Throughout this whole SARS-CoV-2/Covid-19 mess, I’ve given the supposed experts their due respect, and even defended them on occasion. Even so, things have gotten a little ugly, with vituperation leaking from both sides. Most of that I’ve filed away in the receptacle whence such belongs. Regardless of opinion or the volume and shrillness thereof, name calling really has no place in any intelligent debate intended to problem-solve. That said, shrillness often says a lot about the motives involved. Another good indicator is the old (but very good) cliche, “methinks thou dost protest too much.”
However, the more we learned, and the more the whole affair exposed itself as a plainly political football — and a working platform for more scams, games and shenanigans than a backcountry medicine show — I began watching more closely, and asking more penetrating questions. I also listened with intent to learn without prejudice. And I learned a lot. Probably more than they wanted me to.
I did use some filters, though. If the so-called pro-ponent(s) of any particular thing, idea or opinion started out immediately arguing by use of logical fallacies and needless attacks, they automatically lost 90% or more of any existing credibility. Sadly, in a lot of cases, they didn’t really have a whole lot to lose in the first place. On the second attack, the discussion was over. They roundly and soundly defeated themselves. Loss by disqualification.
Which brings me to optics, ethics and matters of conscience.
It came to my attention a few days ago that Dr. Anthony Fauci had been invited — and agreed — to throw out the first pitch at the Washington Nationals home opener. I won’t go into the quality of the pitch. I could do no better. However, due to continued emergency orders and mandatory lock-downs and social distancing requirements and (masking) regulations ... no fans could be present. Instead they went on to settle for cardboard cutouts taped to the seats.
To say the optics on that were incredibly ugly is a massive understatement. Leadership skills are clearly not present in the doctor’s wheelhouse.
Once all the power games are over, the masks are off, the agendas exposed, the liars identified and the erroneous counts corrected, one of the most disturbing, shameful and difficult tasks we have ahead of us is coming to grips with the fact that a huge portion of the deaths coming out of this SARS-CoV-2/Covid-19 pandemic were not only avoidable, but a direct result of the way it has been mishandled.
Hindsight will come with an inescapable knowledge that politically motivated policies, and massively flawed studies leading to rejected treatment protocols, killed hundreds of thousands of our friends, fathers, mothers, brothers and sisters.
We are going to have to ask ourselves why so very, very many were told to “tough it out” once diagnosed, refused effective early treatments (discouraged by those badly flawed studies), and sent home — to die.
One also has to ask why every single social media outlet is censoring any form of information about successful early treatments, and the doctors who are just plain getting it done. Beware those who would deny you access to information, for in their hearts, they fancy themselves your master.
Early intervention is, and always was, the key to survival. Colour me old fashioned, pragmatic and suspicious, but that seems to be a pretty common theme in medicine and disease control. Why was it rejected here?
Keep this in mind the next time an online SJW gets in your face denying effective early working treatments which were dismissed without veritas or reason. Then ask yourself, what are they defending, and why.
Yeah. I didn’t much care for the answer either. Confirmation bias? Probably. Either that or a near-psychotic case of political hatred.
There’s a helluva big difference between debunked and massively flawed theoretical studies, and in-the-trenches/boots-on-the-ground tactical learning with real doctors and real patients and positive outcomes.
Then the final tragedy to top it all off — this week. Saturday evening, a badly misguided young man decided it was a good idea to take an AK-47 — and his paraplegic significant other — to a protest with strongly riotous overtones. It just could not end well. And it didn’t.
Pointing a rifle at a driver or taking potshots at a car crosses the line of deadly force, that has consequences.
From the Observation Bunker here at The Paper Radio, sometimes asking the right questions can be a whole lot more important than getting the wrong answers.