Never ascribe malice (or governance by fear) when incompetence will suffice. --
paraphrased from some pithy archetype somewhere sometime.
I was totally with you until the last 2 paragraphs, though I haven't checked your facts.
In my posts about "credibility", I tried to lay out the idea that someone like
Fauci is NOT properly labeled [in]credible because of any single act/statement or even
the truth status of one or several acts/statements. Credibility comes from consistent
*care*, including revisiting things later and making attempts to abut or correct previous
acts/statements.
Fauci shows such care. Therefore, Fauci is credible, even if he's made mistakes.
When you talk about ruling through fear, the real culprit is, as EricS pointed
out, the political pressure on people like Fauci to render opinions *aligned*
with some party line. To accuse Fauci of such in light of the recent news from
Woodward's book and the pressure on CDC rank and file is disinformation. You're
focus on the victim makes your post incredible disinformation, even if (or
especially if) the first part of your post is factual. It's a typical abuse of
facts to foster a false narrative.
But it's also important to realize we're all, always, susceptible to such faulty
reasoning. Attempts to be diligent and correct in such is the source of credibility. I
was once accused of being a spammer because I posted too much, even though my accuser
admitted the *content* of my posts were on topic and not spam, the very volume was
offensive to him. This is yet another example of normal people's small appetite for
verbosity. Pithiness, pseudo-profound bullshit, and false narratives are all aspects of
the same beast. It's impossible to harden ourselves to such risk without holing up in our
echo-chamber dungeons, surrounded by others who've "jumped over the bar" to be
included in our in-group.
On 9/12/20 7:44 AM, Prof David West wrote:
Sloppy reporting, and sloppy pronouncements — yes, you Dr. Fauci — have
contaminated the discussion about COVID and appropriate responses. Specifically
with regard equating or improperly substituting IFR with CFR.
IFR = infection fatality rate
CFR = case fatality rate
A "case"requires symptoms.
Seasonal flu has an IFR of 0.1% and a CFR of 2-3%
COVID has an IFR of 1.0% [initially WHO and CDC stated a higher percent] and a
CFR of 2-3%
For whatever reason, Dr Fauci and other official statements have compared COVID's CFR to
the flu's IFR to assert the "deadliness" of the disease and to justify
draconian measures.
Naysayers, compare CFR to CFR to assert that COVID is no more deadly than the flu. They
are correct. With the "TRUTH" on their side, they rail against the lock down.
There is a justification for social distancing and masks in the difference between IFR
and IFR coupled with the higher infection rate of COVID and the flu( a lot of flu
immunity exists), plus the "infectious phase" of 12 days (COVID) instead of 2
(flu).
In my opinion the "powers that be" have such a low opinion of the average
intelligence of the populace that they misrepresent the data in order to scare the crap
out of people in order to get them to comply with directives instead of making the
reasonable and correct, but more nuanced and complicated, factual argument for their
policies.
Governance by fear seems to be standard operating procedure these days. 9-11 yielded the
TSA abomination (expensive, ineffective and annoying). Can't wait to see what COVID
inflicts — especially with the talk of "forced vaccinations" I have heard
bandied about.
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
