I find it strange that this discussion of science and rational consideration of the natural world is undertaken by people selling supplies for doing magic. At ~30 minutes in there's an ad for such supplies.
While that does not invalidate any actual rational statements or observations they make, it strongly suggests that the people behind the discussion are incapable of differentiating between magical and rational thinking.
That makes it necessary to very carefully consider their statements, because they clearly are incapable of reason. Dr. Kaufman may not be an alchemist or believe in magic, but the host does, and this suggests that Dr. Kaufman's hypothesis is acceptable only to people that believe in magic and alchemy.
Frankly, that's not a good look for such radical disagreement with allopathic medical science as Dr. Kaufman advocates.
Thanks!
From a morally compassionate understanding, I would even say (to use the stylistic device of exaggeration/radical formulations) that even if the contagion theory and the one about the immune system were undoubtedly correct, it would still be questionable whether measures taken for protection and defence are not already unacceptable for the sole reason that the defence against danger can only ever be a temporary act, but not a permanent state. Because, no matter how great a danger is, the time to meet it cannot be cancelled, but only postponed.
But postponing it indefinitely, as we are supposed to accept worldwide, is like a never-ending imprisonment, a fixation of the living in the inanimate.
Personally, I have decided not to accept the contagion theory (that is, even if it is true) as true, because I give the higher authority to another circumstance: That life between human beings is impossible if we classify the next person as a perma-danger. This attitude that the other person potentially threatens my life is so destructive that it does not outweigh any possible benefit for me. I can certainly see them: people who have always tended to feel uncomfortable among their species (crowded streets, crowds when shopping, full buses and trains, etc.) feel much more comfortable with the new distance rules.
But "feeling relieved or comfortable" is out of proportion to what is damaged in the interpersonal. Therefore, it is not really an acceptable reason to endure the cuts in everyone's psychosocial life.
I have heard these very statements: "The lockdown was a relief for me" or "it was good to be in quarantine", for me an expression of "since I cannot do anything good for myself, am unable to take time off, I welcomed the forced circumstance of having to do so (I would not have done it on my own). Similarly, people who have had to deal with serious illness say afterwards: "I needed that to get off the pace. I would otherwise have worked myself to death (drinking, gambling, etc. etc.).
And what can I say? Of course they are not wrong. They lived a life of extremes - stress and boredom - until they got sick. The mistake is to think that this form of personal responsibility can be replaced. By external strong events, like what we have been experiencing since 2020.
People try to find all kinds of arguments, rational as well as irrational, it often does not look like a good strategy but I am not so sure if it is always as counterproductive as you indicate it...
Greetings to you.
This is very true. I have also noted a great many people who didn't have to substantially change their habits during lockdown, because they avoided the proscribed activity as a matter of course anyway. While these folks didn't suffer changes in their day to day lives to the degree many of us did, I think it would be a mistake for them to think that made the lockdowns acceptable.
The problem for them is it could go the other way, and people could be ordered to assemble instead of avoid assembling, which they would find substantially disruptive. The problem is that personal authority over our sociality has been usurped, and regardless of whether one finds it uncomfortable to be highly sociable or not, it is critically vital that one themselves determine the degree of sociality they undertake, that such authority not be seized by overlords.
It is basically the power to corral the herd that husbandmen have over barnyard animals, and no human person should suffer being merely livestock.
Even if being corralled in the feedlot isn't troubling, the chute to the slaughterhouse surely will be.
Be well
Very true. An apt example of reversal of the image.
Although we both know that the opposite case, the order to assemble, is unlikely to happen. I think that, as you say, it would probably not have come about at all if very many people had not already lived an isolated life and fundamentally preferred such a life to sociability.
Some proudly publish that they have a "social phobia", with a palpable attitude that makes everyone who reads or hears such statements feel that there has long been social acceptance about it. Like saying that you "have an allergy".
Therefore, 2020 is an extreme expression of what has already been palpable and accepted in us humans long before this time, isn't it?
I can even understand why it is that people isolate themselves, are lonely or choose such a lonely life.
In a way, I have gone through such a process of distancing myself, even though I think it goes against my nature.
But who knows, it's very difficult to give yourself answers with simple cause and effect. Because, on the other hand, I think that I have entered an age anyway where I no longer have the quantity of relationships that I had when I was younger.
Probably the strangest and scariest thing for me is that we humans can exist in completely parallel worlds. Where the perception is suddenly so different from the other that you can hardly comprehend it.
Thank you, be well too.