CDN/US Covid-related political discussion

[brihard]

As you are frequently pointing out in other cases- are you familiar with the facts in each case here and therefore why a (independent) prosecutor would or would not proceed?

In other words- how can you be certain of a double exists here?

You’re right that I don’t have a full fact set, so I can only react to what is shown. In this case we all see a Major who went online and openly called for troops to essentially engage in mutiny. The bare facts of the publicly visible actions are pretty bad. Those of us watching from the outside see him not facing a court martial while James Topp (WO) and Laszlo Kenderesi (OCdt) very appropriately do. No explanation has been forthcoming save for a very thin claim by military prosecutors that there’s insufficient public interest. As part of the interested public, I personally am baffled by that. Justice must be both done and be seen to be done.

Maybe there isn’t a double standard applied in this case, and I’m open to being convinced. As it stands, I do see one; and you can bet your ass a lot of troops do, too.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

You’re right that I don’t have a full fact set, so I can only react to what is shown. In this case we all see a Major who went online and openly called for troops to essentially engage in mutiny. The bare facts of the publicly visible actions are pretty bad. Those of us watching from the outside see him not facing a court martial while James Topp (WO) and Laszlo Kenderesi (OCdt) very appropriately do. No explanation has been forthcoming save for a very thin claim by military prosecutors that there’s insufficient public interest. As part of the interested public, I personally am baffled by that. Justice must be both done and be seen to be done.

Maybe there isn’t a double standard applied in this case, and I’m open to being convinced. As it stands, I do see one; and you can bet your ass a lot of troops do, too.

I am not defending the Major. I am just holding you to the same standard that you have held others on this very same board.

Don’t call something a double standard unless you know the fact set in both cases.

 

[brihard]

I am not defending the Major. I am just holding you to the same standard that you have held others on this very same board.

Don’t call something a double standard unless you know the fact set in both cases.

I’m comfortable standing by my opinion, as you’re entitled to yours. If you have further insight, I’m receptive to that. “Nothing to see here” doesn’t sell me.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Maybe the prosecutors just decided he was extremely careless.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

I’m comfortable standing by my opinion, as you’re entitled to yours. If you have further insight, I’m receptive to that. “Nothing to see here” doesn’t sell me.

I don’t have further insight. And neither do you (apparently). That was entirely my point.

 

[brihard]

I don’t have further insight. And neither do you (apparently). That was entirely my point.

Yes, I’m aware. Speaking only for myself, I struggle to square a public incitement for soldiers and police to mutiny with there being insufficient public interest to prosecute. Doesn’t compute. Since I’m no longer in CAF and am on the outside, I’m just another member of the public seeing something that looks pretty messed up at face value and who takes issue with it. I don’t need to defend that.

I’m not saying he should be convicted of any particular offense. I just can’t wrap my head around how he’s dodging prosecution for what we could all see him do.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Yes, I’m aware. Speaking only for myself, I struggle to square a public incitement for soldiers and police to mutiny with there being insufficient public interest to prosecute. Doesn’t compute. Since I’m no longer in CAF and am on the outside, I’m just another member of the public seeing something that looks pretty messed up at face value and who takes issue with it. I don’t need to defend that.

I’m not saying he should be convicted of any particular offense. I just can’t wrap my head around how he’s dodging prosecution for what we could all see him do.

Neither can I, but I am not a military Prosecutor.

 

[brihard]

Nor I. Totally fine to have different opinions.

 

[KevinB]

As you are frequently pointing out in other cases- are you familiar with the facts in each case here and therefore why a (independent) prosecutor would or would not proceed?

In other words- how can you be certain of a double exists here?

Looking at the video, there doesn’t seem to be any differences in the cases. All three conducted actions that are quite similar but only 2 of the three where prosecuted.

 

[QV]

Francis Collins’s Covid Confession | National Review

Scientists during the pandemic had to act fast on little information, but they shouldn’t have participated in moralistic bullying and propaganda.

www.nationalreview.com

The public-health officials are getting around to admitting the fallibility of public-health officials.

The former head of the National Institutes of Health during the pandemic and current science adviser to President Biden, Francis Collins, has noted that he and his colleagues demonstrated an “unfortunate” narrow-mindedness.

This is a welcome, if belated, confession.

Not too long ago, anyone who said that epidemiologists might be overly focused on disease prevention to the exclusion of other concerns — you know, like jobs, mental health, and schooling — were dismissed as reckless nihilists who didn’t care if their fellow citizens died en masse.

Now, Francis Collins has weighed in to tell us that many of the people considered closed-minded and anti-science during Covid were advancing an appropriately balanced view of the trade-offs inherent in the pandemic response.
“If you’re a public-health person and you’re trying to make a decision, you have this very narrow view of what the right decision is,” Collins said at an event earlier this year that garnered attention online the last couple of days.

This is not a new insight, or a surprising one. It’s a little like saying Bolsheviks will be focused on nationalizing the means of production over everything else, or a golf pro will be monomaniacal about the proper mechanics of a swing.

The problem comes, of course, when public health, or “public health,” becomes the only guide to public policy. Then, you are giving a group of obsessives, who have an important role to play within proper limits, too much power in a way that is bound to distort your society.

Francis Collins, again: “So you attach infinite value to stopping the disease and saving a life. You attach zero value to whether this actually totally disrupts people’s lives, ruins the economy, and has many kids kept out of school in a way that they never quite recover from.”

True and well said, but that’s an awful lot of very important things to attach “zero value” to.

He also admitted to having an urban bias, driven by working out of Washington, D.C., and thinking almost exclusively about New York City and other major cities.

If Francis Collins and his cohort got it wrong, the likes of Florida governor Ron DeSantis and Georgia governor Brian Kemp — and the renegade scientists and doctors who supported their more modulated approach to the pandemic — got it right.

It’s always worth remembering that the pandemic was a once-in-a-hundred-years event and, initially, we had very little information and very few means to prevent and treat the disease. It is inevitable that decision-makers are going to make mistakes in such a crisis and adjust as they go.

That said, the scientists who were in positions of authority could have shown more modesty. They could have welcomed debate. They could have distanced themselves from — or, better yet, denounced — the campaign of moral bullying carried out in their name.

Many people wanted to outsource their thinking to the experts and then, with a great sense of righteousness, rely on arguments from authority to demonize their opponents and shut down every policy dispute.

Francis Collins, one of the most eminent scientists in the country and a subtle thinker who dissents from the orthodoxy that science and faith are incompatible, would have been an ideal voice to counter the propaganda campaigns that aimed to suppress unwelcome views and even unwelcome facts. Instead, he stuck with his tribe.

It’s progress, though, to realize that scientists, too, are susceptible to groupthink, recency bias, and parochialism; that the experts may know an incredible amount about a very narrow area while knowing little to nothing about broader matters of greater consequence; that points of view considered dangerous lunacy may, over time, prove out, so they shouldn’t be censored or otherwise quashed.

It’s not just that the scientists acted like blinkered scientists during the pandemic; they tolerated, or participated in, agitprop that was inimical to the scientific spirit and to good public policy.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Yes, I’m aware. Speaking only for myself, I struggle to square a public incitement for soldiers and police to mutiny with there being insufficient public interest to prosecute. Doesn’t compute. Since I’m no longer in CAF and am on the outside, I’m just another member of the public seeing something that looks pretty messed up at face value and who takes issue with it. I don’t need to defend that.

I’m not saying he should be convicted of any particular offense. I just can’t wrap my head around how he’s dodging prosecution for what we could all see him do.

Maybe he's a liberal donor?

 

[lenaitch]

Francis Collins’s Covid Confession | National Review

Scientists during the pandemic had to act fast on little information, but they shouldn’t have participated in moralistic bullying and propaganda.

www.nationalreview.com

The public-health officials are getting around to admitting the fallibility of public-health officials.

The former head of the National Institutes of Health during the pandemic and current science adviser to President Biden, Francis Collins, has noted that he and his colleagues demonstrated an “unfortunate” narrow-mindedness.

This is a welcome, if belated, confession.

Not too long ago, anyone who said that epidemiologists might be overly focused on disease prevention to the exclusion of other concerns — you know, like jobs, mental health, and schooling — were dismissed as reckless nihilists who didn’t care if their fellow citizens died en masse.

Now, Francis Collins has weighed in to tell us that many of the people considered closed-minded and anti-science during Covid were advancing an appropriately balanced view of the trade-offs inherent in the pandemic response.
“If you’re a public-health person and you’re trying to make a decision, you have this very narrow view of what the right decision is,” Collins said at an event earlier this year that garnered attention online the last couple of days.

This is not a new insight, or a surprising one. It’s a little like saying Bolsheviks will be focused on nationalizing the means of production over everything else, or a golf pro will be monomaniacal about the proper mechanics of a swing.

The problem comes, of course, when public health, or “public health,” becomes the only guide to public policy. Then, you are giving a group of obsessives, who have an important role to play within proper limits, too much power in a way that is bound to distort your society.

Francis Collins, again: “So you attach infinite value to stopping the disease and saving a life. You attach zero value to whether this actually totally disrupts people’s lives, ruins the economy, and has many kids kept out of school in a way that they never quite recover from.”

True and well said, but that’s an awful lot of very important things to attach “zero value” to.

He also admitted to having an urban bias, driven by working out of Washington, D.C., and thinking almost exclusively about New York City and other major cities.

If Francis Collins and his cohort got it wrong, the likes of Florida governor Ron DeSantis and Georgia governor Brian Kemp — and the renegade scientists and doctors who supported their more modulated approach to the pandemic — got it right.

It’s always worth remembering that the pandemic was a once-in-a-hundred-years event and, initially, we had very little information and very few means to prevent and treat the disease. It is inevitable that decision-makers are going to make mistakes in such a crisis and adjust as they go.

That said, the scientists who were in positions of authority could have shown more modesty. They could have welcomed debate. They could have distanced themselves from — or, better yet, denounced — the campaign of moral bullying carried out in their name.

Many people wanted to outsource their thinking to the experts and then, with a great sense of righteousness, rely on arguments from authority to demonize their opponents and shut down every policy dispute.

Francis Collins, one of the most eminent scientists in the country and a subtle thinker who dissents from the orthodoxy that science and faith are incompatible, would have been an ideal voice to counter the propaganda campaigns that aimed to suppress unwelcome views and even unwelcome facts. Instead, he stuck with his tribe.

It’s progress, though, to realize that scientists, too, are susceptible to groupthink, recency bias, and parochialism; that the experts may know an incredible amount about a very narrow area while knowing little to nothing about broader matters of greater consequence; that points of view considered dangerous lunacy may, over time, prove out, so they shouldn’t be censored or otherwise quashed.

It’s not just that the scientists acted like blinkered scientists during the pandemic; they tolerated, or participated in, agitprop that was inimical to the scientific spirit and to good public policy.

What's a policy-maker to do. Expertise, particularly in the STEM fields, is, by its very nature, narrow and focused, and often too complex for outsiders . A relative who has a PhD describes it as 'knowing more and more about less and less'. True that many experts are confident (some would say arrogant) in their views, but no leader was compelled to listen to them in isolation. When the pandemic was unfolding, I'm not sure decision makers felt they had the time to consult as widely as they might normally. Empanel a Royal Commission perhaps?

No doubt if they had the medical capacity to deal with the Black Plague or Spanish Flu, nations leaders who ignored the advice would have been judged harshly.

I don't remember enough about Florida's and Georgia's response, but one person's "more modulated" response might be another's 'outright denialism'.

 

[Brad Sallows]

but no leader was compelled to listen to them in isolation. When the pandemic was unfolding, I'm not sure decision makers felt they had the time to consult as widely as they might normally. Empanel a Royal Commission perhaps?

But they were. The push-back against skeptics was vociferous and unforgiving. Now the people who admit they were wrong at worst and not particularly correct at best, want understanding for their mistakes and to be forgiven.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

The damage is done and the lessons learned. While the admissions of culpability are good, they are too late for the lives they ruined or the people they harmed. They have made skeptics out of millions (actually a good thing) and destroyed the trust that you can look to your government for help and relief. WHO and the UN showed themselves as the controlling charlatans they truly are. People just need to stop listening to them and stop sending them money. Fauci and Tam need to be hauled up into commissions and tribunals and held accountable.

'Trust the science' has become a sarcastic footnote and anyone using it will be looked at with a jaundiced eye and mistrust.




I'm a Conspiracy Theorist and my pronouns are 'I told you so'

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

The damage is done and the lessons learned. While the admissions of culpability are good, they are too late for the lives they ruined or the people they harmed. They have made skeptics out of millions (actually a good thing) and destroyed the trust that you can look to your government for help and relief. WHO and the UN showed themselves as the controlling charlatans they truly are. People just need to stop listening to them and stop sending them money. Fauci and Tam need to be hauled up into commissions and tribunals and held accountable.

'Trust the science' has become a sarcastic footnote and anyone using it will be looked at with a jaundiced eye and mistrust.


View attachment 82090

I'm a Conspiracy Theorist and my pronouns are 'I told you so'

I guess the majority of folks like me who think that it wasn't handled bad at all don't matter?? I noticed we're both still alive.....

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I guess the majority of folks like me who think that it wasn't handled bad at all don't matter?? I noticed we're both still alive.....

You made a choice, as did I. You put your own parameters of trust in the government and big pharma. They don't match mine. My disgust applies to the liars and confidence actors that forced this on society, not the individual who trusted them. If you think you were treated fairly and honestly, that's none of my business. You do you. Hope that helps clarify your angst over my personal and constitutionally protected opinion. I'm glad your still alive and hope it lasts a long time.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Yet you sure make your opinion of how it all unfolded is our business........

 

[Lumber]

They have made skeptics out of millions (actually a good thing) and destroyed the trust that you can look to your government for help and relief.

On the contrary; the vast majority of people I know professionally and personally felt the government's responses, both federal, provincial, and municipal, were apt. We're mistakes made? Sure, but that gets chaulked up to the novelty and difficulty of the situation, and the wins far out weight the mistakes.

 

[Lumber]

But they were. The push-back against skeptics was vociferous and unforgiving. Now the people who admit they were wrong at worst and not particularly correct at best, want understanding for their mistakes and to be forgiven.

That's not at all what he was saying. And the push back against "skeptics" wasn't vociferous and unforgiving; it was against "deniers" that the push-back was so extreme.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

On the contrary; the vast majority of people I know professionally and personally felt the government's responses, both federal, provincial, and municipal, were apt. We're mistakes made? Sure, but that gets chaulked up to the novelty and difficulty of the situation, and the wins far out weight the mistakes.

I liken it to looking back on your life. I'm sure we all have things we'd have done different armed with what we know today, but that doesn't mean they were mistakes, just things we'd do different with the extra info time has given us.