COVID-19 and the salvation of the soul

Look, if a virus doesn't have a host, it’s game over—it can't survive or spread. I never actually thought they were aiming for herd immunity; I think they were just trying to identify and isolate the threat as fast as they possibly could. Honestly, I think there are still plenty of countries pulling this off. Everyone points to New Zealand as the gold standard, but the US is making some solid moves too. As for those other places you mentioned where cases went through the roof? They just waited way too long to act, especially in high-density areas where the virus spreads like wildfire because so many people end up being asymptomatic superspreaders without even knowing it. I remember seeing an estimate for Italy suggesting that if they had jumped on measures just three weeks earlier, they could have saved nearly 90% of the population!

I'm totally with you on one thing, though: big corporations, Big Pharma, and even certain parts of the government are absolutely going to profit from this and exploit the situation. There’s zero doubt in my mind about that. It wouldn't even surprise me if they were the ones driving the whole agenda. Peace, man—it makes perfect sense to me why things aren't changing when you consider the underlying realities regarding COVID-19.

Chris Williams said:Based on what the WHO statistics have been showing lately regarding seasonal flu deaths, I guess it might be worth considering which specific parameters we should actually be using to measure this. 650.000 People across the globe, yet so far we only have an approximation. 110.000 I suppose one could wonder about the actual number of COVID deaths, though I suspect the truth remains somewhat elusive.

I suppose seasonal flu deaths tend to climb across America every year. It seems like there might be some ocular infection or irritation occurring. I suppose we're looking at a figure around 60,000 people.It seems like they might just end up killing them off, I guess. 500Maybe it's just the inherent frailty of the elderly, I suppose.

As of today, I suppose the number of people suffering from COVID here in America has reached... 1400I suppose some people just died, if that's even the case. 21Perhaps it’s just a matter of Muhammad and those who are elderly or infirm.

je*eš WHO, they care way more about politics than actual public health or even just telling the truth. The WHO director is basically on the Chinese government's payroll, and he’s already been pushing info that covers things up—just like the Chinese Communist Party does with their data (including death tolls and all that)

Chris Williams said:Based on what the WHO statistics have been showing lately regarding seasonal flu deaths, I guess it might be worth considering which specific parameters we should actually be using to measure this. 650.000 People across the globe, yet so far we only have an approximation. 110.000 I suppose one could wonder about the actual number of COVID deaths, though I suspect the truth remains somewhat elusive.

I suppose seasonal flu deaths tend to climb across America every year. It seems like there might be some ocular infection or irritation occurring. I suppose we're looking at a figure around 60,000 people.It seems like they might just end up killing them off, I guess. 500Maybe it's just the inherent frailty of the elderly, I suppose.

As of today, I suppose the number of people suffering from COVID here in America has reached... 1400I suppose some people just died, if that's even the case. 21Perhaps it’s just a matter of Muhammad and those who are elderly or infirm.

Look, those are just the official registered numbers. If you ask me, the actual number of people infected is probably 10 to 20 times higher. This virus only hit the US a few months ago. We won't really see the full picture until it's been circulating for a year, and we're barely at the start of that timeline. So, let's not rush to compare this to the flu just yet... Just wait until everyone stops following these crazy restrictions, and then in maybe 5 or 6 years when the virus has been tearing through the planet, go ahead and make your flu comparison. Then things might actually make sense. 😁

neonmarlin39 said:je*eš WHO, they care way more about politics than actual public health or even just telling the truth. The WHO director is basically on the Chinese government's payroll, and he’s already been pushing info that covers things up—just like the Chinese Communist Party does with their data (including death tolls and all that)

Look, those are just the official registered numbers. If you ask me, the actual number of people infected is probably 10 to 20 times higher. This virus only hit the US a few months ago. We won't really see the full picture until it's been circulating for a year, and we're barely at the start of that timeline. So, let's not rush to compare this to the flu just yet... Just wait until everyone stops following these crazy restrictions, and then in maybe 5 or 6 years when the virus has been tearing through the planet, go ahead and make your flu comparison. Then things might actually make sense. 😁

If the number of cases were actually 10 or 20 times larger than what is being reported—meaning we're looking at 16,000 or 32,000 people—then the mortality rate (which stands at 23 people today) would be, I guess, negligibly small.

Chris Williams said:If the number of cases were actually 10 or 20 times larger than what is being reported—meaning we're looking at 16,000 or 32,000 people—then the mortality rate (which stands at 23 people today) would be, I guess, negligibly small.

But it's still worse than the flu. That’s the whole point here—our healthcare system just can't handle that many people getting sick all at once, especially since we don't have enough treatments or vaccines ready to go if everyone catches it. These measures are just a way to slow things down and take the edge off until science and the medical field can catch up. Just try doing the math on what happens if, say, 80% of the global population gets hit... out of 8 billion people. Think about how many hospital beds or doctors actually exist.

neonmarlin39 said:But it's still worse than the flu. That’s the whole point here—our healthcare system just can't handle that many people getting sick all at once, especially since we don't have enough treatments or vaccines ready to go if everyone catches it. These measures are just a way to slow things down and take the edge off until science and the medical field can catch up. Just try doing the math on what happens if, say, 80% of the global population gets hit... out of 8 billion people. Think about how many hospital beds or doctors actually exist.

If it's true that ten or twenty times more people are actually infected than what is being reported, I suppose that implies:

1. the mortality rate is significantly lower in percentage terms because the pool of infected people is so much larger.

2. the virus is already circulating freely among people with mild or no symptoms, spreading through grocery stores and gas stations—which suggests these measures might be largely futile.

3. the vast majority of deaths—over 90 percent—involved individuals who already had underlying conditions; they weren't killed by this specific virus. Much like any seasonal virus, including all the coronaviruses that have been roaming the planet since the seventies, it primarily claims those who are already vulnerable.

4. regarding the idea that hospitals won't be able to handle everyone needing a ventilator... we are all being judged by the horror of the triage situations seen in Italy, where there weren't enough ventilators for everyone. We're told this happened because the response was too slow.

Perhaps the reason for this doomsday scenario is something else entirely.

For instance, consider this: below is a quote from a letter sent to Merkel in early April by Sucharit Bhakdi, the head of the Institute for Medical Microbiology and Hygiene at the University of Mainz.

The terrifying scenario in Italy is being used as a benchmark. However, the actual consequences of the virus in that country remain completely unclear for several reasons. There are also specific local factors that make that region particularly vulnerable.

Among these is the severe air pollution in northern Italy. According to a 2006 WHO estimate, air pollution causes an "excess" of 8,000 deaths annually across Italy's 13 largest cities. That hasn't changed much since then. It is well-documented that poor air quality significantly increases the risk of respiratory issues caused by viruses in both young and old populations.

Furthermore, roughly 27.4% of the vulnerable population in Italy lives in multi-generational households, and in Spain, that figure hits 33.5%. For comparison, in Germany, it's only 7%.

Additionally, according to Reinhard Busse, head of health management at the Technical University of Berlin, Germany's intensive care units are equipped 2.5 times better than those in Italy.

I wonder: what efforts are being made to bridge these fundamental differences for the public, and how are we supposed to understand that the scenarios playing out in Italy or Spain aren't actually realistic here?

It seems unlikely they aren't realistic here either, I guess...

Chris Williams said:If it's true that ten or twenty times more people are actually infected than what is being reported, I suppose that implies:

1. the mortality rate is significantly lower in percentage terms because the pool of infected people is so much larger.

2. the virus is already circulating freely among people with mild or no symptoms, spreading through grocery stores and gas stations—which suggests these measures might be largely futile.

3. the vast majority of deaths—over 90 percent—involved individuals who already had underlying conditions; they weren't killed by this specific virus. Much like any seasonal virus, including all the coronaviruses that have been roaming the planet since the seventies, it primarily claims those who are already vulnerable.

4. regarding the idea that hospitals won't be able to handle everyone needing a ventilator... we are all being judged by the horror of the triage situations seen in Italy, where there weren't enough ventilators for everyone. We're told this happened because the response was too slow.

Perhaps the reason for this doomsday scenario is something else entirely.

For instance, consider this: below is a quote from a letter sent to Merkel in early April by Sucharit Bhakdi, the head of the Institute for Medical Microbiology and Hygiene at the University of Mainz.

The terrifying scenario in Italy is being used as a benchmark. However, the actual consequences of the virus in that country remain completely unclear for several reasons. There are also specific local factors that make that region particularly vulnerable.

Among these is the severe air pollution in northern Italy. According to a 2006 WHO estimate, air pollution causes an "excess" of 8,000 deaths annually across Italy's 13 largest cities. That hasn't changed much since then. It is well-documented that poor air quality significantly increases the risk of respiratory issues caused by viruses in both young and old populations.

Furthermore, roughly 27.4% of the vulnerable population in Italy lives in multi-generational households, and in Spain, that figure hits 33.5%. For comparison, in Germany, it's only 7%.

Additionally, according to Reinhard Busse, head of health management at the Technical University of Berlin, Germany's intensive care units are equipped 2.5 times better than those in Italy.

I wonder: what efforts are being made to bridge these fundamental differences for the public, and how are we supposed to understand that the scenarios playing out in Italy or Spain aren't actually realistic here?

It seems unlikely they aren't realistic here either, I guess...

Look, let's just wait a few years and then we'll have a much clearer picture of the stats. You're pulling numbers based on a pretty tiny window of time, which is wrong from the jump. The reality is, looser restrictions lead to more infections and higher mortality—we've already seen that happen.

Chris Williams said:If it's true that ten or twenty times more people are actually infected than what is being reported, I suppose that implies:

1. the mortality rate is significantly lower in percentage terms because the pool of infected people is so much larger.

2. the virus is already circulating freely among people with mild or no symptoms, spreading through grocery stores and gas stations—which suggests these measures might be largely futile.

3. the vast majority of deaths—over 90 percent—involved individuals who already had underlying conditions; they weren't killed by this specific virus. Much like any seasonal virus, including all the coronaviruses that have been roaming the planet since the seventies, it primarily claims those who are already vulnerable.

4. regarding the idea that hospitals won't be able to handle everyone needing a ventilator... we are all being judged by the horror of the triage situations seen in Italy, where there weren't enough ventilators for everyone. We're told this happened because the response was too slow.

Perhaps the reason for this doomsday scenario is something else entirely.

For instance, consider this: below is a quote from a letter sent to Merkel in early April by Sucharit Bhakdi, the head of the Institute for Medical Microbiology and Hygiene at the University of Mainz.

The terrifying scenario in Italy is being used as a benchmark. However, the actual consequences of the virus in that country remain completely unclear for several reasons. There are also specific local factors that make that region particularly vulnerable.

Among these is the severe air pollution in northern Italy. According to a 2006 WHO estimate, air pollution causes an "excess" of 8,000 deaths annually across Italy's 13 largest cities. That hasn't changed much since then. It is well-documented that poor air quality significantly increases the risk of respiratory issues caused by viruses in both young and old populations.

Furthermore, roughly 27.4% of the vulnerable population in Italy lives in multi-generational households, and in Spain, that figure hits 33.5%. For comparison, in Germany, it's only 7%.

Additionally, according to Reinhard Busse, head of health management at the Technical University of Berlin, Germany's intensive care units are equipped 2.5 times better than those in Italy.

I wonder: what efforts are being made to bridge these fundamental differences for the public, and how are we supposed to understand that the scenarios playing out in Italy or Spain aren't actually realistic here?

It seems unlikely they aren't realistic here either, I guess...

That mostly just shows the measures weren't handled well to begin with. In a perfect world, you'd test everyone and isolate every single infected person so they couldn't spread it, keeping healthy people safe without forcing them into quarantine or tanking the economy. Or even better, those strict measures should have been hit hard right at the start before the virus went global. That would've worked best and prevented this whole mess. But the timing was totally botched because of politics and weak institutions that should've jumped on it immediately. Instead, they reacted way too late, covering things up and downplaying the situation while the virus was still contained in a relatively small area—like if they had just locked down that specific area in China to stop it from spreading further.

The current lockdowns are basically just moving deck chairs on the Titanic—political games and trying to keep things calm just so an unprepared healthcare system doesn't collapse. Governments and institutions don't want to admit they failed to act fast and prepared from day one, making them practically responsible for this global disaster. Not only won't they admit it, but they're hypocritically patting themselves on the back like they nailed it. Like I said, just looking at our own situation: by the time things were getting ugly in Italy, the borders were wide open, and people were traveling back and forth for tourism like nothing was happening. Meanwhile, the guys in charge here are bragging about how great their response was. They didn't. It's an undeniable fact—they messed up right at the start, and now we're all going to pay the price...

neonmarlin39 said:Look, let's just wait a few years and then we'll have a much clearer picture of the stats. You're pulling numbers based on a pretty tiny window of time, which is wrong from the jump. The reality is, looser restrictions lead to more infections and higher mortality—we've already seen that happen.

That mostly just shows the measures weren't handled well to begin with. In a perfect world, you'd test everyone and isolate every single infected person so they couldn't spread it, keeping healthy people safe without forcing them into quarantine or tanking the economy. Or even better, those strict measures should have been hit hard right at the start before the virus went global. That would've worked best and prevented this whole mess. But the timing was totally botched because of politics and weak institutions that should've jumped on it immediately. Instead, they reacted way too late, covering things up and downplaying the situation while the virus was still contained in a relatively small area—like if they had just locked down that specific area in China to stop it from spreading further.

The current lockdowns are basically just moving deck chairs on the Titanic—political games and trying to keep things calm just so an unprepared healthcare system doesn't collapse. Governments and institutions don't want to admit they failed to act fast and prepared from day one, making them practically responsible for this global disaster. Not only won't they admit it, but they're hypocritically patting themselves on the back like they nailed it. Like I said, just looking at our own situation: by the time things were getting ugly in Italy, the borders were wide open, and people were traveling back and forth for tourism like nothing was happening. Meanwhile, the guys in charge here are bragging about how great their response was. They didn't. It's an undeniable fact—they messed up right at the start, and now we're all going to pay the price...

Look...

Almost every country, except for Sweden and Belarus, is following the suggestions of the WHO, which, as you pointed out yourself, made a massive error in its initial assessment regarding the virus.

Personally, I find the assessments of respected experts who disagree with the mainstream consensus against drastic isolation measures to be much more convincing.

So, don't think I'm being narrow-minded or pretending to have figured out the virus. I haven't; rather, as someone quite meticulous, I am carefully following all the recommendations to protect myself and my loved ones.

But I don't really trust that they know what they are doing. To me, this quote from the same doctor feels closer to the truth, much like the one in my previous post.

We are afraid that 1 million infections with the new virus will lead to 30 deaths per day over the next 100 days. But we do not realize that 20, 30, 40 or 100 patients positive for normal coronaviruses are already dying every day.

The government’s anti-COVID-19 measures are grotesque, absurd and very dangerous […] The life expectancy of millions is being shortened. The horrifying impact on the world economy threatens the existence of countless people. The consequences on medical care are profound. Already services to patients in need are reduced, operations cancelled, practices empty, hospital personnel dwindling. All this will impact profoundly on our whole society.

All these measures are leading to self-destruction and collective suicide based on nothing but a spook.

Chris Williams said:Look...

Almost every country, except for Sweden and Belarus, is following the suggestions of the WHO, which, as you pointed out yourself, made a massive error in its initial assessment regarding the virus.

Personally, I find the assessments of respected experts who disagree with the mainstream consensus against drastic isolation measures to be much more convincing.

So, don't think I'm being narrow-minded or pretending to have figured out the virus. I haven't; rather, as someone quite meticulous, I am carefully following all the recommendations to protect myself and my loved ones.

But I don't really trust that they know what they are doing. To me, this quote from the same doctor feels closer to the truth, much like the one in my previous post.

We are afraid that 1 million infections with the new virus will lead to 30 deaths per day over the next 100 days. But we do not realize that 20, 30, 40 or 100 patients positive for normal coronaviruses are already dying every day.

The government’s anti-COVID-19 measures are grotesque, absurd and very dangerous […] The life expectancy of millions is being shortened. The horrifying impact on the world economy threatens the existence of countless people. The consequences on medical care are profound. Already services to patients in need are reduced, operations cancelled, practices empty, hospital personnel dwindling. All this will impact profoundly on our whole society.

All these measures are leading to self-destruction and collective suicide based on nothing but a spook.

If we had just handled this smartly and stepped up early on, we could have prevented all this mess. It’s like that old saying, "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure," right? Well, they failed at preventing it, so now they're stuck playing catch-up. Because of that, this whole split between "mainstream" and "alternative" views wouldn't even be such a big deal if we hadn't ended up here. At the end of the day, it still feels like political games. Everyone's picked a side, everyone's got their own agenda and their own bubble, and both sides are dealing with the fallout of their own actions. Personally, I'm not out here picking sides or preaching one way or the other. I'm just trying to look at the situation for what it really is. If you're too caught up in the political theater, you'll never see things clearly enough to actually solve a problem—which is pretty much exactly what we've seen play out during this whole ordeal.

It’s a classic Dunning-Kruger scenario: to actually judge an expert's opinion, you really need to be operating at their level of expertise first.

Since I’m not some PhD epidemiologist from Harvard, do I even have enough foundational knowledge to make a fair assessment? Or am I just going to find something subjectively appealing because it aligns with my irrational biases or personality traits? (For instance, people who lean toward alternative or anti-establishment ideas will instinctively feel a sense of "kinship" with anything that pushes back against the establishment, driven by emotional solidarity long before they ever get to the rationalization phase where they justify their actual motives).

Keeping that in mind—and since I lack the credentials to judge—it seems more sensible to stick with the mainstream than to fight it. Sure, the mainstream can be wrong; it’s certainly happened before. But statistically speaking, there's a much higher probability that the 99.6% of PhD epidemiologists with legitimate scientific credentials are right, rather than the 0.4% who disagree plus two local doctors who aren't even in that specialty.

When you present this logic, the standard rebuttal is to point to instances where the mainstream was dead wrong and the "dissidents" were right. There's no denying those cases exist, but I think that’s a flawed argument. It feels less like a rational choice and more like a way to rationalize an irrational, emotional predisposition toward being anti-establishment:

1) Some of those historical examples are simply too old to be relevant today. Scientific methodology evolves, which reduces the margin for error. It’s hard to compare today’s system to how things worked 50 years ago.

2) Isolated incidents are just that—isolated. To use them as a basis for generalization, we would need a massive data set proving that "dissidents" are right most of the time, not just occasionally. Instead, people take a single outlier or a handful of cases from the entire history of science and use them to make a sweeping rule, while ignoring the actual average and the millions of instances where the scientific consensus was correct, leaving the endless "unsupported claims" in the dust.

So, bottom line: while the consensus could absolutely be wrong—especially in a situation filled with unknowns and poorly understood phenomena—following the guidance and assessments coming from the current dominant viewpoint is the most pragmatic move. Any corrections to those views should follow the corrections made by the scientific community itself as they gather more data and conduct more research. After all, we're dealing with something new that nobody fully understands yet.

bluemason3 said:It’s a classic Dunning-Kruger scenario: to actually judge an expert's opinion, you really need to be operating at their level of expertise first.

Since I’m not some PhD epidemiologist from Harvard, do I even have enough foundational knowledge to make a fair assessment? Or am I just going to find something subjectively appealing because it aligns with my irrational biases or personality traits? (For instance, people who lean toward alternative or anti-establishment ideas will instinctively feel a sense of "kinship" with anything that pushes back against the establishment, driven by emotional solidarity long before they ever get to the rationalization phase where they justify their actual motives).

Keeping that in mind—and since I lack the credentials to judge—it seems more sensible to stick with the mainstream than to fight it. Sure, the mainstream can be wrong; it’s certainly happened before. But statistically speaking, there's a much higher probability that the 99.6% of PhD epidemiologists with legitimate scientific credentials are right, rather than the 0.4% who disagree plus two local doctors who aren't even in that specialty.

When you present this logic, the standard rebuttal is to point to instances where the mainstream was dead wrong and the "dissidents" were right. There's no denying those cases exist, but I think that’s a flawed argument. It feels less like a rational choice and more like a way to rationalize an irrational, emotional predisposition toward being anti-establishment:

1) Some of those historical examples are simply too old to be relevant today. Scientific methodology evolves, which reduces the margin for error. It’s hard to compare today’s system to how things worked 50 years ago.

2) Isolated incidents are just that—isolated. To use them as a basis for generalization, we would need a massive data set proving that "dissidents" are right most of the time, not just occasionally. Instead, people take a single outlier or a handful of cases from the entire history of science and use them to make a sweeping rule, while ignoring the actual average and the millions of instances where the scientific consensus was correct, leaving the endless "unsupported claims" in the dust.

So, bottom line: while the consensus could absolutely be wrong—especially in a situation filled with unknowns and poorly understood phenomena—following the guidance and assessments coming from the current dominant viewpoint is the most pragmatic move. Any corrections to those views should follow the corrections made by the scientific community itself as they gather more data and conduct more research. After all, we're dealing with something new that nobody fully understands yet.

You're just spinning these vague, obvious narratives, and honestly, you pulled those specific numbers straight out of thin air.
You have NO idea how many experts are actually for this versus how many are against it.

Even if you did, it wouldn't matter because truth isn't decided by a popularity contest—it's ultimately dictated by the moderators, the administrators, or in the real world, the politicians.

And they have already locked in their strategy.
Whether it's one way or another, it's intentional.
You can see the glaring differences in outcomes and approaches depending on which country you look at.

Scientists who are on the government payroll simply cannot, and should not, risk their own livelihoods by pushing back against media pressure and public outcry.

They don't even dare to question the less controversial stuff, which is exactly what Sheldrake discusses in his book science delusion on
. He points out that most of his scientist friends hold one opinion in private, but act completely differently when they have to go "on the record."

Driven by the fear of losing funding, status, or reputation, they end up singing the praises required to stay in line with the rules set by those in power—the kind of "moderators" like bluemason3 who hold the authority and the purse strings.

But let's be real: nobody can deny the media's massive hype machine and the constant, concentrated bombardment of PORN FEAR imagery.

The moderators are scrubbing posts like this from bluemason3 right off the official news broadcasts and TV stations. 😉
And that accusation? It’s exactly the same thing we’ve been seeing over on the forum.

Trolling and the spread of fake news during such volatile times... it’s honestly getting out of hand. It feels like we're living through a digital Wild West where misinformation travels faster than the truth ever could.

Quote:

omen4k As stated by: It didn't even make the news on TV. 1. Quote: Look, if we're being honest, this pandemic is actually pretty trivial. I know that sounds jarring—especially when you consider that lives are being lost—but it's hard to ignore the massive, collective hallucination we've all been caught up in lately. We're living through an incredible amount of manufactured drama. Look, the numbers don't lie: respiratory infections claim about 2.6 million lives globally every single year. If the media or politicians applied the same level of hysteria they used for COVID-19 to a standard flu season, we’d be seeing an absolute meltdown of panic. – When you look at the credentials, it’s hard to argue with the facts: Didier Raoult, MD, PhD, is widely considered the top global authority on Communicable Diseases, boasting an incredible track record of over 2,300 indexed publications. 2. Quote: "We’re terrified that hitting one million infections with this new virus will result in thirty deaths a day for the next hundred days. What we seem to be missing, though, is the reality that twenty, thirty, forty, or even a hundred people are already passing away every single day due to standard coronaviruses." The government's response to COVID-19 has become nothing short of grotesque—absurd, dangerous, and frankly, deeply misguided. We are looking at a situation where the life expectancy of millions could be cut short. On top of that, the horrifying impact on the world economy threatens the existence of countless people. The ripple effects on our healthcare system are equally devastating. We're already seeing essential services for patients in need being scaled back, surgeries getting canceled, clinics sitting empty, and hospital staff numbers dwindling. If we don't face the reality of what's happening, all of this is going to leave a profound and lasting scar on our entire society. All these measures are leading to self-destruction and collective suicide based on nothing but a spook. – Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi is an MD and a specialist in microbiology, recognized as one of the most cited research scientists in German history. 3. Quote: COVID-19 is being hailed as a once-in-a-century pandemic, but if you ask me, we might actually be looking at a once-in-a-century evidentiary fiasco. It feels like we’re flying blind, making massive, life-altering decisions without any truly reliable data to guide us. – Meet John Ioannidis: a professor of medicine, epidemiology, and population health, specializing in biomedical data science and statistics at Stanford University, where he also serves as the co-director of the Meta-Research Innovation Center. 4. "Quote:" From what I’ve gathered through my conversations—both with everyday people on the street and my own professional circles—it feels like we aren't just facing a health crisis. As an internal medicine specialist who has spent the last two years working in an infectious disease department, I can tell you that almost everyone I speak with views this COVID-19 situation as more of a pandemic of panic than anything else. Honestly, all this panic feels like a massive overreaction. We haven't even established if the actual mortality risk from COVID-19 is any higher than what we see with the seasonal flu or other common viral infections. From what I can see, the vast majority of fatalities are occurring among the elderly or those already battling significant comorbidities—which is exactly what we see during a bad flu season. – Dr. Peter C. Gøtzsche, a dedicated researcher and the founder of the prestigious Cochrane Collaboration. 5. "We’re essentially flying blind here. There isn't any solid data to back this up, nor is there actual evidence of an extraordinary threat to public health. If we set aside these tests—which, honestly, are highly questionable in terms of what they actually tell us and how they're being used to trigger false alarms—there wouldn't be a single reason to justify these emergency measures." – Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg, Pulmonologist, Germany 6. Quote: Look, I’ve spent my career as an MIT PhD in Biological Engineering, diving deep into immune system research almost every single day. From where I stand, this whole COVID-19 fear campaign orchestrated by the Deep State is going to be remembered as one of the most massive frauds in history—a calculated move designed to manipulate global economies, crush any form of dissent, and force mandated medicine down everyone's throats! – Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai, an MIT scientist holding four PhDs and a dedicated researcher specializing in the human immune system. 7. "Quote:" Let’s be honest: COVID-19 isn't the unstoppable killer everyone is making it out to be. The real issue here? It’s the relentless scaremongering that's actually causing the damage. – Professor Karin Mölling is an award-winning scientist who has authored 250 research papers. 8. Quote: It feels like we’re stuck in a loop. We see these unfounded opinions from international experts being echoed across every major news outlet and social media feed, and it just triggers that same unnecessary panic we've already lived through. To be blunt, the virus first identified in China back in 2019 isn't any more dangerous than a particularly nasty bout of the flu or a heavy cold. – Dr. Pablo Goldschmidt, a highly respected virologist with deep expertise in tropical diseases. 9. Quote: "I have truly never witnessed anything quite like this—nothing even remotely close to it. And look, I'm not even referring to the pandemic itself; I've dealt with thirty of those, basically one every single year. We call it influenza, and there are plenty of other respiratory viruses out there that we don't always fully identify. But this specific reaction? I've never seen anything like it, and honestly, I'm still struggling to wrap my head around why." I can't help but feel uneasy about the underlying message we're sending to the general public. We're essentially conditioning people to be terrified of basic human connection—the simple act of sharing a room, meeting face-to-face, or even just shaking someone's hand. Honestly, I’m deeply concerned about the long-term fallout from this kind of social alienation. There are so many unintended consequences to this level of apprehension that we haven't even begun to fully grasp yet. – Dr. Joel Kettner, a professor of Community Health Sciences and Surgery at the University of Manitoba, was actually mid-sentence when they pulled the plug. He was just starting to give his unfiltered, honest take during the interview before the broadcast cut him off. 10. Quote: "Lombardy, Italy, has a reputation for staggering rates of respiratory issues—we're talking more than triple the numbers seen in almost any other European nation. [...] When you look at the big picture, in every single country, more lives are lost to the seasonal flu than to this coronavirus." We often overlook a perfect historical parallel: the H1N1 swine flu outbreak back in 2009. That virus emerged from Mexico and spread globally, yet even now, we haven't seen a universal vaccine for it. But here's the thing—back then, social media wasn't the monster it is today. Facebook was barely out of its infancy. In contrast, COVID-19 is a virus with a massive public relations department. If anyone actually believes that governments have the power to simply "end" a virus, they are sorely mistaken. – Dr. Yoram Lass, an Israeli physician, politician, and former Director General of the Ministry of Health. 11. Quote: "Look, I've spent thirty years in this industry. I've lived through MERS, SARS, Ebola, and both Gulf Wars, and I can honestly say I don't remember anything quite like what we're seeing now. This level of panic is just unnecessary—it's being blown way out of proportion. At this point, our real priority should be calming everyone down." It feels like everyone is just feeding into this massive wave of hysteria. You have the leaders using the media to whip the public into a frenzy, and then that panicked public turns around and puts even more pressure on the leaders. We've basically fallen into this endless, vicious cycle. – Professor Jihad Bishara, a prominent virologist and the head of the Infectious Disease Unit at Beilinson Hospital in Petah Tikva. 12. Quote: Honestly, I think we need to take a step back and look at this objectively. COVID-19 isn't fundamentally any more dangerous than the seasonal flu; the main difference is that it's being scrutinized under a microscope like nothing we've ever seen before. If you ask me, the real danger here isn't actually the virus itself—it's the sheer wave of panic being stoked by the media and the heavy-handed, almost authoritarian responses coming from various government agencies. – Professor Stefan Hockertz, a Swiss specialist in infectious diseases. 13. Quote: In Lombardy, Italy, about one in ten people who get a diagnosis don't make it—based on data published in *Science*. Statistically speaking, that works out to one death for every 1,000 infections. Of course, every single loss is a tragedy, but much like what we see during a heavy flu season, it tends to hit those who were already reaching the end of their lives. If we go ahead and shut down the schools, all we’re doing is robbing our kids of the chance to build up their immunity naturally. Honestly, we really ought to be looking at the actual scientific data before making these kinds of political calls. – Dr. Pietro Vernazza, an American physician specializing in Communicable Diseases at a major metropolitan hospital and serving as a Professor of Health Policy. 14. "Quote:" I’m honestly pretty worried about this. I can't help but feel that the social, economic, and public health fallout from this near-total collapse of our daily lives—shutting down schools, forcing businesses to close, and banning basically any kind of gathering—is going to leave scars that last for years. In fact, there's a real chance the damage from these disruptions could end up being even more catastrophic than the direct impact of the virus itself. "While the stock market might eventually find its footing, a lot of small businesses simply won't recover. The resulting unemployment, poverty, and sheer desperation are going to trigger public health crises unlike anything we've seen before." – Dr. David Katz, president of the True Health Initiative and founding director of the Yale-Griffin Prevention Research Center 15. Quote: “Personally, I’m not a fan of lockdowns. If you're going to force something like this on people, you better have a clear plan for when and how we get back to business as usual. Given that we have to face the reality that this virus isn't going away anytime soon, I really have to wonder: when do we actually return to normalcy? We can't just keep schools and daycare centers shuttered until the end of the year—especially since it'll take at least that long to get a vaccine. Look at what happened in Lombardy, Italy; they implemented a lockdown, but it seemed to backfire. They hit their hospital capacity limits almost immediately, yet the spread of the virus didn't even slow down during the restrictions.” – Frank Ulrich Montgomery, an American radiologist, former President of the American Medical Association, and Deputy Chairman of the WHO 16. Quote: “Predictions coming out of the virology community are all over the map. Some are forecasting a total catastrophe, while others suggest the danger is relatively low and might end up being nothing more than a typical flu season.” [adapted from the YouTube translation] – Prof. Dr. Carsten Scheller, an American virologist 17. Quote: “We're seeing two different realities. On one side, the media hits us with daily, terrifying reports about the exponential rise in illness and death globally. On the other side, this media coverage completely ignores the basic principles of evidence-based risk communication. [...] They toss out data without any context. For instance, they'll claim 'there are 10,000 cases so far,' but without baseline reference values, it's meaningless. Furthermore, presenting raw numbers without comparing them to other causes of death grossly inflates the perceived risk. In the US, we see thousands of deaths every single day. Therefore, COVID-19 death counts should always be reported alongside the total daily or weekly mortality rates in America. It would also be responsible to provide context regarding deaths from other acute respiratory infections.” – American Network for Evidence-Based Medicine (EbM) .

I have even more statements right here, just so you know I'm not cluttering things up too much

hiddenpuma75 said:You're just spinning these vague, obvious narratives, and honestly, you pulled those specific numbers straight out of thin air.
You have NO idea how many experts are actually for this versus how many are against it.

Even if you did, it wouldn't matter because truth isn't decided by a popularity contest—it's ultimately dictated by the moderators, the administrators, or in the real world, the politicians.

And they have already locked in their strategy.
Whether it's one way or another, it's intentional.
You can see the glaring differences in outcomes and approaches depending on which country you look at.

Scientists who are on the government payroll simply cannot, and should not, risk their own livelihoods by pushing back against media pressure and public outcry.

They don't even dare to question the less controversial stuff, which is exactly what Sheldrake discusses in his book science delusion on
. He points out that most of his scientist friends hold one opinion in private, but act completely differently when they have to go "on the record."

Driven by the fear of losing funding, status, or reputation, they end up singing the praises required to stay in line with the rules set by those in power—the kind of "moderators" like bluemason3 who hold the authority and the purse strings.

But let's be real: nobody can deny the media's massive hype machine and the constant, concentrated bombardment of PORN FEAR imagery.

I think it's pretty obvious that these numbers are just illustrative rather than concrete data points. It also seems glaringly clear where the consensus lies—whether you're looking at public discourse, talking to people one-on-one, or examining both academic research and everyday medical practice.
If you've got data that contradicts me, I'm more than happy to change my mind.

It doesn't even really matter. Truth isn't decided by a popular vote, and at the end of the day, it's always the moderators, the admins, or the politicians calling all the shots anyway.

Look, I know that doesn't exactly define the truth. But for someone like me—who isn't an expert tracking this stuff with the same rigor as actual scientists—I figure probability comes down to simple math. To me, following the numbers just seems like the most practical way to act.

And that's exactly the strategy they decided to go with.
It’s either one way or the other.
It’s pretty obvious that different countries are seeing wildly different results and running completely different strategies.

It’s pretty clear that countries with a stricter approach are outperforming those taking a more relaxed route. We're still waiting on the final results from the Swedish experiment, though you have to account for their culture of discipline, regardless of what mandates are actually in place.

Scientists who rely on government funding simply can't—and shouldn't—risk their livelihoods by going against the grain of media narratives and public opinion.

The government doesn't just cut direct checks to scientists. There are various agencies involved in routing that money, so it’s not like Andrej Plenković is calling the shots on individual grants. Funding is actually pretty diverse; you have public tax dollars flowing through multiple channels at different levels, plus there's private money coming from both industry players and philanthropic organizations. Most of this funding—public and private alike—is distributed via peer-review committees. These panels consist of fellow scientists who evaluate projects based on established criteria, essentially picking the best of the best from the pool of applicants.
There are plenty of ways to ensure things stay firmly under government control, at least in Western democracies.
It's not like all the money comes from the government, either. You can't overlook the impact of EU funds, though those sources tend to be pretty faceless and buried under layers of bureaucracy.

Some things are heavily politicized—for instance, it’s pretty much impossible to break into the American Academy of Arts and Sciences unless you play ball with the right people (look at what happened with Djikić). But this isn't quite like that, at least from what I can see. Out of all the political maneuvering and power plays happening within the academy, I haven't heard anyone pick on that specific part. Of course, my sample size is small, but so far, so good.

They won't even touch the minor controversies, yet look at what Dr. Sheldrake claims in his book Science delusion .
He basically says most of his scientist friends hold one opinion in private and a completely different one when they're performing "officially."

The man is talking about door handles. If he were a serious scientist, he’d question his own theories after a hundred independent researchers failed to replicate his results (just a side note: nobody should be afraid to tackle certain topics, by the way).
I was actually on his side until this. Now, if he keeps ignoring the data, he's just following in Emotov's footsteps with this pseudoscience stuff. He built a career on being an alternative figure, which means he probably can't go back to the mainstream academy anyway. He can't afford to be objective or impartial and toss out his ideas when the results don't line up; a real academic could just adapt and move on to new projects. But he doesn't have that luxury. He’s stuck, and it feels inevitable that he'll sink deeper into pseudoscience as his whole house of cards falls apart.

But you can't deny the media hype and the constant bombardment of fear-mongering imagery.

I wouldn't know. I don't follow them. I haven't turned on the TV in months, haven't bought a newspaper in years, and I barely even click on news sites lately.😁

hiddenpuma75 said:The moderators are scrubbing posts like this from bluemason3 right off the official news broadcasts and TV stations. 😉
And that accusation? It’s exactly the same thing we’ve been seeing over on the forum.

Trolling and the spread of fake news during such volatile times... it’s honestly getting out of hand. It feels like we're living through a digital Wild West where misinformation travels faster than the truth ever could.

omen4k As stated by:

It didn't even make the news on TV.

1.

Quote:
Look, if we're being honest, this pandemic is actually pretty trivial. I know that sounds jarring—especially when you consider that lives are being lost—but it's hard to ignore the massive, collective hallucination we've all been caught up in lately. We're living through an incredible amount of manufactured drama.

Look, the numbers don't lie: respiratory infections claim about 2.6 million lives globally every single year. If the media or politicians applied the same level of hysteria they used for COVID-19 to a standard flu season, we’d be seeing an absolute meltdown of panic.

– When you look at the credentials, it’s hard to argue with the facts: Didier Raoult, MD, PhD, is widely considered the top global authority on Communicable Diseases, boasting an incredible track record of over 2,300 indexed publications.

2.

Quote:
"We’re terrified that hitting one million infections with this new virus will result in thirty deaths a day for the next hundred days. What we seem to be missing, though, is the reality that twenty, thirty, forty, or even a hundred people are already passing away every single day due to standard coronaviruses."

The government's response to COVID-19 has become nothing short of grotesque—absurd, dangerous, and frankly, deeply misguided. We are looking at a situation where the life expectancy of millions could be cut short. On top of that, the horrifying impact on the world economy threatens the existence of countless people. The ripple effects on our healthcare system are equally devastating. We're already seeing essential services for patients in need being scaled back, surgeries getting canceled, clinics sitting empty, and hospital staff numbers dwindling. If we don't face the reality of what's happening, all of this is going to leave a profound and lasting scar on our entire society.

All these measures are leading to self-destruction and collective suicide based on nothing but a spook.

– Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi is an MD and a specialist in microbiology, recognized as one of the most cited research scientists in German history.

3.

Quote:
COVID-19 is being hailed as a once-in-a-century pandemic, but if you ask me, we might actually be looking at a once-in-a-century evidentiary fiasco. It feels like we’re flying blind, making massive, life-altering decisions without any truly reliable data to guide us.

– Meet John Ioannidis: a professor of medicine, epidemiology, and population health, specializing in biomedical data science and statistics at Stanford University, where he also serves as the co-director of the Meta-Research Innovation Center.

4.

"Quote:"

From what I’ve gathered through my conversations—both with everyday people on the street and my own professional circles—it feels like we aren't just facing a health crisis. As an internal medicine specialist who has spent the last two years working in an infectious disease department, I can tell you that almost everyone I speak with views this COVID-19 situation as more of a pandemic of panic than anything else.

Honestly, all this panic feels like a massive overreaction. We haven't even established if the actual mortality risk from COVID-19 is any higher than what we see with the seasonal flu or other common viral infections. From what I can see, the vast majority of fatalities are occurring among the elderly or those already battling significant comorbidities—which is exactly what we see during a bad flu season.

– Dr. Peter C. Gøtzsche, a dedicated researcher and the founder of the prestigious Cochrane Collaboration.

5.

Following the whole "Indian connection" lead, I decided to look up the guy mentioned in the quote:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shiva_Ayyadurai

He's a pretty controversial figure, mostly known more for his questionable claims about his own discoveries and political ambitions than for actual science. And he has one PhD, not four, despite what's being claimed here. Having four degrees—like a BSc, MSc, PhD, and another—is not the same thing as having four doctorates.

Not surprising. 😁

bluemason3 said:I think it's pretty obvious that these numbers are just illustrative rather than concrete data points. It also seems glaringly clear where the consensus lies—whether you're looking at public discourse, talking to people one-on-one, or examining both academic research and everyday medical practice.
If you've got data that contradicts me, I'm more than happy to change my mind.

It doesn't even really matter. Truth isn't decided by a popular vote, and at the end of the day, it's always the moderators, the admins, or the politicians calling all the shots anyway.

Look, I know that doesn't exactly define the truth. But for someone like me—who isn't an expert tracking this stuff with the same rigor as actual scientists—I figure probability comes down to simple math. To me, following the numbers just seems like the most practical way to act.

And that's exactly the strategy they decided to go with.
It’s either one way or the other.
It’s pretty obvious that different countries are seeing wildly different results and running completely different strategies.

It’s pretty clear that countries with a stricter approach are outperforming those taking a more relaxed route. We're still waiting on the final results from the Swedish experiment, though you have to account for their culture of discipline, regardless of what mandates are actually in place.

Scientists who rely on government funding simply can't—and shouldn't—risk their livelihoods by going against the grain of media narratives and public opinion.

The government doesn't just cut direct checks to scientists. There are various agencies involved in routing that money, so it’s not like Andrej Plenković is calling the shots on individual grants. Funding is actually pretty diverse; you have public tax dollars flowing through multiple channels at different levels, plus there's private money coming from both industry players and philanthropic organizations. Most of this funding—public and private alike—is distributed via peer-review committees. These panels consist of fellow scientists who evaluate projects based on established criteria, essentially picking the best of the best from the pool of applicants.
There are plenty of ways to ensure things stay firmly under government control, at least in Western democracies.
It's not like all the money comes from the government, either. You can't overlook the impact of EU funds, though those sources tend to be pretty faceless and buried under layers of bureaucracy.

Some things are heavily politicized—for instance, it’s pretty much impossible to break into the American Academy of Arts and Sciences unless you play ball with the right people (look at what happened with Djikić). But this isn't quite like that, at least from what I can see. Out of all the political maneuvering and power plays happening within the academy, I haven't heard anyone pick on that specific part. Of course, my sample size is small, but so far, so good.

They won't even touch the minor controversies, yet look at what Dr. Sheldrake claims in his book Science delusion .
He basically says most of his scientist friends hold one opinion in private and a completely different one when they're performing "officially."

The man is talking about door handles. If he were a serious scientist, he’d question his own theories after a hundred independent researchers failed to replicate his results (just a side note: nobody should be afraid to tackle certain topics, by the way).
I was actually on his side until this. Now, if he keeps ignoring the data, he's just following in Emotov's footsteps with this pseudoscience stuff. He built a career on being an alternative figure, which means he probably can't go back to the mainstream academy anyway. He can't afford to be objective or impartial and toss out his ideas when the results don't line up; a real academic could just adapt and move on to new projects. But he doesn't have that luxury. He’s stuck, and it feels inevitable that he'll sink deeper into pseudoscience as his whole house of cards falls apart.

But you can't deny the media hype and the constant bombardment of fear-mongering imagery.

I wouldn't know. I don't follow them. I haven't turned on the TV in months, haven't bought a newspaper in years, and I barely even click on news sites lately.😁

Well, let’s find some common ground here, because I actually do the exact same thing. 👍

ps. It's getting late and I'm hitting a wall. There'll be plenty of days left to keep this discussion going.

bluemason3 said:It’s a classic Dunning-Kruger scenario: to actually judge an expert's opinion, you really need to be operating at their level of expertise first.

Since I’m not some PhD epidemiologist from Harvard, do I even have enough foundational knowledge to make a fair assessment? Or am I just going to find something subjectively appealing because it aligns with my irrational biases or personality traits? (For instance, people who lean toward alternative or anti-establishment ideas will instinctively feel a sense of "kinship" with anything that pushes back against the establishment, driven by emotional solidarity long before they ever get to the rationalization phase where they justify their actual motives).

Keeping that in mind—and since I lack the credentials to judge—it seems more sensible to stick with the mainstream than to fight it. Sure, the mainstream can be wrong; it’s certainly happened before. But statistically speaking, there's a much higher probability that the 99.6% of PhD epidemiologists with legitimate scientific credentials are right, rather than the 0.4% who disagree plus two local doctors who aren't even in that specialty.

When you present this logic, the standard rebuttal is to point to instances where the mainstream was dead wrong and the "dissidents" were right. There's no denying those cases exist, but I think that’s a flawed argument. It feels less like a rational choice and more like a way to rationalize an irrational, emotional predisposition toward being anti-establishment:

1) Some of those historical examples are simply too old to be relevant today. Scientific methodology evolves, which reduces the margin for error. It’s hard to compare today’s system to how things worked 50 years ago.

2) Isolated incidents are just that—isolated. To use them as a basis for generalization, we would need a massive data set proving that "dissidents" are right most of the time, not just occasionally. Instead, people take a single outlier or a handful of cases from the entire history of science and use them to make a sweeping rule, while ignoring the actual average and the millions of instances where the scientific consensus was correct, leaving the endless "unsupported claims" in the dust.

So, bottom line: while the consensus could absolutely be wrong—especially in a situation filled with unknowns and poorly understood phenomena—following the guidance and assessments coming from the current dominant viewpoint is the most pragmatic move. Any corrections to those views should follow the corrections made by the scientific community itself as they gather more data and conduct more research. After all, we're dealing with something new that nobody fully understands yet.

I think your basic premise carries this sort of dogmatic tone regarding different social strata.

The idea is that we should just believe whatever scientists say,
and follow whatever they recommend,
simply because we aren't on their level to question their judgment.

Unquestioning respect for authority without any pushback from independent thought is something you usually only see in religion.

And apparently, in this day and age, mere mortals aren't allowed to question science.

If you were to question the truth of something written in the Bible, you’d be called a heretic; but if you don't trust the scientific mainstream to know what they're doing, it's dismissed as a Dunning-Kruger case. It seems to me these are just mechanisms used by ordinary people to police one another through ridicule, effectively creating a class of untouchable golden idols.

Everything should be subject to scrutiny, especially when the adherents of the scientific consensus start seizing control over our lives—when three politicians independently decide our fate, when we are locked in our homes for our own good, when the police clear us from public spaces, or when our fundamental rights to movement, work, business, and social interaction are stripped away. In those moments, I guess we shouldn't just wonder what is happening; we’d be fools not to ask.

In that spirit, if you've decided the mainstream is right, that's your business, but the argument that "they all agree, so they must be right because they are all epidemiologists" doesn't really hold water.

They don't actually know the exact origin of COVID, they make wild guesses about infection rates, and they don't even know the true number of infections worldwide since testing protocols vary so much between countries. Consequently, they can't even pin down an accurate mortality rate. Tests aren't foolproof; sometimes you get a false negative, sometimes a false positive. They don't know if the Chinese person lied, what happened with asymptomatic carriers, or if younger people are quietly building collective immunity through minor symptoms while staying under the radar... in the US, people are often only counted as cases if they go to the hospital and test positive, and those who died of cancer or heart disease but had COVID are labeled as COVID deaths. Why? They won't let people into parks, yet they allow crowds in retail stores. They can't explain why COVID suddenly stopped being so infectious in China, claiming it will last until the end of the year, though in reality, it might just last until summer. It isn't "over" until a vaccine is found. Actually, it's only over if the curve flattens, and even then, you have to keep it flattened...

If you trust the scientific mainstream simply because there are many of them and they are highly educated experts, you might miss how little they actually know, and how they only seem to agree on one thing—locking people up indefinitely.

Until when? Until a vaccine arrives... or until a total economic collapse occurs.

Well, precisely because they don't know so much, I guess we need to hear a second opinion.

1) Part of those arguments is far too outdated to be relevant today. Scientific methodology evolves, which reduces the margin for error; it feels difficult to compare today's system to something from fifty years ago.

I’m not sure who was bringing up cases from fifty years ago. I wasn't doing that; my focus has been entirely on everything that's surfaced within the last couple of years.

So, to wrap this up—and I could certainly be wrong here, especially given how many unknowns and poorly understood phenomena we're dealing with—I suppose following the current dominant consensus and its prevailing guidance is probably the most pragmatic route. Any adjustments to those views should really just follow the shifts in mainstream thought as the scientific community gathers more data and more research becomes available, since we are ultimately dealing with something entirely new that nobody truly understands yet.

Yes—given all the uncertainty, the lack of data, and the sheer amount of what we don't know, it might be more practical to just stick with the mainstream. Personally, I find those thinking outside the box to be much more compelling.

So, what now? Nothing.

Of course science isn't dogma. Everything should be open to scrutiny. But you can't critique what you don't understand. An Amazonian tribesman who thinks airplanes are just giant birds and that the Earth is flat isn't in any position to judge NASA's space programs.

I think anyone who has actually achieved a decent level of competence in anything would realize that.

Take judging musical talent, for example—though art is obviously much more subjective than science. My perspective changed completely after years of immersion. Before that, you mostly just follow whatever dogmatic, herd-like consensus is floating around. If you hear twenty times that Hendriks is the greatest ever, you'll believe it, even if every "guitar god" from the 80s was technically far superior. Beyond that, I’ve watched how assessments of guitarists (which I am not) shift as they evolve, even after decades of disciplined, 12-hour-a-day practice. The more you master your own craft, the more you recognize it in others.

If someone asked me who the best chess player in history is—or even today, when I barely remember how the pieces move, if I can even recall that—and I can only name three players from history, none of them currently active, I would either have to say I have no opinion at all or admit my opinion is foolish and baseless. I don't need to be at the top of the rankings to have an opinion, but I do need to be at a certain level where I have a systematic understanding of the game and its history. Otherwise, I’m just regurgitating impressions left by some media outlet.

Studying applied mathematics and statistics (as an adult, through extracurricular study) fundamentally shifted my understanding, much like music or religion did, regarding (certain) scientific claims and debates. It provides the foundation (for good work) of scientific methodology and data processing. No matter how much popular science I read before, I lacked the tools to truly grasp things. Listening to debates back then gave me a totally different impression than I would have now; arguments that once seemed rock-solid now seem incredibly weak, simply because I understand probability better. And the funniest part? I used to be much more confident in my own judgments than I am now. But even with a relatively basic level of knowledge, I can't convey it to someone in an online debate. I'm not sure I could even do it in a few hours of video content. If someone isn't willing to spend several years studying, there is no basis for a deep explanation (depending on the required depth of the discussion, admittedly).

Naturally, reaching a PhD level would bring even more significant shifts in perspective. That level allows for the evaluation of certain universal elements of research found in many fields, even if one can't judge the niche specifics of a single discipline. To evaluate medical research, I’d need to spend several more years studying specialized biostatistics or public health studies. Even with my current level being well above a casual consumer of science, I'm not capable of that, nor do I attempt it. But to even know that you don't know something, you first have to know something. It’s a strange paradox.

So, nobody is saying you should follow blindly. Science is, by definition, open to criticism and verification. But to criticize and verify, you need a minimum baseline of knowledge. If you want to dive into this, you have to dedicate anywhere from five to twenty years of serious, daily, structured study to the subject, depending on your starting point.

Of course, no one is stopping you from having an opinion on anything. But it's mostly just delusional self-deception if you take those opinions too seriously.

Chris Williams said:I think your basic premise carries this sort of dogmatic tone regarding different social strata.

The idea is that we should just believe whatever scientists say,
and follow whatever they recommend,
simply because we aren't on their level to question their judgment.

Unquestioning respect for authority without any pushback from independent thought is something you usually only see in religion.

And apparently, in this day and age, mere mortals aren't allowed to question science.

If you were to question the truth of something written in the Bible, you’d be called a heretic; but if you don't trust the scientific mainstream to know what they're doing, it's dismissed as a Dunning-Kruger case. It seems to me these are just mechanisms used by ordinary people to police one another through ridicule, effectively creating a class of untouchable golden idols.

Everything should be subject to scrutiny, especially when the adherents of the scientific consensus start seizing control over our lives—when three politicians independently decide our fate, when we are locked in our homes for our own good, when the police clear us from public spaces, or when our fundamental rights to movement, work, business, and social interaction are stripped away. In those moments, I guess we shouldn't just wonder what is happening; we’d be fools not to ask.

In that spirit, if you've decided the mainstream is right, that's your business, but the argument that "they all agree, so they must be right because they are all epidemiologists" doesn't really hold water.

They don't actually know the exact origin of COVID, they make wild guesses about infection rates, and they don't even know the true number of infections worldwide since testing protocols vary so much between countries. Consequently, they can't even pin down an accurate mortality rate. Tests aren't foolproof; sometimes you get a false negative, sometimes a false positive. They don't know if the Chinese person lied, what happened with asymptomatic carriers, or if younger people are quietly building collective immunity through minor symptoms while staying under the radar... in the US, people are often only counted as cases if they go to the hospital and test positive, and those who died of cancer or heart disease but had COVID are labeled as COVID deaths. Why? They won't let people into parks, yet they allow crowds in retail stores. They can't explain why COVID suddenly stopped being so infectious in China, claiming it will last until the end of the year, though in reality, it might just last until summer. It isn't "over" until a vaccine is found. Actually, it's only over if the curve flattens, and even then, you have to keep it flattened...

If you trust the scientific mainstream simply because there are many of them and they are highly educated experts, you might miss how little they actually know, and how they only seem to agree on one thing—locking people up indefinitely.

Until when? Until a vaccine arrives... or until a total economic collapse occurs.

Well, precisely because they don't know so much, I guess we need to hear a second opinion.

1) Part of those arguments is far too outdated to be relevant today. Scientific methodology evolves, which reduces the margin for error; it feels difficult to compare today's system to something from fifty years ago.

I’m not sure who was bringing up cases from fifty years ago. I wasn't doing that; my focus has been entirely on everything that's surfaced within the last couple of years.

So, to wrap this up—and I could certainly be wrong here, especially given how many unknowns and poorly understood phenomena we're dealing with—I suppose following the current dominant consensus and its prevailing guidance is probably the most pragmatic route. Any adjustments to those views should really just follow the shifts in mainstream thought as the scientific community gathers more data and more research becomes available, since we are ultimately dealing with something entirely new that nobody truly understands yet.

Yes—given all the uncertainty, the lack of data, and the sheer amount of what we don't know, it might be more practical to just stick with the mainstream. Personally, I find those thinking outside the box to be much more compelling.

So, what now? Nothing.

Exactly. It’s pure chaos. It’s honestly a miracle more people haven't completely lost their minds by now.

bluemason3

bluemason3 said:Of course science isn't dogma. Everything should be open to scrutiny. But you can't critique what you don't understand. An Amazonian tribesman who thinks airplanes are just giant birds and that the Earth is flat isn't in any position to judge NASA's space programs.

I think anyone who has actually achieved a decent level of competence in anything would realize that.

Take judging musical talent, for example—though art is obviously much more subjective than science. My perspective changed completely after years of immersion. Before that, you mostly just follow whatever dogmatic, herd-like consensus is floating around. If you hear twenty times that Hendriks is the greatest ever, you'll believe it, even if every "guitar god" from the 80s was technically far superior. Beyond that, I’ve watched how assessments of guitarists (which I am not) shift as they evolve, even after decades of disciplined, 12-hour-a-day practice. The more you master your own craft, the more you recognize it in others.

If someone asked me who the best chess player in history is—or even today, when I barely remember how the pieces move, if I can even recall that—and I can only name three players from history, none of them currently active, I would either have to say I have no opinion at all or admit my opinion is foolish and baseless. I don't need to be at the top of the rankings to have an opinion, but I do need to be at a certain level where I have a systematic understanding of the game and its history. Otherwise, I’m just regurgitating impressions left by some media outlet.

Studying applied mathematics and statistics (as an adult, through extracurricular study) fundamentally shifted my understanding, much like music or religion did, regarding (certain) scientific claims and debates. It provides the foundation (for good work) of scientific methodology and data processing. No matter how much popular science I read before, I lacked the tools to truly grasp things. Listening to debates back then gave me a totally different impression than I would have now; arguments that once seemed rock-solid now seem incredibly weak, simply because I understand probability better. And the funniest part? I used to be much more confident in my own judgments than I am now. But even with a relatively basic level of knowledge, I can't convey it to someone in an online debate. I'm not sure I could even do it in a few hours of video content. If someone isn't willing to spend several years studying, there is no basis for a deep explanation (depending on the required depth of the discussion, admittedly).

Naturally, reaching a PhD level would bring even more significant shifts in perspective. That level allows for the evaluation of certain universal elements of research found in many fields, even if one can't judge the niche specifics of a single discipline. To evaluate medical research, I’d need to spend several more years studying specialized biostatistics or public health studies. Even with my current level being well above a casual consumer of science, I'm not capable of that, nor do I attempt it. But to even know that you don't know something, you first have to know something. It’s a strange paradox.

So, nobody is saying you should follow blindly. Science is, by definition, open to criticism and verification. But to criticize and verify, you need a minimum baseline of knowledge. If you want to dive into this, you have to dedicate anywhere from five to twenty years of serious, daily, structured study to the subject, depending on your starting point.

Of course, no one is stopping you from having an opinion on anything. But it's mostly just delusional self-deception if you take those opinions too seriously.

That comparison simply doesn't apply here. Not at all...

A more appropriate analogy might be this: imagine someone has a massive ulcer or a deep wound on their leg—severely inflamed tissue that could lead to sepsis. Most doctors tell them, "To be safe, you need to amputate the leg." That would certainly heal the ulcer and eliminate the danger. However, a small minority of doctors argue—since you'll lose the leg anyway, let's just try treating the ulcer instead. So, what I am questioning is whether amputation is actually better than treatment, based on the arguments provided to me. I don't need a PhD in anything to exercise basic common sense.

And now, governments are fueling mass hysteria and madness by locking people under house arrest. Life has come to a standstill; they are amputating the economy, gutting industry, and threatening the very foundations of an already fragile global economy, even risking social order itself. They risk famine and poverty, potentially bankrupting nations, all just to reduce what is claimed to be high mortality.

"Claimed," because so far, the death toll relative to 7 billion people isn't even particularly high compared to the seasonal flu. As a consequence of these decisions—the scale of which we can't even fathom—we will be living in a post-Corona era for years, much like the person who had to have their leg cut off because most doctors insisted it was the only way to deal with an ulcer.

Regarding an approach that avoids amputating everything everywhere, and why I find the alternative more logical: look at South Korea. They didn't shut down their entire economy; they implemented a different model. I won't go into too much detail, but you can see it here.

And then look at Sweden, which barely does anything at all, yet their numbers are similar to countries where citizens are forced to hide in their apartments like mice while police drive them back home if they dare to take a walk in the park.

We only have about 4 million people here, a tiny nation with a population roughly the size of two neighborhoods in Tokyo (which has 34 million people). When Alma is asked why they aren't testing more, as the Koreans do, she philosophizes that it's pointless and disagrees with the method, claiming it's not the right way. You don't need a doctorate to see that the Korean approach yields results, while she just talks in circles without providing real arguments for why we should amputate our legs instead of saving them. A monkey just does what a monkey sees.

Www

hiddenpuma75 said:I have even more statements right here, just so you know I'm not cluttering things up too much

forget: the swine flu in 2009. That was a virus that reached the world from Mexico and until today there is no vaccination against it.

Without getting too deep into the comments from people whose backgrounds are probably all similar to this Indian guy bluemason3 picked out, this caught my eye.

I received a quadrivalent shot this year, including one for swine flu.
And it isn't anything new; it's been around since 2009.
What kind of people are these? Who wrote these statements? 🤣

Just trolling... 🤷