Interesting new articles on mass hysteria and medical morality

While the hysteria marches on here in Europe, an interesting economics article came out in a decent journal on the political economy of that mass hysteria. Their abstract:

In this article, we aim to develop a political economy of mass hysteria. Using the background of COVID-19, we study past mass hysteria. Negative information which is spread through mass media repetitively can affect public health negatively in the form of nocebo effects and mass hysteria. We argue that mass and digital media in connection with the state may have had adverse consequences during the COVID-19 crisis. The resulting collective hysteria may have contributed to policy errors by governments not in line with health recommendations. While mass hysteria can occur in societies with a minimal state, we show that there exist certain self-corrective mechanisms and limits to the harm inflicted, such as sacrosanct private property rights. However, mass hysteria can be exacerbated and self-reinforcing when the negative information comes from an authoritative source, when the media are politicized, and social networks make the negative information omnipresent. We conclude that the negative long-term effects of mass hysteria are exacerbated by the size of the state.

The main claim I find interesting is that they think a large state makes the hysteria worse, with the essential idea being that a monopoly provider of authoritarian knowledge has more potential to lock its population into false beliefs without a clear mechanism to get out of that, which raises the question of whether one should deliberately split the information-provision role of the state into competing camps.

In the same week, a rapid response comment on a pro-lockdown editorial by the British Medical Journal took that journal to task for its morality, anti-scientific views, and cosying up to power. While I totally agree with that comment, I do find it rather brave of the BMJ editors to put such a scathing critique of themselves on their website. They are certainly displaying tolerance of dissenting opinions! The short letter by a retired GP that doesn’t pull any punches and that names many instances of covid-congestion effects is over the fold.

Dear Editor
History is littered with examples of the atrocities which ensue when doctors abandon their traditional principles and judgement in favour of unquestioning subservience to government diktat – medical involvement in torture, human experimentation and psychiatric punishment of political dissidents being familiar examples.
Abbasi [the BMJ editor that wrote the pro-lockdown editorial] takes as axiomatic that there was no prior immunity in the population, that lockdowns are effective, that computer modelling is realistic, that statistics have been accurate and that WHO statements are reliable. All of these parameters have been widely challenged by knowledgeable and conscientious researchers whose findings were often disregarded, censored or vilified.
From a medical perspective, it was clear early on in the crisis that disregarding clinical acumen in favour of blind obedience to abnormal ventilation measures, reliance on an unsuitable laboratory test for diagnosis and management, and abandoning the duty of care to elderly hospitalised patients and those awaiting diagnosis and treatment of serious diseases, would create severe problems down the line.
Doctors who had empirically found effective pharmaceutical remedies and preventative treatments were ignored, or worse, denigrated or silenced. Information regarding helpful dietary supplements was suppressed.
This was further compounded by rule-changes to death certification, coroners’ instructions, autopsy guidelines, DNR notices and the cruel social isolation policy enforcement regarding family visits to the sick and dying.
When medical professionals allow themselves to be manipulated by corrupt politicians and influenced by media propaganda instead of being guided by their own ethical principles and common sense based on decades of clinical experience, the outlook becomes very bleak indeed.
Historically, public respect for and trust in doctors has exceeded that awarded to politicians. The unquestioning capitulation of medicine to an authoritarian executive and predatory corporate power may have undermined the doctor-patient relationship for a generation.

 

This entry was posted in Coronavirus crisis, Death and taxes, Democracy, Health, History, Science. Bookmark the permalink.

34 Responses to Interesting new articles on mass hysteria and medical morality

  1. Mummichog says:

    Kudos to that Doc for that letter.

    “The unquestioning capitulation of medicine to an authoritarian executive and predatory corporate power may have undermined the doctor-patient relationship for a generation.”

    How will Trust in Medicine ever be restored? In the meantime, how many patients will suffer from being given One-Size-Fits-All treatment prescribed by Big Pharma?

    From the Canadian MSM National Post, here is another similar, alternative opinion expressed by Dr. David Forrest, an Infectious Disease and Critical Care physician in Nanaimo, B.C.:

    “We have no choice when we receive vaccination as to how it is administered. Consent is not obtained to deviate from the established scientifically proven dosing. We are not informed of the risks of so doing. Like the poor citizens of Tuskegee, we are subjects in a grand experiment without acquiescing and without alternative, with the promise of an intervention that can prevent a deadly disease as the carrot.

    At risk is not just the health of vaccine recipients, but sustainability of our health-care system.

    Those making these decisions may be well meaning, but what they are doing is unethical. It jeopardizes protection of those most at risk and most needed to provide health care. And if indeed less effective, it risks loss of faith in the vaccine, further eroding trust in Public Health.”

    https://nationalpost.com/opinion/opinion-poor-choices-in-vaccine-prioritization-and-its-unethical-provision-are-troubling-front-line-doctors-like-me

    Keep on, Clubtroppo! Truth may win yet.

  2. I am and will always be Not Trampis says:

    Yeah truth.
    Why were any lockdowns proceeded with. Well hospitals were being overrun by covid patients. Medical personnel were working their butts off. They were at the end of their tether. see USA or the UK.
    Do Fritjers or any of the Fritjerites really want to argue this?
    no they actually say the Lockdowns had those same effects.

    so the question is are they really that stupid or that ignorant

  3. Nicholas Gruen says:

    Paul,

    No need for you to reply to this, as we’ve had it out previously, but I do want to again place on record my view of how odious and just plain stupid it is for you to keep using pejoratives to describe those who disagree with you.

    So I’m panicking because I disagree with you? And vast numbers of other people, who don’t seem to be the panicking type to me – they’re just, like me, doing our best. We’re all just panicking.

    But what would we know about our internal states – when we have an omniscient observer on the other side of the debate?

    Anyway, I think I’ll describe the debate as between the panickers and the omniscient. That should help the conversation track the truth and the merits of the different positions.

    • murph the surf says:

      Very droll.

    • Michael Baker says:

      The words you use, like “odious” and “just plain stupid” sound like a pretty serious personal attack. Pejoratives. The pot is calling the kettle black. Do you practice hypocrisy much?

      • paul frijters says:

        you are probably right Michael, but Nick doesnt see those things and doesnt feel them that way. No need to be angry on my behalf as I am not angry at Nick. I feel his pain. Maybe he is just having a bad day.

        I encourage you to treat such reactions like a learning moment about the crowd phenomenon we are seeing. Let me illustrate by pointing out several aspect I think I see in his reaction, as there have been in the reaction of many others on ‘his side’ around the world (his reaction is very normal and can be seen daily in many newspapers here in Europe: this is how a majority tries to bully a minority):

        1. Real pain. Nick is not normally so aggressive, so you should deduce the post really distressed him. That is the pain, I think, of cognitive dissonance: it is truly painful for him to see articles written in a language he normally likes that denounce his point of view as hysteria or worse, and that furthermore treat that as totally obvious. He feels his truth is rejected out of hand and that is painful, leading him to lash out. I have observed similar pain in several other commentators too. Conrad had it for a while, but now seems to have lost that reaction (telling me he might be coming round to at least the possibility we’re right. I happen to know he follows the news and debates in Europe much more closely than Nick so he might well by now have become totally used to hearing ‘our truth’ and it no longer bothers him).

        2. Nick takes it personally and into his inner world, which is a defense mechanism: he seems to be grasping for a truth that is unassailable that allow him to dismiss the threat of the new information. The only truth that is unassailable is an internal truth about his feelings because no-one else can know his feelings with certainty. His own mind tells him he is not panicking, and he takes that internal truth as gospel, so that convinces him he is not panicking, and because he is on the side of the herd, the herd must also not be panicking. Note how ‘modern’ that type of reasoning is: one doesn’t really engage with the arguments, but deduces the truth from internal feeling and unquestioned identity, allowing a dismissal of the arguments without having to understand them. Its a quick mental hack. This too I have observed in several other commentators though Nick does this to a very strong degree and out in the open (many others are not so honest about how they stretch out for an internal truth to dismiss an external statement).

        3. He dismisses the victims of the policies he broadly agrees with. He has not acknowledged them once these last 11 months as far as I can remember. Note that that is not really a choice because he basically has to dismiss those victims if he is not to denounce the herd as somehow misguided. So he has to believe those negative effects were either inevitable or going to be worse with any other policy. Hence his insistence in previous interactions on being proven to his personal satisfaction that there was a counterfactual in which those negative effects did not occur (an evidence bar that he then has full control over). I have also noted that he seems to quite quickly forget his unease at many negatives very close to him (like the totalitarianism of the first Victorian lockdown, the effects on poor countries, the education of Victorian children, etc.). These tricks are exactly what happens in a crowd to facts and opinions they dont like: the individuals purge from their own minds the memories and feelings that make them uneasy about that crowd and what it does, turning the onus of proof onto the dissenters and asking them some impossible degree of proof to be allowed to say something. This is how a crowd maintains cohesion and focus.

        So for the chapters in our book where we talk about these things, note how his reaction underscores four points I have been making earlier: i) truth about external events becomes a crowd construct that is simply treated as gospel by individuals in that crowd, ii) aggression towards dissenters who are a threat to crowd cohesion or the peace of mind of its members, iii) the blindness to pain caused to others, using tricks to dismiss that pain, iv) the implicit desire to keep going with the crowd.

        • Nicholas Gruen says:

          Thanks Paul,

          I’ve been through your four points and you are simply wildly wrong in your interpretation (as far as I can tell from instrospection – which is of course suspect when it’s defending itself).

          I’ve defended what you’re doing up hill and down dale. I think what you’re doing broadly – defending a minority position – is very much to be encouraged.

          I’ve also been direct in saying where I think you’re wrong headed – and that’s particularly in your style of argument.

          You can psychologise my reaction if you like, say that I might be having a bad day, but that’s not really arguing your case is it?

          You say “His own mind tells him he is not panicking, and he takes that internal truth as gospel, so that convinces him he is not panicking, and because he is on the side of the herd, the herd must also not be panicking.”

          I haven’t actually engaged you on whether the herd is panicking or not – or me for that matter. I have said that your psychologising of others’ arguments – including mine – make a claim about them which is both implausible in specific instances (Bill Bowtell, Norman Swan and all manner of people who seem quite calm to me) and unhelpful in the way it personalises and psychologists an argument that is difficult when one takes the counterfactuals seriously and needs to be had on the facts, theories and evidence we have.

          My criticism of you boils down to a simple claim. That getting your verbs and adjectives to do your arguing for you isn’t arguing at all. (Now the lockdown is ‘brutal’ – which it is if you want to describe it that way – just like the virus). But it certainly gets in the way of trying to work stuff out with others who may not agree with you. It gets everyone riled up and psychologising each other rather than addressing the arguments.

          I mean really “He dismisses the victims of the policies he broadly agrees with. He has not acknowledged them once these last 11 months as far as I can remember.” What kind of argument is that? Of course, there are victims of lockdowns and victims of COVID. Is this a sympathy competition? Should I count the number of times you’ve expressed sympathy for the COVID victims and require it to be proportional to the amount of distress on the other side. This is ridiculous.

          As you note, I haven’t kept up with this stuff closely. As I have said previously, I don’t even have a strong view that you’re wrong on the merits of your case. You may well be right. That’s why I support your putting the view strongly here. I deplore your apparent inability to imagine that you might be wrong.

          It’s a generally bad rule to psychologise those who disagree with you as part of an argument – unless you’re married I guess ;) But there are very different psychologies on this planet, and I don’t rate you as much of a psychologist from this outburst. It is really not worthy of your remarkable and fine qualities.

          • Nicholas reports are that the latest Victorian Valentine’s Day lockdown is resulting in about 30 million dollars worth of lobsters and prawns going to the tip and a similar amount of flowers “ three months worth of sales “ also going to the compost bin. And restaurants in Mildura, about 500 ks from the nearest infection are also shut down.

            To my mind “brutal” seems quite restrained.

          • Nicholas

            I’ve just reread the above for the third time. Perplexed as to how Paul could argue the case that responses have been , in Europe in particular ,brutal, ineffectual ,panicked :often irrational and incomprehensible re practical details without using terms such as , brutal etc ?

          • Nick,

            on the principle of how you say one should argue and debate, I am in full agreement with you.
            What I stopped doing after a while though is try to debate this issue with you or many others. I stopped doing that because I then dont get beyond step one of the issue I want to talk about. I hence dont use the word mass hysteria to rile you up, but more to flag the general story I am adding to, inviting those who also wonder about those elements to reflect and debate. You are, alas, not included. I gave up an interest in arguing and debating the issue with you, so there is no need for you to feel offended: on this issue I am not trying to talk to you.

            Let me explain with an unemotive analogy why I gave up on you, if you will allow! Suppose I were an historian who wanted to describe and analyse events in the Roman Empire, talking about its various ruins, texts, histories, etc. On the basis of that data I was trying to understand what happened in various phases of the Empire and what the important external influences were. I then want to debate my observations and theories with others who also recognise the existence of the Roman Empire and who also visited some of its ruins, texts, etc. I am thus seeking feedback and reflection from others with some degree of shared interest who recognise the same data on which the story is based. They might disagree on this or that detail or aspect, but in a broad sense are on the same journey. Yet I find myself in a venue where 70% of the audience doesnt believe the Roman Empire existed. That 70% dismisses the ruins as fakes, the texts as forgeries, and continuously come up with mountains of stuff they regard as evidence that the Roman Empire never existed. They shout as loudly and often as obnoxiously as they can.

            Well, the only way to then get anywhere in the description and analysis of the Roman Empire is to totally ignore the 70%, though now and then engage with supposed evidence on the non-existence of the Roman Empire, to now and then politely explain various aspects of the analysis and observations when they show some interest (which they dont have to: no one is forced to comment on pieces here). But there is then no point seriously pretending every time the same objections are raised which were talked about 20 times already that I seriously doubt the existence of the Roman Empire or various pieces of evidence. There are still uncertainties to acknowledge and mull over, of course, and sometimes one has to adjust aspects of the whole framework, but to get anywhere one moves on with a whole framework of knowledge and leaves the shouters behind. If the 70% feel offended every time they hear about the next twist in the story of the Roman Empire, which they sincerely dont believe was ever there, well then that is just too bad. I invite them not to engage at all on that issue. On other issues (like China) I then would be looking to inform or discuss with them, but not the Roman Empire.

            This is exactly the situation I am in when it concerns these covid-discussions on troppo. What is obvious to me (mass hysteria) is offensive to others, something you might see as a ‘split in reality’. I have accepted you do not believe there is mass hysteria, but I have moved on far beyond the observation that there is one to analysing the sociology of the phenomenon, historical analogies to it, possible ways the future might look back on it, etc. The 70% are part of the phenomenon I am trying to understand, but not part of the group I can usefully discuss my thoughts on the subject with. I can waste my time trying to explain step 1 over and over, or I can talk about step 15 with those on the same intellectual journey (which includes more and more academics worldwide, btw. You cant have failed to notice how widespread the story now has become that I have been telling since March 2020. I am not a lone wolf here. It may not feel that way in Melbourne, but there are millions of us).

            So I invite you to just ignore my writings on this issue. They are not meant to annoy you and I dont mind too much that you dont agree (though if you press me using strong words like you have done above I will push back). I am grateful of your general tolerance, but you do now and then seem offended because the implication of what I say and refer to (like the articles in the post) is indeed that many people you admire and think of as reasonable are part of this crowd phenomenon. And yes, some strong degree of irrationality in them is the implication. Crowds are well-studied historical phenomena with very distinctive irrational behaviour that yields a fairly clear checklist (goal transformations, narrow goals, blindness to previously valued goals, etc.).

            You might ask what it would take for me to truly think someone in favour of the lockdown policies is interested in a rational conversation. Well, they’d have to stop automatically presuming lockdowns are effective when they are given the data that the top 20 covid-deaths countries had harsh lockdowns (and of course I encourage them to check such claims critically). They’d have to own the collateral damage in the sense that they openly argue that the likely portion due to lockdowns was worth it (where again there is something sensible to discuss, ie that ‘likely portion’). They’d have to welcome experiments elsewhere as a learning opportunity rather than information to be feared and dismissed out of hand. There is just no point taking them seriously without that because then there are clearly still stuck in crowd-mode and thus not even at step 1.

            • I am and will always be Not Trampis says:

              This is the perfect reason why Fritjers should not be allowed to write on this topic.
              He suffers from Admiral Nelson syndrome as I said before.
              He will never answer the simple question Nick asked him oh so long ago.
              What is your counterfactual.
              He merely issues extremely vague sentiments.
              Just remember his favorite example of the mythical family needing IVF treatment.
              would a lockdown ( a fair dinkum one) mean they have to wait or would they have to wait way longer on Fritjers proposal of doing nothing and allowing covid into the community.

              We only have to look to either the USA or the UK to see the answer to that BUT Fritjers still blathers on with with this claptrap in the hope idiots will believe him.

              That is merely one of the many falsehoods being perpetuated.
              While we are at it we should remind ourselves he was badly WRONG on Sweden.
              Why you ask.
              Because he neither understood what his herd immunity thesis was nor what was occurring in Sweden.

              a normal person would reflect on this and learn from his mistakes. Alas not Mr Fritjers.

              I have said it one indeed i have aid it many times. He is turning Troppo in Catallaxy on this vexed topic

        • Chris Lloyd says:

          What book are you referring to Paul? On the basis of your comment, I am pretty sure that I will not buy it.

          Though I did buy and enjoy Game of Mates.

    • paul frijters says:

      I have been calling it a mass panic and a mass hysteria consistently for about 10 months now because that is what (I think) I am seeing, sometimes dropping the word “mass” when its obvious I am not talking of a single person. Many others think they are seeing the same, including the first article linked to above. Whether you personally are panicking? Who knows and who cares?

      I have said before that it’s a split in realities. I just ignore your reality as you seem to do mine, like people from two religions not taking the theological perspective of the other seriously because they are innately incompatible. I have no interest in upsetting you or discussing your inner life with you. It would merely distract from trying to understand the mass phenomenon underway. And the mass phenomenon I am seeing is well described by hysteria, currently kept up in Europe by vast amounts of public money thrown into state propaganda.

      I do find it remarkable that so many scientists and commentators around the world have come independently to almost exactly the same deductions as I have done, such as the good doctor quoted above. I attribute that to what you once said about what happens when reasonable people try to figure out things: they do figure it out. I suspect that is why you are so upset.

      • Nicholas Gruen says:

        Hmm …

        So my claims to NOT being upset are to be taken as self-deception at best and lies at worst?

        Indeed, my deceptions (self or outward) extend so far that I even claim relative agnosticism as to who is right – the panic merchants or the omniscient ones?

        Is that your argument?

        (Do feel free to respond without imputing motives to me – you know that old idea that it’s more productive to respond to the merits of someone’s argument rather than attributing it to that time of the month? Not that you have to or anything, it’s just a suggestion.)

        • paul frijters says:

          eh, I really dont understand your first two sentences here. I ‘think’ that that is not what I believe :-).

          Agreed, motives etc are best not discussed too much. You were the one using the words “odious” and “stupid”, not me.

          • Yes, on reviewing my initial comment, I have to agree that it was cack-handed. Stupid even :)

            I have no objection, and can’t object to your taking an interest in mass panics. I do think your confidence that that is what is going on as people try to figure out what to do about COVID is misguided. However, taking it up in this thread in the way I did contributed to more heat than light being generated.

            Apologies.

  4. Chris Lloyd says:

    History is littered with examples of the atrocities which ensue when doctors abandon their traditional principles and judgement in favour of unquestioning subservience to government diktat. When medical professionals allow themselves to be manipulated by corrupt politicians and influenced by media propaganda instead of being guided by their own ethical principles and common sense based on decades of clinical experience, the outlook becomes very bleak indeed

    .

    I am going to go off topic here, at least ostensibly. Last week the Victorian parliament passed the Conversion Prohibition rule. It was largely spruiked as banning gay conversion, but they smuggled in gender identity. Telling a teenage girl that she is really female, despite having decided she is a male and that is the course of all her problems, is now called conversion. Whereas, hormone therapy and irreversible surgery is not called conversion. Orwell would be proud of his prescience.

  5. Chris Lloyd says:

    There is surely no question that the media coverage of the pandemic was dominated by fear (which make a lot of sense but is not great for decision making), the advice of medical experts (which sounds good but ignores other perspectives like economic and political), a presumption that life is sacrosanct (despite the fact that Gaia is currently kicking our ass and the creator kills off every one of us in the end) and guilt by association (so if Trump thinks lockdowns are bad they must be optimal).

    The same dynamic is currently playing out with respect to vaccines. The MSM are loath to tell the truth that long term effects are simply unknown. So, it is in the game theoretic interests of all of us to wait until everyone else has taken it. There is no simple solution to this prisoner’s dilemma but denying the truth is never a good response. Think Trump and the oxymoron that Caitlin Jenner is a woman (see my other comment).

    BTW: None of this is to say that I think Australia got it mainly wrong. I think lockdown did work for us because we got to elimination, which means no more lockdowns and no deaths simultaneously. And I think it is good for us all to get vaccinated (but I want to go last).

  6. Graham Young says:

    Hi Nicholas, a word search of this page shows that the only person who has used the word “panick” was you! So I think you’re running a strawman argument. And combining it with “odious” makes it a variant of the “hurt feelings” postmodern rebuttal so beloved of undergraduate students and intersectionalists.

    There is certainly a lot of panic in the community, and you don’t have to be “omniscient” to observe it. I think it is sufficient to observe that people who try and shut you down because you have rationally and coolly expressed a contrary view on the basis of exhorting you to adhere to “the science” or some other spurious non-argument, rather than arguing the facts, fit the category of “panicky”.

    So while I don’t think Paul accused you of panicking, I think it is plain that there is a lot of panic in the community, and that many of our political leaders are in that group. I see Victoria is about to lockdown again for a handful of cases. Hard to argue that you don’t live in a state with panic merchants in control, backed by the #IStandwithDan crowd, who can hardly be described as “calm”, “moderate” or “reasonable”.

  7. I am and will always be Not Trampis says:

    give it a rest Graham,

    hysteria is induced by what exactly.

    Mind you the only hysteria have read here is from Fritjers and the Frijterites

  8. Jerry Roberts says:

    The former Victorian Treasury economist Sanjeev Sabhlok appears to be on the same page with Paul and has written a book called “The Great Hysteria and the Broken State.” I have a copy on order. The author gives a red-hot interview with John Adams and Martin North on their YouTube channel, In the Interests of the People. The vaccine has not made a good start as the virus mutates and we may need to change our thinking to the longer term. Covid 19 is not going away and we will have to live with it as we do with many other maladies, our doctors and nurses gradually improving their understanding and treatment. Hence the current interest in ivermectin and vitamin D.

  9. I am and will always be Not Trampis says:

    One thing here is the lack of humility which the humble Nick asked for.
    The virus has only been with us for a bit over a year.
    The world is still learning about the virus. Just take the variances for a start.

    Not for some people

  10. ianl says:

    Well, well … just like the Anthropogenic Climate Change argument.

    A series of contradictions at high voice, with no resolution expected. Australian public “debate” always reminds me of a rookery in full throat.

    PF has a point on the totilitarian response of both medical and political authorities, although he exaggerates for polemical effect. The responses are of the noisy “granny killer” category, while probably inadvertently noting that the aim is elimination rather than suppression, so confirming the ongoing lie. Of course we know we are being constantly lied to, which is why there is no trust at all and there will not be.

    Oh yes, and now we have Vic “expert” Sutton admitting that the virus is nebulised as a fine aerosol, thus rendering medical N95 masks useless for viral control, just as the 3M manufacturers stamp on the box. Ho hum.

  11. KT2 says:

    NG “rather than raise the temperature” (+1)
    PF “public information campaigns of many governments a form of terrorism”… and now posting temperature rising links pushing…
    “● Citizens Electoral Council, the local offshoot of the
    ● American Lyndon LaRouche organisation, a proponent of the infamous theory that a global Jewish-led cabal” (link at end)

    Go team Paul!

    ****

    Paul Frijters says:
    October 27, 2020 at 7:26 pm
    “Hi Nick (and those who seconded him),

    “you raise the issue of language and how pejorative it sounds to you that I use the phrases panic and terrorism. I do see that, [insight]

    … but do not know how else I can talk about these things, [utter lie – how many words and styles have you been taught and teach Paul?]

    or that it would be useful to use different words.” [PF’s reality]

    Relatedly, I don’t think its that far-fetched to call the public information campaigns of many governments a form of terrorism towards their own populations, as in deliberately inducing a state of terror among the population.

     [Imagine PF meeting a real terrorist – oh, you mean Craig Kelly!]

    “I recall being denounced as a …”
    [NG’s response follows]
    https://clubtroppo.com.au/2020/10/26/the-legal-battles-of-the-covistance-have-there-been-crimes-against-humanity/

    Nicholas Gruen says:
    October 28, 2020 at 9:02 pm
    . ..
    “Unfortunately as a general rule that doesn’t really mean a lot other than that there are always people who behave badly. It seems to me that if you’re trying to argue something, you should be as direct as you like, but careful in the way you put things if your goal is to persuade people to your side, rather than raise the temperature.”
    ****

    Paul & Nic,

    Let’s face it kids, like the Repubs, LNP, Nats, Labor, covid has shown your true colours. When will clubtroppo split into the terrorists & the terrorists?

    And this – must be a joke or exceptionally disingenuous to say Nic is the only one using the word panic’K’: (when can we review your deleted tweets Graham? Who funds your ‘information’ sites?)

    “Graham Young says:
    February 12, 2021 at 6:17 am

    “Hi Nicholas, a word search of this page [deep research] shows that the only person who has used the word “panick” was you! So I think you’re running a strawman argument”…

    Did ya geddit ” pa’Nick’ “. Grazza! A beauty! Score 10. Your’s and Paul’s ad homs are so good we could be forgiven for missing them.

    I’ll be back re bullying and dog whistle death threats, all written by the clubtroppo terrorists – now who are the terrorists again? Or …

    “Top property pundit pushes cash-ban conspiracy theory

    “Then, a little-known economist who had worked on the staff of Liberal Party senator Arthur Sinodinos six years ago, John Adams, and a prominent property bear, Martin North, began drawing attention to the plan through their YouTube show, In the Interests of the People.

    “The new restriction was an almost perfect fit for the banking-industry paranoia of the Citizens Electoral Council, the local offshoot of the American Lyndon LaRouche organisation, a proponent of the infamous theory that a global Jewish-led cabal controls the world’s banking system”…
    https://www.afr.com/policy/economy/cash-ban-brings-out-the-conspiracy-theorists-20190909-p52plk
     
    Sorry this is out of sync and not as you would like. But as Paul says ” do your own research” – it is all here. I keep screen shots now of troppo, as like those who delete their twitter thread [Grazza come on down], these threads are in danger.

  12. Chris Lloyd says:

    Dan Andrews today: ” We have to assume, based on advice, that there’s transmission out there that we don’t know about, and that it’s not moving quickly, it’s moving at light speed.” And yes, “light speed” made the bi-line. The UK strain is also being called “hyper-infectious”. Perhaps that means it moved through hyper-space which is even faster than light speed.

    No signs of panic there from our premier.

    • Got to love Andrews ‘high standards’ ( John Clark would have had a lot of fun with ‘no sticky tape no cardboard’ Andrews.
      From afr :

      Victoria’s Chief Health Officer, Professor Brett Sutton, says the current testing, tracing and isolating is working, despite an expectation of more cases.

      Andrews pointed on Friday to short, snap lockdowns in Perth, Adelaide and Brisbane as “working”. But health experts told The Australian Financial Review just last week there was no evidence that they had.

      Australian National University’s Professor Peter Collignon said they had been “all pain and no gain”.

      Director of the Doherty Institute Professor Sharon Lewin said “the need for lockdowns should become less and less as we build more confidence in our systems”.

      Deakin University’s chair of epidemiology, Catherine Bennett, says her worry was “states would keep locking down, saying that’s what protected them, when contact tracing may have been sufficient”. Her comments seem to have come true.

      Even on Friday, some experts were urging against blanket lockdown. “We are not seeing reports of any cases that have an unidentified source,” health expert Jane Halton said.

      And La Trobe Associate Professor Hassan Vally said: “This is a situation where it’s more similar to the situation that occurred in December where we were able to bring transmission under control.”

      Many parts of the state now in lockdown have never had a case.

      Victorians are prepared to make sacrifices if and where it is necessary. But they want to be confident their government is making the best public health decisions based on the latest evidence and the state’s systems are agile enough to respond to this evolving virus.

  13. I am and will always be Not Trampis says:

    Chris,

    Evidence from the UK is that the new variant is a lot more infectious that the original and is more deadly in terms of death.
    If there was not urgency from the Premier when would there be?

  14. I am and will always be Not Trampis says:

    I can only assume you did not listen to the CHO of Victoria.

    If you did your comment is ignorant

    • Chris Lloyd says:

      The post is about hysteria and my comment highlights ridiculous language from the Premier. Feel free to be on topic at any time.

      As for the suggestion that we should all genuflect to the CHO otherwise we are ignorant, there are other expert opinions out there and the data is not yet in on whether the short lockdowns are sensible compared to less costly measures.

  15. One of several letters to the editor Age :
    Welcome, come in, no checks are needed
    I have just returned from Newcastle in New South Wales. Upon our arrival at Newcastle airport, we were met by a number of personnel directing us into an area for screening. The staff were most efficient, we had to sanitise our hands, our temperatures were checked and we were asked the usual questions about our health. We handed over our permit to enter NSW. All good and off we went.
    Upon our arrival back in Melbourne, we did not need to sanitise our hands or have a medical check, nor were we asked to show our permit to enter Victoria. Does our state need to follow NSW’s excellent standard?
    Helen Clapham, Wonga Park

    In NSW the government systems do the heavy lifting they are paid to do, in Victoria the unpaid general public, do the heavy lifting and the officials stand back and wave.

    • Chris Lloyd says:

      I heard an identical story on ABC talk back yesterday morning. If generally true, it seems outrageous as a policy. But keep in mind that the current risk is Vic to NSW infections, not so much the reverse.

      It is pretty amazing the hero worship that Dan Andrews gets from most people. In times of stress, there is a reluctance to view leaders as incompetent because it makes us feel vulnerable. I am not saying his has done the worst job in the world, but his performance is certainly not without blemish. Acolytes will point to the low infection rates here. Everybody wants to compare Victoria with the US rather than with say Hobart. There will potentially be some terrific academic papers over the next few years illustrating all the human biases at play.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.