The media is saturated with groupthink right now. It is impossible to turn on the television, social media, any mainstream newspaper and not be confronted with the same set of assumptions and conclusions. A narrow set of more or less authoritarian responses. Even many of my favorite podcasters, normally independent critical thinkers, are parroting the same ideas. No one needs to summarise these ideas. They are now common knowledge.
But there are some contrarians (some, like Peter Hitchens, are so contrarian, they reject the term as an insult). A contrarian need not be someone who just objects for the sake of objecting: it is someone who can still go against the grain and provide another perspective even in the face of mob outrage.
In terms of actual experts, ever since this started, Michael Osterholm, epidemiologist, regents professor, and director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota has stepped beyond the typical authoritarian response. Michael has spent his life considering situations just like this one. Peter Attia interviewed Michael in a (at times highly technical) interview. Peter’s covid podcast series is excellent. His podcast with Michael is available here: https://peterattiamd.com/michaelosterholm/ It’s a podcast I don’t need to write notes on because Peter provides his own!
And Amesh Adalja Senior Scholar at the Johns Hopkins University Center for Health Security whose life’s work has focused on emerging infectious disease, pandemic preparedness, and biosecurity is another “contrarian” to some extent. Peter also interviewed him here: https://peterattiamd.com/ameshadalja/
Joe Rogan’s podcast with Michael was the first I heard on corona and is worth listening to. Meanwhile Sam Harris and Yaron Brook both interviewed Amesh Adalja. Yaron was way way ahead of the curve interviewing Amesh back on 2 Feb 2020. On Youtube that episode has only 2897 views (April 15) which I think is an absolute scandal. Find it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8OHWAe17-k It is so prescient and it was then that I thought “well here’s the guy governments need to listen to”. 3 months ago! But he was ignored.
He was ignored but other “experts” called for immediate and severe lockdowns (typically not experts in actual pandemics like Amesh). What was striking was governments in lock step seemed to fall in behind those calling for “stronger” measures. That seemed logical to me: governments are authorities so of course they desire more of it. What was more shocking to me was that *the people* simply agreed and were largely supine before this overreach and completely ignored the many experts that spoke out against it for all sorts of reasons. Herd immunity, the policy pursued by the UK government was based on good science. But it was abandoned before it had a chance to work. And by work we do not mean: prevent emergency departments from being overwhelmed or even eliminate the virus (the latter being the new target once it seemed we’d hit the bullseye on the first) - what we mean by work is, literally, “work” - allow the machine of society to continue such that wealth continued to be created so that problems from all other sources would not overwhelm us and stultify the economy.
Some excellent contrarians right now on all this include the following who all have podcasts:
Brendan O’Neill.
Yaron Brook.
Jonathon Davis.
If you do not have time to listen to these podcasts - I understand. I cannot keep up with all the quality stuff out there now let alone produce my own podcast (as it is, I have some contract work to do at home which is taking up my time). But my Apple Watch, a pair of wireless headphones and a couple of hour long walks a day mean I can get through some if not all of what I want to listen to.
Yes, all of these podcasters are saying things along similar lines. Why am I not diversifying? Considering other perspectives? Because the other side of the debate is well known by everyone. I’ve already considered the other perspective and so have you. Everyone understands the (supposed) argument for complete and utter lock down. Everyone in the media is more or less saying we need to continue to lock down and almost all politicians (certainly in Australia) agree with one another. We don’t need to hear more of it - the overwhelming majority of people are onboard with it because they understand THOSE arguments. It’s a simple argument: virus is contagious and harmful. Stay inside. Some people won’t obey so onforce the lockdown with new laws and regulations. Those voices are out there and still arguing this simple case. There are few prominent voices for liberty and life. But slowly a few rays of light are streaking into this “lock everything down” mentality of fear and unreason. No one has ever argued against people “locking down” if they want to. If you are afraid, then you should stay home and if you do stay home you are safe. No one is going to break into your home to cough on you. You can get essentials delivered for as long as you like. You can disinfect the boxes your goods are delivered in. You are as safe as ever. Other people can assess the risk and adapt their own behaviour accordingly. We can all listen to the information that is out there and make decisions based on what we do know. Yes, there is lots we do not know: but that is always the case - about everything all the time. “Not knowing” is not a reason to implement the precautionary principle: don’t try something “different” to the moral zeitgeist because YOU just might make things WORSE. Precisely because we do not know, a variety of approaches can work.
Especially in Australia.
So below are links to my notes on some of my favorite independent thinkers on this issue in addition to the above. Time permitting I might add some more summaries in the coming weeks as I listen to more because I know many people simply don't have the time nor inclination to listen to long form audio.
Brendan O'Neill interviews Peter Hitchens about authoritarianism
Jonathan Davis on the economic factors
But there are some contrarians (some, like Peter Hitchens, are so contrarian, they reject the term as an insult). A contrarian need not be someone who just objects for the sake of objecting: it is someone who can still go against the grain and provide another perspective even in the face of mob outrage.
In terms of actual experts, ever since this started, Michael Osterholm, epidemiologist, regents professor, and director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota has stepped beyond the typical authoritarian response. Michael has spent his life considering situations just like this one. Peter Attia interviewed Michael in a (at times highly technical) interview. Peter’s covid podcast series is excellent. His podcast with Michael is available here: https://peterattiamd.com/michaelosterholm/ It’s a podcast I don’t need to write notes on because Peter provides his own!
And Amesh Adalja Senior Scholar at the Johns Hopkins University Center for Health Security whose life’s work has focused on emerging infectious disease, pandemic preparedness, and biosecurity is another “contrarian” to some extent. Peter also interviewed him here: https://peterattiamd.com/ameshadalja/
Joe Rogan’s podcast with Michael was the first I heard on corona and is worth listening to. Meanwhile Sam Harris and Yaron Brook both interviewed Amesh Adalja. Yaron was way way ahead of the curve interviewing Amesh back on 2 Feb 2020. On Youtube that episode has only 2897 views (April 15) which I think is an absolute scandal. Find it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8OHWAe17-k It is so prescient and it was then that I thought “well here’s the guy governments need to listen to”. 3 months ago! But he was ignored.
He was ignored but other “experts” called for immediate and severe lockdowns (typically not experts in actual pandemics like Amesh). What was striking was governments in lock step seemed to fall in behind those calling for “stronger” measures. That seemed logical to me: governments are authorities so of course they desire more of it. What was more shocking to me was that *the people* simply agreed and were largely supine before this overreach and completely ignored the many experts that spoke out against it for all sorts of reasons. Herd immunity, the policy pursued by the UK government was based on good science. But it was abandoned before it had a chance to work. And by work we do not mean: prevent emergency departments from being overwhelmed or even eliminate the virus (the latter being the new target once it seemed we’d hit the bullseye on the first) - what we mean by work is, literally, “work” - allow the machine of society to continue such that wealth continued to be created so that problems from all other sources would not overwhelm us and stultify the economy.
Some excellent contrarians right now on all this include the following who all have podcasts:
Brendan O’Neill.
Yaron Brook.
Jonathon Davis.
If you do not have time to listen to these podcasts - I understand. I cannot keep up with all the quality stuff out there now let alone produce my own podcast (as it is, I have some contract work to do at home which is taking up my time). But my Apple Watch, a pair of wireless headphones and a couple of hour long walks a day mean I can get through some if not all of what I want to listen to.
Yes, all of these podcasters are saying things along similar lines. Why am I not diversifying? Considering other perspectives? Because the other side of the debate is well known by everyone. I’ve already considered the other perspective and so have you. Everyone understands the (supposed) argument for complete and utter lock down. Everyone in the media is more or less saying we need to continue to lock down and almost all politicians (certainly in Australia) agree with one another. We don’t need to hear more of it - the overwhelming majority of people are onboard with it because they understand THOSE arguments. It’s a simple argument: virus is contagious and harmful. Stay inside. Some people won’t obey so onforce the lockdown with new laws and regulations. Those voices are out there and still arguing this simple case. There are few prominent voices for liberty and life. But slowly a few rays of light are streaking into this “lock everything down” mentality of fear and unreason. No one has ever argued against people “locking down” if they want to. If you are afraid, then you should stay home and if you do stay home you are safe. No one is going to break into your home to cough on you. You can get essentials delivered for as long as you like. You can disinfect the boxes your goods are delivered in. You are as safe as ever. Other people can assess the risk and adapt their own behaviour accordingly. We can all listen to the information that is out there and make decisions based on what we do know. Yes, there is lots we do not know: but that is always the case - about everything all the time. “Not knowing” is not a reason to implement the precautionary principle: don’t try something “different” to the moral zeitgeist because YOU just might make things WORSE. Precisely because we do not know, a variety of approaches can work.
Especially in Australia.
So below are links to my notes on some of my favorite independent thinkers on this issue in addition to the above. Time permitting I might add some more summaries in the coming weeks as I listen to more because I know many people simply don't have the time nor inclination to listen to long form audio.
Brendan O'Neill interviews Peter Hitchens about authoritarianism
Jonathan Davis on the economic factors