Open (More or Less) Post on Covid 162

[ecosophia]

We are now in the fourth year of these open posts. When I first posted a tentative hypothesis on the course of the Covid phenomenon, I had no idea that discussion on the subject would still be necessary more than three years later, much less that it would turn into so lively, complex, and troubling a conversation. Still, here we are. Crude death rates and other measures of collapsing public health are anomalously high in many countries, but nobody in authority wants to talk about the inadequately tested experimental Covid injections that are the most likely cause; public health authorities government shills for the pharmaceutical industry are still trying to push through laws that will allow them to force vaccinations on anyone they want; public trust in science is collapsing; and the story continues to unfold.

So it's time for another open post. The rules have been slightly modified: 

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 and its government enablers are causing injury and death on a massive scale. 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 wholly owned 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 plan on making off topic comments, please go away. This is an open post for discussion of the Covid epidemic, the vaccines, drugs, policies, and other measures that supposedly treat it, and other topics directly relevant to those things. It is not a place for general discussion of unrelated topics. Nor is it a place to ask for medical advice; giving such advice, unless you're a licensed health care provider, legally counts as practicing medicine without a license and is a crime in the US. Don't even go there.

5. 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, religions, etc. No, I don't care if you disagree with that: my journal, my rules. 

Please also note that nothing posted here should be construed as medical advice, which neither I nor the commentariat (excepting those who are licensed medical providers) are qualified to give. Please take your medical questions to the licensed professional provider of your choice.

With that said, the floor is open for discussion.

Comments

Re: Subjective minds

[(Anonymous)]

Yes, this is partly what I think. It is obvious that people think about and make their important decisions in different though characteristic ways - though boundaries are obviously fuzzy and different people like different systems and causation is problematic.

Nonetheless, I think that it was decision-making type overlaying pre-existing levels of abusive trauma that was determinative. This isn't that helpful in terms of immunising societies in the future because I think sufficient trauma was the necessary first step and it would be extremely problematic to deliberately replicate it. However, a silver lining is that per this theory, governmental abuse is inherently self limiting (eventually) because the trauma it produces kickstarts the removal of consent-of-the-governed. And thus, the substantial decline in acceptance of each booster shot. Also, see 4th Turning type theories etc.

I think the trauma could be suffered on a country, group or indiviual level and come from war, interpersonal abuse and abuse by authority figures. It could be inter-generational and maybe past-life related. It also included things like severe school based bullying, systemic gaslighting around previous bad medical outcomes, and the (sometimes unintentionally) abusive effects of societies trying to hammer square misfits into round holes. In my view, abuse trauma = experience with recognising gaslighting and reduction in generalised trust levels. I would also think that early trauma may somewhat increase the normally very small percentage of socially detached, highly truth valuing type thinkers (in the Myers-Briggs sense) who are then further resistant to propaganda and psychological warfare. However, a further wrinkle is that some people respond to abuse trauma by becoming less compliant, more supicious. Others become much more compliant, always subconciously seeking to appease potential abusers.

My theory: rich western countries are high trust societies with mostly low trauma. Citizens of these countries generally reflexively follow the instructions of authority figures if these instructions have at least superficial broad social consensus - it's a heuristic. The only people who will not reflexively follow are the small numbers of previously abused groups and individuals, and only those who got pushed towards a non-compliant trauma response. These people during covid were the only ones who made active choices, in my view.

Even then, many still actively chose to vaccinate due to their decision making method/values matrix - so the people who base decisions on various types of social information that were so polluted by the propaganda campaigns, people who process ideas and information through discussion (dysfunctional due to propaganda and lockdowns), people who placed their highest values on family ties, continuing a helping calling, social harmony, social order, income, social experiences and/or social status and could not risk losing these -they all vaccinated, some reluctantly, some convinced by the propaganda, some in denial.

A few marginalised/abused groups were big enough for the group to socially support its members against the propaganda and psychological warfare. Outside that, pretty much the only ones left were the small percentage of previously abused, non-compliant, mostly-introverted, thinking-perceiving and thinking-judging types (using the Myer-Briggs typology).

I think the situation was different outside these types of countries - in poorer, low-trust societies and polarised countries like the US. I think there were much, much larger groups of people who had experienced abusive trauma in these societies. So, much less reflexive obedience and in some societies none. So, it was harder for the propagandists to pollute all the social information sources in these countries, harder to stop the extraverts talking and much harder for the psychological warfare to mobilise the social consensus required to credibly threaten the full breadth of things the different types of thinkers value most across every social group. And so, even initial vaccination rates were much lower and very uneven between diffent social groupings.