"The rationale is that if they are recommended to everyone, the high-risk groups are more likely to accept them."
That has to be the most utterly idiotic reasoning I've come across in a public policy debate. It completely ignores all of the other issues like the risks arising from the medical intervention, the cost (financial) of purchasing and administering 'vaccines' for the entire population, etc etc. I think Canada has ordered millions of these dangerous products for 2023, despite COVID being a non-issue.
I recall talking to a health care economist about a decade ago. She was very open about the need to limit health care spending, as health care is a bottomless pit. In particular, health systems have to make a decision about how much end of life care is appropriate since EOL care costs are extremely high. Sometimes you can't afford to embrace a novel medicine or treatment method generally as it simply costs too much.
With the COVID, the untold trillions spent on interventions was a complete misallocation of resources. Put aside fraud, put aside the fact that the shots are dangerous. Assume for a moment that the shots actually worked. It was completely irrational to spend that much money to help a few 78+ year olds with multiple health conditions live a couple of additional years. You are talking about a non-productive segment of the population. If you are going to spend that sort of money, you spend it on the people who actually make society run, or on children.
One striking aspect of the misinformation campaign waged against us, James, was the self-interested motivations of its advocates among the citizenry. I refer to my fellow members of the "at risk" cohort.
The effects of lockdown were well known. The risks associated with inclusion in experimental drug trials were also well known. Within weeks, the distribution of risk was a very strong signal emerging from the cacophony of noise and confusion.
My cohort knew, very early on, that we were the only ones at statistically significant risk from a novel respiratory virus. The responsibility for managing that risk was ours.
There were two opposing approaches to risk management. The first was to take individual responsibility for managing a very personal level of risk. The second was to coerce others to manage risk that they didn't share.
It was something of an epiphany to watch the latter of those two approaches being adopted. I'd expected a compromise, a blended accommodation; something like the vulnerable being supported in principle with understanding of a need to isolate and a willingness to allow limited remote work for those in my cohort that were unable to leave the workplace entirely.
Instead, what all 'round were supporting, was to forcibly destroy the livelihoods of those exposed to nearly inconsequential risk, just to diminish our own risk exposure by an infinitesimal fraction.
I found great comfort in the knowledge that the kids were all right and that those on whose shoulders the responsibility for "keeping the lights on" rests, were going to be fine, albeit suffer a modicum of tragic loss in relatively small numbers.
It was meaningful, that comfort, and assured me that if I sickened and died, my lifelong efforts to hold up my end of the social contract had not been squandered. I encountered few others who shared that sense of meaningful comfort. The vast majority gave no thought whatsoever to these matters, strongly advocating for any and all measures, however destructive to others, in pursuit of lowering risk for themselves.
Now.... it's fine to be selfish. Everyone pursues their self-interest, and that's a feature, not a bug. What isn't fine, is to lie about it.
One of the most poignant examples of the choice to be made, was the refusal of a woman I know with multiple comorbidities, in her late seventies, that refused to stop volunteering at a food distribution site for the homeless and destitute. When asked why, her simple reply was "I've had a good life and I'm not going to stop doing my duty to others less fortunate and prosperous than myself." She knew she was facing a distinct possibility of mortal illness or death, and faced that possibility with quiet courage. I've known this woman for over six decades, and her example was a lifeline against the rising tide of cynicism at the greed and deceit of humanity.
She kept serving others until she was dismissed from the food bank and prevented from returning. She was, as far as I can determine, an outlier.
I do not condemn those operating from pure self-interest, but their manipulative dishonesty is another matter.
My point is that once our race has been run and we become dependent on the labor of others for our sustenance and survival, we have a duty to those who have been dutiful toward us.
That needful reciprocity vanished almost entirely.
When you refer to the non-productive segment of the population, many will reinterpret your description in a manner congruent with their own self-interest, rather than acknowledging the fact of your observation dispassionately. Easier, then, to abide in motivated ignorance, brushing aside observable truth in support of self-conceptualizing as virtuous.
Thanks for your post; clarifying the position is always the first step toward arriving at effective solutions.
Resources are limited so you spend them where they are most effective. This is a substack written by an economist, not someone who reacts with emotion.
Shutting down economies, disrupting childhood development (etc) for the sake of octogenarians on their deathbed is perhaps the dumbest idea in human history.
It is deeply disturbing when it becomes the only goal to attempt to lenghten the lives of the old and frail, while sacrificing children, especially when it was evident how that attempt would eventually fail. Sacrificing children for the old is simply not a natural thing to do. A society that does this has become perverted.
I think you err by labeling that the "only goal." The behavior of the powerful (e.g. government, Pharma, etc.) is better explained by Nietzsche "perspectivism." These entities, like most living organisms, are instinctually driven to survive, to reproduce, to expand their power, etc. Viewing the Covid-19 pandemic through such an amoral (naturalistic) lens makes many of the apparently irrational behaviors at lot more logical – from the perspective of those who stood to, or actually did, gain money and power from them. What we blame as foolish choices by the authorities may in fact be “rational” (by the point of view of their own instincts.) It should be emphasized that this behavior need not be deliberate or a conscious choice; it may very well be governed by the subconscious.
Nice job, Thorsteinn. You condensed the issue to its one core question with this sentence:
A more fitting title for the MedpageToday article would therefore have been: "Should Scientists be Allowed to Tell the Truth?"
If you think about, everything in the last three years has been designed to support lies. There are no incentives for telling the truth - only obvious disincentives.
The problem of lying predates the Covid-19 "pandemic" of course. I lean to the cynical, but in my dealings with authority begin with the assumption that everything is a lie or a half-truth until proven otherwise. If one begins with the admittedly uncharitable premise that an individual or group is motivated by greed or desire for power, it explains a lot of behavior. Of course, this doesn’t mean that every doctor or corporation is out to screw you, or that some of their goods and services aren’t actually of a net benefit. The point I’m hoping to drive home is that you simply cannot trust anyone or anything unquestioned. There are almost always hidden agendas, some of which may not be to your benefit.
And that proverbial light at the end of the tunnel? Is it really daylight, or is it an oncoming freight train?
“According to Offit...the rationale is that if they are recommended to everyone, the high-risk groups are more likely to accept them.”
Offit changing his tune like a chameleon changes colors. He knows he has blood on his hands. Revising rationale won’t wash it away, Offit. Enjoy your millions while you still walk free.
Sorry, that is no defense. He is among “the officials.” He had the power to persuade the officials to reconsider their rationale. And when they didn’t he could have stepped down. Instead he went along, drumbeating the vax and boosters on every possible news outlet for months on end. That money is in the bank and the trail has dried up, so here comes his defense.
Paul Offit belongs on Dr. Paul Alexander's list of "Horsemen of the Apocalypse," if he has not already received this well-earned public shaming.
Offit must see the "dim light at the end of the tunnel" Thorsteinn references.
From my perspective, Offit's role as relentless covid injection media salesman and official "recommender" of the covid shot has already condemned him as untrustworthy of attention and greedily self-interested.
It's far too late for him to try to redeem himself.
For understanding a problem, I recommend perspectivism (google it). In so many words, this and similar mental tools merely note that each person (group, etc.) views the world differently, often dramatically differently than others do. At this level, there is no "right" or "wrong." We are simply interested in assessing how a player views the game. For example, if we imagine ourself as a Pharma corporation, their prime motives are likely to promote their product, to maximize income and influence. It would be natural they might resort to any means to achieve such goals. It may sound callous, but logically concerns such as the safety, efficacy or cost of a product would not be top priorities. Why would they be? An organism’s primal instincts are to survive, preferably to grow, to expand its powers, and to reproduce. Any benefit (or harm) that occurs to others is incidental.
Sure, another player (e.g. the vaccine skeptic) may label Pharma's behavior as "evil" or "deceptive." And it probably is -- from that other player's perspective. But from the top-level veiw, Pharma is simply acting in its own best interests. A disinterested observer would no more villify Pharma as "evil" than he would a lion killing an antelope for dinner as being "evil.." It's not right or wrong, it just IS.
In contrast, the stereotypical patient would likely prioritize obtaining the best medical care possible. Problem: given a choice, he’d prefer that this be delivered at no cost to him and at zero risk.
The average doctor or nurse wishes to “survive” – this might mean simply keep his job. He’s probably concerned about self-esteem; keeping in the good graces of the boss, the state medical board, and his colleagues. These, and other drives, channel the doctor to behave in certain predicable ways, choosing some courses of action and shrinking from others.
A member of a regulatory body might be dominated by an urge to not “rock the boat,” therefore overlooking flaws and failings of his colleagues, even if they are misbehaving doctors that, in theory, he is supposed to punish. Or perhaps she’s an idealist, motivated primarily by a desire to obtain increased respect from radicals, and she seeks out real or imagined cases of wrongdoing by doctors.
Note this above analysis – to the extent it’s accurate – is by no means praising or pardoning the behavior of a player. Indeed, the very concepts of morality, of ethics, and so forth are purely arbitrary human standards. That doesn’t mean they don’t have any value, for by definition, they are yardsticks by how “we” (which, if one be honest, is just another group, therefore a perspective) view matters.
At the perspectivism level, we are merely interested in laying bare the actual or plausible motives for why each player behaves the way he does. Doing so will often give great insight into the overall “truth” of a complex reality.
That video is shocking to watch. He is a public health official that boldly admits to lying, he asserts that he did so in the public's best interest, and implies the public wants him to do so. That's the level of disdain elites have for the public.
In one sense, Offit and any number of other officials are merely doing their thing. As in the fable of the frog and the scorpion, it's just in their nature. To expect the bald truth from a government mouthpiece would be as unrealistic as to expect a pride of lions to take up veganism.
The idea (at least written down) is at least as old as Plato's "Republic." In that thought exercise, much of it fanciful and unrealistic, sadly one of the most practical maxims was that the private individual should not be allowed to lie, but that the government should for its own ends. This, I believe, is the origin of the term "Noble Lie."
We in the US, and the west more broadly, have regressed into a politically infantile state. For the vast majority of scientists, the obvious answer to the question: ""Should Scientists Openly Debate Vaccine Policies?" is: "If the government says its OK for us to openly debate vaccine policies.".
Spot on. Here's a highly relevant quote from another Substacker:
"Conservative media is mainly designed to provide its readers with information. But liberal media is designed to give its readers permission to think certain thoughts...The article was more significant because it signaled to democrats that now acceptable to talk about [previously forbidden topics.]"
What I found newsworthy here is that this discussion should even be published, especially as what he is really saying is that public health officials are lying. I also found it newsworthy how basically every comment under the piece is critical of the policy.
The "conspiracy theorist" view would be that Offit's statements are a limited hangout and/or an attempt by the Deep State [substitute your favorite term for the hidden powers if you like] to promote a new narrative for whatever purpose. Of course any number of interpretations are possible. Here's but one: Perhaps Deep State knows that there is going to be a major backlash against them about the "vaccines" and all the other mishandling of the pandemic. If that is true, then it would seem logical that they'll gradually pivot the messaging to something like "Well, gee whiz, we are sorry that so many mistakes were made. It was a crisis and we were doing the best we could under the circumstances. And it's not like we haven't been forthcoming about the problems. Just look at what Dr. Offit admitted on [date]. See?"
"The rationale is that if they are recommended to everyone, the high-risk groups are more likely to accept them."
That has to be the most utterly idiotic reasoning I've come across in a public policy debate. It completely ignores all of the other issues like the risks arising from the medical intervention, the cost (financial) of purchasing and administering 'vaccines' for the entire population, etc etc. I think Canada has ordered millions of these dangerous products for 2023, despite COVID being a non-issue.
I recall talking to a health care economist about a decade ago. She was very open about the need to limit health care spending, as health care is a bottomless pit. In particular, health systems have to make a decision about how much end of life care is appropriate since EOL care costs are extremely high. Sometimes you can't afford to embrace a novel medicine or treatment method generally as it simply costs too much.
With the COVID, the untold trillions spent on interventions was a complete misallocation of resources. Put aside fraud, put aside the fact that the shots are dangerous. Assume for a moment that the shots actually worked. It was completely irrational to spend that much money to help a few 78+ year olds with multiple health conditions live a couple of additional years. You are talking about a non-productive segment of the population. If you are going to spend that sort of money, you spend it on the people who actually make society run, or on children.
One striking aspect of the misinformation campaign waged against us, James, was the self-interested motivations of its advocates among the citizenry. I refer to my fellow members of the "at risk" cohort.
The effects of lockdown were well known. The risks associated with inclusion in experimental drug trials were also well known. Within weeks, the distribution of risk was a very strong signal emerging from the cacophony of noise and confusion.
My cohort knew, very early on, that we were the only ones at statistically significant risk from a novel respiratory virus. The responsibility for managing that risk was ours.
There were two opposing approaches to risk management. The first was to take individual responsibility for managing a very personal level of risk. The second was to coerce others to manage risk that they didn't share.
It was something of an epiphany to watch the latter of those two approaches being adopted. I'd expected a compromise, a blended accommodation; something like the vulnerable being supported in principle with understanding of a need to isolate and a willingness to allow limited remote work for those in my cohort that were unable to leave the workplace entirely.
Instead, what all 'round were supporting, was to forcibly destroy the livelihoods of those exposed to nearly inconsequential risk, just to diminish our own risk exposure by an infinitesimal fraction.
I found great comfort in the knowledge that the kids were all right and that those on whose shoulders the responsibility for "keeping the lights on" rests, were going to be fine, albeit suffer a modicum of tragic loss in relatively small numbers.
It was meaningful, that comfort, and assured me that if I sickened and died, my lifelong efforts to hold up my end of the social contract had not been squandered. I encountered few others who shared that sense of meaningful comfort. The vast majority gave no thought whatsoever to these matters, strongly advocating for any and all measures, however destructive to others, in pursuit of lowering risk for themselves.
Now.... it's fine to be selfish. Everyone pursues their self-interest, and that's a feature, not a bug. What isn't fine, is to lie about it.
One of the most poignant examples of the choice to be made, was the refusal of a woman I know with multiple comorbidities, in her late seventies, that refused to stop volunteering at a food distribution site for the homeless and destitute. When asked why, her simple reply was "I've had a good life and I'm not going to stop doing my duty to others less fortunate and prosperous than myself." She knew she was facing a distinct possibility of mortal illness or death, and faced that possibility with quiet courage. I've known this woman for over six decades, and her example was a lifeline against the rising tide of cynicism at the greed and deceit of humanity.
She kept serving others until she was dismissed from the food bank and prevented from returning. She was, as far as I can determine, an outlier.
I do not condemn those operating from pure self-interest, but their manipulative dishonesty is another matter.
My point is that once our race has been run and we become dependent on the labor of others for our sustenance and survival, we have a duty to those who have been dutiful toward us.
That needful reciprocity vanished almost entirely.
When you refer to the non-productive segment of the population, many will reinterpret your description in a manner congruent with their own self-interest, rather than acknowledging the fact of your observation dispassionately. Easier, then, to abide in motivated ignorance, brushing aside observable truth in support of self-conceptualizing as virtuous.
Thanks for your post; clarifying the position is always the first step toward arriving at effective solutions.
What a horrible attitude.
And yet you provide no reasons, how intelligent.
Resources are limited so you spend them where they are most effective. This is a substack written by an economist, not someone who reacts with emotion.
Shutting down economies, disrupting childhood development (etc) for the sake of octogenarians on their deathbed is perhaps the dumbest idea in human history.
It is deeply disturbing when it becomes the only goal to attempt to lenghten the lives of the old and frail, while sacrificing children, especially when it was evident how that attempt would eventually fail. Sacrificing children for the old is simply not a natural thing to do. A society that does this has become perverted.
I think you err by labeling that the "only goal." The behavior of the powerful (e.g. government, Pharma, etc.) is better explained by Nietzsche "perspectivism." These entities, like most living organisms, are instinctually driven to survive, to reproduce, to expand their power, etc. Viewing the Covid-19 pandemic through such an amoral (naturalistic) lens makes many of the apparently irrational behaviors at lot more logical – from the perspective of those who stood to, or actually did, gain money and power from them. What we blame as foolish choices by the authorities may in fact be “rational” (by the point of view of their own instincts.) It should be emphasized that this behavior need not be deliberate or a conscious choice; it may very well be governed by the subconscious.
No surprise that you misunderstand.
Nice job, Thorsteinn. You condensed the issue to its one core question with this sentence:
A more fitting title for the MedpageToday article would therefore have been: "Should Scientists be Allowed to Tell the Truth?"
If you think about, everything in the last three years has been designed to support lies. There are no incentives for telling the truth - only obvious disincentives.
Thanks Bill. And we continue our disincentivized bantering, come hell or high waters (well, they've come already, haven't they).
The problem of lying predates the Covid-19 "pandemic" of course. I lean to the cynical, but in my dealings with authority begin with the assumption that everything is a lie or a half-truth until proven otherwise. If one begins with the admittedly uncharitable premise that an individual or group is motivated by greed or desire for power, it explains a lot of behavior. Of course, this doesn’t mean that every doctor or corporation is out to screw you, or that some of their goods and services aren’t actually of a net benefit. The point I’m hoping to drive home is that you simply cannot trust anyone or anything unquestioned. There are almost always hidden agendas, some of which may not be to your benefit.
And that proverbial light at the end of the tunnel? Is it really daylight, or is it an oncoming freight train?
“According to Offit...the rationale is that if they are recommended to everyone, the high-risk groups are more likely to accept them.”
Offit changing his tune like a chameleon changes colors. He knows he has blood on his hands. Revising rationale won’t wash it away, Offit. Enjoy your millions while you still walk free.
In his defense, this isn't his rationale, but the rationale of the officials he discussed this with.
Sorry, that is no defense. He is among “the officials.” He had the power to persuade the officials to reconsider their rationale. And when they didn’t he could have stepped down. Instead he went along, drumbeating the vax and boosters on every possible news outlet for months on end. That money is in the bank and the trail has dried up, so here comes his defense.
I agree, Dr. Who.
Paul Offit belongs on Dr. Paul Alexander's list of "Horsemen of the Apocalypse," if he has not already received this well-earned public shaming.
Offit must see the "dim light at the end of the tunnel" Thorsteinn references.
From my perspective, Offit's role as relentless covid injection media salesman and official "recommender" of the covid shot has already condemned him as untrustworthy of attention and greedily self-interested.
It's far too late for him to try to redeem himself.
For understanding a problem, I recommend perspectivism (google it). In so many words, this and similar mental tools merely note that each person (group, etc.) views the world differently, often dramatically differently than others do. At this level, there is no "right" or "wrong." We are simply interested in assessing how a player views the game. For example, if we imagine ourself as a Pharma corporation, their prime motives are likely to promote their product, to maximize income and influence. It would be natural they might resort to any means to achieve such goals. It may sound callous, but logically concerns such as the safety, efficacy or cost of a product would not be top priorities. Why would they be? An organism’s primal instincts are to survive, preferably to grow, to expand its powers, and to reproduce. Any benefit (or harm) that occurs to others is incidental.
Sure, another player (e.g. the vaccine skeptic) may label Pharma's behavior as "evil" or "deceptive." And it probably is -- from that other player's perspective. But from the top-level veiw, Pharma is simply acting in its own best interests. A disinterested observer would no more villify Pharma as "evil" than he would a lion killing an antelope for dinner as being "evil.." It's not right or wrong, it just IS.
In contrast, the stereotypical patient would likely prioritize obtaining the best medical care possible. Problem: given a choice, he’d prefer that this be delivered at no cost to him and at zero risk.
The average doctor or nurse wishes to “survive” – this might mean simply keep his job. He’s probably concerned about self-esteem; keeping in the good graces of the boss, the state medical board, and his colleagues. These, and other drives, channel the doctor to behave in certain predicable ways, choosing some courses of action and shrinking from others.
A member of a regulatory body might be dominated by an urge to not “rock the boat,” therefore overlooking flaws and failings of his colleagues, even if they are misbehaving doctors that, in theory, he is supposed to punish. Or perhaps she’s an idealist, motivated primarily by a desire to obtain increased respect from radicals, and she seeks out real or imagined cases of wrongdoing by doctors.
Note this above analysis – to the extent it’s accurate – is by no means praising or pardoning the behavior of a player. Indeed, the very concepts of morality, of ethics, and so forth are purely arbitrary human standards. That doesn’t mean they don’t have any value, for by definition, they are yardsticks by how “we” (which, if one be honest, is just another group, therefore a perspective) view matters.
At the perspectivism level, we are merely interested in laying bare the actual or plausible motives for why each player behaves the way he does. Doing so will often give great insight into the overall “truth” of a complex reality.
"Should Scientists Be Allowed To Tell The Truth?" This is a stupid question... simply because the word 'truth' can't be used in a science context.
This is why this happened from March 2020 till Yesterday...
https://postimg.cc/Mf8fk00W
That video is shocking to watch. He is a public health official that boldly admits to lying, he asserts that he did so in the public's best interest, and implies the public wants him to do so. That's the level of disdain elites have for the public.
In one sense, Offit and any number of other officials are merely doing their thing. As in the fable of the frog and the scorpion, it's just in their nature. To expect the bald truth from a government mouthpiece would be as unrealistic as to expect a pride of lions to take up veganism.
The idea (at least written down) is at least as old as Plato's "Republic." In that thought exercise, much of it fanciful and unrealistic, sadly one of the most practical maxims was that the private individual should not be allowed to lie, but that the government should for its own ends. This, I believe, is the origin of the term "Noble Lie."
We in the US, and the west more broadly, have regressed into a politically infantile state. For the vast majority of scientists, the obvious answer to the question: ""Should Scientists Openly Debate Vaccine Policies?" is: "If the government says its OK for us to openly debate vaccine policies.".
That is not hyperbole.
Spot on. Here's a highly relevant quote from another Substacker:
"Conservative media is mainly designed to provide its readers with information. But liberal media is designed to give its readers permission to think certain thoughts...The article was more significant because it signaled to democrats that now acceptable to talk about [previously forbidden topics.]"
https://www.coffeeandcovid.com/p/one-year-monday-november-6-2023-c
Why bother writing about the comments of Offit ?
I would offload him from any conversation on vaccines.
Period.
What I found newsworthy here is that this discussion should even be published, especially as what he is really saying is that public health officials are lying. I also found it newsworthy how basically every comment under the piece is critical of the policy.
The "conspiracy theorist" view would be that Offit's statements are a limited hangout and/or an attempt by the Deep State [substitute your favorite term for the hidden powers if you like] to promote a new narrative for whatever purpose. Of course any number of interpretations are possible. Here's but one: Perhaps Deep State knows that there is going to be a major backlash against them about the "vaccines" and all the other mishandling of the pandemic. If that is true, then it would seem logical that they'll gradually pivot the messaging to something like "Well, gee whiz, we are sorry that so many mistakes were made. It was a crisis and we were doing the best we could under the circumstances. And it's not like we haven't been forthcoming about the problems. Just look at what Dr. Offit admitted on [date]. See?"
No conspiracy needed for this to happen. It's what people do once they realize, not only that they were wrong, but that everyone now knows they were.