Fine.I agree. But the academic insult that is the open letter from academics is missed. Normally we would expect an academic who is considered to have erred to be responded to academically. So an article would be answered by another article, both based on reason supported by evidence. Now a twitter frenzy or an open letter seems enough to get academic journals to withdrawn and even delete published academic articles. Surely we should just point out to the editors of such journals that all they need do is ask the complainants to do an academic riposte to an academic piece. And that riposte should itself be peer reviewed. Why this is not happening speaks eloquently of the collapse of standards we are seeing in university culture in the Western World, though not I believe in Asia. We currently have the dumbest elites in the history of civilisation.
Peter Francis
2 years ago
Thanks, Daniel Rasmussen, for a highly readable history of the open letter. How many readers remember “A Letter on Justice and Open Debate”, published in July, 2020? Signed by 153 “notables”, it complained about the growing “intolerance of opposing views”. Transgender activists claimed that this was transphobic, social justice warriors claimed it was anti-BLM and liberals claimed that it was just a dig at political correctness. I could go on, but the final irony was that some signers wanted their names removed when they realised that some of the other signers had right-of-centre views.
So despite the open letter’s condemnation for the “vogue for public shaming” and “the tendency to dissolve complex policy issues in a blinding moral certainty”, those tendencies have continued apace.
Last edited 2 years ago by Peter Francis
Galeti Tavas
2 years ago
Shaky premise, I think.
I see the issue as in the past we had ‘Greats’, very respected thinkers and achievers that were known as that, and therefore their signature commanded at least reviewing their argument.
Today we have Celebrity, and then lots of Politicals, but no one who commands, popular, actual, respect as a thinker, and some ‘Experts’, but we think they all have an agenda of some kind..
That is why the Open Letter – they wish to show an entire class of people with some level of authority are collectively saying something.
That they inevitable end up being some loons all just flocking together further undermines what they are trying to promote.
July 2021 saw The Lancet “Over 1,200 doctors and scientists condemn UK COVID-19 policy as “dangerous and unethical” in a hysterical movement to keep lockdown. This suited the agenda, so they won.
This was one of a great many of scientists writing group signed open letters advocating a multitude of different things.. almost all pushing for Lockdown, that crazy form of ‘Self Harm’ which the Young of the West will be crushed paying for.
The best open letter was
“Great Barrington Declaration The Great Barrington Declaration is a statement advocating an alternative approach to the COVID-19 pandemic which involves “Focused Protection” of those most at risk and seeks to avoid or minimize the societal harm of the COVID-19 lockdowns. Authored by Sunetra Gupta of the University of Oxford, Jay Bhattacharya of Stanford University, and Martin Kulldorff of Harvard University, it was drafted at the American Institute for Economic Research in Great Barrington, Massachusetts, and signed there on 4 October 2020″
And it did no good, may as well have not bothered, as it was correct – but was contrary to the Political Agenda, and so dismissed by the MSM, Social Media, and Government, the WHO, and the Medical Industrial Complex.
Anyway – that is the evolution of the open letter – the individuals are no longer of caliber to command respect in today’s systems (and deservedly so) – so groups try to manage by numbers, but that does not even matter – because today, with agenda driven Social Media Tech, MSM, Gov, algorithms, censoring, banning, we are powerless against the Swamp.
The main problem with the Barrington declaration is that their argument was not convincing. They never gave good reason to believe that their policies would actually work as advertised. Protecting the very most vulnerable (who all need lots care and help from others) while everybody else around them got sick did not sound feasible – and would leave the slightly less vulnerable, like the over-60’s exposed. Protecting everyone over 60 was obviously impossible. Meanwhile the sick and dead from the less vulnerable – a small fraction of a very large number – would still weigh on the health system, the long-term consequences of COVID would still fall widely, and people would be unlikely to keep going to raves and restaurants while everybody got sick around them – we are not all fanatical libertarians. A very likely result of the Barrington policies would be that the measures for protecting the vulnerable would fail, and everybody would get sick, with death counts and hospital overfilling to match – but meanwhile the restaurants would stay open and nobody would be out to inconvenience.
The Swedish example argues against the need for stringent government imposed lockdowns, and that of some US states as well. However none of this virtue signalling saying how much we cared about the elderly and vulnerable actually meant we protected them at all, as in care homes. I agree it is fundamentally difficult, but I would not say impossible, with thorough testing of staff, special facilities where staff would live in etc. The point is though that in neither Sweden, France, Spain, Italy, New York or the UK were the elderly meaningfully protected by the policies that they actually adopted. Shielding was effective, but precious little support was offered.
Fine.I agree. But the academic insult that is the open letter from academics is missed. Normally we would expect an academic who is considered to have erred to be responded to academically. So an article would be answered by another article, both based on reason supported by evidence. Now a twitter frenzy or an open letter seems enough to get academic journals to withdrawn and even delete published academic articles. Surely we should just point out to the editors of such journals that all they need do is ask the complainants to do an academic riposte to an academic piece. And that riposte should itself be peer reviewed. Why this is not happening speaks eloquently of the collapse of standards we are seeing in university culture in the Western World, though not I believe in Asia. We currently have the dumbest elites in the history of civilisation.
Thanks, Daniel Rasmussen, for a highly readable history of the open letter. How many readers remember “A Letter on Justice and Open Debate”, published in July, 2020? Signed by 153 “notables”, it complained about the growing “intolerance of opposing views”. Transgender activists claimed that this was transphobic, social justice warriors claimed it was anti-BLM and liberals claimed that it was just a dig at political correctness. I could go on, but the final irony was that some signers wanted their names removed when they realised that some of the other signers had right-of-centre views.
So despite the open letter’s condemnation for the “vogue for public shaming” and “the tendency to dissolve complex policy issues in a blinding moral certainty”, those tendencies have continued apace.
Shaky premise, I think.
I see the issue as in the past we had ‘Greats’, very respected thinkers and achievers that were known as that, and therefore their signature commanded at least reviewing their argument.
Today we have Celebrity, and then lots of Politicals, but no one who commands, popular, actual, respect as a thinker, and some ‘Experts’, but we think they all have an agenda of some kind..
That is why the Open Letter – they wish to show an entire class of people with some level of authority are collectively saying something.
That they inevitable end up being some loons all just flocking together further undermines what they are trying to promote.
July 2021 saw The Lancet “Over 1,200 doctors and scientists condemn UK COVID-19 policy as “dangerous and unethical” in a hysterical movement to keep lockdown. This suited the agenda, so they won.
This was one of a great many of scientists writing group signed open letters advocating a multitude of different things.. almost all pushing for Lockdown, that crazy form of ‘Self Harm’ which the Young of the West will be crushed paying for.
The best open letter was
“Great Barrington Declaration
The Great Barrington Declaration is a statement advocating an alternative approach to the COVID-19 pandemic which involves “Focused Protection” of those most at risk and seeks to avoid or minimize the societal harm of the COVID-19 lockdowns. Authored by Sunetra Gupta of the University of Oxford, Jay Bhattacharya of Stanford University, and Martin Kulldorff of Harvard University, it was drafted at the American Institute for Economic Research in Great Barrington, Massachusetts, and signed there on 4 October 2020″
And it did no good, may as well have not bothered, as it was correct – but was contrary to the Political Agenda, and so dismissed by the MSM, Social Media, and Government, the WHO, and the Medical Industrial Complex.
Anyway – that is the evolution of the open letter – the individuals are no longer of caliber to command respect in today’s systems (and deservedly so) – so groups try to manage by numbers, but that does not even matter – because today, with agenda driven Social Media Tech, MSM, Gov, algorithms, censoring, banning, we are powerless against the Swamp.
The main problem with the Barrington declaration is that their argument was not convincing. They never gave good reason to believe that their policies would actually work as advertised. Protecting the very most vulnerable (who all need lots care and help from others) while everybody else around them got sick did not sound feasible – and would leave the slightly less vulnerable, like the over-60’s exposed. Protecting everyone over 60 was obviously impossible. Meanwhile the sick and dead from the less vulnerable – a small fraction of a very large number – would still weigh on the health system, the long-term consequences of COVID would still fall widely, and people would be unlikely to keep going to raves and restaurants while everybody got sick around them – we are not all fanatical libertarians. A very likely result of the Barrington policies would be that the measures for protecting the vulnerable would fail, and everybody would get sick, with death counts and hospital overfilling to match – but meanwhile the restaurants would stay open and nobody would be out to inconvenience.
The Swedish example argues against the need for stringent government imposed lockdowns, and that of some US states as well. However none of this virtue signalling saying how much we cared about the elderly and vulnerable actually meant we protected them at all, as in care homes. I agree it is fundamentally difficult, but I would not say impossible, with thorough testing of staff, special facilities where staff would live in etc. The point is though that in neither Sweden, France, Spain, Italy, New York or the UK were the elderly meaningfully protected by the policies that they actually adopted. Shielding was effective, but precious little support was offered.
Accidental duplication. Removed