Open (More or Less) Post on Covid 67

[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: Peggy Hall Interviews Theresa Buccola - Part 3

[p_coyle]

"Some health care workers clearly lost their heads (or marbles) and did things that were illegal or morally indefensible. Most of them were just trying to do their jobs."

i respectfully submit these people were more concerned with keeping their jobs, rather than doing them. if they were concerned about malpractice issues and were even remotely informed, they would have quit.

it was, admittedly, a confusing and trying time. people were living paycheck to paycheck and faced with all sorts of inconvenient, even ruinous outcomes if said paycheck didn't show up in time to make their monthly payments. a consequence of playing the game.

it's still not a reason to allow people "just following orders" to walk away scot-free. does the receptionist deserve the death penalty? no. does the receptionist have to do 60 hours of community service and think about how and why what they did was wrong? maybe.

until the persons responsible for the bad orders are held to account, it's a fool's errand to worry about the underlings.

Re: Peggy Hall Interviews Theresa Buccola - Part 3

[(Anonymous)]

A person very close to me left low level hospital work in the midst of the crazy, for exactly this reason. Due to their job duties, they were able to see many areas of the hospital and talk to various people. They saw what was going on, and didn't want to be a part of it. As it was low level work, it wasn't an easy job shift for them to make while everything was locked down, and keep the bills paid at the same time. But they did it anyway. This was not a person who could explain furin cleavage sites or the fine points of vaccine passports. They just saw and knew it was wrong. Being low level, they had no legal concerns about things like malpractice coming back at them. They just couldn't morally participate. They have my deep respect for making a hard choice, when it was a hard time, for moral reasons. Anyone could have. Few did.

I don't know that it's a pointless exercise now, or McCarthyism, to metaphorically or collectively tally up those who chose to keep making Porsche payments (or simply rent) in one group, and those who also had bills to pay also, but decided to make hard sacrifices, in another. Seems like something worth doing as a society, if you want to reward the character traits of moral courage and stiff spines. Maybe we aren't going for that any longer though.

Murmuration

Re: Peggy Hall Interviews Theresa Buccola - Part 3

[(Anonymous)]

Coincidentally this week Donald Boudreaux, a guy on Brownstone who was a vocal opponent of lockdowns from the beginning, now vocally opposes tribunals to punish even the "big fish" responsible for them, unless they committed crimes under current law. It's a good essay.

https://brownstone.org/articles/tribunals-would-introduce-dangers-of-their-own/

TL:DR - "[A]ny such tribunal would be a political body. Each proceeding would be incurably and poisonously political, as would each finding, verdict, and sentence." And, because "almost every significant change in policy can be portrayed by its opponents as an unwarranted assault on humanity ... empaneling tribunals today to punish officials whose policy choices were implemented yesterday will, going forward, discourage not only the active taking of bad policies, but also the active taking of good policies." The "satisfaction and gratification [of seeing today's leaders punished] would be swamped by fear of the actions of future tribunals."

It's easy to say, from the outside and post facto, that if HCPs cared about malpractice they would have quit, and that if they didn't think malpractice was happening in their hospital, well, they SHOULD have. But if staff had quit en masse from hospitals that banned visitation, that would have done more harm by leaving patients uncared for, not only those dying of covid but those dying of every other cause. Would they not have had equal reason to fear future tribunals for abandoning patients to suffer and die? Even under present rules, it could be grounds for loss of license at least.

Tribunals can sentence people to labor, and in some regimes to public self-abasement sessions, but they can't make people actually "think about how and why what they did was wrong." If anything, those who feel they're being persecuted for having tried to do right will thereafter be less willing to consider that they might have erred from ignorance. Boudreaux suggests public hearings to address what happened, but not to target individuals for punishment. That strikes me as a far more rational approach, and one less likely to create a weapon that could later be turned back upon its creators.

-Translucent Jejune Octopus

Re: Peggy Hall Interviews Theresa Buccola - Part 3

[(Anonymous)]

Transcriber here. Thank you for pointing to this.