Covidiot or Covid-idiot? Which One Are You?

Apparently a "covidiot," according to the online Health website, can be defined using a number of dictionary and urban dictionary definitions. Written in July 2020, they offered:
Macmillan Dictionary - "An insulting term for someone who ignores health advice about Covid-19, hoards food unnecessarily, etc."
Urban Dictionary - "Someone who ignores the warnings regarding public health or safety. A person who hoards goods, denying them from their neighbors."
They could have added the Cambridge Dictionary definition: "Someone who behaves in a stupid way that risks spreading the infectious disease Covid-19." 
The Health website largely agrees with these definitions. However they embellish them somewhat and add:
"Basically, a covidiot doesn’t take COVID-19 and the risks of the virus seriously, despite what government officials and the global health community say. At the same time, they may also engage in selfish behavior that doesn’t look out for the greater good when it comes to slowing down and stopping the spread of the coronavirus."
[caption id="attachment_13467" align="alignright" width="300"] This is a Covidiot, this is[/caption]
They say that the term has been thrown around a lot. Indeed so, it has been liberally seeded online with the appropriate hashtags and memes doing the global, viral rounds. It is a new word, recently invented to describe people in disparaging terms. Beyond the offered dictionary definitions, Health explore some of the principles underpinning "covidiot."
"Covidiot" enables those who use it to assert some implied, underlying concepts. For example that COVID 19 is an existential threat which warrants our behaviour change, in order to protect the general good.
Those who don't adopt the required behaviour change are stupid ("covidiots"), they lack a grasp of medical science and place constitutional rights and freedoms above public health necessity. They hoard goods, and this exemplifies their selfishness indicating that they don't care about other people. They are anxious, impulsive, irrational, ill informed and don't trust what they are told by the media and government.
Whenever we consider information the first thing we need to do is to look at the evidence substantiating it. We will do this in a moment, but before we do we also need to look at any possible agenda the information provider may have.
Health are owned by the multi-billion dollar global media giant, Meredith corporation. Their two major shareholders are the global investment firms BlackRock and Vanguard. It is safe to say that the Health editors aren't going to allow anything to be published which conflicts with the interests of BlackRock or Vanguard.
In his 2021 letter to CEO's, Larry Fink, the chairman of BlackRock, outlined how COVID 19 led to an unprecedented investment opportunity [23]:
"The pandemic has presented such an existential crisis.. that it has driven us to confront the global threat of climate change more forcefully.. Markets started to price climate risk into the value of securities.. then the pandemic took hold.. and the reallocation of capital accelerated even faster. I believe that this is the beginning of a long but rapidly accelerating transition – one that will unfold over many years and reshape asset prices of every type.. the climate transition presents a historic investment opportunity."
Meredith, who own the Health website, are equally committed to the aspiration of their leading shareholder BlackRock. They state:
"Meredith has taken a proactive approach to environmental sustainability because such action ultimately benefits our shareholders.."
BlackRock are among the hoard of global corporations, many of them partners with the World Economic Forum (WEF), for whom our acceptance of the COVID 19 pandemic as an existential crisis presented a range of opportunities. As leading partners of the WEF, BlackRock fully endorse their shared view of the COVID 19 existential crisis:
"A unique window of opportunity.. determining the future state of global relations, the direction of national economies, the priorities of societies, the nature of business models and the management of a global commons.. the Great Reset initiative has a set of dimensions to build a new social contract that honours the dignity of every human being."
By a quite extraordinary coincidence the behavioural changes we supposedly had to make in response to the COVID 19 existential crisis were exactly the same as the ones we will have to commit to as we transition to a net zero, carbon neutral global financial and monetary system. A new "social contract," which won't actually exist, will see our behaviour transformed, replacing the old "social contract," which didn't exist either.
Reduced travel, limited access to resources, lower levels of car ownership, low employment, austerity, reliance upon state financial support and new forms of currency based upon sustainable stakeholder metrics, are all part of our planned net zero future. Deutsche Bank are certainly among the global corporations who are aware of this. They published an article in November 2020 where their senior analyst Eric Heymann outlined the crux of the problem in detail:
"The impact of the current climate policy on people’s everyday lives is still quite abstract.. Climate policy comes in the form of higher taxes and fees on energy.. If we really want to achieve climate neutrality, we need to change our behaviour in all these areas of life.. A major turnaround in climate policy will certainly produce losers among both households and corporates. In addition, prosperity and employment are likely to suffer considerably. There are no adequate cost-effective technologies yet to allow us to maintain our living standards in a carbon-neutral way. That means that carbon prices will have to rise considerably in order to nudge people to change their behaviour. Another (or perhaps supplementary) option is to tighten regulatory law considerably.. To what extent may we be willing to accept some kind of eco-dictatorship (in the form of regulatory law) in order to move towards climate neutrality?" 
Luckily for the global corporations pushing the net zero agenda, the existential crisis of the COVID 19 pandemic has already trained us to accept the behavioural changes demanded by the emerging eco-dictatorship. When Health wrote their "covidiot" article the behavioral change process was in full flow.
Health had a clear corporate motives to sell the idea of an existential crisis. It was not in the interests of Meredith or their major shareholders for anyone to question COVID 19. Consequently, Health called anyone who did a covidiot. Now that we have established their motive (agenda), let's look at the evidence they offered to support their allegation of idiocy.
Author and psychologist John Mayer, PhD, said people who thought COVID 19 wasn't an existential crisis were "in denial." However, if Health reported his comments accurately and in context, which is by no means a certainty, it appears he is among the millions who could more accurately be described as being in "denial."
The Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) in the UK state that the mean false positive rate for the RT-PCR test, which is the primary test for attribution of a COVID 19 case, is 2.3%. Currently in the UK, of the 218 million conducted tests 5 million were "positive." This represents 2.3% of all tests. Raising the clear possibility that a very high proportion of those tests were false positives.
According to the Office For National Statistics, the average of of COVID 19 mortality in the UK is 82. This makes mortality distribution from COVID 19 indistinguishable from standard mortality age distribution. In 2020, while mortality spikes were seen in the spring and in the winter, as usual, all cause mortality in 2020 was the 9th highest in the 21st century. The increase over the 5 year average was notable, but not unprecedented, with similar increases seen in many years during the UK post war period.
Bluntly, looking at the UK data, there is no evidence of the any existential crisis. Those who claim that there is appear to be the ones in "denial." They simply refuse to look at official statistics, deny the implications, and appear to be basing their allegations of an "existential crisis" on nothing but MSM fear porn and government propaganda.
Health reported that Timothy Murphy, MD, thought covidiots believed that they were somehow immune to COVID 19. There was no evidence given to back up his opinion. While it may be true that people who question COVID 19 don't perceive it to be a severe threat, that doesn't mean they rule out potential illness or consider themselves impervious to it. Timothy's argument also appears to have been based upon the assumption that COVID 19 was a an "existential-crisis" and the risk was severe. It was therefore fallacious.
He then reportedly said:
"They may get infected, pass the virus along, and give it to someone who will get sick and die."
There is no evidence at all to support the notion of asymptomatic infection. If you don't have symptoms of COVID 19 you are not an infection risk. If you have symptoms and then go out and mix with others then that would be irresponsible. However, seeing as the symptoms of COVID 19 are physically experienced as flu like, the chances of anyone with symptoms getting out of their sick bed and going to a party are tantamount to nil.

People like Murphy, for some reason, seemingly want the the world to believe that you can be both asymptomatic and spread COVID 19. This is unmitigated bilge. It is a blank denial of the scientific and medical evidence and does nothing but spread completely unwarranted fear about a risk that simply does not exist.
Dr Richard Watkins reportedly said that those who don't unquestionably accept the COVID 19 mythology he apparently espouses see themselves as rebels. Again, there was no evidence presented to support this opinion. Regardless, his point made no sense anyway. As noted by BlackRock and other WEF corporate partners, COVID 19 has been the catalyst for immense social, political and economic change. This has even been given a name: the "new normal."
Those who advocate this new normal, which is wholly abnormal, are supporting a genuine global revolution. The alleged covidiots who oppose it are clearly stating that the revolution is unnecessary.
They are the people who maintain that the basic precepts of our nominally free democratic societies are worth retaining. They are, in many respects, the traditionalists and the conservatives (small 'c'). The revolutionary "rebels" are those who see COVID 19 as an opportunity to "build, back, better." Watkins' claim about covidiots appears to be an inversion of reality.
Dr Petros Levounis, apparently thought there was some evidence that cheap face masks prevent the spread of a viral respiratory infection, despite there being none that they do. In a seemingly unrelated statement he supposedly then suggested that the covidiots were "anxious."
To be clear, the people labelled as covidiots do not think we are facing and existential crisis, at least not one caused by a disease. They do not think the risks from COVID 19 are unprecedented, they generally don't see any need for face masks or social distancing, but do think some protective measures should have been taken to protect the most vulnerable. In fact, they frequently point out that the government response to the COVID 19 appears to have maximised harm among the people it claimed its policies were designed to protect.
[caption id="attachment_13468" align="aligncenter" width="600"] According to Health these mask wearers are classic examples of Covidiots who panic buy goods because they don't believe in wearing masks and are selfish.[/caption]
Again, Levounis' point appears to be some bizarre inversion of reality. The so called covidiots are not living in fear of a low mortality disease. They don't panic every time they go outside, and are not in the least bit "frightened" of mingling in large crowds. This should be contrasted with the sever anxiety experienced by those who believe people like Dr Levounis who insist they should be terrified of the relatively remote risk of respiratory infection.
If the covidiots are anxious it is about the loss of our freedoms and rights, the destruction of our economic and political processes, the break down in international trade and the apparent imposition of dictatorship. However, this is more like anger than anxiety.
Watkins added that covidiots think COVID 19 is political. This too was either wilfully misleading or ignorant. No one said that COVID 19 was anything other than a respiratory disease. What those who questioned it highlighted was that the policy response to the disease, based upon the deception that it was an existential crisis, was most assuredly a transformation of our society, economy and polity.
Health round of their attack, upon anyone who doesn't unquestioningly accept their corporate led assertions, with a statement from the psychologist John Mayor. Calling the alleged covidiots "selfish" he reportedly said:
"We have created a large population of people that are more concerned about self-interests and their own gratifications than the good of larger society."  
This reaffirms Meredith's shareholder compliant view that the covidiot tends to "engage in selfish behavior that doesn’t look out for the greater good ." There is nothing wrong with maintaining social responsibility and showing due care and attention for each other, and society as a whole. On the other hand, history teaches us that we need to be very wary of those who claim the authority to define the "greater good." Acting in defence of the "greater good" has been used to justify all manner of atrocities.
There is no similar word to describe people who aren't covidiots. The offered definitions of "covidiot" suggest that these are the people who believe what they are told by the media and the government, they don't hoard goods and are selfless. They are calm, measured, rational, well informed citizens. They understand medical science and recognise that COVID 19 is a severe threat that necessitates our behaviour change. They do not think constitutional rights and freedoms are as important as serving the greater good.
Clearly, those like Health who promote the word "covidiot" are advocating a very specific world view. This appears to be that everything the "authorities" tell us about COVID 19 is beyond reproach. Anyone who doubts the veracity of the information we are given is an idiot (stupid), according to them. Health certainly would not consider the vast mass of the mainstream media (MSM) to be stupid. The MSM rarely, if ever, question anything the authorities say about COVID 19.
Such terms are intentionally divisive, pitting one group of people against the other. Merely striking back adds nothing to what should be rational, evidenced debate. Most people who believe the official COVID 19 narrative are the victims of propaganda, censorship and fear based, psychological warfare. They genuinely believe that COVID 19 is an existential threat and have behaved accordingly. Those who question the official narrative need to make every effort to be non judgemental, and to continue to share information with them in the hope that they will recognise the deception.
Nonetheless, none of us have to suffer abuse meekly, without defending ourselves. It is not unreasonable for those labeled covidiots the express their views using another "made up word" to describe their accusers. We might call them Covid-Idiots.
A covid-idiot believes whatever they are told by people they perceive to be in authority. They think "official sources" or "leading expert" means something and will not believe anything unless it is fed to them without attached official or expert approval.
They believe in scientific oxymorons. Terms like "scientific consensus" and "settled science" are popular among covid-idiots. They claim to venerates science, but never read any or think critically about it, generally denying the scientific method. Instead their scientific understanding is constructed entirely by the government and the MSM.
The covid-idiot thinks undertaking independent research or thinking for yourself is dangerous. Primarily because that is what they have been told to think. They accept all statistics as reported to them by the MSM but rarely, if ever, go to the sources themselves and look at the statistics. Even if they did, they wouldn't trust themselves to be able to think about them rationally.
Most importantly their world view is based upon reliance and trust. They are reliant upon officially approved information and reject any and all information that is not authorised. The extensive level of trust they place in the government and the MSM means that they no longer recognise the need to think for themselves. Rather they see themselves as the defenders of the official truth as they consider unquestioning obedience to authority to be the only rational position.
The covid-idiot implicitly accepts everything they are told about people labelled as covidiots. They think they are anti-vaxxers, covid-deniers, science-deniers, conspiracy theorists and far right extremists. This isn't because they are malicious or particularly vengeful people, it is simply because the covid-idiot believes whatever they are told by "officials."
The covid-idiot doesn't understand anything about the frequent abuse of political authority, has no comprehension of history or current affairs and is unable to function in society without clear instructions. They assume moral superiority precisely because they blindly accept everything they are told by the government and the MSM.
They see themselves as virtuous, based upon their unfounded belief that they are protecting themselves and others from an existential threat. The threat is nowhere near as severe as they imagine but, if it were, their vaunted protective measures would be useless against it anyway.
In doing so they have abandoned any notion of protecting our inalienable rights and freedoms and have shown a total disregard for the generations before them who made the ultimate sacrifice to win and protect those freedoms. Through their actions they are condemning this, and future generations, to tyranny and all because they are frightened. Nothing could be more selfish than that.
The post Covidiot or Covid-idiot? Which One Are You? appeared first on In This Together. Please visit In This Together - The Disillusioned Blogger .