Muddled Thinking

Conspiracies Everywhere    

   Recently a friend remarked that many of those who live in a country close by apparently believe some rather bizarre things. I replied that I had just read a piece which indicated that a significant number of Canadians also hold views that can be characterized as 'strange.' Given that I read quickly and recall little, I was unable to come up with the number, or provide a 'strange' example and couldn't even remember in which publication the information could be found. So I went searching for the source. Here it is:

   The data indicating that even Canadians succumb to conspiracy theories are provided by ABACUS DATA. They are worth recording below and I hope the folks at ABACUS don't mind.

"Millions Believe in Conspiracy Theories in Canada," By Bruce Anderson & David Coletto, June 12, 2022

"We recently completed nationwide surveying among 1500 Canadians.  The focus was on the levels of trust people have in institutional sources of information, and belief in conspiracy theories.  This is the second in a series called “Trust & Facts: What Canadians Believe”
• 44% (the equivalent of 13 million adults) believe “big events like wars, recessions and the outcomes of elections are controlled by small groups of people working in secret against us”. Almost as many agree “much of our lives are being controlled by plots hatched in secret places.
• 37% (or 11 million) think “there is a group of people in this country who are trying to replace native born Canadians with immigrants who agree with their political views. This is an articulation of what is commonly referred to as replacement theory.
• 20% believe it is definitely or probably true that “the World Economic Forum is a group of global elites with a secretive strategy to impose their ideas on the world.” Another 37% think it is possibly true or aren’t sure either way.
• 13% think it is definitely or probably true that Microsoft founder Bill Gates is using microchips to track people and affect human behaviour. Another 21% say it’s possible, or aren’t really sure.
Summary:
Canadians who want to believe that Canadian society is relatively unaffected by conspiracy thinking will find little comfort in these results. Millions believe that our lives are controlled by secret plots to undermine our interests…..
Perhaps the most disconcerting thing in these numbers is the fact that mistrust of institutional accounts isn’t simply neutral skepticism – it is often accompanied by a willingness to believe dangerous contrarian theories. This threatens to undermine the ability of political parties, businesses, civil society groups, and governments to help build consensus and make progress together."

   One can argue that pollsters have often been wrong of late, or that perhaps they are part of a conspiracy. Or perhaps you do not find the percentages 'significant' and think them not "disconcerting." After all, a larger number of Canadians do not believe that Bill Gates is implanting microchips.

   

The Epoch Times
   Although the number of odd notions seems to be increasing, the number of newspapers available to assess them is decreasing. This may be a good example of an "inverse relationship." The need now for reliable sources brings me to The Epoch Times, which I am sure cannot be characterized as such. 
   Back at the beginning of 2021, I received a printed copy of The Epoch Times in my mailbox, as did many Canadians. I told you all about it in my post, The Epoch Times. At the beginning of June I began receiving copies of The Epoch Times in my inbox and I collected them over a few weeks. There were lots. I thought I would offer another assessment, but have changed my mind. I did enough work on the original one. Although Mr. Tang, the founder, says this, I don't agree: "As a media dedicated to truth, we pledged to report the news factually, honestly, and completely, without a political agenda." I do agree when he notes that,  "The Epoch Times was born with the purpose of telling the world about the destructiveness of socialism and communism, and specifically, to expose the disinformation and human rights violations of the Chinese Communist Party and how it works to infiltrate other countries." It also becomes clear as one reads The Epoch Times that vaccine mandates are an example of totalitarian oppression.  In closing, I will say that when I checked "unsubscribe", my request was granted and I was not continually badgered as I am by some other publications.

Beware the "Pink Slime"
   As local news outlets have closed, "pink slime" publications have slithered into many areas and neighbourhoods pretending to be produced within the communities in which they appear. The information provided is then more likely to be accepted and the information is very likely to have a very conservative bent.  In our area, if a newspaper suddenly appears bearing the title of The Masonville Times or The Wortley News, be suspicious. 

Sources: 

   The image above is found in: "Trump, QAnon and an Impending Judgement Day: Behind the Facebook-fueled Rise of The Epoch Times," Brandy Zadrozny and Ben Collins, NBC News, Aug. 20, 2019. Some of The Epoch Times emails I received, addressed such attacks from the 'mainstream" media. 

   There is now a Wikipedia entry for, "Pink-Slime Journalism."  For an original account about "pink slime" see: Hundreds of ‘pink slime’ Local News Outlets are Distributing Algorithmic Stories and Conservative Talking Points,"  Priyanjana Bengani, Columbia Journalism Review, Dec. 18, 2019.

"An increasingly popular tactic challenges conventional wisdom on the spread of electoral disinformation: the creation of partisan outlets masquerading as local news organizations. An investigation by the Tow Center for Digital Journalism at Columbia Journalism School has discovered at least 450 websites in a network of local and business news organizations, each distributing thousands of algorithmically generated articles and a smaller number of reported stories. Of the 450 sites we discovered, at least 189 were set up as local news networks across ten states within the last twelve months by an organization called Metric Media."

The Bonus: 

   It does not help when famous people, who should know better, help spread vaccine misinformation: "The Anti-Vaccine Movement's New Frontier: A Wave of Parents Have Been Radicalized by Covid-era Misinformation to Reject Ordinary Childhood Immunizations - With Potentially Lethal Consequences," Moises Velasquez-Manoff, NYT, May 31, 2022. 

Druthers

 Newspapers

    So many newspapers have closed in recent years there is a Wikipedia entry for "The Decline of Newspapers." It is odd then, that I received another new one last week. You may recall my post about The Epoch Times back in January. This week our subject is Druthers which is pictured above. That is the third issue and 100,000 copies of it are being distributed across the country. The title, as the masthead indicates, means what it implies, as in "If I had my druthers, we all would know the truth," and apparently that is all that Druthers publishes.  You can decide for yourself at druthers.net where you can access and assess all the issues currently available. 

   Not only does Druthers give you the truth, it also points you to other places where more of it is found. On p. 5 of the issue above you will find "Websites of Interest" and the first one listed is "Vaccine Choice Canada" and the second is "The World Doctors Alliance." The first one cannot be said to be vaccine friendly and the second appeared in the headline: "World Doctors Alliance" Shares False and Misleading Claims About the Covid-19 Pandemic." Still, one wants to trust the publisher Shawn Jason Laponte, who says on the last page: "Please world, be kind to one another. We really are just one big earth family. Thank you. I love you. Keep on passing it on." He is publishing Druthers "Because Mainstream Media Sucks!" One London reader was impressed enough to offer to hand out copies at his place of work. Before you make such a decision do have a look at Druthers where you can also buy this T-shirt. 

Vaccines

   I thought most Canadians were worried about not getting the vaccine which, at this point, is a legitimate thing to be worried about. I forgot about the fact that vaccines cause autism and that many movie stars and wealthy and influential people like Robert F. Kennedy Jr. are ardent anti-vaxxers. But, if you are a vaccine fence sitter, where can you go for the real truth?

      The few employees still remaining at Statistics Canada have been looking into it. That chart is from, "Misinformation During the Covid-19 Pandemic," by Karine Garneau and Clemence Zossu and here is some prose to go with it and the news is not good:

During the pandemic, nine in ten Canadians (90%) used online sources to find information about COVID-19. The three main sources were online newspapers or news sites (63%), social media posts from news organizations or magazines (35%), and social media posts from other users or influencers (30%).

The survey found that many Canadians were not in a regular habit of checking the accuracy of information they found online, with only 21% reporting they always check the accuracy and 37% saying they often check. However roughly 36% of Canadians reported that they only sometimes (24%) or rarely (12%) checked the accuracy of COVID-19 information they found online, which facilitates the sharing of potentially misleading, false or inaccurate information.

The most common reason identified by the 1.5 million (6%) Canadians who never verified the accuracy of the information was that they trusted the source (53%). Of the other reasons, 22% reported that they did not think about checking the accuracy of the information, 20% did not care about checking, 11% said they did not know how to check and 10% did not have time to check. Men and women both reported similar proportions for the reasons they didn’t fact check the information found online.

  While the pandemic is serious, the infodemic is as well and is likely to last longer:

An infodemic is an overabundance of information, both online and offline. It includes deliberate attempts to disseminate wrong information to undermine the public health response and advance alternative agendas of groups or individuals. Mis- and disinformation can be harmful to people’s physical and mental health; increase stigmatization; threaten precious health gains; and lead to poor observance of public health measures, thus reducing their effectiveness and endangering countries’ ability to stop the pandemic.

   

Sources:

  An early report about Druthers is found here: "New Covid Conspiracy Newspaper With Extremist Ties Eyes Canada-Wide Distribution," by Rayne, Dec. 18, 2020 at Antihate.ca.

  For a recent article: "How This Man's Newspaper is Pushing Anti-Covid-Restrictions Rhetoric Across Canada," Alex McKeen, The Toronto Star, Feb.7, 2021.

The Bonus: 

  You have probably read about the new Novavax, vaccine that is going to be produced here in Canada (in a Montreal facility still under construction.) See: "Novavax's Vaccine Will Be Produced in Canada. What Do We Know About It?" Patricia Treble, Maclean's, Feb. 4, 2021.

Novavax was developed in Maryland. This from Reuters:

Chief Executive Stanley Erck and three of his top lieutenants have sold roughly $46 million of company stock since the start of last year, according to a Reuters review of securities filings, capitalizing on a near 3,000% rally in Novavax shares fueled by investors betting on the success of the shot under development. The lucrative liquidations, which have not previously been reported, underscore the transformation in Novavax’s fortunes during the global pandemic and the opportunity for its executives to lock in big profits from market optimism.

The Gaithersburg, Maryland-based company was worth only $250 million until about a year ago, when news of its experimental vaccine and its participation in Operation Warp Speed drove its valuation up to as much as $11 billion.

At least there is some good news to report. 

Who Should Get the Covid Vaccines First?

    

   In clear violation of the protocols I mentioned in the "About this Blog" section, I will focus on an issue that is both current and complex. I planned to eschew the present because most topical subjects tend to be ephemeral and this blog is designed to be eternal. In this case, however, the current issue has long been around, but avoided, and it will linger for a long time to come and will still be avoided. I also deliberately planned to avoid the difficult subjects because I am not equipped to handle them. I can't handle this one either, but at least I can point out the questions if not answer them. Perhaps you hadn't even thought about them, so I am at least helping in that regard.

   The 'issue' in this case we will define simply as the question raised above: Who Should Get the Vaccines First?  Complex ethical problems are involved, as are logistical ones which complicate further the ethical ones. I will avoid the problems associated with the rationing of the vaccines, if there are not enough of them and focus on how the delivery of them should be prioritized, which is what the question is getting at. I am sure most of you know the answer to the question - You Should.

   The problem with your solution is that there are several million people who disagree with you and that only includes the ones on this continent. The disagreements have started to surface and will, like the virus, increase exponentially as the vaccines are only slowly dispensed. To give one example, which is an irritating one if you are quarantined on a cold day in Canada, consider this question: "Why in the hell is that Snowbird in Florida, getting the vaccine before I do?" That question is not only being raised here. I have a relative in Florida, who indicated that she was not happy with those northerners who were getting the shot before she was unless, perhaps they owned property there. I have another relative in Maryland who is not too pleased that those who are in prison might be given a priority ranking higher than his. You may be getting the feeling now that the question is not so easy to answer.

   Increasing numbers of such questions will be asked with increasing urgency over the next few months. While I indicated I don't have the answers, I can at least list some of the questions that are going to be asked and direct you to some of the resources that will help answer them. Unfortunately, it is unlikely that they will indicate you should be first in line.

   This post was prompted by an article I read this morning. It provides a clear account of the ethical issues which are rather murky when examined closely. In the middle of the essay, which should be read if you are at all interested in the emotional costs of this pandemic, is this paragraph of questions:

"Given this, who should get the vaccine first? If we prioritize people who are more likely to contract and die from the illness—which is one common method of allocating vaccines—should Black, Latino, and Indigenous Americans be on the top of the list, given their documented vulnerability? Should the risks associated with being among the first to receive the vaccine be distributed more broadly? Should health-care workers get the first doses? What about schoolchildren, or teachers? Should we prioritize people most likely to die from the disease (say, the elderly) or those most likely to transmit it widely (say, college students)? Can a government compel some citizens to get inoculated? Should it? If the U.S. is the first country to develop the vaccine, should it share its limited early doses with the international community? Should the federal government get to decide how the vaccine is allocated among different states? What if multiple vaccines arrive on the market with different levels of effectiveness, or different side effects? Who gets which one?"

It is not very difficult to translate these questions into 'Canadian.' It is being suggested here, for example, that being in the older cohort, I should be vaccinated first. But, is not the student on campus more likely to spread the virus and have many more years to live and be more productive? Will the shot I get come when Trudeau, Ford or a local authority determines it will? Why did that province, get the vaccine first? Should those on P.E.I. be put at the end of the line because they are on an island? Should Canada outbid other countries for the limited supply? One could go on.

The good news is that there are plenty of bioethicists around and available to provide clinical advice in difficult situations. There are also well developed guidelines, protocols and "crisis standards of care" about such things as whether to bother with resuscitation or determine which of the five patients gets the last ventilator. The bad news is that the desperate decision will probably have to be made by a first year resident who to you, looks like an adolescent. No one wants to be in the position to make such a decision, just as our Prime Minister or Premier will have difficulty determining who gets the first vaccine.

The bad news continues. Even if there was conclusive evidence indicating exactly what should be done and a leader willing to make the decision required, there would be many followers who would object. There are some in communities close by who are not willing to obey the rules and there are many, particularly, south of our border, unwilling to submit to government protocols and trust the government even though they believe in The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

Sources:

The article: "What the Chaos in Hospitals is Doing to Doctors," Jordan Kisner, The Atlantic, Jan./Feb. 2021. On the cover, the question is raised: "Who Should Get the Vaccine First --- and Last?" I will not put the link in because it is unlikely to get you behind the firewall, but the article is very good.

"Guidance on the prioritization of initial doses of COVID-19 vaccine(s)," Government of Canada.

“COVID‑19 Vaccination Program Interim Playbook for Jurisdiction Operations” Center for Disease Control, Oct. 29, 2020.

"Fair Allocation Mechanism for COVID-19 Vaccines Through the COVAX Facility," World Health Organization, Sept. 9, 2020.

"National Academies Release Framework for Equitable Allocation of a COVID-19 Vaccine for Adoption by HHS, State, Tribal, Local, and Territorial Authorities," The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine, Oct. 2, 2020.

The Bonus:

Ethical issues can be perplexing and confusing and sometimes even symbols are not clear. If, like me, you associated the caduceus pictured above with the field of medicine, you were correct. But, apparently it is not a good choice. See: "Caduceus as a Symbol of Medicine", or "Things You Don't Learn in Medical School."