A new book has been published, critical of the Covid consensus. Pandemic Response and the Cost of Lockdowns is a collection of essays by academics, each of whom has contributed an assessment of governments’ Covid policies from their particular subject-area in the human and social sciences.
The book includes sobering accounts of the impact of Covid policies in various states in the Global South – one of its three sections is comprised of essays written by academics with a specialism in one of these overlooked regions.
The other two sections include essays that reinterpret key Covid concepts, such as immunity and health, and that propose alternative paradigms through which Covid events might have been differently understood, such as those of intergenerational justice and proportionality.
But perhaps the greatest merit of the collection is that it represents the first of its kind: a broadly collaborative intervention from within the human and social science faculties of universities in a consensus that took hold in universities with alarming force and uniformity.
The rationale of the new publication is to offer alternative perspectives, on key concepts, prevailing paradigms and dominant contexts. It is a rationale that should be second nature to those employed to teach and research in the human and social sciences at universities; the one accomplishment that a third level education in these fields now guarantees is precisely that of offering alternative perspectives, of thinking differently.
Human and social science academics ought to have been positioned better than anyone to question the dominant view of COVID-19 and its effects and mitigation.
Yet, most academics in these faculties were and still are dispiritingly acquiescent.
Why? Why has their vocation for thinking differently not come to their aid when it really matters?
*
The academic enterprise of thinking differently began with the modern era. Descartes, father of modern science and philosophy, was also father of thinking differently, offering such a dramatically alternative perspective on ourselves and the world around us that he supposed that none of it was real:
I shall think, Descartes proposed in 1641, that the sky, the air, the earth, colours, shapes, sounds and all external things are merely delusions… I shall consider myself as not having hands or eyes, or flesh, or blood or senses, but as falsely believing that I have all these things.
Descartes could not have presumed that his idle exercise in thinking differently would be taken up by more than a few – those whose hands are calloused from laying stone upon stone are unlikely to suppose that their hands are not real; those who cradle their sick child, scarcely to consider that they do not have flesh or blood or senses.
But Descartes’ experiment in thinking differently took a surprising hold. Its rarified character proved enticing. So much so that it came to define what counted as thinking at all. The modern university – its humanities and social science faculties, at least – has been and is the institution of thinking like Descartes did, wildly and implausibly differently, the site in which external things are not believed in and so many alternative perspectives are proposed and admitted that everything may as well be delusion.
Whether or not the SARS-CoV-2 virus originated in a lab is a recurring debate. It is a red herring, supporting the opinion that the disease that it is deemed to cause – COVID-19 – originated somewhere. It did not. Professor Jon Ioannidis of Stanford, together with colleagues at the Oxford Centre for Evidence Based Medicine, has recently again confirmed that the infection-fatality rate for the SARS-CoV-2 virus is so completely within the envelope of what is normal-to-mild for seasonal respiratory infection that while SARS-CoV-2 may have originated in the Wuhan Institute of Virology, Covid as we came to know it, Covid as the deadly pathogen advertised exhaustively and globally, originated nowhere – nowhere real, that is. Covid in that sense is a concoction. A delusion. An academic exercise.
As such, the whole Covid experiment brought to fruition Descartes’ brand of thinking differently that had come to dominate academia. In the age of Covid, we were told to doubt it all, to imagine that nothing is real, to stop believing in external things. That some of the infected had no actual symptoms, that cancer needed attending to, that many didn’t have gardens to sit in, that there were no extraordinary numbers of deaths during 2020, that nobody should die alone: these and many other realities were dismissed as mere delusions.
With Covid, we were entered into the kind of radical thought experiment that would previously have counted as merely academic, the kind of disregard for what is real that our universities have incubated so regrettably and so well.
It was the destiny of universities – our institutions of thinking differently – to be sucked into the biggest and most implausible thought experiment in history: the COVID-19 pandemic and its global mitigation.
Except for one thing. The Covid consensus was built not only on radical doubt but also on radical belief. Not all things were cast as delusions; one thing – Covid – was abroad as an absolute certainty.
If Descartes put all things in doubt, why was there no significant doubt of the Covid consensus within those university faculties that have taken their cue from his method?
But there was, of course, another side to Descartes’ total doubt. There was his moment of total certainty, his infamous proposition that I am thinking, therefore I am.
The proposition was not as worthy of Descartes’ absolute certainty as he judged it to be. Quickly, philosophers began to describe its weaknesses, and the chimerical nature of his ‘I’ is arguably still playing out in the ‘identities’ which so many now appeal to without question. Yet, Descartes posed his piece of certainty with a conviction as forceful as it was irrational.
It turns out that putting everything in doubt – ceasing to believe in external realities – readies us to posit at least one thing as certain, and to cleave to that thing however unlikely it is shown to be.
In the end, too much thinking differently stops you from thinking differently. It loosens the hold upon you of what is real and what is good, scrambling your reason and your feeling and leaving you vulnerable to the loudest, most garish, message, which you cling to as a lifebuoy in your delusion and repeat even more loudly and more garishly in your turn.
Imagining that all things are false is closely allied with believing that one thing is true. Covid put the whole of reality in doubt and then presented Covid as the only certainty in town. The certainty was as heady as the doubt that cleared the way for it, though each was as unreasonable as the other.
It is past time for universities to relinquish Descartes’ method. Those employed in them must ally their energy at proposing alternative perspectives and their eagerness to present a fundamental truth with their grave admission that there is a world out there, and it and those in it are to be neither doubted lightly nor subject to false certainty.
Academics must partner virtuosity with virtue, intellectual prowess with care and commitment, and revive again the vital Platonic insight that thought and talk without an eye to what is true and good are mere irresponsible sophistry – degrading in itself and dangerous in its susceptibility to dominant narratives and the interests vested in them.
Pandemic Response and the Cost of Lockdowns is a responsible collaborative intervention in the Covid consensus from the heart of the university. The first of many, it is hoped.
Dr. Sinéad Murphy is an Associate Researcher in Philosophy at Newcastle University.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
“Cancel culture” may seem irrational if you take its purported intentions at face value but it’s obvious that it’s not about what people claim it’s about. It’s just a way to seize and maintain power, status and control, just another excuse for having the power to force other people to live their lives in a certain way.
OK..I’m not sure that this is what I’m personally really annoyed about Toby…
While I agree he shouldn’t be targeted for his opinions..it’s the fricken weasel words of apology that he used that is the crux of the matter for me….
Yes we all agree that ‘cancel culture’ is absolutely not all right..but it exists and the fact is it has to be fought…and he didn’t fight did he? …..he caved in, like everyone who cares more about their ‘visibility’ than real principles and honour?
”I have made a huge error in my judgement liking social media posts that are derogatory towards the LGBTQIA+ community and for that, I am deeply sorry and I know I have let everyone down.
“I am really disappointed in myself and I am sorry for any hurt that I have caused by my uneducated actions.
“I clearly have a lot to learn and it’s a priority for me that I do this.”
Another person who has no real principle….who can’t defend himself, women and children… and definitely not worth defending….so sorry, I couldn’t give a ‘flying… …K’ about the pathetic twat…
I see we are on the same page Mrs Gums although I believe your more robust response is decidedly more appropriate.
Yes those who bow down before the mob provide little incentive for us to defend them but when you say “sorry, I couldn’t give a ..”
Well
“First they came for the comedians and personalities and we did nothing because we were not comedians or personalities”
We can’t allow ourselves the luxury of not defending these people simply because we disapprove of the way the lobby steamrollers them and the way they then supplicate themselves. If they don’t have the strength to resist, we need to be that strength for them.
I felt some sympathy for him ….. until I read his cowardly statement conforming to the woke bullies.
He badly needs to grow a pair.
Yep I get that, but sometimes when your livelihood depends on it you decide to capitulate. You and I might not need to because we are private citizens and paying our bills doesn’t depend on capitulating. Maybe the best idea for these people is to shut the F up in the first place if your not prepared to stand by what you say and then you won’t end up being a “pathetic twat” by capitulating.
I see O’Neill is full on with the dialect du jour:
Like crimes
Unpersoning
Thoughtpolicing
Wrongthink
Give it a bloody rest and start using proper English.
Howard Donald also committed the cardinal sin of apologising and at that point my sympathy and moral support evaporates.
Yep..once, just once..wouldn’t it be nice if we found a person of principle who said..I stand by the truth and my opinions…? That person would be worth defending..
Presumably there aren’t any, which is why we are here…. is Donald a special person? I don’t think so….When we were all faced with the fascist scamdemic…did we all apologise and ask for re-orientation into right-think?
Well he has position and dosh..so he should be better equipped to stand by his principles..as he’s protected by fame and money…so why couldn’t he??
He can bugger off….pathetic worm….
“I couldn’t give a ‘flying… …K’ about the pathetic twat…”
There is no improving on this Mrs Gums.
Jordan Peterson is pretty good at not apologising. Ditto Peter Hitchens, Elon Musk, Laurence Fox, Toby Young. The world needs more disagreeable people.
“The world needs more disagreeable people.”
Happy to volunteer.
I knew we could rely on you
You’re not by any chance related to Awkward Git from the Lockdown Sceptics Reddit are you? He has sent more FOI requests that I’ve had hot dinners.
Thanks tof.
No I am not related to Awkward Git.
J K Rowling, Kathleen Stock
Their names shall appear in the roll of honour
Hopefully they’ll say something in support of Howard.
If you read the interview with Sharron Davies that was in the Telegraph a few days ago where she spoke about how many speaking engagements and hence money she’s lost, and possibly the chance to commentate at next years Olympics, for speaking up against trans women competing in women’s sport it’s sadly obvious why a lot of people have to cave in to save their careers.
Hear, hear
You’re right. Apologizing and backtracking on statement that wasn’t even a statement implies that Howard Donald is literally apologizing for his own thoughts. If he’s doing the time (being cancelled from the performance venue) anyway, he might as well do the “crime” and stand by his opinions – you never know, he might actually gain something of a following for them!
But the Orwellian language O’Neil is using quite neatly brings attention to the fact that incidents such as these within cancel culture do suggest a kind of creeping Orwellian barrier to free speech (and thought).
Thank you.
https://www.globalresearch.ca/covid-mrna-vaccine-and-pregnancy-leading-to-miscarriage-or-stillbirth/5822533
A little dump but disturbing nevertheless.
Expect no help from Parliament. There will have to be extra-Parliamentary methods in due course.
I think that our side needs to behave more like their side. Get criticised, double down.
‘Yes that’s what I said, no I wont retract. You have an opinion, so do I, but I can back mine up with science and common sense. You think a man can menstruate, bring him here and show me. I don’t mean a woman who thinks they are a man, I mean a born with male genitalia, full on XY chromosomes Human male. Bring it on or shut up with your lies…’
Easy when its not you doing it, of course…
I wonder if Howard the Coward would be happy for his kids to be taught this at school because this is absolutely disgusting and totally inappropriate. The DM sharing teaching materials that kids are getting taught. I am firmly with Ray Freeman ( psychotherapist ) who features in the lengthy article in that this is extremely alarming because it is pure indoctrination and sexualizing kids. It goes way beyond normal sex education this. Have a look, it’s shocking what they’re doing to innocent kids.
”MailOnline has found graphic teaching material — including a sex manual for pre-teens — being taught to children in classes around the UK.
It follows a concerned mother being denied the right to see the content of the lessons being taught to her 15-year-old daughter in her Relationships and Sex Education (RSE) classes, which became compulsory three years ago.
Despite a judge refusing Clare Page the right to see the material, MailOnline can reveal that a wealth of questionable teaching resources are already available online.
MailOnline can reveal that some children are:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12189041/Twelve-year-olds-taught-anal-sex-school-nine-year-olds-told-masturbate.html
This is truly sick, degenerate and depraved.
Absolutely. It’s all grooming and it’s aim is to normalize paedophilia. Especially if you look at it in conjunction to this whole Woke cult ( see below ), and I do wonder if the scroteless wonder would ”like” this tweet or even take his own kids along. It does make you wonder now what sort of a person he is and question his scruples, after all.
https://twitter.com/TPointUK/status/1668183981701865472?cxt=HHwWgICxlcafyqYuAAAA
Something else that’s sinister about it all that is mentioned in the article is that a parent was denied the right, by the school and even a judge, to see the content of the material the school is teaching her child. So in what realm would a parent not be allowed to know what their own kid is being taught in school?? The schools should be being transparent all throughout a child’s education and a parent should have the basic right to know the stuff being taught in lessons. So the fact this is deliberately being kept on the hush-hush rings massive alarm bells to me. I wonder if the teachers don’t just go all out, in full paedo-groomer mode, and tell the kids to keep it secret from the parents. Huge red flags and safeguarding issues all over the place with this revelation. Parents need to be made aware.
https://twitter.com/TPointUK/status/1662077235405135872?cxt=HHwWgICx2ZCc8ZAuAAAA
Mogs, there is so much of this appearing in our media outlets and I am struggling to get my head round it all.
What sort of parents are taking their children to ‘pride’ outings? Why are these overtly sexual parades allowed on our streets?
Who on earth is responsible for the sexualised school curriculums? Why is this not being dealt with in Westminster? National government should be putting a stop to this so why aren’t they?
I know the National governments are only nominal and obviously we are being run by Davos Deviant sideshows but for nobody at National level to stand up and scream “what about the children?” is off the scale evil. The chain of people involved in the deliberate perversion that is being thrust on to children must run in to hundreds if not thousands; have none of them felt revolted by what they are involved in? Are they all going to turn a blind eye?
I’m struggling, really struggling with this.
I don’t know what more to say.
“yesteryear’s treatment of dissent as ‘blasphemy” – heresy to be more accurate, for which you could get yourself burned alive.
Golden Rule never ever apologise to these disgusting bullies.
Totally agree.
Saing things that are true is now a crime. But if you said “everyone can have periods” what would that be?—— It would be a lie, and it would be absurd.
Howard- you Wally. , not for ticking the tw*ts, but apologising! Never, ever apologise for this sort of thing. If you ran over someone’s dog- fair enough, but honestly- don’t give these goons the satisfaction.
You’ve always been my fav, since the start and will remain so.
Agreed..except for the period when he had ‘dreads’ … bloody awful…LOL!!