Coronavirus news

[Dan Fienen]

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"?

As so often, it comes down to what did he know and when did he know it. Intelligent people do change their story and advice that they give when new information shows that former conclusions and positions were inaccurate. Those are not lies. But if, as some have alleged and given some evidence, statements were made and positions were taken that the officials knew or should have known at the time were inaccurate or false, promulgated so as to motivate people to do what the experts think that they should, then those are lies.

[David Garner]

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.

It isn't loving to call your neighbors names and attempt to imprison them in their homes.  Sorry.

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"?

Also false.  They were not opinions.  It was not an opinion whether masks prevented COVID.  Faucci said they do not because he did not want supplies of N95 masks to run low.  It is not an opinion when herd immunity will be reached (or if it is, Faucci ought to say so and admit he's just guessing).  Faucci increased his numbers estimate for herd immunity to encourage people to be vaccinated.

Those are not opinions.  He is lying to people because he is trying to control public behavior.  That may be well intentioned, but it is dishonest.

It is, however, a trademark of the left in this country, so I can see why you fail to recognize it as such.  Gaslighting is basically your stock in trade.

[peter_speckhard]

https://amac.us/a-timeline-of-faucis-covid-19-deception/

Here is an interesting timeline of how propaganda works.

[Brian Stoffregen]

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.

Sounds like what we preachers do every Sunday. Sermons are propaganda. They are designed to get people to think and act in a particular way.

[peter_speckhard]

This too.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/new-york-times-bret-stephens-fauci-covid-misinformation

[peter_speckhard]

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.

Sounds like what we preachers do every Sunday. Sermons are propaganda. They are designed to get people to think and act in a particular way.

In a way. Which is why people tuned into Fauci do tend to be very much like religious believers listening to a preacher.

[Brian Stoffregen]

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.

It isn't loving to call your neighbors names and attempt to imprison them in their homes.  Sorry.

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"?

Also false.  They were not opinions.  It was not an opinion whether masks prevented COVID.  Faucci said they do not because he did not want supplies of N95 masks to run low.  It is not an opinion when herd immunity will be reached (or if it is, Faucci ought to say so and admit he's just guessing).  Faucci increased his numbers estimate for herd immunity to encourage people to be vaccinated.

Those are not opinions.  He is lying to people because he is trying to control public behavior.  That may be well intentioned, but it is dishonest.

It is, however, a trademark of the left in this country, so I can see why you fail to recognize it as such.  Gaslighting is basically your stock in trade.

N-95 masks, as I understand them, are designed to prevent germs from getting into a person. As such they could help a person from getting COVID-19. The recommended masks are designed to prevent germs from spreading out from a person. They are what was needed to prevent infected persons from spreading the disease.

[David Garner]

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.

It isn't loving to call your neighbors names and attempt to imprison them in their homes.  Sorry.

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"?

Also false.  They were not opinions.  It was not an opinion whether masks prevented COVID.  Faucci said they do not because he did not want supplies of N95 masks to run low.  It is not an opinion when herd immunity will be reached (or if it is, Faucci ought to say so and admit he's just guessing).  Faucci increased his numbers estimate for herd immunity to encourage people to be vaccinated.

Those are not opinions.  He is lying to people because he is trying to control public behavior.  That may be well intentioned, but it is dishonest.

It is, however, a trademark of the left in this country, so I can see why you fail to recognize it as such.  Gaslighting is basically your stock in trade.

N-95 masks, as I understand them, are designed to prevent germs from getting into a person. As such they could help a person from getting COVID-19. The recommended masks are designed to prevent germs from spreading out from a person. They are what was needed to prevent infected persons from spreading the disease.

Okay.  Also, Faucci lied about them.  Which is what we're talking about.  He lied about N95 masks and he lied about cloth masks.  From the article:

"In March 2020, as the pandemic began, Anthony Fauci, the chief medical adviser to the president of the United States, explained in a 60 Minutes interview that he felt community use of masks was unnecessary. A few months later, he argued that his statements were not meant to imply that he felt the data to justify the use of cloth masks was insufficient. Rather, he said, had he endorsed mask wearing (of any kind), mass panic would ensue and lead to a surgical and N95 mask shortage among health care workers, who needed the masks more."

[James S. Rustad]

Sounds like what we preachers do every Sunday. Sermons are propaganda. They are designed to get people to think and act in a particular way.

I sure hope that you and other pastors are not lying to us.  That's a big difference.

[peter_speckhard]

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.

It isn't loving to call your neighbors names and attempt to imprison them in their homes.  Sorry.

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"?

Also false.  They were not opinions.  It was not an opinion whether masks prevented COVID.  Faucci said they do not because he did not want supplies of N95 masks to run low.  It is not an opinion when herd immunity will be reached (or if it is, Faucci ought to say so and admit he's just guessing).  Faucci increased his numbers estimate for herd immunity to encourage people to be vaccinated.

Those are not opinions.  He is lying to people because he is trying to control public behavior.  That may be well intentioned, but it is dishonest.

It is, however, a trademark of the left in this country, so I can see why you fail to recognize it as such.  Gaslighting is basically your stock in trade.

N-95 masks, as I understand them, are designed to prevent germs from getting into a person. As such they could help a person from getting COVID-19. The recommended masks are designed to prevent germs from spreading out from a person. They are what was needed to prevent infected persons from spreading the disease.

Okay.  Also, Faucci lied about them.  Which is what we're talking about.  He lied about N95 masks and he lied about cloth masks.  From the article:

"In March 2020, as the pandemic began, Anthony Fauci, the chief medical adviser to the president of the United States, explained in a 60 Minutes interview that he felt community use of masks was unnecessary. A few months later, he argued that his statements were not meant to imply that he felt the data to justify the use of cloth masks was insufficient. Rather, he said, had he endorsed mask wearing (of any kind), mass panic would ensue and lead to a surgical and N95 mask shortage among health care workers, who needed the masks more."

Agreed. His expertise, such as it is, is in contagion. He isn't an expert at managing civil unrest or supply chains. What he should have done is explain the date to the administration and let the press secretary do with that information whatever was needed. Yes, there are sometimes official lies that help keep order, as when an officer says there is nothing to see here because otherwise everyone would gawk and make things worse, or when a medic says your injury isn't as bad as it looks in order to keep you from going into shock. But whether mass panic ensues is not Fauci's problem to deal with; the efficacy of masks for keeping people safe was the question, and he lied about it because he was relying on his "expert" status to lend him credibility in areas in which he has no expertise. He was telling people what he needed them to believe in order for him to control their behavior. Propaganda, plain and simple.

[MaddogLutheran]

To put a bow on my frustration yesterday with the CDC, here is Jim Gergahty's National Review column The Morning Jolt from today, which articulates my view and references a Washington Post story, which unfortunately I can't link to because of the paywall (link provided in his original source).  Geraghty's measured pandemic reporting has been some of the best out there.

One of the really fascinating developments of this week has been health experts noting with frustration that the CDC hasn't released the data to justify these recent reversals and are urging the federal agency to release this information. Now, the scientists are the ones expressing skepticism about SCIENCE™. There are concerning reports that this CDC decision was driven by the results of a study about breakthrough infections in India — where they're using the AstraZeneca vaccine, not the Pfizer, Moderna, or Johnson & Johnson vaccines that Americans have received. Right on the CDC's website, it declares that, "Studies from India with vaccines not authorized for use in the United States have noted relatively high viral loads and larger cluster sizes associated with infections with Delta, regardless of vaccination status." The CDC also says that, "unpublished data are consistent with this," which . . . is not really a triumph for openness and clarity in public-health policy.

And then there was this curious statement to STAT News Tuesday:

An administration official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, told STAT that health experts do not have studies proving that fully vaccinated people are transmitting the virus. Rather, the official said, the updated guidance is based on studies showing that vaccinated people who contract the Delta variant have similarly high levels of virus in their airways, which suggested that they may be infectious to others. With other variants, vaccinated people had substantially lower levels of virus in their noses and throats compared to unvaccinated people.

Whatever Biden thinks is the right approach to the Delta variant — and remember, he turns 79 in November, and hasn't released a health report to the public since December 2019 — the country is full of federal, state and local officials, media voices, and medical talking heads who see the Delta variant as a reason to revert to March 12, 2020. No government official in a deep-blue state, county, or locality wants to be accused of underreacting to a rise in cases.

Then again, some of these deep-blue localities have surprisingly "meh" vaccination rates.

Montgomery County, Md., is contemplating reinstating social-distancing requirements and capacity limits for businesses. More than 69 percent of residents have received one dose, 63 percent are fully vaccinated.

Alexandria, Va., is urging people to wear masks indoors; the city is only 58 percent fully vaccinated, with 67 percent having one shot. It's a similar story in Washington, D.C., where the district's health director declared earlier this week, "Wearing a mask in indoor public settings provides an additional layer of protection for those who are fully vaccinated — and continues to be one of the key ways to protect those who cannot be vaccinated, namely young children." Only 53 percent of D.C. residents are fully vaccinated, and 62 percent are partially vaccinated.

As I've been emphasizing all week, if you envision the unvaccinated as a pickup-truck-driving, MAGA-hat-wearing, rural older white male, you're not getting the full picture.

And guess which big organizations just came out in opposition to vaccination requirements for their members?

So far, the nation's two largest education unions, The National Education Association and the AFT, have declined to call for vaccine mandates. Instead, the NEA says that teachers should be given the option of weekly testing, while the AFT says it should be decided in contract negotiations between the workers and the company.

Oh, really? Who's the paranoid anti-science anti-vaxxer now?

Jay Caruso made this point before I could: You cannot work yourself into a frenzy denouncing unvaccinated rural Americans and Trump voters as a bunch of ignorant, tin-foil-hat-wearing lunatics who are extending the pandemic and the suffering it has caused for everyone and then shrug when a bunch of teachers refuse to get vaccinated. The fact that these unions — powerful allies of the Democratic Party — are going to get little to no grief for their position that their members don't need to get vaccinated if they don't want to reveal that the vast majority of pro-vaccination rhetoric is really just political tribalism, dressed up in the rhetoric of public health.

ADDENDUM: A good line from Kevin Williamson: "People who are high achievers in one field mistakenly believe that they possess a kind of generalized cleverness applicable to other areas of endeavor — call it Krugman's Fallacy."

There is so much there, but let me requote his citation of STAT News Tuesday:

An administration official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, told STAT that health experts do not have studies proving that fully vaccinated people are transmitting the virus.

Last night I spent a fair amount of time trying to find the scientific references on which the CDC based its about-face mask guidance.  They have not provided it.  THAT is a problem.   Especially in light of the earlier "noble lie" article I shared.  Trust but verify.  Too bad, game over.  No credibility left.  I'm beyond angry.  There may be some other raw credible data to justify this, according to some sources I am inclined to trust.  But it hasn't been brought forward, and it sounds rather anecdotal and counterintuitive.  (Not scientifically collected or peer reviewed).  The plural of anecdote continues not to be data.  This is not science, it's science theater.  That's not how any of this is supposed to work.

Maybe I'll follow up share the dismal percentage of New York City employees that are vaccinated, perhaps why the Mayor is bring the big hammer of mandatory vaccinations.  Surprised again that so many MAGA types work in NY government.  Maybe Jussie Smollett didn't perpetrate a hoax in downtown Chicago at 1am after all.

[Donald_Kirchner]

And, Mr. Garner, what is important is how it is received by someone, not how you see it. That is respect for the other person.

One can teach the way the man wants to teach without the words sounding like hate speech or inciting others. But the words, if not carefully chosen, can also sound like inciting hate or other actions.

Yup, such as keep calling others stupid. Or, joke that perhaps the death of the unvaccinated is God's way of culling the herd of the stupid.

Good grief!    

[Charles Austin]

Focus, Pastor Kirchner. Focus!
Those words of mine are in the thread about Finland.

[Donald_Kirchner]

Focus, Pastor Kirchner. Focus!
Those words of mine are in the thread about Finland.

Yes, those hypocritical words of yours. Your point is...that your level of decency depends on the thread and the subject matter?

[peter_speckhard]

Focus, Pastor Kirchner. Focus!
Those words of mine are in the thread about Finland.

Ah. So different principles of decency and respect of others apply to discussions of Finns?