Lockdown Part 2
#171
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2011
Posts: 316
Likes: 0
From: Under beer over couch after skool
True. But it’s a slow process, the best we can do, is use consensus to make judgements with other inputs, communicate clearly our decisions and plans, then adjust, self reflect and take credit for mistakes. That’s how leadership works.
#172
Right. And as part of that consider all opinions potentially valid (like the ones that say masking/lockdowns may be worse rather than better for eventual health outcomes) and work to disprove, rather than try to shut them down and shout them down because they fly against the conventional (convenient) wisdom of what passes for scientific review on the TODAY show. Oh wait.
#173
The scientific consensus was also years ahead on smoking, asbestos, glyphosate, leaded gas, the list goes on and on. Ignore them at your own peril, but unless you have a graduate degree in the subject, you're making a reckless bet against a lot of smart people who've dedicated their life work to the subject.
Here are a few things that–at one point–virtually all scientists agreed on:
- The earth is the center of the universe
- The world is flat.
- The treatment for epilepsy required the ritualistic sacrifice of a goat
Science never fails. Scientists fail constantly. And that’s the idea of it all. That’s how it’s supposed to work while on the journey to find the unfailing truths of science. As such, real science demands skepticism and should be critical of conformity to an idea without comprehensive evidence. But, ‘ya know, 2020 and all…
Today, anyone questioning certain public health officials or government leaders is to be ridiculed, criticized, and even censored because they are dangerous to the environment. If you’re concerned the data tells a different story than the approved message, your dangerous ideological misgivings and disinformation could influence others to take actions that kill people. There is a system of subject matter experts that have the right plan and questioning by the citizenry, press or even other scientists cannot be accepted because any of those people are not the right scientists or intelligentsia to address the matters at hand.
The deaths don’t align with scary case narrative? “You’re wrong, just wait two weeks.” It’s been two weeks? “You’re forgetting about Long COVID.” Long COVID symptoms are just as common with the Flu or other respiratory diseases? “No it’s worse this time., here’s an emotional story of the 3 people that… You have to trust that we’re the experts and you are not.”
Any scientist not open to alternative scientific views, is not a scientist at all and the efforts to dismiss reasonable, rational, and data-driven skepticism at all cost is not science. Concerns of logic and reason are often NOT met genuine scientific insight and data but with emotional stories and anecdotal responses. It’s a plea to trust not the science, but a select group of scientists that must be above reproach even when their data is far from certain or incomplete. Compliance with their directives are all that matters and to ensure compliance in the face of remarkably incomplete scientific rationale, they use fear.
#174
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Oct 2019
Posts: 241
Likes: 0
I did not write this, but I agree:Is it ‘trust the science’ or ‘trust the scientists’? The two are not the same.
Here are a few things that–at one point–virtually all scientists agreed on:
Science never fails. Scientists fail constantly. And that’s the idea of it all. That’s how it’s supposed to work while on the journey to find the unfailing truths of science. As such, real science demands skepticism and should be critical of conformity to an idea without comprehensive evidence. But, ‘ya know, 2020 and all…
Today, anyone questioning certain public health officials or government leaders is to be ridiculed, criticized, and even censored because they are dangerous to the environment. If you’re concerned the data tells a different story than the approved message, your dangerous ideological misgivings and disinformation could influence others to take actions that kill people. There is a system of subject matter experts that have the right plan and questioning by the citizenry, press or even other scientists cannot be accepted because any of those people are not the right scientists or intelligentsia to address the matters at hand.
The deaths don’t align with scary case narrative? “You’re wrong, just wait two weeks.” It’s been two weeks? “You’re forgetting about Long COVID.” Long COVID symptoms are just as common with the Flu or other respiratory diseases? “No it’s worse this time., here’s an emotional story of the 3 people that… You have to trust that we’re the experts and you are not.”
Any scientist not open to alternative scientific views, is not a scientist at all and the efforts to dismiss reasonable, rational, and data-driven skepticism at all cost is not science. Concerns of logic and reason are often NOT met genuine scientific insight and data but with emotional stories and anecdotal responses. It’s a plea to trust not the science, but a select group of scientists that must be above reproach even when their data is far from certain or incomplete. Compliance with their directives are all that matters and to ensure compliance in the face of remarkably incomplete scientific rationale, they use fear.
Here are a few things that–at one point–virtually all scientists agreed on:
- The earth is the center of the universe
- The world is flat.
- The treatment for epilepsy required the ritualistic sacrifice of a goat
Science never fails. Scientists fail constantly. And that’s the idea of it all. That’s how it’s supposed to work while on the journey to find the unfailing truths of science. As such, real science demands skepticism and should be critical of conformity to an idea without comprehensive evidence. But, ‘ya know, 2020 and all…
Today, anyone questioning certain public health officials or government leaders is to be ridiculed, criticized, and even censored because they are dangerous to the environment. If you’re concerned the data tells a different story than the approved message, your dangerous ideological misgivings and disinformation could influence others to take actions that kill people. There is a system of subject matter experts that have the right plan and questioning by the citizenry, press or even other scientists cannot be accepted because any of those people are not the right scientists or intelligentsia to address the matters at hand.
The deaths don’t align with scary case narrative? “You’re wrong, just wait two weeks.” It’s been two weeks? “You’re forgetting about Long COVID.” Long COVID symptoms are just as common with the Flu or other respiratory diseases? “No it’s worse this time., here’s an emotional story of the 3 people that… You have to trust that we’re the experts and you are not.”
Any scientist not open to alternative scientific views, is not a scientist at all and the efforts to dismiss reasonable, rational, and data-driven skepticism at all cost is not science. Concerns of logic and reason are often NOT met genuine scientific insight and data but with emotional stories and anecdotal responses. It’s a plea to trust not the science, but a select group of scientists that must be above reproach even when their data is far from certain or incomplete. Compliance with their directives are all that matters and to ensure compliance in the face of remarkably incomplete scientific rationale, they use fear.
Trusting the experts because they told you so is called politics. It relies on titles, emotional pandering, and connections.
#176
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jan 2018
Posts: 647
Likes: 0
You're basically saying you don't trust scientists and think you can interpret the data in their highly specific skillset better than they can. Also, let's not forget the entire peer review process ensures experiments and studies are properly fact checked by unbiased experts in the field. This is like a flight simmer insisting the NTSB is wrong about the Maxx crash.
#177
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jan 2018
Posts: 647
Likes: 0
I did not write this, but I agree:Is it ‘trust the science’ or ‘trust the scientists’? The two are not the same.
Here are a few things that–at one point–virtually all scientists agreed on:
Science never fails. Scientists fail constantly. And that’s the idea of it all. That’s how it’s supposed to work while on the journey to find the unfailing truths of science. As such, real science demands skepticism and should be critical of conformity to an idea without comprehensive evidence. But, ‘ya know, 2020 and all…
Today, anyone questioning certain public health officials or government leaders is to be ridiculed, criticized, and even censored because they are dangerous to the environment. If you’re concerned the data tells a different story than the approved message, your dangerous ideological misgivings and disinformation could influence others to take actions that kill people. There is a system of subject matter experts that have the right plan and questioning by the citizenry, press or even other scientists cannot be accepted because any of those people are not the right scientists or intelligentsia to address the matters at hand.
The deaths don’t align with scary case narrative? “You’re wrong, just wait two weeks.” It’s been two weeks? “You’re forgetting about Long COVID.” Long COVID symptoms are just as common with the Flu or other respiratory diseases? “No it’s worse this time., here’s an emotional story of the 3 people that… You have to trust that we’re the experts and you are not.”
Any scientist not open to alternative scientific views, is not a scientist at all and the efforts to dismiss reasonable, rational, and data-driven skepticism at all cost is not science. Concerns of logic and reason are often NOT met genuine scientific insight and data but with emotional stories and anecdotal responses. It’s a plea to trust not the science, but a select group of scientists that must be above reproach even when their data is far from certain or incomplete. Compliance with their directives are all that matters and to ensure compliance in the face of remarkably incomplete scientific rationale, they use fear.
Here are a few things that–at one point–virtually all scientists agreed on:
- The earth is the center of the universe
- The world is flat.
- The treatment for epilepsy required the ritualistic sacrifice of a goat
Science never fails. Scientists fail constantly. And that’s the idea of it all. That’s how it’s supposed to work while on the journey to find the unfailing truths of science. As such, real science demands skepticism and should be critical of conformity to an idea without comprehensive evidence. But, ‘ya know, 2020 and all…
Today, anyone questioning certain public health officials or government leaders is to be ridiculed, criticized, and even censored because they are dangerous to the environment. If you’re concerned the data tells a different story than the approved message, your dangerous ideological misgivings and disinformation could influence others to take actions that kill people. There is a system of subject matter experts that have the right plan and questioning by the citizenry, press or even other scientists cannot be accepted because any of those people are not the right scientists or intelligentsia to address the matters at hand.
The deaths don’t align with scary case narrative? “You’re wrong, just wait two weeks.” It’s been two weeks? “You’re forgetting about Long COVID.” Long COVID symptoms are just as common with the Flu or other respiratory diseases? “No it’s worse this time., here’s an emotional story of the 3 people that… You have to trust that we’re the experts and you are not.”
Any scientist not open to alternative scientific views, is not a scientist at all and the efforts to dismiss reasonable, rational, and data-driven skepticism at all cost is not science. Concerns of logic and reason are often NOT met genuine scientific insight and data but with emotional stories and anecdotal responses. It’s a plea to trust not the science, but a select group of scientists that must be above reproach even when their data is far from certain or incomplete. Compliance with their directives are all that matters and to ensure compliance in the face of remarkably incomplete scientific rationale, they use fear.
#178
Line Holder
Joined: Apr 2018
Posts: 700
Likes: 0
POTUS is my president...for now (lol), but his words and his deeds have given me a window into his soul and it ain't pretty. Even his admirers acknowledge his moral and ethical failings, and it's funny watching some of them twisting in the wind trying to downplay this deficiency.
Up to this point, POTUS has pulled off the greatest political con of the century on this country, or at least a part of it. He's a Democrat! lol
POTUS is not liked on either side, and primarily, it's not because of his politics, but rather because of his ethics. The conservative politicians in his party go along to get along, pinching their noses and swallowing the medicine because as a tool, he achieves THEIR financial and political objectives, and besides, who want to go up against him and be subjected to death by a thousand tweets? Lol
I'm not sure by what measure you speak when you mention majority, but I'd like to think that most Americans do share my point of view on POTUS. Fortunately/unfortunately, the electoral college is how we elect our president, which as we know is not a "popularity" contest.
Whether or not POTUS gets re-elected, I am certain he will lose the popular vote, which in my opinion would most accurately signal how we as a nation feel about him.
Up to this point, POTUS has pulled off the greatest political con of the century on this country, or at least a part of it. He's a Democrat! lol
POTUS is not liked on either side, and primarily, it's not because of his politics, but rather because of his ethics. The conservative politicians in his party go along to get along, pinching their noses and swallowing the medicine because as a tool, he achieves THEIR financial and political objectives, and besides, who want to go up against him and be subjected to death by a thousand tweets? Lol
I'm not sure by what measure you speak when you mention majority, but I'd like to think that most Americans do share my point of view on POTUS. Fortunately/unfortunately, the electoral college is how we elect our president, which as we know is not a "popularity" contest.
Whether or not POTUS gets re-elected, I am certain he will lose the popular vote, which in my opinion would most accurately signal how we as a nation feel about him.
Nope, we're good...
#179
P/T Gear Slinger
Joined: May 2017
Posts: 886
Likes: 40
From: Airbus
Compare total deaths (all causes) in 2018 and 2019 with the current total deaths (so far) in 2020... the US is on track to match the previous two years even with CV19. Less people are dying of cardiovascular disease, cancer and influenza ... better overall healthcare this year or CV19 death tracking f’d up?
Last edited by emersonbiguns; 02-19-2022 at 03:26 AM.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post



