Mostly, although I don't think anyone understands the consequences fully, because to do that would be to know the future. — Janus

I think that’s a good summation.

@Xtrix How do you feel about people refusing for religious reasons then? They are exempt yet their ‘wrong thinking’ is okay in the eyes of the law.

I’m not saying, and have not said, that the vaccine isn’t effective. My point remains with allowing adults to make a choice or not. If private companies choose to stop people working then my position here becomes more hazy. I’ll grant you that. That they are right to do so, as you say, I just don’t agree. The situation is relatively under control and the threat is pretty low now. The big danger and fear was the fact that humans had little to no protection due to lack of exposure. Now we have. New strains are not completely different (it’s essentially the same beast) and new strains of the flu virus occur every year and new flu jabs are made every year too. What we now have is a world with an annual flu viruses (that kills 200,000-600,000 a year) and Covid viruses (that look set to kill maybe 2 million once people resume life as normal).

There have been certain comparisons to war too. Some people will step up and fight for their country and lay down their lives. They do so because they feel impelled to do so. Not everyone feels this and yet they may very well reap the rewards. If you want to make comparisons with clothing and medication then I think this point is strong enough unless you’re not opposed to conscription (but if you are not everyone would agree with you and it doesn’t necessarily make them right and you wrong, or vice versa).

People are NOT turned away from work when they have the flu … perhaps they should be tbh because I think that is wrong. I don’t see a measured approach now that we are more knowledgable about Covid.

:up: Keep rollin' that boulder...

People are NOT turned away from work when they have the flu … perhaps they should be tbh because I think that is wrong. I don’t see a measured approach now that we are more knowledgable about Covid. — I like sushi

I think this is a good point; the same should apply to flu and any other potentially lethal infectious disease as applies to covid.

@Xtrix Also, in case you missed it the first time, what about testing people for the virus instead? If employees are willing to turn up to work 30mins in advance and take a Covid test then surely the employers should provide a test? IF the primary concern is for the workers safety this seems to make perfect sense.

I’m not saying, and have not said, that the vaccine isn’t effective. My point remains with allowing adults to make a choice or not. If private companies choose to stop people working then my position here becomes more hazy. I’ll grant you that. That they are right to do so, as you say, I just don’t agree. — I like sushi

They tried to go the other way, and it wasn't working. Mandates are working. If that's what it takes to get people to push through the lies they're ensnared in and do the correct thing for fellow coworkers and the community at large, I think that's a legitimate use of corporate power.

I find it ironic that this is the hill mostly conservative people want to die on when it comes to corporate power. They've been anti-union and pro-business for years, pro corporate tax cuts, pro trickle-down economics -- and now, when these companies actually exercise their power for legitimate, medically and scientifically sound reasons, they become Eugene Debbs.

Also, in case you missed it the first time, what about testing people for the virus instead? If employees are willing to turn up to work 30mins in advance and take a Covid test then surely the employers should provide a test? IF the primary concern is for the workers safety this seems to make perfect sense. — I like sushi

I think I mentioned elsewhere that this is fine with me -- provided the employees pay for it themselves.

I find it ironic that this is the hill mostly conservative people want to die on when it comes to corporate power. — Xtrix

Er … what?

Btw I grew up in a country where paying for medical care was not something anyone really considered doing so maybe asking someone to pay for such themselves doesn’t quite sit as well with me as it does with you. Either way, a test would resolve the issue and as the vaccine isn’t infallible why not just test everyone every day if the concern is so great.

We’re not going to agree here so no point in continuing. You’ve shown your hand now and we’re clearly not playing the same game.

My point remains with allowing adults to make a choice or not. — I like sushi

What kind of a choice is that? And "allows"? Rights and "allowed" don't reconcile. Yours then nonsense dressed up in language you neither care about nor respect.

I find it ironic that this is the hill mostly conservative people want to die on when it comes to corporate power. — Xtrix

Likewise I find it disturbing that at the first whiff of danger to their own health most of those on the left will just obediently lie down let the corporations walk all over them on the strength of nothing more than a few in-house tests, the usual lobbying of government departments and a tight funding leash over academic institutions.

Although actually doing their corporate public image work for them is new low - "these companies actually exercise their power for legitimate, medically and scientifically sound reasons" - are you really that naive? These companies have done fuck all about the thousands dying under their charge from environmental pollution, poor working conditions, poverty... and you think they're imposing these restrictions on medical grounds? Just coincidence that one of their own stands to make billions from the exact course of action they're mandating?

...provided the employees pay for it themselves. — Xtrix

..straight out of the fucking Thatcherite playbook. You don't have to accept the private corporation's solutions...so long as you pay for the alternatives yourself.

Either way, a test would resolve the issue and as the vaccine isn’t infallible why not just test everyone every day if the concern is so great. — I like sushi

Tests would lead to workers having to go home too frequently and so production would drop, mandatory vaccination means productivity remains high and their hedge funds get kicked up a few points in the process. Neither, of course, have the slightest thing to do with public health.

Aug 23 (Reuters) - U.S. energy companies are moving to require that employees receive COVID-19 vaccinations as infection rates rise across the United States and health surveys show that energy workers remain among those most reluctant to get inoculations.

Calls to require vaccinations for employees working at close quarters in oilfield and refinery operations came as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration fully approved the Pfizer-BioNTech shot. — Reuters

...but virtually zero action on worker safety in the last twenty years...https://apps.publicintegrity.org/blowout/us-oil-worker-safety/... now they're suddenly wracked with concern for their beloved workers?

It's got nothing to do with public health, it's to do with getting workers back to their job (being exploited for profit) as quickly as possible. Typical corporate whitewashing, but I suppose the taboo on criticising corporations now extends to the oil industry because...covid.

It strikes me, in anticipating the justification that will follow, that this whole issue is about academia.

I don't think a single person involved in this thread would, under normal circumstances, assume corporations act for the public good. Also, none would hesitate to believe governments to be entirely betrothed to corporate interests. In fact, our most vocal pro-vaccers are elsewhere arguing exactly that case.

So why, when an industry produces a solution to a problem (a problem that industry may well have caused in the first place), do these same people believe this time their solution is in the public interest, believe that this time their complicity in the problem is unlikely...?

...The prevailing view of the academic establishment. That's it. The sole reason why the corporate line is not being treated with the same suspicion-bordering-on-contempt that it usually receives (and deserves), is because the academic establishment are also broadly in favour of it.

So the relevant discussion, it seems, is over the justification for thinking that the academic establishment is beyond being tempted, bribed, coerced, threatened and subject to popularism, just like any other establishment. I wonder if that's why that infamous survey threw up so many vaccine hesitant PhDs, we know better than to see academia as anything other than just another capitalist industry.

What kind of a choice is that? — tim wood

It's a choice over who to trust. Something people seem to find impossible to grasp is that the question is not about actual consequences either way, it's about potential consequences because the question of trust is measured by the risk, not the actual outcome.

I would trust my fellow publicans to look after my pint whilst I pop out, I wouldn't trust them to look after my baby. Why? Has their trustworthiness changed between the two examples? No. Has the actual consequence changed (in terms of their intent to harm either my pint or my baby)? No. What's changed is the risk each instance of trust entailed.

What matters here is that injecting a newly developed medically active chemical into someone's body has high potential consequences, so we need a higher degree of trust in the person doing that than we do putting a seatbelt on, or not driving over the speed limit. Reassurances of safety and efficacy are irrelevant here because until we've resolved to trust those institutions their reassurances are moot. The decision to trust them has to precede the use of their data, it's simply a-synchronous to use an entity's own data in an argument that we ought to trust their data.

All these questions are perspectival, because we're talking about trust, not facts. So people are asking "what's the worst that could happen?" Note this is not a question about actualities, it's about parameters, and their answer will determine the threshold of trustworthiness they require before accepting any further information on trust - including information about safety and efficacy.

"these companies actually exercise their power for legitimate, medically and scientifically sound reasons" - are you really that naive? — Isaac

Vaccines are safe, effective, and slow the spread of the virus. It's as sound as banning smoking from the workplace. That's legitimate.

It's got nothing to do with public health, it's to do with getting workers back to their job (being exploited for profit) as quickly as possible. — Isaac

This is so obvious it barely needs to be mentioned. But the same is true of smoking bans. True, it's not solely about public health -- but it just so happens that it aligns with it.

These companies would do all kinds of things if it increased profits, like polluting. When that behavior becomes too costly or illegal -- or "repetitional damage" occurs -- then they change. Like with smoking bans. But that doesn't make the change scientifically or medically unsound.

I don't think a single person involved in this thread would, under normal circumstances, assume corporations act for the public good. — Isaac

No one, so far as I have read, is arguing that.

we know better than to see academia as anything other than just another capitalist industry. — Isaac

No, what the issue is, for you, is that you don't trust the enterprise of science. That's generally not a bad thing -- one should question authority of all kinds, not just political and religious, but scientific as well. That's how change occurs.

But when the evidence is overwhelming, and there's vast consensus, and one persists in taking the "skeptical" position nonetheless, we have to start questioning the motives -- just as we do with creationists who vehemently argue against the evidence of evolution. Should we take them seriously? Why or why not? After all, it's important to question things, is it not? They're the first to argue that point. Is there a deeper psychological issue at play here?

Yes, there is. It's simple: they've been brought up believing in a literal interpretation of Genesis, and so evolution, which conflicts with these cherished beliefs, has to be wrong. Ditto for many arguing against vaccines, against medicine, and against the government. It all has some truth to it, of course -- like the arguments against Big Pharma, or about how corporations care only about profits and don't give a damn about their workers or customers. Throw in a few "truths" like that, with the obligatory story about how everyone once thought the world was flat, etc., and now you have a much more convincing argument, at least on the surface.

I personally don't give a damn about the coronavirus for myself. I'm not afraid of it. I don't even care if those who are unvaccinated end up dying - so be it. What I care about is this dangerous level of stupidity that lies at the basis of the decisions that lead to these outcomes. It will, eventually, blow up in our faces if we don't confront it head on. We're seeing that right now with global warming, in fact. We saw it with 4 disastrous years of Donald Trump. Ideas and beliefs and attitudes and perceptions and interpretations -- all of the things upon which we decide and act and justify ourselves -- are what matters.

The issue, at heart, is truth. Or to put it more accurately: epistemic responsibility.

I don't think a single person involved in this thread would, under normal circumstances, assume corporations act for the public good. — Isaac

Nor for the public bad either, presumably?
I suppose, in capitalism, supply and demand type mechanisms + profit-maximization drive what corporations do. As noted somewhere, GlaxoSmithKline got busted and paid substantially. :up:
Having disregarded the shaman out in the woods, maybe government-run research + production would do? Just established universities? Well, no, we still get into Us-versus-Them narratives, or at least that's what it seems like. (Even though "They" aren't quite Kafkaesque, ghostly entities.)
How many (and what sort of) offenses to render blanket distrust/dismantling and what would a realistic solution look like anyway? As to the ethical dimension, a project to cultivate and nurture moral awareness?

All these questions are perspectival, because we're talking about trust, not facts. — Isaac

A good point -- yes, it is largely about trust. Who do we believe? Since we can't be experts in everything, we have to trust all kinds of people.

Trust is also ubiquitous and necessary in a functioning society. We have to trust in others whenever we're driving on the road, for example.

It's true that trust in authority, especially institutional authority, is at an all time low. That's across the board, and well documented: media, government, business, academia. We're skeptical of politicians, religious leaders, corporate leaders, advertisements, salesmen, teachers, scientists, doctors, pollsters -- and even our neighbors.

People's lives are so crappy, despite having followed all the rules and done all the "right" things, that they're rightfully distrustful and looking for something or someone to blame.

And yet we're also as polarized and tribal as ever before. We're as dug-in about our beliefs as I can recall. So we're still clearly listening to someone. We're clearly "throwing in" with some group or religion or dogma or system of beliefs -- and so we're trusting something, even in the political or academic or medical realm. A good example of this is polling. If a poll reflects what we want to believe, we "trust" it -- it's accurate. If someone says something we already want to believe, they're on our side. We see this manifest now in election claims: we don't like the result, so there must be fraud. Doesn't matter if there's no evidence of it and 3 audits find nothing -- there's still fraud.

So then the issue isn't really about trust, because we're all trusting someone or something. Whether it's Donald Trump or Sean Hannity or Thomas Sowell. The question is really about why we happen to trust this particular person or institution over others? Why do we refuse a vaccine? Why do we believe the election was stolen? Who are we listening to, exactly?

It's as sound as banning smoking from the workplace. That's legitimate. — Xtrix

Not in the least. The aim of the smoking ban was to prevent illness from passive smoking, there was only one way to do that (cut down on smoke). Hence the ban.

If the aim here is to reduce covid infection there are several ways that can be done - regular testing, distance working, hygiene practices, antibody tests for natural immunity...

They've chosen vaccination. The one option that aligns with the agenda of the most powerful industry in the world. There's an absolute need to mandate something. There's no reason at all why that something has to be the product of a private corporation.

the issue is, for you, is that you don't trust the enterprise of science. — Xtrix

Well then I would have chosen an extremely self-defeating career path wouldn't I?

No, I have no problem with the enterprise of science. I don't agree that it's conducted by vote, that's all. We don't take a poll of who thinks what, and whatever comes out top is 'the truth'. It doesn't work like that. There are standards for entry into the canon of scientific theories. If yours meets those criteria it's just as valid as any other. Science is a methodology, not a popularity contest.

when the evidence is overwhelming, and there's vast consensus, and one persists in taking the "skeptical" position nonetheless, we have to start questioning the motives — Xtrix

If the 'overwhelmingness' of the evidence for anything is a function of the corporate influence on academia you can't very well hold it up as evidence that there is no such influence can you? Just hypothetically imagine that corporations did indeed have academic establishments under their thrall, how would overwhelming evidence within those establishments be evidence of anything except the corporate agenda?

The issue, at heart, is belief and truth. Or to put it more accurately: epistemic responsibility. — Xtrix

Well, we agree on something.

I suppose, in capitalism, supply and demand type mechanisms + profit-maximization drive what corporations do. As noted somewhere, GlaxoSmithKline got busted and paid substantially. — jorndoe

Coffee money compared to the profits they made.

maybe government-run research + production would do? Just established universities? Well, no, we still get into Us-versus-Them narratives, or at least that's what it seems like. (Even though "They" aren't quite Kafkaesque, ghostly entities.) — jorndoe

It used to work reasonably well. Governments might not be too much better than corporations, but it's an improvement.

How many (and what sort of) offenses to render blanket distrust/dismantling and what would a realistic solution look like anyway? — jorndoe

The rap sheet of the pharmaceuticals is way beyond any reasonable threshold of "oh, it was only a few rare cases", but yeah, interesting question in general. I don't see why we shouldn't have a very high standard indeed. It's not as if they accidentally marketed suicide-inducing medication to children. I don't think not doing so should be too much to ask.

As to the ethical dimension, a project to cultivate and nurture moral awareness? — jorndoe

Or a guillotine.

It's as sound as banning smoking from the workplace. That's legitimate.
— Xtrix

Not in the least. The aim of the smoking ban was to prevent illness from passive smoking, there was only one way to do that (cut down on smoke). Hence the ban. — Isaac

There were multiple ways of doing that, actually. There were different sections for smoking, at first. That's now stopped as well, until we have an outright ban.

The aim of the vaccine mandates is the prevent illness from passive inhalation of the virus from those who are unvaccinated. Hence the mandates.

If the aim here is to reduce covid infection there are several ways that can be done - regular testing, distance working, hygiene practices, antibody tests for natural immunity...

They've chosen vaccination. — Isaac

Not sure who "they" are, but there have been multiple approaches, and social distancing, mask wearing, hand washing, and testing still go on as well. Where I work, they test everyone every week, vaccinated or not.

But even if they exclusively chose vaccinations -- it's still legitimate. Just as they require them in schools, and have done so for decades. And workplaces, for that matter.

The one option that aligns with the agenda of the most powerful industry in the world. There's an absolute need to mandate something. There's no reason at all why that something has to be the product of a private corporation. — Isaac

So it's a conspiracy to make money, pushed by Big Pharma. That's essentially what you're saying. And the entire medical community is in on it, apparently.

Unfortunately for you, the exact same argument can be made for all the others vaccines which have been required for decades in schools and workplaces. It's all "big pharma." Never mind the fact that these vaccines are perfectly safe and effective -- apparently that's irrelevant.

But it isn't. It's exactly the point. If you accept that, then your argument is absurd. You have said before that you agree the vaccines are safe and effective. So...

the issue is, for you, is that you don't trust the enterprise of science.
— Xtrix

Well then I would have chosen an extremely self-defeating career path wouldn't I?

No, I have no problem with the enterprise of science. I don't agree that it's conducted by vote, that's all. — Isaac

No one is suggesting it is "conducted" by vote, least of all me.

If you're referring to scientific consensus, which is an important factor to consider as a layman, that's a different subject -- and one you apparently still don't understand.

It's not by vote. It's by overwhelming evidence. The overwhelming evidence shows that these vaccines are safe and effective. That they were manufactured by large pharmaceutical companies is irrelevant.

Just hypothetically imagine that corporations did indeed have academic establishments under their thrall, how would overwhelming evidence within those establishments be evidence of anything except the corporate agenda? — Isaac

Then you really do believe in conspiracies.

No, the overwhelming evidence is available for all of us to see and learn about, if we so desire. Same with the theory of evolution -- overwhelming evidence, if we want to learn about it. Same with climate change -- overwhelming evidence, if we wish to learn about it. Teachers, experts, doctors -- all should be able to explain things to you and show things to you, if you have questions or are skeptical or are simply interested in learning. That's true for everything.

If you start down this line of argument, without any evidence for it presented, then you can justify anything -- climate denial, creationism, holocaust denial, a flat earth...anything. But it's not exclusively a matter of trust or consensus -- it's the fact that you too can check yourself, through your own observations, experiments, research, data analysis, etc. If you choose to throw it all out with a wave of the hand, claiming all evidence is faked and all the experts are bought off, then you're off in cloud cuckoo land and there's little that can be done to remedy it. But that's your choice.

Not in the least. The aim of the smoking ban was to prevent illness from passive smoking, there was only one way to do that (cut down on smoke). Hence the ban. — Isaac

Achieving behavior change for public health benefit is always a long row to hoe. "Eliminate Smoking" has been the public health goal for decades. States that are doing really well still have 15% of their population smoking (and percentages probably won't drop till hard-core smokers die). Second-hand smoke is clearly a huge risk for people who work in bars and restaurants where smoking is allowed. A shift exposes a bartender or waiter to high levels of smoke for 8 hours at day, at least (assuming he or she doesn't also smoke).

But in pursuit of smoking cessation, public health workers have to use whatever persuasive levers are available -- and passive smoke has become a pretty good lever. I suspect that very light exposure to passive smoke is probably a pretty small risk, even if people hate the smell. Especially, when you consider all the other indoor / outdoor polluting chemicals people are exposed to.

(If you live in a basement with high levels of radon (a radioactive element gas that accumulates to hazardous levels in areas like the upper midwest), both active and passive smoking would significantly increase one's risk of lung cancer. Radon atoms get attached to smoke particles which are more likely to get caught in the lung, along with its little radioactive load.

I took me a very long time to adjust to smoke free bars, even though I wasn't smoking when the ban went into effect. It just didn't seem right to have clear air in the bar.

Wow. The idea that you might be wrong isn't even on the agenda is it? It's not even an addendum to a footnote in 'Any Other Business'.

Your dogmatic self assurance is astounding. You genuinely do believe that you only need to think something for it to actually be the case. It's really disconcerting arguing with you, I keep expecting a counter argument, or some supporting evidence, or some sign of engagement with an alternative viewpoint and yet, nothing. You just repeat the thing you said at first, as if the only possible explanation for why I disagree with you must be that I didn't read you correctly the first time, or that I'm insane... After all, what other possible explanation could there be for someone disagreeing with you?

I argued that the choosing of vaccines was not legitimate because other options existed to achieve the same ends which were not made available your response...?

even if they exclusively chose vaccinations -- it's still legitimate — Xtrix

Just a repeat of the original claim. No counter argument, no contrary evidence, nothing. You claim it's legitimate, I give reasons why it's not, you just repeat that it's legitimate. Why? Well, because you said so. What more reason could possibly be required than that, eh?

And here...

I raise the idea that evidence is not overwhelming but appears so because of a bias in study design, funding, media reporting and government influence - all backed up previously with actual cited evidence of these things taking place - and your response...?

No, the overwhelming evidence is available for all of us to see and learn about — Xtrix

No counter argument, no contrary evidence, just restating that same assertion you opened with. "No, the evidence is overwhelming because I said it is".

Astounding.

But in pursuit of smoking cessation, public health workers have to use whatever persuasive levers are available -- and passive smoke has become a pretty good lever. I suspect that very light exposure to passive smoke is probably a pretty small risk, even if people hate the smell. Especially, when you consider all the other indoor / outdoor polluting chemicals people are exposed to. — Bitter Crank

Yes. I've made the point in other posts on the covid crisis. Public health policy is a very blunt instrument and has frequently simplified and on occasion outright lied in order to get a message which is simple and universally applicable. I don't think it's even necessarily wrong that they do. What's wrong is then taking this tool and mistaking it for a statement about scientific theory.

Tests would lead to workers having to go home too frequently and so production would drop — Isaac

The test takes 15-30 mins. I stated that if employees were willing to show up early and take the test before work then it would be a way around the issue for those who feel that taking the vaccine isn't in their best interest.

This, in place for people with medical reasons for not taking the vaccine would make perfect sense too rather than just expecting them not to work at all.

I'm still perplexed about the distinction between someone not wishing to take the vaccine and someone with religious reasons for not taking the vaccine. If we're applying reason and rationality in this case how do we allow one rule for religious persons and another for non-religious persons. This is being applied in the US military tbh (as in by 'law' dismissing someone for their chosen career). Just to buff this up I wouldn't say joining the army is sensible in terms of your personal rights but they exist in terms of religious distinction.

The test takes 15-30 mins. I stated that if employees were willing to show up early and take the test before work then it would be a way around the issue for those who feel that taking the vaccine isn't in their best interest. — I like sushi

I was more thinking along the lines of if they failed the test (as many would) they'd have to go home - and so not be available for work at all. With the vaccine, everyone's back to work, infected or not, because employers have been given the 'get of of jail free' card that "hey, they were vaccinated, not our problem".

Never mind the fact that the evidence for lack of transmission among the vaccinated is significantly weaker than the evidence for lack of symptomatic infection. That would be an inconvenient block to continued productivity, hence the whitewash over that. Repeat a claim often enough along side other indubitable claims some of that confidence simply rubs off.

What would be much better would be the option of antibody tests for previous infection. No one who's already had Covid should be forced to take the vaccine as well, that's just a totally unreasonable imposition. If anything shows their hand it's this.

I'm still perplexed about the distinction between someone not wishing to take the vaccine and someone with religious reasons for not taking the vaccine. If we're applying reason and rationality in this case how do we allow one rule for religious persons and another for non-religious persons. — I like sushi

Yes, something I doubt the most fervent pro-vaccine enthusiast would want to stick their neck out on. I had an argument with @Hanover earlier about this where he claimed some sort of categorical objectivity over what was and what wasn't a legitimate 'lifestyle choice'. apparently religion is, not taking prophylactic medicine isn't - and that's that.

What's odd is that all the risks proponents like to take seem to fall into the category of 'lifestyle choices' and anything that's outside of their personal experience seems to fall outside of that category. But I suppose that's just an astounding coincidence.

It's not by vote. It's by overwhelming evidence. — Xtrix

That's the same thing.

Eight studies concluding one thing, two studies concluding another. All ten studies meeting the minimum threshold for acceptable science.

My claim is that all ten are equally legitimate because they've all met the threshold for acceptable science.

Your claim is that the two are unacceptable because fewer people support them. A popularity contest.

If you start down this line of argument, without any evidence for it presented, then you can justify anything -- climate denial, creationism, holocaust denial, a flat earth...anything. — Xtrix

OK, so provide some evidence to support this assertion.

My 'line' is...

1. I can support my view with citations from bone fide experts in the appropriate field who have no discoverable conflict of interest or evidence of previous bias.

and

2. I have indubitable evidence of corruption in the pharmaceutical industry (criminal convictions), evidence of their influence over the FDA and academia, which casts doubt over the strength of evidence contrary to my view.

Now prove your point by doing the same for the view that climate change isn't real, or that the earth was made by God 6000 years ago, or that the holocaust didn't happen, or that the earth is flat...

Find suitably qualified bone fide experts in their field with no discoverable conflicts of interest or previous bias supporting the view and indubitable evidence of corruption and lobbying influence in those opposing it.

Otherwise, your argument is just hot air. You can't just sling mud and hope something sticks, we expect a higher standard than than here. If my view is just like those others, you should be able to prove it.

Otherwise, your argument is just hot air. — Isaac

He is not arguing, he is simply pointing out that your mental health is on a slippery slope. If you don't shake off your political paranoia soon, if you cannot understand what people tell you on this thread about the dangers of paranoia, then you will most certainly lose your mind. Paranoia tends to get worse over time. Next thing you know, Big Pharma people will be aliens from another planet.

Get help before it is too late. I don't mean this rhetorically. This is my last word on the topic.

if you cannot understand what people tell you on this thread about the dangers of paranoia, then you will most certainly lose your mind. — Olivier5

Really? The people on this thread are all experts on paranoia? Who'd have thought it. There was me thinking they were just random people on the internet so utterly unable to conceive of the idea they might be wrong that their only recourse in the face of opposition is to assume some psychological damage on the part of their interlocutors.

But no. Turns out they're all highly qualified psychologists capable of diagnosing paranoia. And to think I nearly missed it...phew!

I am currently reading La France Goy by Donner. It's the edifying story of how a few people (re-)invented, stroke and unleashed French antisemitism at the turn of the 19th/20th. The title is a provocative echo to Drumont's best seller La France Juive (1886).

The story is absolutely disgusting but also somewhat fascinating, the fascination involved in seeing a whole culture crumble into total confusion and chaos, just because a few obsessed assholes wrote books after books, article after article drooling hatred of les Juifs, and of course about Dreyfus, whose innocence was his greatest crime.

And the thing is, the inventors of modern antisemitism had some good arguments, among all the lies. The Panama affair, the affaire des fiches: there was something rotten in the Third Republic. But then, this rot was structural, not racial. Like in any democracy, MPs can be bought, newspapers can be purchased, journalists can lie, the truth can be manipulated, etc. To racialize the problem like Drumont (and later Léon Daudet) did was a way to externalize it -- to say that France was corrupted only by them Jews, and that therefore there was nothing wrong in the system per se.

Note that it's the very essence of scapegoating to try and save the system from its contradictions by blaming them all on some random villain.

We all know how this little game ended. The Third Republic failed to prepare for the war and lost it, and then all these so-called 'nationalists' worked diligently for Marshal Pétain, to try and find a "final solution to the Jewish problem".

One of the most absurdist part of the book is about how the two main French antisemitic newspapers of the time, La Libre Parole and L'Action Francaise, started to target the Swiss society Maggi.

Yes, them


Why Maggi? 1) it was a foreign firm making big progress on the French market with its revolutionary soup concentrates and its pasteurized milk distribution system in Paris, and this created anger among traditional French milk retailers whose labor union formally approached various politicians including the extreme right to try and break the rise of Maggi; 2) the processes involved were technically new, even revolutionary, and touched on something important for the French: food; 3) the company founder Julius Maggi was investing massively in advertisement in newspapers, but had decided against advertising in those two newspapers (Libre Parole and Action Francaise), therefore constantly criticizing the company in the newspapers columns might also have been an effort, at least originally, to blackmail Maggi for advertising money...

Maggi's pasteurized milk distribution system most probably saved lives, because milk had been a contaminant until then, e.g. for Cholera. This is precisely why urban costumers liked it so much and why the French government ultimately gave them a public health medal.

And yet Maggi was seen by some as the personification of capitalism that artificializes and profits from good traditional things such as a vegetable soup or milk, replacing them with their unnatural industrial processes. It was also branded as foreign because the founder was Swiss, although Maggi had the poor taste of being neither Jewish nor even German... But that didn't stop the Libre Parole and the Action Francaise. In the decade before WW1, they pretended that Maggi was spying for Germany, that each and every time a milk truck was passing by a French military compound, it was taking notes and photographs that would ultimately be sent to the Kaiser... Maggi was branded as a fifth column.

It seems totally crazy to read this nowadays, and of course it never stopped the company in France, but it is also remindful of the 5G haters and of the anti-vaxxers. RNA vaccines are a new technology coming from abroad, and they are seen by some wackos as some sort of Trojan horse, just like Maggi was.

This is my last word on the topic. — Olivier5

And yet...

Cue long spiel hopelessly trying to smear distrust of pharmaceutical companies with the taint of antisemitism

...whilst thinking about pro-vaccine posts here I'm reminded of a story about the Nazis...