Coronavirus Crisis: Main Thread

[stickdog99]

Merely to talk of racial disparity or the treatment of immigrants or differential treatment by sex is often denigrated as introducing artificial divisiveness or "identitarianism" among "the people" or within the working class.

On the other hand, using "PMC" as an extremely loose blanket term covering practically everyone living in a city, holding a B.A., and working as a teacher, freelancer or "associate" is a-ok.

EDIT: The above is language critique. Please don't take it as an attack, stickdog. It's more a peeve-level complaint.

It's a clear class war. It's the top 1% vs. everybody else. And almost everything else is smoke and mirrors, IMHO.

[stickdog99]

"there is opportunistic and greed-based intention."

Yes, but the exchange was about whether the instructions from the sf government website are part of the grand conspiracy or not.

How far does the reach of my pyramid power structure extend? Is it bound by the law of cause and effect? A skillful manipulation of radiations, like wavelengths propagating in a medium. Or is it limitless now, like a shadow over everything.

[Elvis]

That's pretty much my take.

I would add that that the governmental (non)response to COVID-19, at least in the USA, is very telling. Every response I would encourage first and foremost (free universal healthcare, free COVID-19 testing, free voluntary quarantine facilities, paid self-quarantine leave, free nutritional support and food delivery for the most vulnerable, the institution of surge facilities at roving mobile hospitals ready to move wherever they are deemed necessary, and especially government sponsored double-blind studies on the specificity and selectivity of various COVID-19 tests and the efficacy of various masks, social distancing, and social contact tracing protocols) is still completely (or at least almost completely) missing or lacking a full 10 months into this pandemic.

Finally, hedge fund investors clearly want to use our overreaction to COVID-19 to get everything at low, low prices.

This is the territory my mind is seeing, as well.

On the economic front, the proposed $1.9 trillion spending bill is a good start. Here come the warm jets.

[Belligerent Savant]

.


Devastating:



https://twitter.com/EWoodhouse7/status/ ... 2074350594

Here is a zoomed-in view of the spreadsheet/chart referenced in the above tweet. Look at the PRIMARY CAUSE column. These deaths were all labeled as COVID virus deaths, despite clear indications otherwise. This M.O. is NOT the "exception", but apparently, the NORM.

CRIMINAL/DESPICABLE.




Also:

https://www.coronababble.com/post/the-e ... society-ii

The ethics of using covert strategies - a letter to the British Psychological Society (II)

In an earlier blogpost, I described how psychologists working in the Government's 'Behavioural Insight Team' had recommended the use of covert psychological strategies - or 'nudges' - to promote people's compliance with the draconian coronavirus restrictions. In particular, I proposed that the deliberate use of fear inflation, peer pressure, and feelings of self-virtue as ways of ensuring the general public's acquiescence with lockdowns and mask mandates was ethically dubious.

As previously stated, it was decided to write to the British Psychological Society (the lead organisation for practising psychologists in the UK) to raise our ethical concerns. I am now pleased to report that the letter – supported by 47 co-signatories – was forwarded to the British Psychological Society on the 6th January 2021.

The letter is copied below.

When I receive a response from the British Psychological Society I will share it here - so watch this space!

LETTER TO BPS

Re: Ethical issues arising from the role of psychologists in the development of the Government’s communication campaign in regards to coronavirus


We are writing to you as a group of psychological specialists to raise ethical concerns about the activities of the government-employed psychologists working in the ‘Behavioural Insights Team’ (BIT) (1) in their mission to gain the public’s mass compliance with the ongoing coronavirus restrictions. Our view is that the use of covert psychological strategies - that operate below the level of people’s awareness – to ‘nudge’ citizens to conform to a contentious and unprecedented public health policy raises profound ethical questions. As the professional body overseeing the work of psychologists in the UK, we would welcome your perspective on this important issue.

Background

The British public’s widespread compliance with the Government’s restrictions has arguably been the most remarkable aspect of the coronavirus crisis. The unprecedented limits imposed on our basic freedoms – in the form of lockdowns, travel bans and mandatory mask wearing – have been passively accepted by the large majority of people, despite the lack of evidence for the efficacy of these measures. A major contributor to the mass obedience of British citizens is likely to have been the activities of government-employed psychologists working as part of the BIT.

The BIT was conceived in the Prime Minister’s office in 2010 as ‘the world’s first government institution dedicated to the application of behavioural science to policy’ (2). According to the BIT website (3), their team has rapidly expanded from a seven person unit working with the UK government to a ‘social purpose company’ operating in many countries around the world. It may seem beneficial to use any method, even techniques impacting subconsciously on behaviour, to attempt to preserve life and the publicised aims of the BIT are clearly altruistic; for example, ‘to improve people’s lives and communities’. However, the use of these techniques during the coronavirus crisis raises key ethical concerns. Arguably, health decisions should take place consciously, based on transparent information, including fully informed consent. Additionally, the moral integrity of the use of these techniques within current contexts is even more questionable given the major disagreement amongst specialists about whether the measures are, overall, helpful or harmful.

The strategies used by BIT psychologists

A comprehensive account of the psychological approaches deployed by the BIT is provided in the document, MINDSPACE: Influencing behaviour through public policy (Dolan et al., 2010) (4). The authors of MINDSPACE describe how their behavioural strategies provide ‘low cost, low pain ways of “nudging” citizens … … into new ways of acting by going with the grain of how we think and act’ (p7) (Our emphasis). By expressing the process of change in this way, this statement reveals a key difference between the BIT interventions and traditional government efforts to shape our behaviour: their reliance on tools that often impact on us subconsciously, below our awareness.

Historically, Governments have used information provision and rational argument in their efforts to alter the behaviour of their citizens, thereby encouraging people to logically (and consciously) weigh up the pros and cons of each of their options and consider changing their behaviour accordingly. By contrast, many of the nudges developed and put forward by the BIT psychologists are, to various degrees, acting upon us automatically, below the level of conscious thought and reason. Although we accept there may be legitimate ways of utilising covert psychological strategies within our communities – perhaps as a marketing tool to shape opinion about a consumer product or as part of, for example, Government campaigns to discourage vandalism or to prevent young men stabbing each other – in the sphere of individual health decisions we believe transparency is required.

To inform and direct the Government’s communication strategy aimed at achieving the public’s compliance with coronavirus restrictions, it is apparent that the BIT psychologists have promoted a range of covert psychological interventions (see blogpost (5) by Dr Sidley for further details). For example, our inherent need to preserve a positive self-image has been exploited as revealed by the incessant slogans and mantras insisting that compliance with the Government’s coronavirus diktats is akin to the altruism of helping others – a focus on ‘ego’, to use the MINDSPACE terminology. Another example has been the use of peer pressure (‘norms’) on the non-compliers by casting these supposed miscreants in the uncomfortable bracket of a deviant minority. But the most potent, and most ethically dubious, strategy has been the inflation of fear (‘affect’) as a means of coercing people into obedience.

Fear elevation

The decision to inflate the fear levels of the British public was a strategic one, as indicated by the minutes of the meeting of the Government’s expert advisors (SAGE) on the 22nd March 2020 (6). Clearly, the BIT psychologists recommended scaring people as an effective way of maximising compliance with the coronavirus restrictions, as indicated by the following statements in the minutes:

‘A substantial number of people still do not feel sufficiently personally threatened’.

‘The perceived level of personal threat needs to be increased among those who are complacent using hard-hitting emotional messaging’.

‘Use media to increase sense of personal threat’.

Consequently, the general population has had to endure a media onslaught primarily aimed at inflating perceived threat levels that has included: the daily announcement of coronavirus-death statistics, displayed without context (such as the fact that 1600 people die in the UK each day under ordinary circumstances); repeated footage of people dying in Intensive Care Units; scary slogans, such as ‘IF YOU GO OUT, YOU CAN SPREAD IT. PEOPLE WILL DIE’; and the promotion of face coverings – a potent symbol of danger – despite there being little evidence for their effectiveness in reducing viral spread.

The strategic decision to inflate fear levels has had unintended consequences, resulting in many people being too scared to leave their houses or to let anybody in, thereby exacerbating loneliness and isolation which – in turn – have detrimental impacts on physical and mental health. Persistent fear compromises the immune system and works against the objective of keeping us safe and healthy. Eight months on, the population remain in a state of heightened anxiety; surveys show (7) that, by July, UK citizens believed that coronavirus had killed 7% of the population, a total – if true – of 4,500,000 people (the official figure at the time was around 45,000). Tragically, there is accumulating evidence that inflated fear levels will be responsible for the ‘collateral’ deaths of many thousands of people with non-COVID illnesses who, too frightened to attend hospital, are dying in their own homes (8) at a rate of around 100 each day (9). There is also evidence that parents have been too scared to take their ill children to Accident & Emergency departments (10). Furthermore, the damage inflicted on the mental health of the nation, particularly on our young people (11) is as yet difficult to quantify but is likely to be substantial.

Ethical questions

Back in 2010, the authors of the MINDSPACE document recognised the significant ethical dilemmas arising from the use of influencing strategies that impact subconsciously on the country’s citizens. They acknowledged that the deployment of covert methods to change behaviour ‘has implications for consent and freedom of choice’ and offers people ‘little opportunity to opt out’ (p66 – 67). Furthermore, it is conceded that ‘policymakers wishing to use these tools … … need the approval of the public to do so’ (p74). So have the British people been consulted about whether they agree to Government using covert psychological techniques to promote compliance with contentious public health policies? We suspect not. It seems the BIT psychologists are operating in ethically-murky waters in implementing their nudges, without our consent, to promote mass acceptance of infringements on basic human freedoms.

In the British Psychological Society Code of Ethics & Conduct (2018) (12), one of the ‘Statement of Values’ is:

3.1 ‘Psychologists value the dignity and worth of all persons, with sensitivity to the dynamics of perceived authority or influence over persons and peoples and with particular regard to people’s rights.

In applying these values, Psychologists should consider: … consent … self-determination.

3.3 ‘Psychologists value their responsibilities … to the general public … including the avoidance of harm and the prevention of misuse or abuse of their contribution to society.’ [Our emphasis].


We believe that the BIT psychologists - in their deployment of covert strategies to achieve compliance with unprecedented lockdowns, travel restrictions and mask mandates – have blatantly failed to practice in a way that is consistent with your stated ethical values.

Based on the above concerns, we respectfully request that the British Psychological Society (BPS) respond to the following questions:

1. Does the BPS believe that the use of covert behavioural strategies, without explicit public consent, to ‘nudge’ people to comply with Government policies is a legitimate use of psychological skills and knowledge?

2. Is it ethically acceptable to use covert psychological strategies to increase compliance with contentious public health policies, such as the Government’s coronavirus responses?

3. Does the BPS agree that BIT psychologists who recommended that the Government’s coronavirus campaign use covert strategies, that purposefully increase fear and encourage the scapegoating of the non-compliant minority, are practising in a way that infringes the BPS Code of Ethics?

4. Assuming that the BPS recognises that there are some ethical issues arising from the use of covert psychological techniques in the ways described, what does the BPS propose to do to address these issues?

5. To minimise the likelihood of psychologists acting in an unethical way in the future, and to thereby prevent a repeat of the widespread ‘collateral damage’ associated with applying covert psychological strategies to win compliance with contentious public health policies, would the BPS publicly condemn the use of psychological skills and knowledge for this purpose?


Thank you in advance for your time in considering these important issues. We look forward to a prompt response.


References:

1. Behavioural Insight Team (2020). Webinar: Applying behavioural insights to Covid-19 comms. https://bit.ly/3mgcvHe

2. Hallsworth et al. (2018). Behavioural Government: Using behavioural science

to improve how governments make decisions https://bit.ly/2Ed7uxU

3. BIT Website. https://bit.ly/33qVTUB

4. Dolan et al., (2010). MINDSPACE: Influencing behaviour through public policy. https://bit.ly/3b2Q1E5

5. Sidley (2020). How the MEAN psychologists got us to comply with coronavirus restrictions. https://bit.ly/31Dv13A

6. SAGE Minutes of 22nd March 2020. Options for increasing adherence to social distancing measures. https://bit.ly/3h3Kted

7. COVID-19 Opinion Checker. https://bit.ly/3ikxOUG

8. Office for National Statistics (Oct. 2020). https://bit.ly/3maIhUS

9. BBC News (19th October 2020). https://bbc.in/2IJ0g6u

10. Open Democracy UK website (2020). https://bit.ly/39UtUiA

11. Townsend, E. (2020). The impact of lockdown on self-harm in young people. https://bit.ly/3jSAcmB

12. British Psychological Society (2018). Code of Ethics & Conduct https://bit.ly/35ngMRc

[conniption]

Dr. Denis Rancourt Examines COVID-19 Riddles

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXuSTYliUGc

Dr. Denis Rancourt Examines COVID-19 Riddles
•Jan 19, 2021

Peter Breggin MD
39.2K subscribers
Denis Rancourt, PhD is retired professor of physics who has, like so many of us, turned his attention to the riddles surrounding COVID-19 and is making brilliant responses that debunk the multiple controls being placed upon us from wearing masks to washing our hands. We critically evaluate the both the counting of deaths and the testing for cases. Dr. Rancourt approaches these questions as an experienced scientist with a very broad general interest in the world and its affairs. We have one strong disagreement, but in a world where we can no longer believe the establishment or go along with censorship, it is time to give voice to unexpected opinions. You will like meeting and listening to this thoughtful, informed man.

___________

Dr. Denis Rancourt - https://twitter.com/denisrancourt

[Belligerent Savant]

.

Powerful.

Holocaust Survivor: Don’t Let Authorities Use Fear to Turn You Into a ‘Robot’

Holocaust survivor and activist Vera Sharav has some strong words for adults who value their health and individual freedom ...

Holocaust survivor and activist Vera Sharav has some strong words for adults who value their health and individual freedom: Start “rebelling against things that are wrong,” and stand up against attacks on medical and individual freedom, launched by corporations and governments, under the guise of keeping us “safe” from COVID-19.

“It’s a very dangerous thing to do to just follow,” Sharav said in an interview with Stand for Health Freedom.

The founder of Alliance for Human Research Protection shared the harrowing story of how, as a 6-year-old, her refusal to follow orders literally saved her life. She suggests that what today we call “oppositional defiant disorder” is not really a “disorder” at all, but instead a life-saving strategy.

In the interview, Sharav draws parallels between Nazi Germany — including how the regime conducted medical experiments on children and adults — and what’s happening today around the COVID-19 pandemic.

Adults are “going around like sheep,” just as they were during her childhood in Germany, Sharav says. “If you deny the human individual the right to think and question and assess and make decisions based on their own judgment and experience, then you are creating robots,” she says.

Watch Part 1 of the interview with Sharav below and sign up here for Part 2, so you’ll know when it is released.

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defe ... rav-covid/

[Grizzly]

FEE, the first free-market organization in the United States, was founded in New York in 1946 by Leonard E. Read to study and advance the freedom philosophy. FEE has published or hosted lectures by some of the finest minds of the modern age, including Ludwig von Mises, F.A. Hayek, Henry Hazlitt, Milton Friedman, James Buchanan, Vernon Smith, Israel Kirzner, Walter Williams, George Stigler, Frank Chodorov, John Chamberlain, F.A. “Baldy” Harper, and William F. Buckley, Jr., among many others.

https://fee.org/about#history

interesting, no?

Absolutely no offence against the messenger, Belligerent Savant. I was just interested in their about pages, and and possibly who funds them, found this surprising...

-----


https://twitter.com/jjcouey?lang=en


Above is from JC on a bike's twitter. Youtube is censoring him...

http://enformtk.u-aizu.ac.jp/howard/markus_langemann/

[Joe Hillshoist]

.


Devastating:



https://twitter.com/EWoodhouse7/status/ ... 2074350594

Here is a zoomed-in view of the spreadsheet/chart referenced in the above tweet. Look at the PRIMARY CAUSE column. These deaths were all labeled as COVID virus deaths, despite clear indications otherwise. This M.O. is NOT the "exception", but apparently, the NORM.

CRIMINAL/DESPICABLE.




Also:

https://www.coronababble.com/post/the-e ... society-ii

The ethics of using covert strategies - a letter to the British Psychological Society (II)

In an earlier blogpost, I described how psychologists working in the Government's 'Behavioural Insight Team' had recommended the use of covert psychological strategies - or 'nudges' - to promote people's compliance with the draconian coronavirus restrictions. In particular, I proposed that the deliberate use of fear inflation, peer pressure, and feelings of self-virtue as ways of ensuring the general public's acquiescence with lockdowns and mask mandates was ethically dubious.

As previously stated, it was decided to write to the British Psychological Society (the lead organisation for practising psychologists in the UK) to raise our ethical concerns. I am now pleased to report that the letter – supported by 47 co-signatories – was forwarded to the British Psychological Society on the 6th January 2021.

The letter is copied below.

When I receive a response from the British Psychological Society I will share it here - so watch this space!

LETTER TO BPS

Re: Ethical issues arising from the role of psychologists in the development of the Government’s communication campaign in regards to coronavirus


We are writing to you as a group of psychological specialists to raise ethical concerns about the activities of the government-employed psychologists working in the ‘Behavioural Insights Team’ (BIT) (1) in their mission to gain the public’s mass compliance with the ongoing coronavirus restrictions. Our view is that the use of covert psychological strategies - that operate below the level of people’s awareness – to ‘nudge’ citizens to conform to a contentious and unprecedented public health policy raises profound ethical questions. As the professional body overseeing the work of psychologists in the UK, we would welcome your perspective on this important issue.

Background

The British public’s widespread compliance with the Government’s restrictions has arguably been the most remarkable aspect of the coronavirus crisis. The unprecedented limits imposed on our basic freedoms – in the form of lockdowns, travel bans and mandatory mask wearing – have been passively accepted by the large majority of people, despite the lack of evidence for the efficacy of these measures. A major contributor to the mass obedience of British citizens is likely to have been the activities of government-employed psychologists working as part of the BIT.

The BIT was conceived in the Prime Minister’s office in 2010 as ‘the world’s first government institution dedicated to the application of behavioural science to policy’ (2). According to the BIT website (3), their team has rapidly expanded from a seven person unit working with the UK government to a ‘social purpose company’ operating in many countries around the world. It may seem beneficial to use any method, even techniques impacting subconsciously on behaviour, to attempt to preserve life and the publicised aims of the BIT are clearly altruistic; for example, ‘to improve people’s lives and communities’. However, the use of these techniques during the coronavirus crisis raises key ethical concerns. Arguably, health decisions should take place consciously, based on transparent information, including fully informed consent. Additionally, the moral integrity of the use of these techniques within current contexts is even more questionable given the major disagreement amongst specialists about whether the measures are, overall, helpful or harmful.

The strategies used by BIT psychologists

A comprehensive account of the psychological approaches deployed by the BIT is provided in the document, MINDSPACE: Influencing behaviour through public policy (Dolan et al., 2010) (4). The authors of MINDSPACE describe how their behavioural strategies provide ‘low cost, low pain ways of “nudging” citizens … … into new ways of acting by going with the grain of how we think and act’ (p7) (Our emphasis). By expressing the process of change in this way, this statement reveals a key difference between the BIT interventions and traditional government efforts to shape our behaviour: their reliance on tools that often impact on us subconsciously, below our awareness.

Historically, Governments have used information provision and rational argument in their efforts to alter the behaviour of their citizens, thereby encouraging people to logically (and consciously) weigh up the pros and cons of each of their options and consider changing their behaviour accordingly. By contrast, many of the nudges developed and put forward by the BIT psychologists are, to various degrees, acting upon us automatically, below the level of conscious thought and reason. Although we accept there may be legitimate ways of utilising covert psychological strategies within our communities – perhaps as a marketing tool to shape opinion about a consumer product or as part of, for example, Government campaigns to discourage vandalism or to prevent young men stabbing each other – in the sphere of individual health decisions we believe transparency is required.

To inform and direct the Government’s communication strategy aimed at achieving the public’s compliance with coronavirus restrictions, it is apparent that the BIT psychologists have promoted a range of covert psychological interventions (see blogpost (5) by Dr Sidley for further details). For example, our inherent need to preserve a positive self-image has been exploited as revealed by the incessant slogans and mantras insisting that compliance with the Government’s coronavirus diktats is akin to the altruism of helping others – a focus on ‘ego’, to use the MINDSPACE terminology. Another example has been the use of peer pressure (‘norms’) on the non-compliers by casting these supposed miscreants in the uncomfortable bracket of a deviant minority. But the most potent, and most ethically dubious, strategy has been the inflation of fear (‘affect’) as a means of coercing people into obedience.

Fear elevation

The decision to inflate the fear levels of the British public was a strategic one, as indicated by the minutes of the meeting of the Government’s expert advisors (SAGE) on the 22nd March 2020 (6). Clearly, the BIT psychologists recommended scaring people as an effective way of maximising compliance with the coronavirus restrictions, as indicated by the following statements in the minutes:

‘A substantial number of people still do not feel sufficiently personally threatened’.

‘The perceived level of personal threat needs to be increased among those who are complacent using hard-hitting emotional messaging’.

‘Use media to increase sense of personal threat’.

Consequently, the general population has had to endure a media onslaught primarily aimed at inflating perceived threat levels that has included: the daily announcement of coronavirus-death statistics, displayed without context (such as the fact that 1600 people die in the UK each day under ordinary circumstances); repeated footage of people dying in Intensive Care Units; scary slogans, such as ‘IF YOU GO OUT, YOU CAN SPREAD IT. PEOPLE WILL DIE’; and the promotion of face coverings – a potent symbol of danger – despite there being little evidence for their effectiveness in reducing viral spread.

The strategic decision to inflate fear levels has had unintended consequences, resulting in many people being too scared to leave their houses or to let anybody in, thereby exacerbating loneliness and isolation which – in turn – have detrimental impacts on physical and mental health. Persistent fear compromises the immune system and works against the objective of keeping us safe and healthy. Eight months on, the population remain in a state of heightened anxiety; surveys show (7) that, by July, UK citizens believed that coronavirus had killed 7% of the population, a total – if true – of 4,500,000 people (the official figure at the time was around 45,000). Tragically, there is accumulating evidence that inflated fear levels will be responsible for the ‘collateral’ deaths of many thousands of people with non-COVID illnesses who, too frightened to attend hospital, are dying in their own homes (8) at a rate of around 100 each day (9). There is also evidence that parents have been too scared to take their ill children to Accident & Emergency departments (10). Furthermore, the damage inflicted on the mental health of the nation, particularly on our young people (11) is as yet difficult to quantify but is likely to be substantial.

Ethical questions

Back in 2010, the authors of the MINDSPACE document recognised the significant ethical dilemmas arising from the use of influencing strategies that impact subconsciously on the country’s citizens. They acknowledged that the deployment of covert methods to change behaviour ‘has implications for consent and freedom of choice’ and offers people ‘little opportunity to opt out’ (p66 – 67). Furthermore, it is conceded that ‘policymakers wishing to use these tools … … need the approval of the public to do so’ (p74). So have the British people been consulted about whether they agree to Government using covert psychological techniques to promote compliance with contentious public health policies? We suspect not. It seems the BIT psychologists are operating in ethically-murky waters in implementing their nudges, without our consent, to promote mass acceptance of infringements on basic human freedoms.

In the British Psychological Society Code of Ethics & Conduct (2018) (12), one of the ‘Statement of Values’ is:

3.1 ‘Psychologists value the dignity and worth of all persons, with sensitivity to the dynamics of perceived authority or influence over persons and peoples and with particular regard to people’s rights.

In applying these values, Psychologists should consider: … consent … self-determination.

3.3 ‘Psychologists value their responsibilities … to the general public … including the avoidance of harm and the prevention of misuse or abuse of their contribution to society.’ [Our emphasis].


We believe that the BIT psychologists - in their deployment of covert strategies to achieve compliance with unprecedented lockdowns, travel restrictions and mask mandates – have blatantly failed to practice in a way that is consistent with your stated ethical values.

Based on the above concerns, we respectfully request that the British Psychological Society (BPS) respond to the following questions:

1. Does the BPS believe that the use of covert behavioural strategies, without explicit public consent, to ‘nudge’ people to comply with Government policies is a legitimate use of psychological skills and knowledge?

2. Is it ethically acceptable to use covert psychological strategies to increase compliance with contentious public health policies, such as the Government’s coronavirus responses?

3. Does the BPS agree that BIT psychologists who recommended that the Government’s coronavirus campaign use covert strategies, that purposefully increase fear and encourage the scapegoating of the non-compliant minority, are practising in a way that infringes the BPS Code of Ethics?

4. Assuming that the BPS recognises that there are some ethical issues arising from the use of covert psychological techniques in the ways described, what does the BPS propose to do to address these issues?

5. To minimise the likelihood of psychologists acting in an unethical way in the future, and to thereby prevent a repeat of the widespread ‘collateral damage’ associated with applying covert psychological strategies to win compliance with contentious public health policies, would the BPS publicly condemn the use of psychological skills and knowledge for this purpose?


Thank you in advance for your time in considering these important issues. We look forward to a prompt response.


References:

1. Behavioural Insight Team (2020). Webinar: Applying behavioural insights to Covid-19 comms. https://bit.ly/3mgcvHe

2. Hallsworth et al. (2018). Behavioural Government: Using behavioural science

to improve how governments make decisions https://bit.ly/2Ed7uxU

3. BIT Website. https://bit.ly/33qVTUB

4. Dolan et al., (2010). MINDSPACE: Influencing behaviour through public policy. https://bit.ly/3b2Q1E5

5. Sidley (2020). How the MEAN psychologists got us to comply with coronavirus restrictions. https://bit.ly/31Dv13A

6. SAGE Minutes of 22nd March 2020. Options for increasing adherence to social distancing measures. https://bit.ly/3h3Kted

7. COVID-19 Opinion Checker. https://bit.ly/3ikxOUG

8. Office for National Statistics (Oct. 2020). https://bit.ly/3maIhUS

9. BBC News (19th October 2020). https://bbc.in/2IJ0g6u

10. Open Democracy UK website (2020). https://bit.ly/39UtUiA

11. Townsend, E. (2020). The impact of lockdown on self-harm in young people. https://bit.ly/3jSAcmB

12. British Psychological Society (2018). Code of Ethics & Conduct https://bit.ly/35ngMRc

Without knowing any thing else about those cases ... do you really think COVID wouldn't make some ODs more likely? Especially opiates.

[stickdog99]

What's more likely, COVID-19 or lockdown orders?

[Elvis]

FEE, the first free-market organization in the United States, was founded in New York in 1946 by Leonard E. Read to study and advance the freedom philosophy. FEE has published or hosted lectures by some of the finest minds of the modern age, including Ludwig von Mises, F.A. Hayek, Henry Hazlitt, Milton Friedman, James Buchanan

Those are the assholes who got us into this top-heavy mess.

[mentalgongfu2]

Hey, Belligerent Savant. You asked earlier where I live and what I'm seeing in terms of mask wearing, etc. For the record, those answers are already in this thread pages ago, should you care to read what other people have to say. I don' think you really do, so I'm not going to repeat myself. Maybe I'm wrong, and you're not solely intent on promoting your existing conclusion. Should that actually be the case, all you have to do is scroll back to April or thereabouts. Not much has changed here since then. By the time anyone in authority started to take seriously death and illness and hospital ICU overload, there weren't many people who could be persuaded away from what they had already concluded.

[Belligerent Savant]

.
This thread is currently 136 pages. Most of these pages accumulated AFTER April. To expect i'd recall your posting from almost a year ago is silly, if serious.

You can attempt to besmirch my character all you want. The data is what it is, and eventually, hopefully sooner rather than later, policy will promptly adjust to reflect actual risk rather than grossly inflated risk.

I have replied to and addressed many comments here, so clearly i read what others type.

FEE, the first free-market organization in the United States, was founded in New York in 1946 by Leonard E. Read to study and advance the freedom philosophy. FEE has published or hosted lectures by some of the finest minds of the modern age, including Ludwig von Mises, F.A. Hayek, Henry Hazlitt, Milton Friedman, James Buchanan

Those are the assholes who got us into this top-heavy mess.

Ha, ha.. right! So then the commentary by the holocaust survivor can simply be discarded w/out any further assessment! Nothing to see here, carry on.

The 'top-heavy mess' is caused by many factors, needless to say.

[dada]

Actually, it kind of seems like the fact that she's a holocaust survivor is supposed to be the end of the conversation, after which all assessment should be discarded.

Would it surprise you to learn that Jews don't always agree about everything?

[dada]

Why Can’t the Rabbis Agree on Anything?
The Jewish obsession with arguments
By Tzvi Freeman

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/3225640/jewish/Why-Cant-the-Rabbis-Agree-on-Anything.htm

"Dear Ask-the-Rabbi Rabbi,
How is it that every rabbi I ask any question on anything Jewish gives me a different answer? And I’m talking just about the Orthodox ones! Isn’t this supposed to be one religion? How can we rely on these rabbis if they can’t even agree with one another? —Mac Lokus

(ask-the-rabbi rabbi replies)
Hi Mac! First off, I disagree."

Cute.

[Grizzly]

Just for the record, I personally have no truck with what Belligerent Savant, posted, -him- nor the argument, and regret that it caused a stir. I for one do not throw the baby out with the bathwater, and am glad you posted it, BS.

I found it merely interesting that FEE of which I've never heard of, even during my academic career. But looks to be like one of those 'Think Tanks', that paid Samuel P. Huntington, to write his bombastic , 'Clash Of Civilizations', which became our disastrous -neocon- foreign policy.

However the story/article Savant posted has no resemblance to that...
Sorry you're getting shit, at my behest, mate...

----
https://twitter.com/jjcouey?lang=en