"if you accepted the magnitude of the threat, you'd have to do something about it or feel like a craven and a failure for doing nothing. and very few are willing to do that, especially if the cost of standing up is high."
Interesting thought. It seems the COVID crisis appears as the counter example: people readily accepted an overstatement of the magnitude of risk and then rejected any kind of realistic risk assessment process. In deed those calling for risk analysis were called extreme. We got to the point where using emergency authorizations to administer an unapproved drug to a population with near zero risk of serious complications from COVID (kids) seemed reasonable. Because the risk was vastly overstated (or even fabricated). So how did we get there?
Let's jump in the way-back machine, set for November 2019. The US economy was booming. US Energy exports had freed most of Europe from the lock of Russian energy products. OPEC and Russia were not happy about the competition. Despite much media and political effort, the US president at the time was gaining popularity, especially in Europe where the disdain from elite rulers was being overcome by the mass of relative peace and prosperity. The media was flummoxed. The Party's outlook for sweeping away this outsider seemed bleak. A re-election of the outsider seemed a lock. Times were dire, in deed. A few racially motivated riots hadn't don the job. Dire times require dire measures: a good crisis was needed. But what?
Along comes a new flu bug. Reports were that it was a nasty one. Still, in December 2019 "all the experts" were cautioning not to panic. By early January, it was clear there was a threat, but all evidence was "a bad flu year" and not global disaster. But, by the end of January, it was clear this could be escalated and used for political benefit. But could it escalate to the level of crisis needed?
Remember, at this stage, president Trump expressed concerns were labeled an over-reaction. When president Trump echoed the WHO advice that travel to and from China might be restricted, WHO reversed the recommendation to say "travel restrictions are NOT recommended". Don't believe orange man, he doesn't know "science".
What a difference a month made. By March, we were in full blown crisis. Coordinated efforts to shut down economies in most states were achieved. The rate at which people accepted a magnitude of risk that, on any rational analytical method was hard to justify, was astounding. Even absurd. And the absurdity snow-balled. With millions of prospering businesses shut down by edict, the strong economy was much less a barrier to effective campaigning against Trump.
So failing to accept the true magnitude of risk, but in the reverse direction, was essential - still is essential - to the COVID phenomena.
Well some people where on the hate Trump train, so for them it was what had to be done. It was easy to overlook the connection, I suppose, at least for a while. Now, to be clear: not saying the SARS-COV virus was created for this purpose. I'm observing that it was fully exploited for political gain. This is the power of hate: all things seem reasonable to achieve the demise of the enemy.
The weird thing is Trump is an old time Democrat. He didnтАЩt start a war. He ended bad trade deals. He brought manufacturing back. He reduced the price of gas. HeтАЩs what all Democrats claimed they wanted for decades. They got it. And they hated him.
"if you accepted the magnitude of the threat, you'd have to do something about it or feel like a craven and a failure for doing nothing. and very few are willing to do that, especially if the cost of standing up is high."
Interesting thought. It seems the COVID crisis appears as the counter example: people readily accepted an overstatement of the magnitude of risk and then rejected any kind of realistic risk assessment process. In deed those calling for risk analysis were called extreme. We got to the point where using emergency authorizations to administer an unapproved drug to a population with near zero risk of serious complications from COVID (kids) seemed reasonable. Because the risk was vastly overstated (or even fabricated). So how did we get there?
Let's jump in the way-back machine, set for November 2019. The US economy was booming. US Energy exports had freed most of Europe from the lock of Russian energy products. OPEC and Russia were not happy about the competition. Despite much media and political effort, the US president at the time was gaining popularity, especially in Europe where the disdain from elite rulers was being overcome by the mass of relative peace and prosperity. The media was flummoxed. The Party's outlook for sweeping away this outsider seemed bleak. A re-election of the outsider seemed a lock. Times were dire, in deed. A few racially motivated riots hadn't don the job. Dire times require dire measures: a good crisis was needed. But what?
Along comes a new flu bug. Reports were that it was a nasty one. Still, in December 2019 "all the experts" were cautioning not to panic. By early January, it was clear there was a threat, but all evidence was "a bad flu year" and not global disaster. But, by the end of January, it was clear this could be escalated and used for political benefit. But could it escalate to the level of crisis needed?
Remember, at this stage, president Trump expressed concerns were labeled an over-reaction. When president Trump echoed the WHO advice that travel to and from China might be restricted, WHO reversed the recommendation to say "travel restrictions are NOT recommended". Don't believe orange man, he doesn't know "science".
What a difference a month made. By March, we were in full blown crisis. Coordinated efforts to shut down economies in most states were achieved. The rate at which people accepted a magnitude of risk that, on any rational analytical method was hard to justify, was astounding. Even absurd. And the absurdity snow-balled. With millions of prospering businesses shut down by edict, the strong economy was much less a barrier to effective campaigning against Trump.
So failing to accept the true magnitude of risk, but in the reverse direction, was essential - still is essential - to the COVID phenomena.
Excellent breakdown of how Covid was used to take down Trump.
The odd part is how compliant everyone was with the silly bullshit.
And still are!
Well some people where on the hate Trump train, so for them it was what had to be done. It was easy to overlook the connection, I suppose, at least for a while. Now, to be clear: not saying the SARS-COV virus was created for this purpose. I'm observing that it was fully exploited for political gain. This is the power of hate: all things seem reasonable to achieve the demise of the enemy.
Exactly! Easy to manipulate people when they will go with ANYTHING as long as it is against Trump. Mind control:
https://open.substack.com/pub/thecriticalmiddle/p/take-back-your-mind?utm_source=direct&r=1sr0c7&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
The weird thing is Trump is an old time Democrat. He didnтАЩt start a war. He ended bad trade deals. He brought manufacturing back. He reduced the price of gas. HeтАЩs what all Democrats claimed they wanted for decades. They got it. And they hated him.