8 karma · joined July 11, 2021
Suppose I thought you should get some injections, and you researched it and concluded they almost certainly wouldn't benefit you, and might harm you. Would you be OK with being characterized as a weird uncle who refused to get a treatment?
"In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill. In their totality and their interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which must be confronted by everyone together. But in designating these dangers as the enemy, we fall into the trap, which we have already warned readers about, namely mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention in natural processes, and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy then is humanity itself."
A fear campaign ravaged the globe. If there hadn't been a fear campaign, I don't think anybody but doctors and immunologists and such would have been aware anything significant was happening. Similar to previous seasonal illnesses that were technically pandemics, but no normal person recalls doing anything about it. For example, ask people who are old enough what they remember about the HK flu in 1968.
> Herd immunity and personal protection are both parts of every vaccine, they go hand in hand
I'm still waiting for the example from the past where we administered a vaccine to someone, saying to them "this is not to protect you, since you are not at risk from this virus, but it is just to protect someone out there, we don't know whom". Are you able to provide such an example?
It would be great if we knew that, but we don't. We usually have long testing periods, but we didn't this time, for reasons that remain unclear.
> Stop trying to make out like this is some sort of new or extreme position.
Please remind me, when was the last time that we gave people vaccines not to protect that person specifically, but to allegedly protect some unknown other person, somewhere?
This is a very serious mistake. The duty of a doctor is to the patient in front of them and no one else. The question they have to consider is, is this proposed treatment more likely than not to help this particular patient? If so, the doctor advises the patient to undergo the procedure. If not, they advise against it. If a doctor is considering anything other than the health of the person presently before them, they need to make that clear, that they are treating a herd rather than a specific patient.
> As far as I can tell, the potential risks of vaccinating children are overwhelmingly outweighed by the potential public health risks
That's not the calculus. The question is the risk/benefit for them individually. And, I will add, the risk for even just them as individuals is not known. Some people are advising that the vaccines could cause very significant injury, e.g. https://odysee.com/@OracleFilms:1/Dr.-Sucharit-Bhakdi-Oracle...
Well, it turns out that the person's loved one could have been saved. All that was needed was what we consider to be a modern hospital. But a modern hospital has quite a lot of technological dependencies, and so do those things, and so do those things, and so on. But let's say you do it. You got copper wire and steel and internal combustion engines and concrete and microscopes and global communication networks and microprocessors and on and on and on and on and on. Now people don't die of that same thing, whatever it was. Via technological magic, we just look inside the sick person's body, see the nature of the illness, and put in the right chemicals, or perform an amazing non-invasive operation via a robotic snake or whatever. Problem solved via vision and the sustained application of brain power.
But it wasn't free. The global communications network you needed for all kinds of things, it's being used to deliver pornography. Pornography addiction is a thing now, a problem that wasn't even previously possible. The same tech you use to make the chemicals that can save someone's life, they're used to make painkillers. Back in the day, drug addiction was something like drinking too much, or maybe smoking tobacco. Addiction to these painkillers is common now, and many people are dying and/or ruining their lives. The same technologies you needed to facilitate global collaboration have made it possible for the first time for governmental powers to do effective mass surveillance. And so on, and so on, and so on.
The point of the parable is to suggest that back in the day, when we were indignant about the death of our loved one, we didn't realize it, but we were kind of at a fork in the road. We could choose to fix ourselves, and accept the death, and see it as just the result of circumstances, and therefore blameless and perfect, or we could choose to try to fix the world. This choice has very very deep implications. When we try to fix the world, it seems like the result might be that we sort out the original problem at the cost of creating a bunch of new problems that are equally bad, or possibly even much more complicated and difficult to solve.
At what point would you be willing to admit you were wrong? If we're still doing whatever-variant this time next year, would you reconsider?
People know they don't want to go back to that. But they don't want the baggage that comes along with the choices we made to have this situation instead of the old situation. Did you think it was going to be free? It's kind of a utopian streak in people. No matter how good they've got it, they always still think there's something wrong.
Or do you want to change something about the way things are today in order to make a better situation? Then you're just making the same "mistake" that you say people of the past did. What do you want? What would ever satisfy you?
But what about the especially high CO2 level? It's actually not especially high. It's near the lowest it's ever been. Earth saw stuff like going from 3000 ppm to 4000. No tipping point, no climate catastrophe. We're much closer to a dangerous low point than a dangerous high point, since plant respiration fails around 150 ppm.
But why would they? They don't want to report "thing that happens fairly frequently happened again"... the story being scary translates directly into dollars going into their pockets. In other words, they terrify people by lying, for money.
This story is supposed to be due to global warming / climate change, right? If so, why is it easy to find reports of the same kind of thing happening over a hundred years ago, before humans had emitted any appreciable amount of CO2?
Here's one from 1912: https://www.nytimes.com/1912/02/12/archives/hot-ocean-boils-... "HOT OCEAN BOILS FISH.; Gulf Sailors Report Passing Through Zone of Scalding Water." Inconvenient for the CO2 hypothesis, huh.
Please. Start checking for precedent when you see stories like this. I think you'll find it eye-opening.