Posts Tagged ‘Logic’

The #ChinaWuhanCoronaVirus Panic Is Unnecessary and Contrived(Updated)

Monday, March 30th, 2020

China Originated Viral Infectious Disease #19(COVID-19 a.k.a. #WuFlu)

Ladies and gentlemen, I occasionally write from what must seem to be a purely contrarian point of view.  I realize that my approach to some topics makes me the natural target for those who demand conformity in all matters.  On so-called “Anthropogenic Climate Change,” I’ve long maintained that the evidence in-hand in no way supports the will conclusions and claims of so-called “Climate Activists,” and that instead, simple logic exposes the foolishness of their claims to an extent that their motive is not revealed to be the result of simple ignorance, but instead one of intentional disinformation for political purposes.  You can agree or disagree with my arguments on that topic, but in the past, as I’ve made my arguments, I’ve not heard any retorts to the logic.  In this case of the Wuhan Coronavirus known formally as COVID-19(COronaVIrus Disease2019[*],) but herein called #WuFlu for shorthand, I believe we are being intentionally mis-informed and driven into an entirely unnecessary, unwarranted panic while simultaneously surrendering liberties to governmental demands in answer to the non-existent emergency that has aroused this ridiculous panic.  That’s quite an allegation on my part, but as ever, I stand prepared to defend my assertion.

Don’t misunderstand: There IS a COVID-19.  What there ISN’T is any evidence that:

  • #WuFlu is actually killing anybody
  • #WuFlu is lethal in and of itself
  • #WuFlu is any more lethal than ordinary influenza

If you have irrefutable evidence of ANY of these, please provide it in the comments below. To date, no government authority or medical institution in the private sector has yet to provide any.  Let’s start by playing a logic game.  Let’s imagine you’re a healthcare provider.  Let’s further stipulate that a patient coming to you for care presents with the following list of symptoms:

  • Persistent Fever
  • Cough
  • Body Aches

That sounds just like #WuFlu!  So the healthcare provider uses a test to determine that yes, indeed, you have #COVID-19, and from that moment on, if you die, it’s going to be assumed that COVID-19 killed you.  But did it?  Did they test you for other infectious agents?  No! They’re not going to test you to see if you also have influenza, or some other disease.  Once you’re tagged with “COVID-19,” you will be counted as having expired due to COVID-19 even if it was actually your lung cancer that killed you.

In the 2017-18 influenza season, the CDC reports an estimated 61,000 people died from influenza.  First, note that this is an “estimate,” and second, that the death rate was roughly 1 in 1000.  Roughly one person of every one-thousand who was infected with influenza purportedly died of it.  I remember this particular influenza season quite well, because my father very nearly succumbed to pneumonia thought to be secondary to the respiratory influenza that ultimately killed so many people in that season. I knew a number of elderly people, primarily men in their late 70s or 80s, who either died or nearly died in that season. Most of them had other health issues(my father a diabetic, for instance,) and others with various forms of COPD or smoking, or heart issues.  This should sound quite familiar to you, because it’s the same exact class of people allegedly dying by COVID-19.

In fact, every flu season, it is almost always this same class of people who die in large numbers from this crud.  I know it. You know it.  The numbers bear it out each year.

That said, let me ask you a question I’d like you to consider: If you’re tested positive for #WuFlu, what information do you have that excludes the possibility that if you’re exhibiting some or all of the symptoms above, that it’s the result of COVID-19 and not something else?  This is one of those basic syllogisms with which you’re going to need to wrestle.

Of course, I’m not a physician, or a medical professional of any sort, and my studies in my profession have nothing to do with epidemiology, or any related field. What my field does heavily rely upon is logic.  In all respects.

Here is a German doctor explaining the matter.  If you’re not a German-speaker, you’ll need to rely upon the subtitles, but after consulting with my wife(a German by birth,) the subtitles are faithful to the good doctor’s intent:

Mark Twain(Samuel Clemens) is purported to have said:

It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.

Whether he wrote these precise words may be in doubt, but he certainly wrote:

How easy it is to make people believe a lie, and hard it is to undo that work again!

It seems to me they mean the same, so let’s credit him with the sentiment if not the precise words. As Dr. Wodarg alleges, this Emperor seems to be naked.

Still doubting? That’s understandable, since I’m just a guy on the Internet with a keyboard and an opinion, and virtually everybody has at least one of those.  Some of you will be familiar with Candace Owens, and I commend to you her work.  She’s trying very hard to demolish the stranglehold she alleges that the #DemocratMediaComplex has on the black community. She posted this on Twitter(@RealCandaceO):

It’s from the CDC. What it represents is the sharp drop-off in Influenza Positive tests since the emergence of COVID19. In other words, what’s really happening is that if you test positive for COVID19, they’re not testing for anything else in most cases.  They’re blaming everything on COVID19! Influenza has become an invisible killer for which we’re not testing.  More, when people self-quarantine because they have the symptoms above, it’s being assumed in many cases that they have/had COVID19.  There’s no verification in many cases.

Are you starting to see a trend? This should be getting your eyebrows raised, at least a bit. If not, you may be succumbing to the impetus of the herd.

I’m not going to tell you that there’s no danger from #WuFlu.  You must make your own judgments, but make sure they’re your own judgments, and that you’re not being driven to them.  What I notice is that Americans are increasingly frustrated and even more often, furious, as it becomes clear that we’re laying waste to the best economy on Earth in order to pursue an alleged public health crisis that may be even more false and more hyped than so-called “Anthropogenic Climate Change.”

While I’m on that topic, I’d like to bring a related matter to your consideration, also on the matter of COVID19, but also the possibility that local/regional environmental concerns might be contributing to the death toll being seen in various hot-spots around the globe.  Tony Heller is a first-rate guy, and his website realclimatescience.com is first-rate. I’ve been reading his site for a long time, and I follow him on Twitter (@Tony_Heller). This video, also featuring a German doctor, is definitely worth the watch, albeit for somewhat different but related reasons:

Ladies and gentlemen, I want you to look out for your health, and I want you to look out especially for the health of those who are what might be termed “medically fragile,” inasmuch as they may be elderly, or have significant pre-existing conditions that would make them a target for any communicable respiratory pathogen.   Wash your hands, mind your social distance, and begin to demand of the media and your political leaders: Where is the evidence?

We’re killing our economy, which will in turn surely kill MANY MORE PEOPLE than this disease will have done, and we have no evidence that COVID19 has actually killed ANYBODY. None. Nada.

Think about that.

We can go into motives another day. For the moment, ignore the question of motives, and focus instead on the situation. I don’t know exactly why, as of now, but it seems fairly clear to me that we’re being played.  The panic is a scam.  We need to demand our leaders explain why. Now.

 

Editor’s note [*] When this article originally published, it was stated that COVID-19 stands for “ChinaOriginatedViralInfectiousDisease#19” That was false, and while it had come from what seemed a reputable site, that site has also changed their annotation, so I have corrected mine. The fact remains that the virus originated, with the best information at hand, in the Wuhan Province of China in 2019.

Advertisements

Impositions of Morality: Arguing With Lefties

Sunday, February 5th, 2012

A Different Approach

Over the course of your political life, if you’re a conservative, you have probably run into an issue or ten where the focus is a matter of  morality in some way.  Abortion is one of the issues, and if you happen to favor a prohibition, you will be attacked as some sort of Neanderthal who wants to impose his or her morality on others.  I’m sure you’ve all heard this, and in some contexts, I suppose a few of you may have said this, and it is the standard answer leftists use when you touch on an issue where they are fearful of being undone.  One of the problems for conservatives is that too often, we cede this ground without a fight, not challenging their claim, and not contradicting its basic premise either.  This is the kind of bumper-sticker argument that frequently appeals to the young, and if we’re going to beat the liberals, this is one instance where me must learn to fight fire with fire.

You can almost write a script of the order of remarks in such a debate, wherein you have a liberal on one side, and a conservative on the other.  My approach to these sorts of debates is now much different than it was two decades before.  When I see that such an argument is imminent, I now take the step of a preemptive strike:

“Don’t you agree that as individuals, it is wrong to impose our individual moral standards upon others?”

Upon hearing this issue forth from your mouth, the liberal inevitably thinks victory is already achieved, and they smile (either inwardly or outwardly) as they wait to close in for the kill:

“Yes, absolutely, I believe that.”

It’s now your turn to smile. Show all of your teeth.  Whatever the subject, be it abortion or welfare, or anything in between, this is your moment to pounce upon them with vigor:

“Why do you then impose your morality by virtue of the tax code?”

They may look at you in confusion, as the formula is somehow “off.” They don’t have a scripted recipe for this ready, and it’s not in their 1-2-3 Half-Bake Liberal Cookbook. They almost immediately and reflexively turn to the next best thing:

“No I don’t! What are you talking about?”

Take your time, as you already have them on the ropes, and do to them what they ordinarily try to do to you: Badger and mock them.

“You think rich people should pay a higher percentage, right?

“uh, yeah…”

“You believe people should be able to deduct child-care expenses, right?”

“sure, I uh…”

“Mortgage interest? College tuition?  Their children?  Their government-approved home improvements?”

“well, I, uh, look, that’s not what I…”

“That’s the truth of it, isn’t it, and you’re imposing your morality at every turn! Why?”

“It’s the right thing to do…”

“According to whom?”

“Well, everybody…”

“You don’t speak for everybody! Who are you to speak for everybody and place your own view above all of theirs? What sort of moral superiority do you practice?  What sort of person are you anyway?”

If they’re not crying by now, it’s because they’re frozen.  If you’ve done this sort of thing to one of them in front of a crowd of their friends, all the better.  By now, if they’re not looking for their blankets while sucking their thumbs, they soon will be.

Now you might say that this may work with the tax code, or with welfare programs, but you might ask me how it could ever work with abortion.  That’s easy too, but remember what their game is and how you must defeat it, and the answer is that you must always take the initiative from them without having seemed to have done so:

“Don’t you agree that as individuals, it is wrong to impose our individual moral standards upon others? I mean, you wouldn’t want somebody imposing their will on your right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, right?”

Again, they will be a bit disarmed at this point, because you seem to be saying something not so controversial, and they will generally agree pleasantly.

“So given that, if somebody were to impose their estimation on the moral value of your life, that would be horrible, wouldn’t it?  Nobody should have that right, should they?  Nobody should be able to say to you what your life is worth, or whether you have a right to it, right?”

“Of course not. It’s preposterous! You can’t do that to people!”

They may even throw in a little indignant  grand-standing to prove their commitment to this argument.  Then it’s your turn:

“So then why do you do it?”

“Huh?”

“Why do you impose your estimate of another human’s worth on those persons and call them disposable?”

“I don’t!”

“You’re in favor of abortion, aren’t you?”

“That’s different! That isn’t even a person!!!!”

“According to whom?”

“Well, everybody, science, law, ROE V. WADE you know, EVERYBODY!”

“You now speak for everybody?”  (Rinse and repeat.)

Now you may on occasion run into the slightly more sophisticated liberal, who has thought these things through a little more than the average, and when you do, they’ll try to switch the context back, but don’t let them. Stick to your premise, and your context, and even chide them for so doing.  Mockery is permissible, and in fact, preferred.  If you have a really smart one on the line, an admitted rarity to be sure, since most liberals I know add an automatic one-hundred points to their actual IQs, just remind them of a few things worth noting:  Screaming  “everybody” and “society” or “government” and “science” does not constitute an escape clause from this moral proposition.

This is because a moral system or standard that references third parties for their alleged validity cannot be valid.  For instance, saying “the law says…” is of no value, since you can write a law that says anything at all.  Saying “science” is meaningless because for every possible position there exists at least one scientist somewhere who disagrees, and his name just might be Galileo.  To say “society” is to argue a falsehood since none can claim to speak for “society” or “everybody” and in most cases not even “all those present”(unless you’re in a room full of liberals.)

You might say, “but Mark, but Mark, God is a third party! Are you ruling God out?”  Yes, in this context, I am afraid I am, for at least one very good reason:  Who can claim to know God’s mind?  If you use this argument, they will throw that back in your face mercilessly, and in logic, they have a valid point.  You might then wonder, if you haven’t already, “but Mark, how can you claim rights that come from God?”  I don’t, and if you read my arguments in this blog carefully, you will have noted I make no such arguments.  This is because lefties will naturally throw at me: “How do you know? Can you prove it?”  Of course, at that point, I would be stymied if that were the basis of my argument.

Instead, I rely upon something the founders described as “self-evident.”  They described it as “Nature, and Nature’s God.”  You see, whether there is a respect in your heart or not for the existence of God, you must admit of the existence of Nature, being part of it, and in it at all times.  It is the context and the environment in which you exist, and in which any such argument takes place.  There is no avoiding it.  If you believe in God, you naturally believe He created all in Nature, and Nature itself, but even if you do not believe in a God, you cannot deny the existence of, well, all existence.

Now you still may ask how I argue that with a liberal who insists that rights are not a natural construction of our universe but instead a figment easily removed by the government or a mob.  They extend their view most particularly to property in all its forms, since it is their peculiarly disclaimed objective.  Waive at them your billfold, or your purse, and ask them if they’d like its contents, all else being equal.  If they stubbornly answer “No,” you can ask them why they insist government take it for them.  If they answer “yes,” you need only say: “Come and take it if you can.”

That’s all the proof of your right that you need, but it’s also the proof of their depravity.  For all their baseless argumentation, what they really condense into is a tribe of primitives with clubs, willing to bash in your skull, in order to get their way, just the same way as their ancestors, and every other miserable statist who has ever lived.  Over the years, we’ve yielded far too much ground to them by permitting them to pretend morality only has one side, and only a few applications.   Like your own ancestors, who civilized this world and wrested it from their kind, perhaps only temporarily, your answer must remain the same: “No.”