First, a relevant aside: I had real trouble, back in school, studying philosophers from Descartes on, because of one character trait – call it a flaw, if you want – of not being able to set aside foundational nonsense for the sake of understanding all the possibly good stuff putatively built on said nonsense.
To stick with Descartes, his whole ‘go to my room, draw the shades, and see what I can figure out’ exercise is, upon a moment’s reflection, bat-guano crazy. No, Rene, you don’t live in – and write and publish books in – a demon-infested reality inside your own head. That is, you are proven wrong from the get go if – follow closely, now – I am reading your book. Because here I am, reading a book written by a long-dead precocious Frenchman, and, because I am, he’s wrong. If he were right, neither his book nor its reader exist. But they do, therefore, etc.
I can’t then turn around and say, but let’s pretend he’s right, that he and the whole world – putting this into practice – exists only as a creature of my own mind, because I can’t know, as in KNOW-know, that anything outside my own mind even exists.
Riiiiight. My sane, logical, linear mind (1) simply cannot choke this nonsense down and go on. So if Kant, Hegel, etc., have brilliant points to make somewhere after establishing their METAPHYSICS (not a dirty word, but inescapable for actual thought despite getting dissed by moderns who really, truly wish it weren’t so. Tough, schmucks.) I will have likely missed it. I don’t care if Critique of Practical Reason is full of profound insights, because the Prolegomenon to Any Future Metaphysics is high-grade B.S. You can say all you want, Emmanuel, about how you’re not a solipsist, but if you’re not, you’re not being serious in your metaphysics. If you can KNOW that others exist, then you’ve crossed your noumenal/phenomenal divide; if it’s simply a matter of personal belief, then you’re not taking your stated philosophy seriously. You’re trying to escape the solid medieval recognition that we are as sure we share a physical world with others as we are of anything, and that to pretend we’re not is the death, not the birth, of any philosophical investigation. (It’s that whole schola versus sola thing I go on about – do we investigate as part of humanity, or do we investigate as an abstracted, disconnected solo artist? One road leads to insanity.)
I’ve forced myself to read a ton of these jokers, but my appreciation of their more elevated points is perhaps weakened by my dogged grasp of their nonsensical foundations. I think it was Chesterton who advised against having such an open mind that your brain falls out. That’s the risk, here.
This same principle applies to the way I work on science. I don’t care about the claims made that COVID does not bestow immunity to survivors, causes terrible long term lung damage, kills babies, has been caught smoking dope behind the gym, or whatever else the latest ‘studies’ assert – because the foundation of the panic is fraud. To have a pandemic, an unusually high number of people have to die OF the disease. But they’re not, especially not now, and this little fact was completely evident from Day 1. The ONLY group hit hard by the virus was and remains people with one foot already in the grave: elderly sick people, who have very short life expectancies regardless of the virus. Such people account for about 80% of the deaths. An otherwise healthy person, and even a not-too-sickly person, runs very little risk from the virus. For younger people, the risk from COVID is LESS of than that from any old flu bug.
This information is OBVIOUS UPON INSPECTION. The table of deaths by age from Wuhan, as used by that loathsome insect Ferguson in the original Imperial College report that ginned up all the panic in the first place supplies almost all this information. It’s obvious from the data that people over 50 account for virtually all deaths and serious illness. The only piece missing is the state of health of the early elderly victims, but that’s easily supplied by simply thinking about it logically: in a first world country like Italy, the deaths take place largely in nursing homes, precisely where the very sick elderly are concentrated. Largely healthy 85 year olds are not living in nursing homes – really sick 85 year olds are, and so on, across all age bands. In Wuhan, the elderly are more likely to live with their families – in tenements, in poor, crowded conditions. This, because China is a Communist hell-hole, the people are poor, and traditional Chinese culture favors caring for the elderly.
Assuming there is *one* fatality rate across any given age, let alone one across a whole population, is not supported by the data, by which I mean EFFING INSANE. Yet, that’s what we got, in every case. Never any recognition that 60-70% of the deaths occur in the approximately 0.4% of the population in nursing homes. Never any recognition that risks for about 75% of the population is, effectively, background noise. It’s not just that a healthy 30 year old runs, effectively, no risk. A healthy 85 year old really doesn’t, either. That healthy oldster does, of course, run a high risk of dropping dead. At that age, SOMETHING is going to kill him, likely sooner rather than later. It’s called OLD AGE. But does the virus add significantly to that already existing risk that just comes with the territory as you get old? There’s no evidence it does.
If the entire lockdown/mask up reaction is built on anti-science and fear-mongering – and it most definitely is – then I’m not going to sweat the latest claims, as if, now, finally, they’ve stopped lying. Nope. I looked at a few claims early on, and they were as specious as the original Ferguson paper. Not wasting any more time on it, because if my original analysis is correct – and it has been proven to be – then this other stuff is just more fantasy cooked up to keep the cattle spooked.
Nothing new or original here – every honest, moderately intelligent and scientifically literate person who has looked at the actual evidence reaches the same conclusions.
Your chances of dying if you catch the ‘rona are only slightly, if at all, worse than your chances of dying if you don’t. If you are 85 or older, your chances of dying if you don’t catch the virus over the next 12 month are very high, something like 13.6% based on CDC data. If you are 85 or over and live in a nursing home or hospice or otherwise require constant medical care, your chances of dying are much, much worse – you probably won’t make it through the year, whether or not you catch the virus.
Similarly, if you are under 25, your chances of dying over the next 12 months are microscopic, running from under 0.001% to just under 0.07% depending on age and sex. And, if you were to catch the Kung Flu, you risk of death doesn’t change at all. If you don’t kill yourself or get murdered or die in a stupid accident, nothing else is likely to kill you, including the ‘rona.
Seriously. Through 11/25/30, the CDC records a total of 515 deaths “involving” the bug in those 25 and younger. That’s 515 over a population of well over 100M people. If, as the CDC now suggests, over 100,000,000 Americans have been infected over the last year, since the 25 and under crowd is about 30% of the population, then the infection fatality rate across all 25 and under Americans would be something under 0.002% – fewer than 2 in 100,000 infections in people 25 and under result in death. Even this is probably misleading, as those who die are most likely already sick – at least, it certainly appears to be true, and common sense says that being sick in the first place makes getting sicker and even dying more likely.
Add to all this that, so far, there is very little to no evidence asymptomatic people spread the disease, and no evidence children are vectors to adults, and the lockdown and masks are revealed to be INSANE. SATANICLY INSANE.
But very, very politically useful.
So, never forget the foundational fraud here. At this point, every claim of some new horror resulting from the ‘rona should be dismissed with prejudice unless backed with real, hard evidence. Not some rushed ‘study’ or by the same team of hacks that produced this fraud, real evidence, as discussed in the previous post.
- And, in a preemptive strike, yes, I know of and use the left side of my brain all the time; e.g., I’ve wasted hours improvising at the piano, letting whatever passes for my non-linear, non-logical muse take over. (The results are better when she lets the left side of my brain drive while she noodles, but still.) I get there’s more to thought than strictly linear, logical processing. ‘More than’ isn’t ‘instead of’.