wiki - dictionary - home

Science of COVID (General)

by dulan drift, Tuesday, December 29, 2020, 06:53 (60 days ago) @ dan

Malcolm Kendrick makes some good points - unfortunately the 'making of good points' has been banned until further notice. He mentions up front that he knew he would be slammed for saying these things - and duly was.

This is all down to the 'Listen to the Experts/Science' mantra we've been hearing, which itself is based on a false premise. What they really mean is listen to a few select scientists such as WHO investigator Peter Daszak and the Proximal Origins authors (Lipkin, Holmes, Garry, Andersen, Rambaut) with their pro-China, pro-lockdown, pangolin/wet market/couldn't possibly have been a lab-leak theory - then vilify the rest as conspiracy theorists.

The other thing, as we discussed before, dealing with Covid goes way beyond scientific experts.

Covid is a socio-political phenomenon that emanated from/involves China. Any scientist that's being honest (hard to find, admittedly) will acknowledge that this is a major piece of the puzzle that's outside their expertise. It involves socio-political experts - or people who have experience of the CCP's methods (we can count ourselves in this group). Ask any of those guys about whether they think China is a benevolent, "open and transparent" force that should be blindly trusted at their word - they're gonna laugh in your face.

If you get that piece of the puzzle wrong - you get the whole thing wrong - with catastrophic consequences.

Dealing with Covid involves:
(a) Thinking it through - beyond tomorrow's news cycle
(b) input from a range of experts - not just scientists who are on the take from China.

We need economists, civil rights experts, social workers, political sociologists, and even philosophers - maybe especially philosophers - given what's at stake is an ethics framework of the future.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum