In the context of the US Presidential Election I examined the COVID-19 pandemic.
Part 1; https://watchitdie.blogspot.com/2020/10/the-2020-us-presidential-election-covid_20.html
Part 2; https://watchitdie.blogspot.com/2020/10/the-2020-us-presidential-election-covid_33.html
Part 3; https://watchitdie.blogspot.com/2020/10/the-2020-us-presidential-election-covid_11.html
In doing so I pointed out that COVID-19 is the wrong name to describe the disease. The name it has chosen for itself is Far Eastern Acute Respiratory Syndrome (FEARS).
I also pointed out that there were elements of the pandemic which seem intensely personal to me. The metaphysical fingernails. Screeching down the chalkboard inside my brain.
I've decided now is the time to take a look at some more of those elements.
Very early on in the pandemic it became apparent that tobacco smokers were less affected by the disease. Something which is very unusual for a respiratory disease.
Inhaling any form of smoke damages the lungs. This damage reduces lung function. Normally making a person more vulnerable to the further reduction in lung function that comes with a respiratory infection.
The reason why COVID-19 affects tobacco smokers less is actually pretty obvious and easy to understand.
As it's been trying to tell you FEARS is not a respiratory disease. It is an autoimmune disease.
It triggers a fear response in the body which causes the immune system to wildly overract. The Nicotine contained within tobacco smoke is well known to dampen down the immune system. Preventing this overreaction.
It is though highly unusual for an autoimmune disease to disguise itself as a respiratory disease. Particularly in a way that seems so personal to me.
As I think many may be aware my biological mother is currently in a homosexual relationship. On the rare occasions I'm forced to talk about this I've taken to referring to her and her partner as my; "Mothers."
That is despite such a description causing a bit of tension and stress within my interpersonal relationships.
Particularly when it comes to my, I suppose, step-grandmother. Who suddenly has to answer questions about her new found grandchildren. Whom she was certainly never expecting and has never even met.
The reason I choose to do this anyway is twofold;
Firstly it allows me to bait grammer Nazis. Along with grammer checking algorithms.
Mainly though it's my own little gay rights protest. A way to normalise similar, less conventional family units.
I feel it is particularly important to do this as a counterweight.
To the extremely negative image of the gay community Britain has decided to promote to the World. Through its treatment of one third of the World famous Thrupple. Something which itself has been rather significant during the pandemic.
I was particularly motivated by the way Britain's shameful behaviour set back the cause of equal marriage within the US. By a good couple of years.
Although I am seriously begining to question why I bother.
This year has seen Europe gripped by the pandemic. It has also seen it gripped by the Brexit negotiations.
So Europe's gay community decided this would be the perfect time. To force the EU into not one, but two extremely bloody fights with itself. Somewhere out east. If the safeguards fail it is very hard to see the EU recovering from this.
Which makes gay rights an extremely tough sell. To any society which, you know, actually wants to survive.
I wouldn't say that my references to my "mothers" are dishonest. There exists a legal construct of kinship. If I were describing a heterosexual relationship the normal way to describe such a kinship would be; "Mother" or "Stepmother."
However I feel my use of the term "mothers" is a little bit deceptive. It sort of gives the impression of my biological mother's current partner changing my nappies. When, in reality, I was in my mid-twenties when I first met her. And perhaps even better schooled in lesbianism than either of them.
This all occured when Britain was introducing its ban of tobacco smoking within enclosed spaces. The Health Act of 2006.
At the time this mother was working as an attorney for the British Government's Department of Health. So actually wrote much of that specific law.
Obviously she was instructed to do so by the government of the day. The bill was passed into law by the properly elected Parliament. However many of the specific words on the page are her own work.
The problem with this is that I and my siblings quite enjoy smoking in pubs.
So I have many strong views on that specific smoking ban, along with the wider Anti-Smoking Movement. Some serious and deeply held. Others, not so much.
One thing that has always disturbed me is the enthusiasm with which the anti-smoking lobby will openly and clearly lie. Along with the efforts they will go to in order to silence anyone who attempts to call them out on what are often clear and obvious lies.
My intention is not to misrepresent tobacco smoking as harmless. It clearly isn't.
However, thanks to the anti-smoking lobby, the public perception of the dangers of smoking bears little relationship to reality.
I think that in, particularly, western nations the belief is that if you smoke tobacco even once. Then you will instantly become addicted, develop lung cancer and die.
That is simply not true.
In reality only about 50% of smokers will develop smoking related diseases. The same as the roughly 50% of the general population who will develop some form of cancer. Compared to the 100% of non-smokers who will definitely die.
Not smoking tobacco is also no way to guarantee that you will not develop smoking related diseases. Such as lung cancer.
Particularly during this festive period it seems cruel to pick on specific individuals.
Although I think one already high profile example is former England and Manchester Utd footballer Rio Ferdinand. His first wife Rebecca Ellison never smoked in her life. Yet contracted lung cancer and died at the age of 34.
Likewise there is the England and Middlesex cricketer Andrew Strauss. His first wife never smoked. Yet still contracted lung cancer and died at the age of 46.
The anti-smoking lobby's decision to use lies and false information really grew organically. During the 1950's and 1960's when the first scientific evidence of the effects of tobacco smoking began to emerge.
During this time the tobacco lobby made extensive use of lies and false information. In order to discredit the science and resist regulation. Something we have seen more recently in the debates over Climate Change.
Amid those heated debates the anti-smoking lobby sort of lost its way. Starting to think it too was entitled to use lies and false information to achieve its aims.
This strategy of using lies and false information to instill fear. Then use that fear as a weapon of social control became more planned and formalised during the Emergence of HIV/AIDS in the 1980's.
Again my intention is not to misrepresent HIV/AIDS as harmless. It very clearly isn't.
The public perception of HIV/AIDS though bears little relationship to reality. The common belief seems to be that if you have unprotected sex with HIV+ person even once. Then you too will become infected and die.
In reality HIV is really one of the least infectious of the common Sexually Transmitted Infections (STI's).
Really the only reliable way of causing HIV infection is by introducing infected blood cells directly into the blood stream. Although that requires only mircoscopic amounts of infected blood. Such as the residue left on a hypodermic needle.
Sexually transmitted HIV infection also really requires the introduction of infected sexual fluids directly into the blood stream. Through very small cuts and tears in the thin membranes covering the sexual organs. That though requires a much larger amount of infected sexual fluids.
Much of modern HIV treatment, such as Pre-Exposure Proophylaxis (PrEp), doesn't attempt to eradicate the virus. Instead it focuses on reducing the so-called "viral load" within the sexual fluids. To the point it is not transmissible through sex.
Throughout the pandemic there has been much discussion over whether COVID-19/FEARS is racist. HIV is most certainly misogynistic.
It is far easier for a HIV+ man to infect a woman through sex than it is for a HIV+ woman to infect a man. Although, given the prevelance of HIV within the gay male community, the issue is really who recieves the semen.
This widespread misconception about the infectiouness of HIV is entirely by design.
Medical professionals noticed that the sudden deaths in the emergence of HIV/AIDS caused a huge amount of fear. Rather than address that fear through facts they decided to maximise it.
The cold calculation being that this fear could be expolited. To control people's behaviour, such as getting them to use condoms. That behaviour change also prevented people contracting much more infectious and equally nasty STI's. Such as Hepatitis.
This strategy of giving the public false information was named; "The Fear Strategy."
It's main architect was Dr Anthony Fauci. The head of the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (US-NIAID) who has risen to such prominance during this pandemic.
The 2020 Nobel Prize for Medicine went to Houghton, Alter and Rice. For the discovery of Hepatitis C. A clear reference to the Fear Strategy.
In case anyone was still wondering. What this pandemic has done to the standing of Dr Fauci and his fellow mask nutters within their profession.
Really the founder of the anti-smoking movement was Adolf Hitler.
Even from its earliest days the Nazi regime aggressively opposed tobacco smoking. A good 20 years before there was any scientific evidence that tobacco smoking was dangerous.
Hitler was particularly opposed to one effect of tobacco smoking. What we now know to be nicotine's role as a neuro-stimulant. In short it makes your brain run faster. Like other neuro-stimulants such as Cocaine or Amphetamines.
I wouldn't say that nicotine makes any of your individual thoughts more intelligent. How it causes you to have those thoughts much faster. Meaning that you can get through more of them in the same amount of time.
This allows you to better question authority. It allows you to think faster than the frenzy that authoritarian leaders like Hitler rely upon to whip up support. Making it less likely that you will be swept up and follow blindly.
As soon as FEARS emerged in western nations public health officials immediately deployed the Fear Strategy. Massively overstating the risks of the disease. In a deliberate effort to create fear. In order to use that fear to change the public's behaviour.
For example there is this claim that FEARS/COVID-19 can effect everyone. That is not true. The disease can infect everyone. However it doesn't effect about 45% of the people it infects at all. A further 45% of the people it infects only suffer mild effects.
FEARS/COVID-19 only really has serious effects on about 10% of the population.
The fear created by that deception was then used to support measures such as mask wearing, social distancing and lockdowns.
The Fear Strategy also combined with Cancel Culture. Turbocharging the silencing of anyone who attempted to raise even reasonable questions. Particularly on Social Media.
Take for example the issue of mask wearing. The early scientific work supporting the use of masks is clearly flawed.
It assumes a single FEARS/Covid-19 virus cell is equivalent to something the size of a basketball. When in fact it's equivalent to something the size of a tennis ball. Meaning that mask wearing is completely irrelevent to the spread of the disease.
However mask wearing was quickly made complusory. Anyone daring to point out that this was obviously based entirely on flawed science would find themselves swiftly silenced. Erased from the public debate.
This deliberate mis-stating of the facts of FEARS/COVID-19. Along with the banning of any discussion of the validity of the science. That, unsurprisingly, saw many nations adopt completely the wrong approach.
At this point it should be obvious to all. That the spring lockdowns and mask mandates had almost no impact on the spread of the disease whatsoever. The disease simply receded in the summer of its own accord. Then re-emerged when summer ended.
This near universal adoption of the wrong strategy has actually made things much worse. By preventing the use of the correct strategy.
The US state of California was one of the first to introduce a mask mandate and go into lockdown. Despite never lifting it's mask mandate it has now had to go into complete lockdown again.
The main reason for this is California actually believed that mask wearing and social distancing would work.
Meaning that they neglected to build extra hospital capacity. For all the people who were going to get sick anyway. As masks do nothing to stop the spread of FEARS/COVID-19.
If public health officials had followed the science. Rather than intentionally pushing the lie that FEARS/COVID-19 effects everyone.
Then they would have known that they needed a strategy built around protecting the clearly identifiable 10% who are affected. While the 90% who are largely unaffected eradicate the disease through herd immunity.
Back in the spring I estimated 55,000 UK deaths. With error margins of 5,000 either way.
Thanks to the Fear Strategy we're already at 70,000 dead. And winter's only five days old.
So FEARS/COVID-19 seems to have taken one of the most controversial developments in public health policy over the past 70-80 years.
Then torn it to pieces in the space of about 9 months.
FEARS/COVID-19 also forced Statistical Analysis And Mathematical Modelling into the public conciousness. Terms such as; "Exponential Growth" etc.
This has been another longstanding point of contention in my life.
Britain is of the opinion that I failed out of university. As I am too stupid to be able to cope with statistical analysis and mathematical modelling.
I am of the opinion that I quit university. As I am too clever to be taken in by the nonsense that is statistical analysis.
In February 2020 Britain really should have been preparing for the pandemic.
Instead they decided to waste time by focusing on the resignation of the government advisor Andrew Sabisky. After he wrote a blog post claiming Black people are intellectually inferior to white people.
That was done in reference to an online debate I participated in. Some 20 years ago, around the time I was in High School. In this debate I argued in favour of the 1994 book; "The Bell Curve" by Charles A. Murray and Richard Herrstein.
The Bell Curve lays out a mountain of mathematical modelling and statistical analysis. "Proving" that African-Americans are intellectually inferior to Caucasian-Americans. Who, in turn, are intellectually inferior to Asian-Americans.
That is not really what The Bell Curve shows though. It really shows how statistical analysis and mathematical modelling cannot be considered to be any sort of evidence.
That's why it's such a useful teaching resource. For that sort of High School debate.
It's interesting to see whether the person taking the anti position can get beyond simply screeching; "That's Racist!" In order to actually understand and deconstruct the topic. Easily winning the argument.
Of course in order to do that. You need someone brave enough to take the pro position. Who will often learn how to subtly tank their own argument.
I studied geography at university. So I was particularly troubled by the way in which regression analysis was being used to "prove" that Climate Change is not real.
I honestly thought I'd won that argument through fire, flood and famine. Apparently not though. Apparently Britain also needed a bout of pestilence.
One, I think, glacial geology lecture with a Climate Change denying professor got so bad. That I just walked out in the middle of it. Not so much in protest. More just to end the sensation of my braincells being killed.
As I left I remember the professor telling the rest of the lecture hall that; "He'll never amount to anything with that atttitude."
I think my subsequent work is pretty well known in United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) circles. Surely the global pinnacle of the discipline of Environmental Science. While not even I can remember that professor's name.
This incident seems to have been foretold. In the 1998 Tom Hanks produced mini-series; "From The Earth To The Moon."
If you are familar with the 1995 Tom Hanks movie; "Apollo 13." Then "From The Earth To The Moon" is very much the TV show they made off the back of the success of the movie. Telling the story of all the Apollo space missions. Rather than just the 13th.
As was raised in the movie Apollo 13. After the historic first moon landing of Apollo 11 the rest of the Apollo program was intensely scientific and quite dull. Meaning the public completely lost interest. Unless there was a chance of dead astronauts.
The episode of From The Earth To The Moon about Apollo 13 doesn't cover the mission itself. That was well covered in the movie.
Instead it focuses on the news media. The conflict between the fact-based; "Hard" news of Emmett Seaborn. Against the emotion-driven "Soft" news of Brett Hutchings.
Episode 10 "Galileo Was Right" expands on this conflict. It has very little to do with space travel at all. Instead it is focused on geology here on Earth. In preperation for the astronauts collecting rock samples on the moon.
In an effort to make this bearable to non-geologists the TV show focuses on the human interest story. Of astronaut Harrison, "Jack", Schmitt who was studying to be a geologist. Before quitting to pursue the glamour of being a Navy pilot and eventually an astronaut.
He has to return to his arrogant former professor. To recruit him in teaching the other astronauts how to conduct geological surveys.
Eventually the arrogant professor is shamed. As it becomes obvious to all that the former student is now clearly the master.
At this point, feeling a bit stalked. I also watched the 2016 Tom Hanks movie; "Sully: Miracle on the Hudson."
This is about Chesley, "Sully", Sullenberger landing a passenger jet on the Hudson River in New York City back in 2009.
More accurately it is a movie about the airline trying blame Sullenberger for the entire incident. Using statisitical analysis and mathematical modelling to "prove" that the plane could have been safely landed at any number of nearby airports.
I don't want to give away any spoilers. To an event that was pretty well covered in the not too distant past. However the airline failed.
The victorious quote from the movie is that Sullenberger is; "The X without which the equation just does not work."
Tom Hanks went on to be one of, if not the, first truly globally famous people to contract COVID-19.
Which I guess makes me the metaphysical fingernails. Screeching down the chalkboard in Tom Hank's brain.
16:15 on 26/12/20 (UK date).
Edited at around 15:50 on 28/12/20 (UK date). To tidy up. Make sure most of the words now have the required number of letters.
No comments:
Post a Comment