guard to watch over the first lot."
"That'll strip the state capitals just when they're under major threat. I read it on the internet."
"Call Fort Bragg and see if the 82nd Airborne can fly top cover."
"If I can find the number. We just changed the name because Braxton Bragg was a Confederate general. Anyone know what it's called now?"
Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 184, 185, 186 ... 299, 300, 301  Next

Jump to:  
Page 185 of 301

MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group