It's been a couple months since I've posted. The big news (in my opinion) is the incredible number of natural disasters that are occurring around the globe. However, this blog posting is not really about this, but please bear with me...
As I sit in my air-conditioned office and write this, the weather outside today is about to hit 41c (with the humidity factored in). This is definitely a hot day, but is it unusually hot for late August? Is today, or possibly this heat trend over the last week, enough of an indicator that weather is shifting and is definitive evidence that climate change is upon us? Well the simple answer to this is NO. The "dataset" is simply too limited to jump to that decision. Expand that "dataset" to include every unusual weather pattern that is occurring throughout the year (or decade), at you may arrive at a different answer.
And so we are at the crux of the point I am attempting to make here. Thinking critically requires considering many factors, and employing logic to arrive at a conclusion. One must be critical of one's own paradigms (understanding/knowledge, background, perspectives) which also includes one's subjective emotion of a specific topic.
So let's now move to Covid and thinking critically on this topic.
If one takes the time to investigate the reasons (and reasoning) behind those who have decided not to take the vaccine, one often encounters the extreme or right/left wing views on this topic. This extreme angle is often quickly labelled as conspiracy. Labeling a position using the word conspiracy is a quick strategy to control a message, to discount another's perspective, position (or possibly defensible fact).
That's trap number one: I recommend ignoring the word conspiracy as it has automatic negative connotations. Don't accept someone else's labels - dig deep to understand and discover the facts, and come to your own conclusions.
The second trap: is considering the source. I inevitably consider who (or what-such as a corporation) is benefiting from providing this information/data, and whether this poses a conflict of interest by that party. Simplified example: Doctors defending the tobacco industry (to their financial benefit) were quick to defend smoking and its implications of health. The old adage "follow the money" often holds true here. If there is a conflict, always "take this information with a grain of salt" as they say.
The third trap: is considering only one source. I'll refer back to the opening weather discussion to illustrate my point. Multiple (and varied) sources strengthens the argument. This can also be exploited I'm sure, but it's often one level more difficult to accomplish.
So I would ask you to watch this youtube video from Dr. Mike Hansen on the latest findings with Covid. Note: I am not affiliated with Mr. Hansen in any way (except I consider his videos accurate and informative).
This is the youtube link (COVID Autopsy Findings - What Doctors Are Learning From Autopsy ) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KzKvIYwqQkE
I hope you caught the following: "There's never been a disease in the history of mankind that's presented in so many ways." He went further to explain how Covid affects all areas of the body.
Scary stuff to say the least.
The point here is that the nature of the virus in something we've never encountered before. This is a fully defensible point, that can be proven. We've had pandemics before, but these virus's presented with behaviour that are consistent to their species. Mother nature is amazingly efficient when it comes to producing some incredibly dangerous viruses, whether it be smallpox or ebola, but this Covid virus clearly functions at whole new level.
This Covid virus, in my opinion, does not exhibit natural behaviour, in a sense it breaks all the rules and exhibits the properties of many viruses, just like it was engineered that way. To be very blunt, something that is not natural is artificial - and that implies it has been manufactured.
There have been many sources who have discounted my opinion and aggressively labelled this as a conspiracy. (First warning sign). But when I look deeper into these sources I find significant conflicts of interest (ie: such as financial and political). Considering the implications of liability by the (suspected) offending party, we may never see a confirmed truth of this opinion.
I will add this is an opinion article. If this was a journalistic one I'd need to cite everything (including sources of my latest point of conflicts of interests). Also, keep in mind, I've not really provided multiple sources to defend this opinion, either. So, in full transparency, get out the salt. It's up to you to dig further, if you prefer.
In closure, my heart goes out to all the victims of this pandemic, both directly and indirectly. I believe (with hope) the end is in sight.