Surprisingly, politicians feel that Covid mandates are a political liability, but since experts are increasingly deluding themselves about their influence, we'll soon reach the end of the runway
Don't expect the (EUropean) courts to move anytime soon; if there is the opportunity of successful legal suits, it'll come from certain U.S. jurisdictions.
Great post as always. I live in the UK but have (unvaccinated) daughters au pairing and studying in Germany and Austria and the tales they tell are hilarious and tragic at the same time.
I'm sorry that your daughters have to endure these circumstances, and I cannot fathom the lengths to which I'd go (our girls are much younger), but since they remained 'unvaccinated' so far, there's a good chance they'll stay that way.
Their anecdotes must be, as you say, about as tragicomic as the stories I'm hearing. Two days ago, I learned that my retired mother tested positive; of course, she's a triple-dose recipient, but so far there's not much more than a bit brain fog/headache and some pain in the ears. It looks as if she's gonna be just a bit less lucky than my father (who continues to test 'negative').
Both of my daughters had Covid at university and have been immune since. It was quite unpleasant for one of them in particular, and 14 months on her sense of smell is still not 100%. My wife and I had it in January - mild fever and very drained for a couple of days, then fine.
The daughter who was au pairing (she's actually back at uni here now) was working for a fanatical mother who tried to persuade a doctor friend to inject the children before it was even legal. The doctor refused and the mother was furious. She tried to bully my daughter into being vaccinated but luckily she is made of stern stuff.
The whole thing is insane and I'm afraid that the only way it makes sense is via very sinister interpretations.
I wonder why there's so much difference between our cultural germanic cousins to the south and us northern people.
Here, it's like Covid never was. Testing is virtually suspended - you actually have to nag your doctor even for a PCR-test (since it's become obvious how useless they are, even if no one wants to state it in any official capacity) or an anti-body test. (Anti-body tests now cost between 400:- to 700:-, or 40 to 70 euro, not covered by health insurance or social security.)
Only the truly virtous mask, and do so passive-aggressively often purposefully getting in the way or similar. Ironically, if one was to demand that neuroitics and borderline should be made to wear a badge everybody would (rightfully, I might add) object... "Please keep your distance, I don't want to risk Covid!" Well, alright but then what are you doing standing here next to the finishline for Vasaloppet, knowing it'll be crowded with thousands of spectators, functionaires and skiers?
Speaking of which, since I've mentioned Vasaloppet some time ago - no reports of athletes keeling over. Andreas Nygaard, bringing it to ten unbroken years of norwegian victories, ran the race in 3 32 18. That's 90 kilometers cross-country skiing in uneven terrain, -10C, in three an a half hours. Astrid Öyre Slind, also Norway, won the ladies' race in 3 50 06. And this year they struggled all the way to the finish, no break-aways.
Also, reports of atheletes dropping dead being spread around in alternative media seems to have disappeared about two weeks ago. Wonder why?
Plausible and probable, and seeing as Norway was first to open the box regarding vaccine problems with the Astra vaccine, maybe that influenced what batches were sent where, if there was any conscious thought behind it.
9 out of 10 I know have had at least 2 shots, that includes relatives. What is anecdotally significant is that all those I know who declined, share a few things:
We have all actual personal experience of governement overreach, abuse or corruption - in my case through working in the swedish educational system.
We are all of that personality that we don't passively consume information, instead we go looking and actually compare different sources.
We are all very stubborn, and dedicated when decided on a task.
We have all a personal set of ethics and morals, consciously put together and based on actual experience and empiricism, rather than bought "wholesale" from a school of thought or picked up by socio-cultural osmosis so to speak.
I wonder if there is a set of personality traits which could be identified, grouped and utilised as a basis for teaching [to think], rather than what to think?
It might well be that the Nordics didn't get any of the (potentially 'hot') batches, but I personally doubt this: there'd be so many people and institutions involved that, statistically speaking, there's no way that this would remain a secret. This doesn't mean it's not what happened, but I'd say it's rather implausible.
Be that as it may, I know a couple of people who received the AZ product back a year ago--and they were hit quite hard. As to the mRNA recipients, all vaccinees in my circles here in Norway didn't really have much, if anything, in terms of AEs (one of my colleagues, a quite active mid-40s male, even complained about it: he got Moderna and was 'almost sorry not to experience any AEs'…I'm not going to comment on this).
As to the personality traits, I'm unsure: scepticism helps, so does knowledge of history (which automatically reduces trust in gov't), but I don't think that this combination of situational awareness, contextualisation, and knowledge of the past is more than 1-2 out of 10 people. I'd add that I don't think that more 'credentials' (doesn't matter how many degrees people 'gain' over time) is a fire-proof way of not falling for propaganda. I mean, Chomsky pointed that out decades ago, rather it's the other way 'round, so, it's probably quite tricky to figure out who is 'awake' (albeit it's very easy to identify those who are hard-core believers, such as those who still wear masks outside…)
Haven't read Chomsky since uni. He, like Foucault, Derrida, Laclau, and many others (Zygmunt Bauman for instance) can't get to the point without circling it for 200 pages. It's like their line of thinking works as a process of intellectual erosion. While others, like the brilliant sociologist Johan Asplund needs maybe - at most - 50 pages.
I do think it is an inborn trait at the basic level, sort of the canvas for the societal oils which makes the picture. As you say, titles and credentials means much less than experience and the ability to believe without proof: perhaps if one separates creativity from imagination it provides a helpful angle?
I'm very creative, but I have little to no imagination. So if my wife asks me "What furniture should we get for the sitting room?" best I can come up with is "Affordable, and functional". But if she offers me a set of options, such as "Should we buy this, or this or that, or should we get old furniture from the charity market and then toy can renovate it?" I can go to town on various scenarios. Creativity, but no imagination.
So maybe some of us have a lot of both, some of us have one but lacks the other and some have vry little of either. If this is then put across such traits as scepticism (and maybe more important optimism/pessimism/realism) we might have a nice spread of reactions.
Or maybe it's the degree of cynicism that's key? After all, cynicism lacks an upper limit.
Not familiar with "the big five" more than it is to my knowledge only backed by marketing, not science, and as such is very useful for giving people the traits they need for a job or likes to be.
I do however have passing knowledge and experience with the kind of investigations that are done regarding HFA, narcissistic disorders, Dark Triad testing and similar, in clinical settings (no, not as patient, I might add).
What I have noted, related to the topic, is that HFAs cannot change voluntary, nor be coerced to change. This holds true both for personality traits as well as behavioural patterns. So asking such a person to "stop being such a besserwisser" is frutiless, they neither can nor wants to.
But logically and calmly explaining to them how their attitude and pattern of behaviour negatively affects their social interactions, recognition, reputation and ability to get their way works. Their underlying personality won't shift, it is very much locked in from puberty onwards (probably due to the brain not operating normally, which can be confirmed by scan*, as compared to non-HFAs) but their ability to utilise their personality and autistic traits to their advantage will grow due to them now having been given tools for greater creativity with said traits.
As in: they still operate on a binary logic of either/or, but more switching stations have been added thus expontentially increasing options, which for outside observers will look like a more nuanced personality. Of course, this is purely anecdotal observation (even if backed by lots of actual science as to the processes) from my 25+ yeas experience of teaching young adults and adults with HFA (used to be called Asperger syndrome).
And using persons with abnormal behavioural patterns as a comparison for normal is quite useful.
As to experience of abuse/overreach I do think that might be the one key which unlocks the behavioural pattern, if introduced early in life. A person betrayed as a child, or who grows up under anoppressive unjust regime, will naturally associate authority and power with injustice, and will have to be cynical (the philosophical perspective, not the attitude) as a survival trait.
To sum up: some people, upon seeing injustice, fraud, corruption and lies from legal authority (such as elected officials) react with "That's not the way it should be" and moral outrage at the person in question.
The other, rarer, kind of people which are of interest to us here, instead react thus: "Yep, that's to be expected from a system making it possible to get away with it scot free".
As in ,the first gets angry at the individual, and the other sees the system. The first kind cannot design a good societal system because they deal with reality in terms of "ought to be" (idealistic, ideal, principles, abstractions, -isms, and religious faith); they can however evolve such a system over time, if individuals within are held to the ideals espoused by the system.
The other, rarer, kind can't design a good system either, but they can rid it of glitches, loopholes, and the options for rewarding bad behaviour since they deal with matters of fact first - how things actualy are - and ideals second.
Of course, these are almost Platonic ideals, in reality we all tend to move along a sliding scale not only through life but to varying degrees depending on social context and homosocial peer pressure - normality in social settings is after all strictly quantitative, not qualitative.
Summing up, the first kind as sketched out above will take the shot because "authority oughtn't lie or be disingenuous, it's not supposed to be that way", and the second will either wait and see, being logical - letting complete strangers take the risk is logical - or abstain temprorary or permanently due to having a suspicious nature, the latter which can quite easily move into paranoid territory.
But how to measure this in any objectively consistent way regards to various factors, well... even if possible, what's the gain?
I'm familiar with these claims and the eveidence purportedly in support of them; I'd say that the claims look fairly well-supported by the evidence.
As an aside, it's clear that the mRNA injections wouldn't be the first such efforts--as any investigation into the US-led intelligence services and their shenanigans with respect to all things related to the IT revolution and the internet also show (cue Edward Snowden and many others).
I won't rule this out, but I still remain wary of the whodunnit issue.
I know, Mary Ann, but my mother is among the more resistant people in this regard. Fortunately, she appeared fine when we spoke less than two hours ago, so I think she's quite lucky, too.
https://rumble.com/vx552v-pfizer-buried-their-data-in-the-authorization-processfraud-becoming-clearco.html
pfizer could lose its legal shield and be liable for wrongful deaths and vaccine side effects. surely got to be some good lawyers out there.
Now, that would be a good thing.
Don't expect the (EUropean) courts to move anytime soon; if there is the opportunity of successful legal suits, it'll come from certain U.S. jurisdictions.
Great post as always. I live in the UK but have (unvaccinated) daughters au pairing and studying in Germany and Austria and the tales they tell are hilarious and tragic at the same time.
Hi Dan,
thanks for your kind words.
I'm sorry that your daughters have to endure these circumstances, and I cannot fathom the lengths to which I'd go (our girls are much younger), but since they remained 'unvaccinated' so far, there's a good chance they'll stay that way.
Their anecdotes must be, as you say, about as tragicomic as the stories I'm hearing. Two days ago, I learned that my retired mother tested positive; of course, she's a triple-dose recipient, but so far there's not much more than a bit brain fog/headache and some pain in the ears. It looks as if she's gonna be just a bit less lucky than my father (who continues to test 'negative').
Both of my daughters had Covid at university and have been immune since. It was quite unpleasant for one of them in particular, and 14 months on her sense of smell is still not 100%. My wife and I had it in January - mild fever and very drained for a couple of days, then fine.
The daughter who was au pairing (she's actually back at uni here now) was working for a fanatical mother who tried to persuade a doctor friend to inject the children before it was even legal. The doctor refused and the mother was furious. She tried to bully my daughter into being vaccinated but luckily she is made of stern stuff.
The whole thing is insane and I'm afraid that the only way it makes sense is via very sinister interpretations.
I wonder why there's so much difference between our cultural germanic cousins to the south and us northern people.
Here, it's like Covid never was. Testing is virtually suspended - you actually have to nag your doctor even for a PCR-test (since it's become obvious how useless they are, even if no one wants to state it in any official capacity) or an anti-body test. (Anti-body tests now cost between 400:- to 700:-, or 40 to 70 euro, not covered by health insurance or social security.)
Only the truly virtous mask, and do so passive-aggressively often purposefully getting in the way or similar. Ironically, if one was to demand that neuroitics and borderline should be made to wear a badge everybody would (rightfully, I might add) object... "Please keep your distance, I don't want to risk Covid!" Well, alright but then what are you doing standing here next to the finishline for Vasaloppet, knowing it'll be crowded with thousands of spectators, functionaires and skiers?
Speaking of which, since I've mentioned Vasaloppet some time ago - no reports of athletes keeling over. Andreas Nygaard, bringing it to ten unbroken years of norwegian victories, ran the race in 3 32 18. That's 90 kilometers cross-country skiing in uneven terrain, -10C, in three an a half hours. Astrid Öyre Slind, also Norway, won the ladies' race in 3 50 06. And this year they struggled all the way to the finish, no break-aways.
Also, reports of atheletes dropping dead being spread around in alternative media seems to have disappeared about two weeks ago. Wonder why?
Plausible and probable, and seeing as Norway was first to open the box regarding vaccine problems with the Astra vaccine, maybe that influenced what batches were sent where, if there was any conscious thought behind it.
9 out of 10 I know have had at least 2 shots, that includes relatives. What is anecdotally significant is that all those I know who declined, share a few things:
We have all actual personal experience of governement overreach, abuse or corruption - in my case through working in the swedish educational system.
We are all of that personality that we don't passively consume information, instead we go looking and actually compare different sources.
We are all very stubborn, and dedicated when decided on a task.
We have all a personal set of ethics and morals, consciously put together and based on actual experience and empiricism, rather than bought "wholesale" from a school of thought or picked up by socio-cultural osmosis so to speak.
I wonder if there is a set of personality traits which could be identified, grouped and utilised as a basis for teaching [to think], rather than what to think?
It might well be that the Nordics didn't get any of the (potentially 'hot') batches, but I personally doubt this: there'd be so many people and institutions involved that, statistically speaking, there's no way that this would remain a secret. This doesn't mean it's not what happened, but I'd say it's rather implausible.
Be that as it may, I know a couple of people who received the AZ product back a year ago--and they were hit quite hard. As to the mRNA recipients, all vaccinees in my circles here in Norway didn't really have much, if anything, in terms of AEs (one of my colleagues, a quite active mid-40s male, even complained about it: he got Moderna and was 'almost sorry not to experience any AEs'…I'm not going to comment on this).
As to the personality traits, I'm unsure: scepticism helps, so does knowledge of history (which automatically reduces trust in gov't), but I don't think that this combination of situational awareness, contextualisation, and knowledge of the past is more than 1-2 out of 10 people. I'd add that I don't think that more 'credentials' (doesn't matter how many degrees people 'gain' over time) is a fire-proof way of not falling for propaganda. I mean, Chomsky pointed that out decades ago, rather it's the other way 'round, so, it's probably quite tricky to figure out who is 'awake' (albeit it's very easy to identify those who are hard-core believers, such as those who still wear masks outside…)
Haven't read Chomsky since uni. He, like Foucault, Derrida, Laclau, and many others (Zygmunt Bauman for instance) can't get to the point without circling it for 200 pages. It's like their line of thinking works as a process of intellectual erosion. While others, like the brilliant sociologist Johan Asplund needs maybe - at most - 50 pages.
I do think it is an inborn trait at the basic level, sort of the canvas for the societal oils which makes the picture. As you say, titles and credentials means much less than experience and the ability to believe without proof: perhaps if one separates creativity from imagination it provides a helpful angle?
I'm very creative, but I have little to no imagination. So if my wife asks me "What furniture should we get for the sitting room?" best I can come up with is "Affordable, and functional". But if she offers me a set of options, such as "Should we buy this, or this or that, or should we get old furniture from the charity market and then toy can renovate it?" I can go to town on various scenarios. Creativity, but no imagination.
So maybe some of us have a lot of both, some of us have one but lacks the other and some have vry little of either. If this is then put across such traits as scepticism (and maybe more important optimism/pessimism/realism) we might have a nice spread of reactions.
Or maybe it's the degree of cynicism that's key? After all, cynicism lacks an upper limit.
Not familiar with "the big five" more than it is to my knowledge only backed by marketing, not science, and as such is very useful for giving people the traits they need for a job or likes to be.
I do however have passing knowledge and experience with the kind of investigations that are done regarding HFA, narcissistic disorders, Dark Triad testing and similar, in clinical settings (no, not as patient, I might add).
What I have noted, related to the topic, is that HFAs cannot change voluntary, nor be coerced to change. This holds true both for personality traits as well as behavioural patterns. So asking such a person to "stop being such a besserwisser" is frutiless, they neither can nor wants to.
But logically and calmly explaining to them how their attitude and pattern of behaviour negatively affects their social interactions, recognition, reputation and ability to get their way works. Their underlying personality won't shift, it is very much locked in from puberty onwards (probably due to the brain not operating normally, which can be confirmed by scan*, as compared to non-HFAs) but their ability to utilise their personality and autistic traits to their advantage will grow due to them now having been given tools for greater creativity with said traits.
As in: they still operate on a binary logic of either/or, but more switching stations have been added thus expontentially increasing options, which for outside observers will look like a more nuanced personality. Of course, this is purely anecdotal observation (even if backed by lots of actual science as to the processes) from my 25+ yeas experience of teaching young adults and adults with HFA (used to be called Asperger syndrome).
And using persons with abnormal behavioural patterns as a comparison for normal is quite useful.
As to experience of abuse/overreach I do think that might be the one key which unlocks the behavioural pattern, if introduced early in life. A person betrayed as a child, or who grows up under anoppressive unjust regime, will naturally associate authority and power with injustice, and will have to be cynical (the philosophical perspective, not the attitude) as a survival trait.
To sum up: some people, upon seeing injustice, fraud, corruption and lies from legal authority (such as elected officials) react with "That's not the way it should be" and moral outrage at the person in question.
The other, rarer, kind of people which are of interest to us here, instead react thus: "Yep, that's to be expected from a system making it possible to get away with it scot free".
As in ,the first gets angry at the individual, and the other sees the system. The first kind cannot design a good societal system because they deal with reality in terms of "ought to be" (idealistic, ideal, principles, abstractions, -isms, and religious faith); they can however evolve such a system over time, if individuals within are held to the ideals espoused by the system.
The other, rarer, kind can't design a good system either, but they can rid it of glitches, loopholes, and the options for rewarding bad behaviour since they deal with matters of fact first - how things actualy are - and ideals second.
Of course, these are almost Platonic ideals, in reality we all tend to move along a sliding scale not only through life but to varying degrees depending on social context and homosocial peer pressure - normality in social settings is after all strictly quantitative, not qualitative.
Summing up, the first kind as sketched out above will take the shot because "authority oughtn't lie or be disingenuous, it's not supposed to be that way", and the second will either wait and see, being logical - letting complete strangers take the risk is logical - or abstain temprorary or permanently due to having a suspicious nature, the latter which can quite easily move into paranoid territory.
But how to measure this in any objectively consistent way regards to various factors, well... even if possible, what's the gain?
I'm familiar with these claims and the eveidence purportedly in support of them; I'd say that the claims look fairly well-supported by the evidence.
As an aside, it's clear that the mRNA injections wouldn't be the first such efforts--as any investigation into the US-led intelligence services and their shenanigans with respect to all things related to the IT revolution and the internet also show (cue Edward Snowden and many others).
I won't rule this out, but I still remain wary of the whodunnit issue.
If you want nightmares related to disease, medical experiments on humans and US "intelligence", look up the Tuskegee project.
Flccc and Dr Tess Lawrie have lots of suggestions on how to treat long covid.
I know, Mary Ann, but my mother is among the more resistant people in this regard. Fortunately, she appeared fine when we spoke less than two hours ago, so I think she's quite lucky, too.
Thank you, good advice💖