During a public health emergency you would expect the public health officials to show more honor and sense of duty to the public. Even under duress you would expect them to find methods of resistance, obstruction, non-compliance, feigned incompetence, etc. to get the word out.
During a public health emergency you would expect the public health officials to show more honor and sense of duty to the public. Even under duress you would expect them to find methods of resistance, obstruction, non-compliance, feigned incompetence, etc. to get the word out.
Well... depends a bit on what you mean by "expect". I would definitely want them to, yes, and consider it a failure when they do not. However, given the types of people in those roles, I would pretty much expect them to do exactly what they did, which is what all career government bureaucrats do. :)
Yea, I am in part glad that the COVID business shook a lot of people's blind faith in their institutional leaders, and in part bothered that it didn't do it a a whole lot more. Not just government but business, religious and social groups all had their leaders bow down and reply "Whatever you say!" to the government. Yet people seem to be ignoring that behavior, as though that was the only difficult decision those leaders ever will have to make.
If I were to choose a new church, for instance, a good answer to "So, how did you respond to the COVID mandates?" would be a key consideration.
My (trademarked) "Law of Opposite Effects" gives me a sense of optimism. If what our rulers really want is more control, they are going to lose their control.
Here's what I think: They HAVE to keep 100-percent of the important "truth-seeking" organizations completely captured. If one or two "break ranks" and do real reporting, the whole pack might follow and the whole house of cards might crumble. So they must be worried about that key apostate going rogue.
I like thinking the critical mass could be just 2% of the ranks but the impact of Elon at X, and to a lesser degree (but feels like it's growing) Tucker Carlson gives me some hope that only a handful of fearless, perhaps nothing-to-lose actors [edit late upon reread] can change the landscape.
Possibly, but I suspect the modal examples are just amazingly incompetent, and do whatever their bosses say. Those bosses are probably effectively in the pocket of the pharma companies, however, and so yea, they are probably entirely indifferent to whether or not some act makes public health better or worse, and act in ways that make it worse.
Everyone in every "important" organization intuitively knows what "The Current Thing" is and that they can't go against that authorized narrative. Nobody wants to be cast out of the herd.
My conclusion: "The home of the brave" doesn't have enough brave citizens.
Yes, I think most bureaucracies' survival function selects for the ability to be on the right side of the current political question. Those that would oppose that side for whatever reason are weeded out or remain at lower levels.
I don't know about the home of the brave angle. I can't quite understand how people can see such behavior in government institutions and not demand they be shut down. Seems like as often as not I just see people say "Those institutions were horrible! We need to replace the people in them with our people!" as though the structure doesn't select for the people inside of it, or in other words, it would go right back to misbehaving, possibly in a different way, because those sorts of institutional structures do not lead to the outcomes we want.
Maybe the citizens need to be brave enough to not have the government nanny as a backstop?
Most of our "important" organizations are so captured by now that they could never be "reformed." As Ripley said in "Aliens," "We have to nuke (the planet). That's the only way we can be sure."
The argument that the "Science" and "Health" Establishment really want to promote poor health is that these same institutions benefit from more people having poor health.
For example, if these non-vaccines really do increase the incidence of cancer, the health establishment is going to make even more money on cancer drugs and treatments. Right now, I see a flurry of Shingles Vaccine commercials. The damn Covid vaccine probably caused shingles.
Before Covid, the State Health Agencies seemed to exist only to promote the flu vaccine. They've been pushing those shots hard for decades - but the flu is still around and just as bad as ever.
If the flu went away or was cured, what would the army of people who work at these agencies do?
During a public health emergency you would expect the public health officials to show more honor and sense of duty to the public. Even under duress you would expect them to find methods of resistance, obstruction, non-compliance, feigned incompetence, etc. to get the word out.
Well... depends a bit on what you mean by "expect". I would definitely want them to, yes, and consider it a failure when they do not. However, given the types of people in those roles, I would pretty much expect them to do exactly what they did, which is what all career government bureaucrats do. :)
Agree. The two biggest lies: тАЬWeтАЩre from the government and we are here to help you.тАЭ AND тАЬWeтАЩre glad youтАЩre here.тАЭ
Yea, I am in part glad that the COVID business shook a lot of people's blind faith in their institutional leaders, and in part bothered that it didn't do it a a whole lot more. Not just government but business, religious and social groups all had their leaders bow down and reply "Whatever you say!" to the government. Yet people seem to be ignoring that behavior, as though that was the only difficult decision those leaders ever will have to make.
If I were to choose a new church, for instance, a good answer to "So, how did you respond to the COVID mandates?" would be a key consideration.
My (trademarked) "Law of Opposite Effects" gives me a sense of optimism. If what our rulers really want is more control, they are going to lose their control.
"Law of Opposite Effects"
I hadn't titled it yet but I think kinda the same thing. The tighter the grip, the more sand that's slipping through their fingers.
They're losing they're grip and they're completely freaked out about it.
Here's what I think: They HAVE to keep 100-percent of the important "truth-seeking" organizations completely captured. If one or two "break ranks" and do real reporting, the whole pack might follow and the whole house of cards might crumble. So they must be worried about that key apostate going rogue.
I like thinking the critical mass could be just 2% of the ranks but the impact of Elon at X, and to a lesser degree (but feels like it's growing) Tucker Carlson gives me some hope that only a handful of fearless, perhaps nothing-to-lose actors [edit late upon reread] can change the landscape.
Truth will out.
A cynic might conclude that the real goal of the public health agencies is to worsen "public health."
Possibly, but I suspect the modal examples are just amazingly incompetent, and do whatever their bosses say. Those bosses are probably effectively in the pocket of the pharma companies, however, and so yea, they are probably entirely indifferent to whether or not some act makes public health better or worse, and act in ways that make it worse.
Everyone in every "important" organization intuitively knows what "The Current Thing" is and that they can't go against that authorized narrative. Nobody wants to be cast out of the herd.
My conclusion: "The home of the brave" doesn't have enough brave citizens.
Yes, I think most bureaucracies' survival function selects for the ability to be on the right side of the current political question. Those that would oppose that side for whatever reason are weeded out or remain at lower levels.
I don't know about the home of the brave angle. I can't quite understand how people can see such behavior in government institutions and not demand they be shut down. Seems like as often as not I just see people say "Those institutions were horrible! We need to replace the people in them with our people!" as though the structure doesn't select for the people inside of it, or in other words, it would go right back to misbehaving, possibly in a different way, because those sorts of institutional structures do not lead to the outcomes we want.
Maybe the citizens need to be brave enough to not have the government nanny as a backstop?
Most of our "important" organizations are so captured by now that they could never be "reformed." As Ripley said in "Aliens," "We have to nuke (the planet). That's the only way we can be sure."
"My conclusion: "The home of the brave" doesn't have enough brave citizens."
Bill is, dare I say, en fuego.
The argument that the "Science" and "Health" Establishment really want to promote poor health is that these same institutions benefit from more people having poor health.
For example, if these non-vaccines really do increase the incidence of cancer, the health establishment is going to make even more money on cancer drugs and treatments. Right now, I see a flurry of Shingles Vaccine commercials. The damn Covid vaccine probably caused shingles.
Before Covid, the State Health Agencies seemed to exist only to promote the flu vaccine. They've been pushing those shots hard for decades - but the flu is still around and just as bad as ever.
If the flu went away or was cured, what would the army of people who work at these agencies do?
That is certainly the goal of тАЬBig PharmaтАЭ
Cynic? Or maybe just a realist...