Tags

, , ,

There is a picture floating around the internet about how it’s possible to adhere to “all” sides of the ‘rona argument. I’ve seen it as a three-way Venn diagram. The details aren’t that important and may even vary from instance to instance. The essence, however, is that you can take the pandemic seriously while at the same time being opposed to mandates such as lock-downs, forced vaccinations, and mask orders. I suppose it is intended to show ostensible “friends” that, really, we are all on the same side despite honest differences of opinion.

I’m beginning to think there is no such thing as “an honest difference of opinion” anymore.

It feels like a month ago already, but it was more like a week or maybe two. The news about the completion of an investigation into and a report on the origins of the pandemic by the “intelligence communities”. The real report is not available to the public, although there is an unclassified summary. Report and commentary comes to me through the Wall St. Journal, summarizing the unclassified version of the report and speculating about what might be in the classified version. To make a long story short – the spooks have no idea where the ‘rona came from.

As I was digesting this information, I happened to stumble across a three part article (I link to part 3, which back-links to 1&2) from a blog I occasionally read. The author would probably fit that three-way Venn diagram as well as anybody – respectful of the dangers of COVID-19 while skeptical of both the overreaction and propagandistic manipulation of the population by authorities. He was fully vaccinated and also followed mask mandates, which were strict and universal where he was staying. He nevertheless came down with the disease (possibly one of the newest variants) and spent a week in intensive care and, but for that (I’ll add – conventional) treatment, may well not have survived.

This is but one story and, as he states in his report of his situation, it cannot be used to generalize or editorialize about the course of the pandemic. It is, however, a clear counterpoint to anyone who says that COVID does not exist or even those that insist that it is a minor variation of the seasonal flu. It also would seem to contradict much of the official narrative about the effectiveness of both vaccinations and masks. For what it’s worth, the author states that he intends to get a booster shot when appropriate for his situation.

What the juxtaposition of these two articles does for me is exposes a gap in the most strident of resistors to the official line. Can someone really believe both that the virus is no more significant than a seasonal flu and, at the same time, insist that it is a bioweapon* developed by the Chinese government? It would seem that belief in one would preclude belief in the other.

Finally, if we needed further evidence that we’re all on our own, trying to piece together the truth from bits and pieces of fact, we have the more recent Rolling Stone article. Having pivoted from its mission of music reporting to be reborn as a woke-agenda propaganda mouthpiece, the magazine featured an article about how a tsunami of Invermectin abuse was drowning the Oklahoma hospital system. Unfortunately, it’s not true. It is not even remotely true. It was entirely made up in the effort to back the official line – that Invermectin is not an appropriate treatment for COVID and the those who would eschew vaccines for non-traditional treatments are killing your grandma.

I guess the best we can do is throw up our hands and assume that everything we read is slanted. That is to say, nothing we read is entirely, objectively true but most of what we read has bits and pieces of the truth or may be somewhat grounded in fact. For myself, I find first-person accounts, like the one above, compelling in that one assumes that when relating what happened to you, assuming you’re not out to deliberately deceive, one should be able to believe what you write. The problem with this is, as I said, an anecdote doesn’t make a trend or a statistical pattern and therefore may even distract from understanding rather than contribute to it.

The distracted may even include the teller himself. It can be difficult for the individual to see the forest for the trees, especially when that individual is actively lost in the woods. In the linked article, the gentleman had a very positive relationship with his medical staff, independent of politics and “beliefs” about the course of the virus. A few days later I read the account of an acquaintance of mine who was in a hostile situation with doctors, who wouldn’t do the testing and treatment she thought she needed. Both story-tellers are telling the truth, at least as they experienced it and as far as they understand it. Both might even be right. It is also possible that two individuals may experience the exact same situation but perceive in diametrically opposing ways.

This morning’s Wall St. Journal had a column (Holman Jenkins, FWIW) that characterized most of what we’re seeing in this current, rapid-fire news cycle as having political motivations. I’ll not repeat his argument except to say I think he is dead-on. As we get closer to the mid-term elections, this is going to be amplified. Events and the reporting of those events will be in service to drawing and adjusting the “battle lines” of the 2022 vote. We will be picking a side and developing an affinity for those who we perceive will back our side. The problem is those lines, and the call-to-battle, will spill over into “real life.” We might see doctors start to refuse to treat patients (or maybe just given them a little less consideration) if they haven’t been vaccinated. We will see workers be fired from their long-held jobs because they oppose the compliance-du-jour. How far away from Australia are we? How soon until we find it necessary to track every movement, to create a second class of citizen who shall be condemned to house arrest until they get with the program?

Photo by Monstera on Pexels.com

*The “intelligence review” emphatically denies the latter. It does not believe that the ‘rona was designed to be a weapon and does not believe it was deliberately leaked. However, as the Wall St. Journal pointed out then, it appears to be heavily influenced by what it is SUPPOSED to conclude and so it’s hard to rule out anything. Think about it in terms of today’s article – everything in it written with an eye to the desired political effect. Personally, I interpret the conclusion of such a squishy document is that nothing is truly off the table and we’ll probably never know. WSJ holds out the hope that there is something in the classified version that might provide some genuine insight.