They are now, because they offered it to us and you accepted.

Now it’s you. Read the Mussolini quote; read Robert Paxton’s book; your politics appear unambiguously to be fascist.

You’re a fascist, Harry.

Basic civics according to Mussolini.

“There is a Liberal theory of freedom, and there is a Fascist concept of liberty. For we, too, maintain the necessity of safeguarding the conditions that make for the free development of the individual; we, too, believe that the oppression of individual personality can find no place in the modern state. We do not, however, accept a bill of rights which tends to make the individual superior to the state and to empower him to act in opposition to society. Our concept of liberty is that the individual must be allowed to develop his personality in behalf of the state, for these ephemeral and infinitesimal elements of the complex and permanent life of society determine by their normal growth the development of the state. But this individual growth must be normal. A huge and disproportionate development of the individual of classes, would prove as fatal to society as abnormal growths are to living organisms. Freedom therefore is due to the citizen and to classes on condition that they exercise it in the interest of society as a whole and within the limits set by social exigencies, liberty being, like any other individual right, a concession of the state.”

Jackboots, brown shirts, service. — NOS4A2

^ I think this is a home run. The same people who use “fascism” as a catch-all term for everything bad have straightforwardly adopted it as their politics.

To add, a while ago I read The Anatomy of Fascism by Robert Paxton; I remember he emphasises in fascism the role of war-waging as way of giving the chosen collective its purpose, and how it uses the fervency war generates as fuel for the fascist program. And what is the popular analogy for this situation we’re in? We’re fighting, so we’re told, a war...

Sure, given the way you describe your view here I have some sympathy for it.

Keeping with the example of creationism, someone might simply choose to believe this because it comes with a community and a sense of purpose; people have always told fables as a source of inspiration and a way of seeing the world more richly. Science is a purposefully blinkered subject and is brimming with political and ideological bias—to teach according to its methodologies (which is what I interpret you as proposing) seems to be just another bias.

If you hand students a methodology that when followed brings them to the conclusion that creationism is wrong and mark them on how well they follow this methodology/reach its conclusion, then really you’re teaching them *what* to think, not *how* to think. It’s just that the ‘what they should think’ now includes this methodology you’ve given them.

my main point was to not teach people strict rules on "how to think correctly" — Qmeri

...thats the point of methodologism... you just care about how it was done and is done... and just accept the results irregardless of what they ended up being. — Qmeri

What you’re saying here seems incongruous, like you’re advocating first *against* and then *for* having a particular methodology for arriving at our beliefs.

We should probably concentrate more than anything on the methodology of how to think. — Qmeri

I wonder if this would backfire. Learning how to think, in my experience, comes from realising that an opinion you’ve held - one that was important to you or that you took for granted - is wrong. Perhaps if you taught a load of people a “methodology of how to think” they’d wind up believing anyway whatever was popular, and how could they possibly be wrong: “We know how to think; we learned it in school!”

I read a suggestion once that we could do well by teaching young pupils only Latin and Ancient Greek: they take discipline to learn, they incorporate history and literature, and you don’t learn from them *what* to think; students can decide on that for themselves by studying other subjects separately, and later as specialisations when they reach adult education.

I didn’t enjoy the monologues in The Fountainhead. I’ve heard Rand’s books described as pulp fiction and I expect that characterises them quite well (enjoyable for the most part but cheap at times). All the same, I think her insights into the nature of the herd and reasons why they behave and think as they do have a good amount of truth to them.

And the sex stuff, who knows. Maybe she was doing a DH Lawrence and writing out some fantasies of hers in the guise of something else.

I don’t actually like Roark, or Dominique or Wynand. I think the rape scene is perverse and I find the dialog between the three of them sickly. Henry Cameron seems to me a more poignant representation of the book’s values: sticks to himself and the purity of what he wants to contribute despite the loneliness and destitution that Roark never actually experiences.

I haven’t read the formalised version of her philosophy, but I can accept what I’ve heard about it not being very good based on some of the stuff she has Roark say in The Fountainhead; but I enjoyed the literary account she gives of her beliefs in that book a lot and I think she gets people right. The vast majority are what she calls “second-handers”: people who derive themselves from others (and so the animus Rand so commonly gets makes complete sense). And I agree with her that it’s better to do things that help people, for selfish reasons, as opposed to doing things solely to help people, and poisoning yourself in the ways she depicts (i.e. Catherine learning to look down on those she helps, finding herself in competition with other helpers, and losing herself to the role fabricated for her).

Good one! Now try understanding the importance of that realisation (which you of course won’t).

Err... right. I’ll just leave it with you.

And remember: your opinions are not facts.

“But textbooks and history! Subject matter and experts! Durrrrr!”

That I'm smarter than you is obvious. — Benkei

Very convincing.

Coercion doesn’t require mandates.

Limiting movement and prohibiting gatherings constitute a stay at home order.

Your opinions are not facts. There are two prejudices in play: freedom in the face of uncertainty and confinement in the face of uncertainty. You have chosen the latter.

Let me try one more time: 150/10,000,000 = 0.000015%. That's some pretty easy mathematics. — Xtrix

So easy you got it wrong.

“Me smart, you dumb.”

We’ve established that your opinions are just that: opinions; not facts. Do you think people should be confined to their homes and coerced into receiving medical treatments on the basis of opinion? I don’t, you do. So we’ve reached our prejudices, and I find yours abhorrent.

EDIT: Also, as far as Sunetra is concerned, her whole paper was "guessing" as well, trying to see what models could fit the data, which in no way shape or form was a rejection of Neil Ferguson's model. — Benkei

So it appears you have to accept that according to their nature these models aren’t to be relied on.

To reiterate: this isn’t “I’m right” vs “No, you’re wrong”. It’s “I’m right” vs “We can reasonably doubt that you are, so stop bothering people”.

“Stochastic” is a term derived from a Greek word meaning... “guess”.

Remember? — AJJ

I do and that reply is silly as can be. You apparently don't understand how stochastic modelling works. — Benkei

Well then.

I responded with information from an Oxford epidemiologist as well as relevant comments and observations from other professionals, including the Imperial College modellers themselves.

Your get-out has been to insist on other information that you can make assertions about; assertions that you expect me to verify for you. — AJJ

Especially as a reply to actual studies that you dismissed as "guesswork". — Benkei

“Stochastic” is a term derived from a Greek word meaning... “guess”.

Remember?

I responded with information from an Oxford epidemiologist as well as relevant comments and observations from other professionals, including the Imperial College modellers themselves.

Your get-out has been to insist on other information that you can make assertions about; assertions that you expect me to verify for you.

Come on now:

At a glance the studies you’ve shared are models/guesswork.

Here are some actual observations:

An interview with Sunetra Gupta where she speaks about the virus behaving in the same fashion regardless of differing lockdown conditions: https://unherd.com/2020/05/oxford-doubles-down-sunetra-gupta-interview/

Here’s an article referring among other things to the UK death rate falling too soon for lockdown to be the cause: https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/no-the-nhs-was-not-overrun-by-covid-during-lockdown/amp

Here’s the initial Imperial College/Neil Ferguson report that scared the West into locking down in the first place (I think the final paragraph is worth drawing your attention to): https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/sph/ide/gida-fellowships/Imperial-College-COVID19-NPI-modelling-16-03-2020.pdf

And here’s an article listing Neil Ferguson’s past (grossly inaccurate) predictions: https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/six-questions-that-neil-ferguson-should-be-asked — AJJ

Also note that you have not managed to submit information that's researched and peer reviewed. So my heuristic is to not spend time on reading it. Send a paper how lock downs don't work. — Benkei

You can't even muster the respect to actually read what's shared with you. — Benkei

The Study Wars began after you refused to read what I’d shared with you.

Because I’m not the one advocating for restrictions and assumed obligations. I’m saying leave people alone because your claims are doubtful. — AJJ

You can playfully call that "study wars" — Benkei

And I’m being derogatory.

How have I lost an argument if there are several studies with conflicting conclusions? — Benkei

Because I’m not the one advocating for restrictions and assumed obligations. I’m saying leave people alone because your claims are doubtful.

I had already linked you to several things that summarised and supported my view. You sulked and nagged me for direct links to research papers (in the expectation that I wouldn’t be able to find any?)

Basically, you lost an argument and have since had us play Study Wars in order to bury it in the mud.

Yes. You're welcome to actually read the research and the caveats they offer if you don't believe me. This includes some of the stuff you shared by the way. — Benkei

Great. I’m totally happy to trawl through research papers every time you say something tendentious about them.

Definitely effective are: flight bans, prohibiting gatherings and limiting movement. — Benkei

Are they?

Not effective are: stay at home orders in and of themselves, unless they cause less gatherings and limit movement. — Benkei

If these orders entail those things you say are “definitely effective” then why aren’t they associated with reduced mortality?

If you don’t get it, you don’t get it.

Indeed I hold it is. There is the issue of the greater good against a pandemic. No question about either - no reasonable question, at any rate. The pandemic is real, the benefits of the vaccine are demonstrated. And the validity of general vaccination as a strategy against disease well-established. The argument is over, and was over when it began. All that remains is the whining, and the news routinely reports that ceases when the whiner or his get sick or die.

Do you want the vaccine to be perfect? It isn't, and the point is that it does not have to be. Is a bulletproof vest perfect protection from a shooter? No. But does that mean you should not wear one? Certainly not! — tim wood

“Indeed I hold it is. I am right. I am right - I am right. I am right. And I am right. I am right, and I am right. I am right.

Am I right? I am right. Am I right? Am I? I am right!”

Affect, effect.

It wasn’t that you didn’t know the difference; it was that you wouldn’t accept there was a difference without every dictionary in the world telling you that you were wrong. What does that say about the rest of your beliefs and how you generally think?

“Haha! You are wrong because I am right!”

And here’s another more recent study in a reputable journal concluding lockdowns don’t work: https://academic.oup.com/cesifo/article/67/3/318/6199605

The conclusion:

Comparing weekly mortality in 24 European countries, the findings in this paper suggest that more severe lockdown policies have not been associated with lower mortality. In other words, the lockdowns have not worked as intended. Further tests also show that early interventions offered no additional benefits or effectiveness and even indicate that the lockdowns of the spring of 2020 were associated with significantly more deaths in the particular age group between 60 and 79 years.

And

The main problem at hand is therefore that the evidence presented here suggests that lockdowns have not significantly affected the development of mortality in Europe. They have nevertheless wreaked economic havoc in most societies and may lead to a substantial number of additional deaths for other reasons. A British government report from April for example assessed that a limited lockdown could cause 185,000 excess deaths over the next years, while UNICEF warns of an increase in child marriages, owing to the economic effects of Western lockdowns in developing countries (DHSC 2020; Philipose and Aika 2021). Evaluated as a whole, at a first glance, the lockdown policies of the Spring of 2020 therefore appear to be substantial long-run government failures.

I don’t want to play Study Wars with you. Can you throw studies at me such that your view becomes definitively correct? Because in my view that’s what you need to do in order to justify bothering people to misery and death with oppressive mandates.

Having taken a closer look, the first study (the link does actually work) was published in EClinicalMedicine. I looked them up and it’s a journal published by The Lancet.

The tenth study (which you didn’t get as far as) was published in the British Medical Journal.

You asked for studies and there they are. Are they all perfect and true to reality? I don’t know. Are yours?

Of the first 10 only two lead to a blank page, but you can find them by Googling their titles.

All the pre-prints are old so probably data at the beginning of the pandemic wasn't very good allowing for differing interpretations. — Benkei

Of course.

If quarantaines work then obviously lock downs do too. — Benkei

Not according to what I’ve shared. I will say this again: your house is not built on rock. Whinging won’t fix the subsidence.

“Stochastic” is a term derived from a Greek word meaning... “guess”.

Those links you’re sulkily refusing to look at are enough. But here’s an article listing 35 pertinent studies: https://www.aier.org/article/lockdowns-do-not-control-the-coronavirus-the-evidence/

Powerful stuff.

I can say because the effects of lock downs in the Netherlands lead to reduced hospital admissions. — Benkei

Did they?

They tried to make models that fit the available data, which data shows lock downs worked. — Benkei

We apply a variation of the stochastic Susceptible-Infectious-Recovered model

To quantify the lockdown effect, we approximate a counterfactual lockdown scenario for Sweden

The model is constructed from a stochastic continuous-time Markov chain

Guesswork.

Also note that you have not managed to submit information that's researched and peer reviewed. So my heuristic is to not spend time on reading it. — Benkei

And now you’re sulking.