Author Topic: Coronavirus news  (Read 725690 times)

Steven W Bohler

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 4346
    • View Profile
Re: Coronavirus news
« Reply #4440 on: July 29, 2021, 09:34:19 AM »
Peter writes:
There could be perfectly innocent reasons for the changes. But people with innocent reasons don't hide the seeming discrepancies, they explain their reasoning. Having tried to back-date changes, they lose credibility with all reasonable people when they eventually explain why they think this study worth citing.
I comment:
And of course, Peter assumes the reasons were not innocent.
Someone tell me what the CDC has to gain by tricking us or lying to us.

Power.  Control.  Approval from certain politicians and businesses (think funding requests).  Partisan leadership of such agencies.  I could go on, but that should be enough for now.

Charles Austin

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 15313
    • View Profile
    • Charles is Coloring
Re: Coronavirus news
« Reply #4441 on: July 29, 2021, 09:47:30 AM »
Here I am, Pastor Bohler, an old-fashioned and anti-establishment liberal, saying to you, a contemporary conservative, yours is a sad cynical view of the world. Assume the worst, hold firm to the belief that scientists are not really scientists, but power-hungry political hacks.
Retired ELCA Pastor. Parishes in Iowa, New York and New Jersey. LCA/LWF staff. Former journalist. Now retired in Minneapolis. My only Thanksgiving cooking chore: providing fresh ground, fair trade, bird friendly coffee.

peter_speckhard

  • ALPB Administrator
  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 20025
    • View Profile
Re: Coronavirus news
« Reply #4442 on: July 29, 2021, 09:57:00 AM »
Peter writes:
There could be perfectly innocent reasons for the changes. But people with innocent reasons don't hide the seeming discrepancies, they explain their reasoning. Having tried to back-date changes, they lose credibility with all reasonable people when they eventually explain why they think this study worth citing.
I comment:
And of course, Peter assumes the reasons were not innocent.
Someone tell me what the CDC has to gain by tricking us or lying to us.
I didn't assume their reasons in this particular case weren't innocent. I don't know. I don't really care. I said they have lost credibility by hiding their actions before explaining them. Regardless of what the CDC has to gain by lying to us or tricking, it is demonstrable that they attempt both things. Are you denying that they backdated a change in the peer-review status of a study they cited? If so, you must address what certainly appears to be irrefutable proof that they did. Are you saying backdating the change does not amount to deliberate deception? If so, you are a disgrace to your field of journalism.

So... GIVEN the fact that the CDC has deliberately deceived the public regarding the science behind its new mandates, how do we explain that? What has been gained? Well, covid hysteria has been a massive boon to progressives on many fronts. Massive government spending and increased control over the private sector economy and illegal changes to state election laws that Democrats have long wanted justified on emergency covid grounds, to name two. These are things Democrats favored long before Covid and could never get passed, but promoting public panic and thereby getting emergency powers allowed them to have.

The real question is not what establishment has to gain by having more control over everything. The real question is what those who distrust the establishment have to gain by distrusting them. Life is far easier for those who go with the flow. And nobody is just itching to get a deadly disease. So what motivates people who question the establishment as led by people like Fauci? In your view, stupidity and paranoia motivates them. You've said so repeatedly. All that demonstrates is that you don't know any of them and are incapable of seeing the world the way they see it even though they are perfectly capable of seeing the world the way you see it. 
« Last Edit: July 29, 2021, 10:23:29 AM by peter_speckhard »

Dan Fienen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 13701
    • View Profile
Re: Coronavirus news
« Reply #4443 on: July 29, 2021, 09:57:12 AM »
Here I am, Pastor Bohler, an old-fashioned and anti-establishment liberal, saying to you, a contemporary conservative, yours is a sad cynical view of the world. Assume the worst, hold firm to the belief that scientists are not really scientists, but power-hungry political hacks.
So, from being an old-fashioned, anti-establishment liberal, you have become an assume that every government official and functionary (scientists who work for government agencies and administrations are still government functionaries) is truthful, honest, and working for everybody's best interests unless proven otherwise and still that proof is probably wrong? Oh, yes, that is only when liberals and progressives, and the party they control is in charge. When the other party is in charge it's back to they are all a pack of liars and cheats until proven otherwise and even then the proof is to be doubted and dismissed.
Pr. Daniel Fienen
LCMS

David Garner

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 8143
    • View Profile
    • For He is Good and Loves Mankind
Re: Coronavirus news
« Reply #4444 on: July 29, 2021, 10:03:20 AM »
I love that the person who thinks all who decline to get the vaccine at this time are MAGA hat wearing morons now thinks we should put the best construction on things.

That's adorable.
Orthodox Reader and former Lutheran (LCMS and WELS).

Jim Butler

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 2090
    • View Profile
Re: Coronavirus news
« Reply #4445 on: July 29, 2021, 10:17:33 AM »
Peter writes:
There could be perfectly innocent reasons for the changes. But people with innocent reasons don't hide the seeming discrepancies, they explain their reasoning. Having tried to back-date changes, they lose credibility with all reasonable people when they eventually explain why they think this study worth citing.
I comment:
And of course, Peter assumes the reasons were not innocent.
Someone tell me what the CDC has to gain by tricking us or lying to us.

The question is not what does the CDC have "tricking us or lying to us"? The question is did they? The answer is yes. They changed their recommendation from "reject" to "revise" and back dated the change.

Second question: why would they do that? I would think that, as a journalist who is supposed to "speak truth to power" that question would concern you. Why not be fully transparent? Why not put the actual date that this was changed? Why not explain the reasoning behind this change?

Think about this: you have bemoaned "misinformation" as the reason people are refusing to receive vaccines. Isn't back dating a type of misinformation? In the minds of many, if the government agency in charge of our response to SARS-CoV-2 is willing to cover up a small thing like this, what else might they be covering up? What other evidence might they be falsifying and/or hiding?
« Last Edit: July 29, 2021, 11:09:07 AM by jebutler »
The significance of the passage of time, right? The significance of the passage of time. So when you think about it, there is great significance to the passage of time. -- VP Kamala Harris

MaddogLutheran

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 3694
  • It's my fantasy football avatar...
    • View Profile
Re: Coronavirus news
« Reply #4446 on: July 29, 2021, 10:39:48 AM »
Someone tell me what the CDC has to gain by tricking us or lying to us.

Okay, since you asked, Slate! of all places:

Slate.com: The Noble Lies of COVID-19
BY KERRINGTON POWELL AND VINAY PRASAD
JULY 28, 2021

When experts or agencies deliver information to the public that they consider possibly or definitively false to further a larger, often well-meaning agenda, they are telling what is called a noble lie. Although the teller’s intentions may be pure—for example, a feeling of urgency that behavioral change is needed among the lay public—the consequences can undermine not only those intentions but also public trust in experts and science. During the first year of COVID-19, leaders were faced with an unknown disease amid a politically sensitive election in the era of social media, and the preconditions for noble lies became especially fertile. Not surprisingly, we witnessed several examples. More than anything, these examples illustrate the destructive potential of such lies.

Later in 2020, Fauci participated in a second noble lie. In December, he explained in a phone interview with then–New York Times reporter Donald McNeil that he had been moving the target estimate for herd immunity based in part on emerging studies. But he also said:

When polls said only about half of all Americans would take a vaccine, I was saying herd immunity would take 70 to 75 percent. Then, when newer surveys said 60 percent or more would take it, I thought, “I can nudge this up a bit,” so I went to 80, 85.

In his own words, he “nudged” his target range for herd immunity to promote vaccine uptake. Even though his comments were made to influence public actions to get more people vaccinated (a noble effort), the central dilemma remains: Do we want public health officials to report facts and uncertainties transparently? Or do we want them to shape information, via nudges, to influence the public to take specific actions? The former fosters an open and honest dialogue with the public to facilitate democratic policymaking. The second subverts the very idea of a democracy and implies that those who set the rules or shape the media narrative are justified in depriving the public of information that they may consider or value differently.


After this, the article goes on to itemize additional noble lies, which I leave to the reader.  There is this conclusion at the end:

We worry that vaccine policy among supporters of vaccines is increasingly anchored to the irrational views of those who oppose them—by always pursuing the opposite. Exaggerating the risk of the virus in the moment and failing to explore middle ground positions appear to be the antithesis of the anti-vax movement, which is an extremist effort to refuse vaccination. This seems a reflexive attempt to vaccinate at all costs—by creating fear in the public (despite falling adolescent rates) and pushing the notion that two doses of mRNA at the current dose level or nothing at all are the only two choices—a logical error called the fallacy of the excluded middle.

Noble lies—small untruths—yield unpredictable outcomes. Nietzsche once wrote, “Not that you lied to me, but that I no longer believe you, has shaken me.” Public health messaging is predicated on trust, which overcomes the enormous complexity of the scientific literature, creating an opportunity to communicate initiatives effectively. Still, violation of this trust renders the communication unreliable. When trust is shattered, messaging is no longer clear and straightforward, and instead results in the audience trying to reverse-engineer the statement based on their view of the speaker’s intent. Simply put, noble lies can rob confidence from the public, leading to confusion, a loss of credibility, conspiracy theories, and obfuscated policy.

Noble lies are a trap. We cannot predict the public’s behavior, and loss of trust is devastating. The general population is far too skeptical to blindly follow the advice of experts, and far too intelligent to be easily duped.


Personally I continue to reject such public policy lying ("if you like your plan, you can keep your plan!") for the greater good, or excusing the "right" people for doing it, because their cause is just.
« Last Edit: July 29, 2021, 10:47:12 AM by MaddogLutheran »
Sterling Spatz
ELCA pew-sitter

MaddogLutheran

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 3694
  • It's my fantasy football avatar...
    • View Profile
Re: Coronavirus news
« Reply #4447 on: July 29, 2021, 10:45:13 AM »
Here I am, Pastor Bohler, an old-fashioned and anti-establishment liberal, saying to you, a contemporary conservative, yours is a sad cynical view of the world. Assume the worst, hold firm to the belief that scientists are not really scientists, but power-hungry political hacks.
So, from being an old-fashioned, anti-establishment liberal, you have become an assume that every government official and functionary (scientists who work for government agencies and administrations are still government functionaries) is truthful, honest, and working for everybody's best interests unless proven otherwise and still that proof is probably wrong? Oh, yes, that is only when liberals and progressives, and the party they control is in charge. When the other party is in charge it's back to they are all a pack of liars and cheats until proven otherwise and even then the proof is to be doubted and dismissed.

I call shenanigans, which regularly manifests itself here as bad faith tribal argumentation and I could do without it.  It's why the anti-vaxx doubt for political gain in the fall (but well-documented on this thread earlier) has been memory holed.
« Last Edit: July 29, 2021, 10:52:17 AM by MaddogLutheran »
Sterling Spatz
ELCA pew-sitter

David Garner

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 8143
    • View Profile
    • For He is Good and Loves Mankind
Re: Coronavirus news
« Reply #4448 on: July 29, 2021, 10:47:03 AM »
Remember when I said they think we're stupid?

A "noble lie" is when you lie to stupid people because you know better than them what's best for them.

It's just rank narcissistic elitism.
Orthodox Reader and former Lutheran (LCMS and WELS).

James S. Rustad

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 1299
  • μολὼν λαβέ
    • View Profile
Re: Coronavirus news
« Reply #4449 on: July 29, 2021, 11:31:14 AM »
A reprint from Matt Taibbi's Substack:

https://nypost.com/2021/07/28/smug-dems-have-only-selves-to-blame-for-vaccine-hesitancy/

I especially liked the following:

"If you want to convince people to get a vaccine, pretty much the worst way to go about it is a massive blame campaign, delivered by sneering bluenoses..." Kinda reminds me of someone, but I can't think of who.

And this:

"They do this acting like the public doesn’t remember the messaging from the Biden-Harris campaign last year, which was talked about at the time as being irresponsible precisely because it set a precedent of urging the public to distrust the vaccine. Biden repeatedly came out with statements like:

'When we finally do, God willing, get a vaccine, who’s going to take the shot? Who’s going to take the shot? You going to be the first one to say, ‘Put me — sign me up, they now say it’s OK?'"

I honestly just feel like we're spinning our wheels here.

Pastor Kirchner hit the nail on the head in the PM he sent to Pastor Austin.  He got banned for it, but being outside the rules does not make one wrong.  On this issue, at every turn, Pastor Austin simply proves him right.  He isn't trying to persuade anyone.  He's simply being what he is.  We should accept that is who he is and move on.

Yes, I acknowledge I said this a couple of days ago and persisted.  I'm mostly trying to convince myself.

Hmmm...  Not long ago I discussed with a friend how to convince people to be vaccinated.  I spoke of a poster on a web site I frequent as an example of the wrong way to do it.  Calling people stupid makes it harder to convince them.

Dan Fienen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 13701
    • View Profile
Re: Coronavirus news
« Reply #4450 on: July 29, 2021, 11:31:48 AM »
The hoi polloi need to be told what they need to hear so that they will do and act as they should as determined by those who know what is best for them. Rather than question them they should just thank them and fall in line.


https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=you+can%27t+handle+the+truth&&view=detail&mid=85C56941BC3EE4CF3D9085C56941BC3EE4CF3D90&rvsmid=7F96045CEAD7BDC751D27F96045CEAD7BDC751D2&FORM=VDQVAP
Pr. Daniel Fienen
LCMS

Brian Stoffregen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 45256
  • ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν
    • View Profile
Re: Coronavirus news
« Reply #4451 on: July 29, 2021, 11:50:34 AM »
Can you tell me why I should not be mad at those who refuse vaccinations?

"People who don’t want the vaccine aren’t 'refusing' it. You don’t say a person is 'refusing' to take anti-depressants. Or 'refusing' to get married. You can decline without refusing. You decide what’s best for you. Refuse is a manipulative term, loaded with unfair moral pressure."  Dr. Ben Irvine


Actually, I think that it is fair moral pressure.

And utterly paradoxal that you and Pr. Austin who are otherwise quite broadminded, liberal, tolearant and at times outrightly revisionist on almost all matters of faith and morals (other than the "absolute" that there allegedly are no absolutes) can be such rigid dogmatists only pertaining to mandatory masking and forced vaccinations.


Because what is best for the whole may not be what some individuals think is best for themselves. It's about Jesus' command to love our neighbors.
"The church … had made us like ill-taught piano students; we play our songs, but we never really hear them, because our main concern is not to make music, but but to avoid some flub that will get us in dutch." [Robert Capon, _Between Noon and Three_, p. 148]

Brian Stoffregen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 45256
  • ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν
    • View Profile
Re: Coronavirus news
« Reply #4452 on: July 29, 2021, 11:59:07 AM »
Peter, I did not dismiss them as “idiots.“
That is your customarily uncharitable view of my comments.

No, you just said they are "Bad, not smart, unreasonable, and lacking concern for others." But you didn't call them "idiots."

Can you please explain the difference between the two? I don't see it.


Actually, ἴδιος, is a good term for those who are thinking only about themselves.


Or consider this definition of ἰδιώτης: "a person who has not acquired systemic information or expertise in some field of knowledge or activity" (Lowe & Nida).
"The church … had made us like ill-taught piano students; we play our songs, but we never really hear them, because our main concern is not to make music, but but to avoid some flub that will get us in dutch." [Robert Capon, _Between Noon and Three_, p. 148]

Brian Stoffregen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 45256
  • ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν
    • View Profile
Re: Coronavirus news
« Reply #4453 on: July 29, 2021, 12:08:18 PM »
Remember when I said they think we're stupid?

A "noble lie" is when you lie to stupid people because you know better than them what's best for them.

It's just rank narcissistic elitism.


The "noble lies" in the example seems to be an educated-person's opinion. Opinions can and should change as further facts are learned. How can an opinion be termed a "lie"?
"The church … had made us like ill-taught piano students; we play our songs, but we never really hear them, because our main concern is not to make music, but but to avoid some flub that will get us in dutch." [Robert Capon, _Between Noon and Three_, p. 148]

peter_speckhard

  • ALPB Administrator
  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 20025
    • View Profile
Re: Coronavirus news
« Reply #4454 on: July 29, 2021, 12:20:36 PM »
Someone tell me what the CDC has to gain by tricking us or lying to us.

Okay, since you asked, Slate! of all places:

Slate.com: The Noble Lies of COVID-19
BY KERRINGTON POWELL AND VINAY PRASAD
JULY 28, 2021

When experts or agencies deliver information to the public that they consider possibly or definitively false to further a larger, often well-meaning agenda, they are telling what is called a noble lie. Although the teller’s intentions may be pure—for example, a feeling of urgency that behavioral change is needed among the lay public—the consequences can undermine not only those intentions but also public trust in experts and science. During the first year of COVID-19, leaders were faced with an unknown disease amid a politically sensitive election in the era of social media, and the preconditions for noble lies became especially fertile. Not surprisingly, we witnessed several examples. More than anything, these examples illustrate the destructive potential of such lies.

Later in 2020, Fauci participated in a second noble lie. In December, he explained in a phone interview with then–New York Times reporter Donald McNeil that he had been moving the target estimate for herd immunity based in part on emerging studies. But he also said:

When polls said only about half of all Americans would take a vaccine, I was saying herd immunity would take 70 to 75 percent. Then, when newer surveys said 60 percent or more would take it, I thought, “I can nudge this up a bit,” so I went to 80, 85.

In his own words, he “nudged” his target range for herd immunity to promote vaccine uptake. Even though his comments were made to influence public actions to get more people vaccinated (a noble effort), the central dilemma remains: Do we want public health officials to report facts and uncertainties transparently? Or do we want them to shape information, via nudges, to influence the public to take specific actions? The former fosters an open and honest dialogue with the public to facilitate democratic policymaking. The second subverts the very idea of a democracy and implies that those who set the rules or shape the media narrative are justified in depriving the public of information that they may consider or value differently.


After this, the article goes on to itemize additional noble lies, which I leave to the reader.  There is this conclusion at the end:

We worry that vaccine policy among supporters of vaccines is increasingly anchored to the irrational views of those who oppose them—by always pursuing the opposite. Exaggerating the risk of the virus in the moment and failing to explore middle ground positions appear to be the antithesis of the anti-vax movement, which is an extremist effort to refuse vaccination. This seems a reflexive attempt to vaccinate at all costs—by creating fear in the public (despite falling adolescent rates) and pushing the notion that two doses of mRNA at the current dose level or nothing at all are the only two choices—a logical error called the fallacy of the excluded middle.

Noble lies—small untruths—yield unpredictable outcomes. Nietzsche once wrote, “Not that you lied to me, but that I no longer believe you, has shaken me.” Public health messaging is predicated on trust, which overcomes the enormous complexity of the scientific literature, creating an opportunity to communicate initiatives effectively. Still, violation of this trust renders the communication unreliable. When trust is shattered, messaging is no longer clear and straightforward, and instead results in the audience trying to reverse-engineer the statement based on their view of the speaker’s intent. Simply put, noble lies can rob confidence from the public, leading to confusion, a loss of credibility, conspiracy theories, and obfuscated policy.

Noble lies are a trap. We cannot predict the public’s behavior, and loss of trust is devastating. The general population is far too skeptical to blindly follow the advice of experts, and far too intelligent to be easily duped.


Personally I continue to reject such public policy lying ("if you like your plan, you can keep your plan!") for the greater good, or excusing the "right" people for doing it, because their cause is just.
This is just one example of many in which officials acknowledge very openly that they are engaged in pure propaganda, not information sharing. With propaganda, you first decide how you want people to behave, then you decide what to tell them in order to get them to behave that way. With information sharing, you first find out what is true, then share it. This is why all the people who called Fauci "fake news" were 100% correct. It wasn't information, it was propaganda. THAT DOESN'T MEAN IT WAS ALL OR EVEN MOSTLY FALSE OR THAT HIS AGENDA WAS EVIL!! It just means that when you're listening to Fauci, you are listening to someone who is very open about being a propagandist, not an objective scientist sharing data and making recommendations based on it. You are listening to an agenda disguised as news, which in popular parlance is correctly and accurately termed fake news. He was perfectly comfortable admitting to the public that the "science" he was sharing had no basis other than what thought he should tell people to get them to behave a certain way. You might think he is a benign propagandist or that his lies were noble, but if you deny he is propagandist or that he doesn't routinely lie then you simply have no clue how propaganda works. Both sides do this, and every government does it to some degree or another. But they typically have to hide it. It is disheartening that an official can come right out and admit it and still retain credibility with vast swaths of the populace. It shows people getting comfortable with statism.