A response to Critical Thinking may make You Critical of the Covid Crisis
(HPR episode 3414, produced by CoGo and released on 2021-09-02)
Defining terms
What is Critical Thinking?
The Wikipedia definition begins: "Critical thinking is the analysis of facts to form a judgment."
It goes on to say: "The subject is complex, and several different definitions exist, which generally include the rational, skeptical, unbiased analysis, or evaluation of factual evidence."
See the references below.
Note the use of the terms fact, factual evidence and unbiased analysis. It is my contention that HPR episode 3414 fails in these regards in several places.
What is an "experiment"?
Wikipedia’s definition begins: "An experiment is a procedure carried out to support or refute a hypothesis. Experiments provide insight into cause-and-effect by demonstrating what outcome occurs when a particular factor is manipulated."
The term experiment is often used incorrectly in episode 3414. A better term would be observation or anecdote
The virus:
The virus is a coronavirus. There are many viruses classified in this way.
The name of the virus is SARS-CoV-2. The SARS part stands for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome, the type of disease caused by the virus. CoV signifies that it is a coronavirus and the 2 means it’s the second SARS-type corona virus to have caused problems in the recent past. The other one, just called SARS occurred in 2003.
The name of the disease caused by SARS-CoV-2 is COVID-19. The letters COVID define it as a coronavirus disease. The 19 part is because it was first discovered in 2019.
COVID-19 false dichotomies and a comprehensive review of the evidence regarding public health, COVID-19 symptomatology, SARS-CoV-2 transmission, mask wearing, and reinfection:
Comment #1 posted on 2021-10-13 17:47:41 by ironhelixx
This is the way to handle misinformation
I applaud you both for addressing this with facts and patience, and without dipping into any personal attacks - well done, and an enjoyable listen - thank you both for challenging the other episode logically, and for bringing some sanity to the conversation - best wishes to you both
Comment #2 posted on 2021-10-15 12:45:38 by Aaronb
Reasoning
This is not a criticism for this podcast. But just something I come across once in a while.
I will here people say "I believe in this or don't believe that because I reason."
It's nice when people can declare themselves a reasonable person. It's different if others else views them that ways.
Comment #3 posted on 2021-10-16 06:33:22 by e8hffff
Common Sense
Consider that CoVID19 dangers are the Spike Protein, yet the CoVID19 vaccines create Spike Protein. Therefore it's a question of scale of damage. CovID19 vaccines/injections are inherently damaging. Some getting anaphylaxic shock and death from the injections.
Comment #4 posted on 2021-10-19 13:41:45 by Kevin O'Brien
Bravo!
As very good analysis that uses genuine critical thinking. One thing that I haven't seen anyone point out yet is that in the original show much is made of the idea that masks are not air-tight. Of course they aren't! If they were, people wearing them would die! I have worked in several hospitals in my career, and masks do a decent (not perfect) job of what they are intended to do. If I were being prepared for surgery and my surgeon said he would not wear a mask "Because I don't believe in them," I would most certainly stop everything and get a better surgeon.
Comment #5 posted on 2021-10-20 12:58:11 by Brian-in-ohio
risk
Good show.
One exception i'll take is that ALL Americans turn to Anthony Faucci for our information, is just not true, the man is flawed and so is his wife.
The only thing lacking in both podcasts is a discussion of risk analysis. ALL people have different levels of risk they are willing to take. Politicians and policy makers creating one size fits all solutions, like arbitrary social distancing dimensions, leads many people to become suspicious and consider riskier behaviour.
I do agree with the earlier comment about using I feel or I believe language. That tends to be opinion.
Comment #6 posted on 2021-10-30 10:44:21 by Dave Morriss
Response to e8hffff, comment #3
In general viruses "break in" to cells in order to use their replication machinery to
make more viruses. In the case of SARS-CoV-2 the spike protein is the part of
the virus that is used to "break in". It's not dangerous in itself, it's part
of the toolkit this virus uses to gain control of cells and make more viruses.
In order for the human immune system to fight against a foreign chemical or
"antigen" (usually a protein of some kind since living things use proteins as
building blocks) it needs to be exposed to the antigen and build antibodies
(and other immune responses). Many of the vaccines use methods of delivering
or generating the spike protein in order to "teach" the immune system what to
be alert to. Some use "killed" viruses instead, but none of these are in use
in the USA and Europe to my knowledge.
So, vaccines are not inherently damaging, as you state. They cause your
immune system to react, which is the point, and this can result in soreness
at the injection site, fevers, aches, and similar symptoms. Yes, anaphylactic
shock can result from an allergic reaction to the vaccine itself - as it can
from peanuts, eggs, insect bites or seafood for example. In the UK, as I said in the show, we
are asked to wait for 15 minutes after our vaccination in case such an
allergic reaction is triggered, and there are medics nearby to deal with any
such emergencies.
Comment #7 posted on 2021-10-30 13:01:59 by Dave Morriss
Response to Brian-in-ohio, comment #5
From my point of view Dr Fauci is a skilled virologist and immunologist. I had heard him on virology podcasts long before COVID-19 and found him very impressive as a scientist and as a human being.
You refer to risk analysis, and you are right, we didn't deal much with this subject in our show. You write of the risk individuals are willing to take, and I often see this point being made. The point made less often is the risk each person poses to others. Unwillingness to avoid crowds, to consider physical distancing or contesting the need for a mask are stances taken in relation to the objector's risk. The risk to others seems to be disregarded or given very low priority.
Leave Comment
Note to Verbose Commenters
If you can't fit everything you want to say in the comment below then you really should record a response show instead.
Note to Spammers
All comments are moderated. All links are checked by humans. We strip out all html. Feel free to record a show about yourself, or your industry, or any other topic we may find interesting. We also check shows for spam :).
