Jun. 25th, 2021 01:14 pm
Why is there not more talk about this?
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
oakfarmI don’t know if this is the right place to write this. Nor am I saying I am the right person to write this, but I do think it needs to be said. It’s possible that a scientist disagrees with you without that scientist being evil. It’s even possible that the scientist in question isn’t stupid or untalent. The reason I write that is the American skeptical community. I knew about that community, and I - rightly or not - respected them. Now I, rightly or not, don’t respect them.
Worst example, from the perhaps most famous American skeptic I know about. I respected David Gorski. More recently wikipedia referred to him when they claimed the Great Barrington Declaration was funded by crazy right wing, climate catastrophe denier Charles Koch. The thing is, one, of course Sunetra Gupta, Jay Bhattacharya and Martin Kulldorff have always denied that. And btw at least Gupta says she’s left wing and not intressted in money. Two, according to this article: Quacks in the ivory tower, the whole thing comes from a blogger who among other things is a “september 11 truther”. Like dr David Groski et al. were so determined to prove the “other side” was evil, they didn’t care about the source of their “proof”. I know, in the US and the UK, it is extremely polarised - we’re that too, but not that extreme - something like that could happen.
It’s not enough that GBD could be wrong (because they could be wrong) they must be painted as funded by a cartoonish evil, anti-science lobbyist. At the same time, I know that the right wing in the US does the same thing. I have seen some right wing American paper call Fauci a “villian”. Again it’s not enough to think he is wrong (because he might be wrong) he must be a villain. The difference is, I have never had any respect for the American right wing media*. So great job David Groski, I’m sure you’re a much better person than whoever called Fauci a villian. But now, since you Groski couldn't have a grown up conversation with other scientis, I ended up mentioning you in the same paragraph as that journalist.
Then, I remember the early 1990s when a government report on the Chernobyl catastrophe was presented. One politician from the green party said the report proved that a Chernobyl-like catastrophe could happen in a Swedish nuclear power plant. This while another politician, this one from the largest right wing party, said the report proved that a Chernobyl-like catastrophe can’t happen in a Swedish nuclear power plant**. Since last spring when the debate about the pandemic response started for real, I thought this would end in the same way as after that government report. Both sides, both the fans of heavy handed laws, and the critics of those laws, should say the scientific reports prove they were right. And that’s where we are now. Jay Bhattacharya can point to 600 000 dead Americans and say that proves there are better ways to handle pandemics than heavy handed laws. While Neil Ferguson can point to 600 000 dead Americans and claim he was right, the laws should have been even tougher.
Me, full disclosor. I have never signed any petition about how we should handle pandemics. But I hope we did the right thing, meaning I must hope everyone thinking heavy handed laws are the only thing that works, for peoples heath, is wrong.
* I did not respect those newspapers even when I myself voted for bourgeois parties. They are so far too the right.
** With cold war logic Swedish and Soviet nuclear power plants should be very different. Since the Swedish plants are American designed, and the Soviet plants are - well Soviet designed.
Worst example, from the perhaps most famous American skeptic I know about. I respected David Gorski. More recently wikipedia referred to him when they claimed the Great Barrington Declaration was funded by crazy right wing, climate catastrophe denier Charles Koch. The thing is, one, of course Sunetra Gupta, Jay Bhattacharya and Martin Kulldorff have always denied that. And btw at least Gupta says she’s left wing and not intressted in money. Two, according to this article: Quacks in the ivory tower, the whole thing comes from a blogger who among other things is a “september 11 truther”. Like dr David Groski et al. were so determined to prove the “other side” was evil, they didn’t care about the source of their “proof”. I know, in the US and the UK, it is extremely polarised - we’re that too, but not that extreme - something like that could happen.
It’s not enough that GBD could be wrong (because they could be wrong) they must be painted as funded by a cartoonish evil, anti-science lobbyist. At the same time, I know that the right wing in the US does the same thing. I have seen some right wing American paper call Fauci a “villian”. Again it’s not enough to think he is wrong (because he might be wrong) he must be a villain. The difference is, I have never had any respect for the American right wing media*. So great job David Groski, I’m sure you’re a much better person than whoever called Fauci a villian. But now, since you Groski couldn't have a grown up conversation with other scientis, I ended up mentioning you in the same paragraph as that journalist.
Then, I remember the early 1990s when a government report on the Chernobyl catastrophe was presented. One politician from the green party said the report proved that a Chernobyl-like catastrophe could happen in a Swedish nuclear power plant. This while another politician, this one from the largest right wing party, said the report proved that a Chernobyl-like catastrophe can’t happen in a Swedish nuclear power plant**. Since last spring when the debate about the pandemic response started for real, I thought this would end in the same way as after that government report. Both sides, both the fans of heavy handed laws, and the critics of those laws, should say the scientific reports prove they were right. And that’s where we are now. Jay Bhattacharya can point to 600 000 dead Americans and say that proves there are better ways to handle pandemics than heavy handed laws. While Neil Ferguson can point to 600 000 dead Americans and claim he was right, the laws should have been even tougher.
Me, full disclosor. I have never signed any petition about how we should handle pandemics. But I hope we did the right thing, meaning I must hope everyone thinking heavy handed laws are the only thing that works, for peoples heath, is wrong.
* I did not respect those newspapers even when I myself voted for bourgeois parties. They are so far too the right.
** With cold war logic Swedish and Soviet nuclear power plants should be very different. Since the Swedish plants are American designed, and the Soviet plants are - well Soviet designed.
Tags: