Open (More or Less) Post on Covid 66

[ecosophia]

As we proceed through the second year of these open posts, it's pretty clear that the official narrative is cracking as the toll of deaths and injuries from the Covid vaccines rises steadily and the vaccines themselves demonstrate their total uselesness at preventing Covid infection or transmission. It's still important to keep watch over the mis-, mal- and nonfeasance of our self-proclaimed health gruppenfuehrers, and the disastrous results of the Covid mania, but I think it's also time to begin thinking about what might be possible as the existing medical industry reels under the impact of its own self-inflicted injuries. 

So it's time for another open post. The rules are the same as before: 

1. If you plan on parroting the party line of the medical industry and its paid shills, please go away. This is a place for people to talk openly, honestly, and freely about their concerns that the party line in question is dangerously flawed and that actions being pushed by the medical industry et al. are causing injury and death. It is not a place for you to dismiss those concerns. Anyone who wants to hear the official story and the arguments in favor of it can find those on hundreds of thousands of websites.

2. If you plan on insisting that the current situation is the result of a deliberate plot by some villainous group of people or other, please go away. There are tens of thousands of websites currently rehashing various conspiracy theories about the Covid-19 outbreak and the vaccines. This is not one of them. What we're exploring is the likelihood that what's going on is the product of the same arrogance, incompetence, and corruption that the medical industry and its tame politicians have displayed so abundantly in recent decades. That possibility deserves a space of its own for discussion, and that's what we're doing here. 
 
3. If you plan on using rent-a-troll derailing or disruption tactics, please go away. I'm quite familiar with the standard tactics used by troll farms to disrupt online forums, and am ready, willing, and able -- and in fact quite eager -- to ban people permanently for engaging in them here. Oh, and I also lurk on other Covid-19 vaccine skeptic blogs, so I'm likely to notice when the same posts are showing up on more than one venue. 

4. If you don't believe in treating people with common courtesy, please go away. I have, and enforce, a strict courtesy policy on my blogs and online forums, and this is no exception. The sort of schoolyard bullying that takes place on so many other internet forums will get you deleted and banned here. Also, please don't drag in current quarrels about sex, race, religious, etc. No, I don't care if you disagree with that: my journal, my rules. 

With that said, the floor is open for discussion.     

Comments

Re: angry and scared about election results

[dendroica]

Here in Oregon the last time the Dems tried to ram vaccine mandate nonsense through the legislature (along with a carbon tax that would have decimated local industries), the Reps all went home and refused to return to pass anything (like state budgets) until some of their demands were met, including removal of the vaccine mandates.

I'm not sure if MN has a quorum requirement that would make that effective, but it could work.

I'm a bit surprised by the lack of a red wave. I do think that the red team *could have* had their wave if they had a) universally accepted the outcome of the 2020 election, b) distanced themselves from Trump, and c) not chosen an election year to reverse Roe v. Wade. But...what can I say - both parties tend to shoot themselves in the foot when they are ahead.

I spent the first 23 years of my life in Minnesota and most of my family is there - here's hoping it doesn't join the more extreme blue team insanity.

Re: angry and scared about election results

[(Anonymous)]

>I do think that the red team *could have* had their wave if they had a) universally accepted the outcome of the 2020 election, b) distanced themselves from Trump, and c) not chosen an election year to reverse Roe v. Wade. But...what can I say - both parties tend to shoot themselves in the foot when they are ahead.

Hmm is that what they did in Florida?

Re: angry and scared about election results

[dendroica]

a and b at least, can't do much about c.

Seriously though, all indications suggest team red has a winning 2024 candidate in DeSantis and a loser or at best a nail-biter in Trump. If we get a Trump vs. Biden "who do we hate more" redux in two years I will wonder how long the tragic farce of our governance can continue.

Re: angry and scared about election results

[(Anonymous)]

And here's me thinking DeSantis was extremely pro-Trump and Trump-supported! Well, maybe making you think that and me think this was their real campaign achievement!

Some self-proclaimed moderates I know said that overturning Roe made their decision easy this election. Haven't heard any mention of the other two issues. So where I am, at least, I think it was Roe.

For people whose opposition to mandates came mainly from concern for bodily autonomy, it made the red side seem not a consistent, reliable ally.

Re: angry and scared about election results

[dendroica]

"For people whose opposition to mandates came mainly from concern for bodily autonomy, it made the red side seem not a consistent, reliable ally."

Very much so, to the point that while I will no longer vote blue, I also won't vote red.

As for DeSantis, this seemed to be a good assessment: https://unherd.com/thepost/ron-desantis-the-new-champion-of-trumpism/ He and Trump have had a bit of a falling out since the whole election-denial business.

Florida also used the end of Roe to pass a compromise 15-week abortion ban, bucking the trend of states moving to opposite extreme positions on the issue.

Re: angry and scared about election results

[(Anonymous)]

>Very much so, to the point that while I will no longer vote blue, I also won't vote red.

I understand. I voted some of each and some third party. (And I'm the one who wrote in "A yellow dog who opposed mandates" for town council.)

>[DeSantis] and Trump have had a bit of a falling out since the whole election-denial business.

Your linked article doesn't say so, but if that is true, it's a shame. I'm also not a fan of your question-begging way of referencing the situation, especially since AFAIK every related court case was dismissed on a technicality rather than being y'know actually heard. I understand that legal eagles felt insulted by the Trump crowd's failure to assimilate legal cultural forms, so felt happy to dismiss them on technicalities (striking a blow for professionalism!)...but, well, that's the problem.

Abraham Lincoln became a lawyer by reading the law on his own time and then taking the bar exam. You used to be able to do that. Now you can't. If you bring that up with a modern lawyer, they like to laugh at the idea of anyone ever trying such a thing. They like to emphasize the value of law school and the work lawyers put in to get through it and how lawyers are a profession and their professional knowledge is valuable.

Of course, the knowledge you can demonstrate on the bar exam always has been knowledge. In Lincoln's time too.

So it's not *that* kind of knowledge. Then what is it? It's cultural knowledge. It's knowledge of the counterintuitive cultural traditions that have grown up within legal professions since then.

Again, I understand why someone would want their investment of time and money into law school to be respected and valued. But I do not think the point of making laws was to create an arena that is counterintuitive to the point that the only way to succeed there is to pay big bucks to a professional. That it has evolved into such a situation is, again, actually the problem.

This accretion of complex unwritten rules which modern professional lawyers are (understandably, they're difficult) so proud of having mastered...strikes me as an example of the sort of added societal complexity that our host has said is unsustainable.

And thanks for the article! It does seem good.

>Florida also used the end of Roe to pass a compromise 15-week abortion ban, bucking the trend of states moving to opposite extreme positions on the issue.

Aha.

I noticed they also included an exception for fatal fetal abnormalities. Very important especially to the kind of purple-voting moms who might be at higher risk for such problems (starting later, having a caboose, etc).

Through loss support groups I know a lot of moms who have encountered prenatal diagnoses of problems. Some do choose to carry the baby to term and then watch him/her die, but many would rather spare the baby and themselves that pain.

BTW. You can diagnose increased risk for some such problems around 10 weeks (NIPT), but you can't be sure the diagnosis is correct without an amniocentesis at 15-20 weeks (and results take a while to come back). (CVS, which can be done at 10-15 weeks, is not as accurate as amnio.) So 15-week abortion bans have the risk that people will terminate healthy, wanted pregnancies because of "high-risk" NIPT results; an exception for fatal fetal abnormalities reduces that likelihood.