Mass Formation Pyschosis and Moral Decay

[Gene2memE]

I doubt you and I trust the same sources. Desmet's 1300% figure was for Sweden, btw.

He's wrong there as well. I've got the Imperial College paper and the .xls spreadsheet that the team published with its scenario modelling sitting on my PC. It's open right now.

Imperial College modelling for Sweden has a low estimate of 3,376 deaths (full suppression scenario) and an upper estimate of 90,157 (zero suppression scenario). Both of those estimates are for a total of 2 years.

Give that in the real world Sweden had a case fatality rate of 1.23% - with 15,158 deaths from 1,229,217 cases - there's no way that the Imperial College modelling could overstate the predicted mortality rate by 1300%.

At this point, that's literally physically impossible.

Here's a link to the original paper and the COVID-19 unmitigated-mitigated-supression scenarios spreadsheet.

Report 12 - The global impact of COVID-19 and strategies for mitigation and suppression

 

[Rachel20]

Give that in the real world Sweden had a case fatality rate of 1.23% - with 15,158 deaths from 1,229,217 cases - there's no way that the Imperial College modelling could overstate the predicted mortality rate by 1300%.

He stated there were 6000 deaths at the end of May, 2020, whereas the models had predicted, for a country like Sweden, there would be 80,000 deaths if the country didn't go into lockdown, and 50,000 if they did. So this would be a 5 month figure (assuming things in full swing starting in Jan 2020) whereas you're looking at 2-year stats and still not defining "Covid deaths" for me.

 

[Gene2memE]

He stated there were 6000 deaths at the end of May, 2020, whereas the models had predicted, for a country like Sweden, there would be 80,000 deaths if the country didn't go into lockdown, and 50,000 if they did. So this would be a 5 month figure (assuming things in full swing starting in Jan 2020) whereas you're looking at 2-year stats and still not defining "Covid deaths" for me.

Now you're just recycling already debunked conspiracy theories?

"THREAD: You may have seen false claims that Imperial COVID-19 "modelling envisaged Sweden paying a heavy price for its rejection of lockdown, with 40,000 Covid deaths by 1 May and almost 100,000 by June". Our researchers made no such prediction"

"Professor Ferguson and the Imperial COVID-19 response team never estimated 40,000 or 100,000 Swedish deaths. Imperial's work is being conflated with that of an entirely separate group of researchers"

https://twitter.com/imperialcollege/status/1257991339364560898

"Neil Ferguson and Imperial did not produce a model for Sweden pointing to 85,000 deaths"

https://twitter.com/imperialcollege/status/1307693797074178049

There was modelling that predicted 96,000 deaths by 01 July 2020 (Gardner et all) with a zero intervention scenario - which pulled in some elements of the Imperial College model - but that model WILDLY overestimates transmissability (while underestimating case fatality rates).

The Gardner paper has ~9 million COVID-19 infections in less than 90 days and ~16% of all Swedish healthcare workers dying.
In contrast, the Imperial College model suggests total infections in an unmitigated scenario (i.e. worst case estimate) of 8.5 million over two years. And, in a more likely scenario of 2.5 million (which looks like it will be about 75% too high).

 

[Rachel20]

Now you're just recycling already debunked conspiracy theories?

"THREAD: You may have seen false claims that Imperial COVID-19 "modelling envisaged Sweden paying a heavy price for its rejection of lockdown, with 40,000 Covid deaths by 1 May and almost 100,000 by June". Our researchers made no such prediction"

"Professor Ferguson and the Imperial COVID-19 response team never estimated 40,000 or 100,000 Swedish deaths. Imperial's work is being conflated with that of an entirely separate group of researchers"

https://twitter.com/imperialcollege/status/1257991339364560898

"Neil Ferguson and Imperial did not produce a model for Sweden pointing to 85,000 deaths"

https://twitter.com/imperialcollege/status/1307693797074178049

There was a model that predicted 96,000 deaths by 01 July 2020 (Gardner et all) - which pulled in some elements of the Imperial College model - but that model WILDLY overestimates both transmissability -

He only states they were the "statistical and mathematical models of Imperial College". Whether he was looking at the Gardner et al model as well, or confused it with the Imperial College model(s), I can't say. Maybe you could ask him?

Also I noticed your 1.23% figure is derived from "Covid deaths" as a percent of cases. Desmet's figure is a % of population, which would take your figure down to 0.15% (given ~10,100,000 pop in 2020).

Are you ever going to define "Covid deaths" and how that determination is made for purposes of your figures?

 

[Gene2memE]

He only states they were the "statistical and mathematical models of Imperial College".

That's not what he states at all. Here's there direct quote from the interview:

"I immediately got the impression that most statistical models overestimated the dangerousness of the virus

By the end of 2020 in my opinion, by the end of May 2020, this was proven beyond doubt I think. Because the models that were used, or on which the corona measures were based worldwide predicted. So, those were the models of Imperial College in London.

These models predicted that in a country such as Sweden that about 80,000 people would die by the end of May 2020 if the country did not go into lockdown.

And, the country did not go into lockdown. And only 6000 people died. Which means about 13 times less than was predicted.

So the predictions of Imperial College were completely off." ​

So, he's completely wrong here.

The Imperial College modelling provides a RANGE of forecasts. There's no single number you can boil it down to. The IC model also provides no specific month to month forecasting (it's a TWO YEAR FORECAST). The IC made no specific forecasts for deaths by the end of May for Sweden. The closest you could get is that one of the authors forecast increasing deaths through April 2020.

He's also wrong later on in the interview about the Imperial College model being the sole model. There were - at the time of his speaking - literally dozens of predictive models. The Imperial College model was attention grabbing because it was early, easy to understand, formatted colorfully and made dire worst case scenarios.

He's also completely wrong about trade off between COVID-19 deaths and socio-economic trade-off (as evidenced by global excess mortality statistics).

Also I noticed your 1.23% figure is derived from "Covid deaths" as a percent of cases. Desmet's figure is a % of population, which would take your figure down to 0.15% (given ~10,100,000 pop in 2020).

No, it wasn't. It was raw numbers. And it doesn't matter if you express as a percentage or as a total number. What he's stating is still totally incorrect.

Are you ever going to define "Covid deaths" and how that determination is made for purposes of your figures?

Sure: A person who's death results from a clinically compatible illness, in a probable or confirmed COVID-19 case, unless there is a clear alternative cause of death that cannot be related to COVID disease

 

[Robban]

Sure - I hope this is adequate. I tried not to misrepresent his views:

So Desmet first noted that the predicted mortality rate of Corona based on the models used (from the Imperial College) were dramatically overestimated by at least 1300% as evidenced when the actual numbers came in by the end of 2020. Even stranger, the measures based on these wrong models weren't then reconsidered and the mainstream narrative continued as if they were correct. He also noticeed that the field of attention was very narrowly focused on the victims of the virus as if the collateral damage caused by the Corona measures was not taken into account at all. It was as if they had no mental, cognitive, or emotional impact even when the UN and other institutions warned that the children dying from hunger as a consequence of lockdowns in developing countries could well be higher than the number of people that "could" die as a consequence of the virus, even if no measures were taken at all.

As a consequence, his interest switched from a statistical one to a psychological one, stating he was more afraid of the social dynamics emerging than of the virus itself. He later came to believe those dynamics were a form of the group formation theory he had studied and lectured on. He describes the 4 conditions that must exist for mass formation to occur:

1. a lot of people feel socially isolated and lack social bonds
2. a lack of meaning-making in their lives (no job satisfaction, etc...)
3. a high level of free-floating anxiety and psychological discontent
4. free floating frustration, irritability, and aggression

He describes free-floating anxiety as anxiety which doesn't attach a mental representation as the cause, making it very painful because it can't be controlled or avoided (like a fear of snakes, for example, in which you could relieve the anxiety by avoiding snakes). If under these conditions a narrative is disseminated through the mass media that provides an object for this anxiety while at the same time delivering a strategy to deal with the object, then all this free-floating anxiety of the population might easily attach to this object resulting in a huge willingness to participate in the strategy to deal with the object.

In the context of this crisis, the virus became the object of the anxiety, and the strategy presented by the media to deal with it was the lockdowns, social distancing, etc... As a result, a "new solidarity" emerged in society as everyone participated in a "heroic, collective battle" with the virus. The problem is, this creates the kind of symbiotic relationship that leads to continued buy-ins of narratives that no longer make sense. Under mass formation hypnosis, people no longer go along with narratives because they're correct or scientifically proven, but because they lead to this new social bond. The truth no longer matters. This sets the stage for totalitarianism and therein lies the danger. And the similarity with 1930s Germany where the narrative was controlled against the Jews, Gypsies, Poles, etc... during a time when the 4 preconditions for Mass Formation were met. Even though in our current situation the virus is the enemy, anyone who stands in the way of the controlled strategy for defeating that enemy also becomes the enemy.

Thank you again for taking time to explain.

I think he is on to something.

I thanked the Almighty that the authorities here

treated us as thinking beings and not as a bunch of dummies.

We have not had forced lockdowns,
but we were given recommendations.

And they were taken seriously, very seriously.

Trouble today is not that there is too little information
but in and wiith technology there is too much which in turn leads to confusion.

 

[Larniavc]

No discussion of natural immunity? No questioning why the unvaxed should lose their jobs when it's common knowledge the vaxed can also get & transmit the virus? Big Bucks Pharma salivates over people like you.

Natural immunity requires you get Covid first. This means that you risk death. Risking death to gain natural resistance (you’re never immune) rather than just getting resistance from a vaccine seems stupid: why risk death when you can have both?

Unvaccinated people transmit significantly lower viral loads meaning they are are less infectious than unvaccinated people carrying a higher viral load.

Big Pharma? That’s capitalism for you.

 

[Larniavc]

To you, because you don't understand it.

I understand far better than you. That’s why I’m triple jabbed.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Natural immunity requires you get Covid first. This means that you risk death. Risking death to gain natural resistance (you’re never immune) rather than just getting resistance from a vaccine seems stupid: why risk death when you can have both?

Unvaccinated (sic) people transmit significantly lower viral loads meaning they are are less infectious than unvaccinated people carrying a higher viral load.

Big Pharma? That’s capitalism for you.

That's interesting that you say so, but I then get left wondering "W.H.O." I'm supposed to believe most ...

Viral Loads Similar Between Vaccinated and Unvaccinated People

 

[Larniavc]

That's interesting that you say so, but I then get left wondering "W.H.O." I'm supposed to believe most ...

Viral Loads Similar Between Vaccinated and Unvaccinated People

The brief look I took brought up this:

“The researchers looked at 869 positive samples, 500 from Healthy Yolo Together and 369 from Unidos en Salud. All the Healthy Yolo Together samples were from people who were asymptomatic at the time of positive test result, and three-quarters were from unvaccinated individuals. The Unidos en Salud samples included both asymptomatic and symptomatic cases. Just over half (198) of the Unidos en Salud samples were unvaccinated.”

The two groups are not matched. It’s hard to derive conclusions based on these two groups. That’s just my quick take. I’d need to read the paper to be more sure about my quick take, though.

It’s telling that a significant proportion of one group was asymptomatic with presumably lower viral load.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The brief look I took brought up this:

“The researchers looked at 869 positive samples, 500 from Healthy Yolo Together and 369 from Unidos en Salud. All the Healthy Yolo Together samples were from people who were asymptomatic at the time of positive test result, and three-quarters were from unvaccinated individuals. The Unidos en Salud samples included both asymptomatic and symptomatic cases. Just over half (198) of the Unidos en Salud samples were unvaccinated.”

The two groups are not matched. It’s hard to derive conclusions based on these two groups. That’s just my quick take. I’d need to read the paper to be more sure about my quick take, though.

It’s telling that a significant proportion of one group was asymptomatic with presumably lower viral load.

Yeah. And then we can just as easily find this kind of alternate info, from an equally qualifiable source.

Vaccinated people with breakthrough COVID infections had lower viral loads

And it's a wonder that there's so much "punching" going on between polarized groups.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The brief look I took brought up this:

“The researchers looked at 869 positive samples, 500 from Healthy Yolo Together and 369 from Unidos en Salud. All the Healthy Yolo Together samples were from people who were asymptomatic at the time of positive test result, and three-quarters were from unvaccinated individuals. The Unidos en Salud samples included both asymptomatic and symptomatic cases. Just over half (198) of the Unidos en Salud samples were unvaccinated.”

The two groups are not matched. It’s hard to derive conclusions based on these two groups. That’s just my quick take. I’d need to read the paper to be more sure about my quick take, though.

It’s telling that a significant proportion of one group was asymptomatic with presumably lower viral load.

Tten, folks read something like this:

Vaccinated People Also Spread the Delta Variant, Yearlong Study Shows


And on we go, back and forth ...... with a lot of head scratching going on among the masses who have a hard time sorting this stuff out, with each side claiming Disinformation, Misinformation, and Reinformation.

 

[grasping the after wind]

That's a good point. Do you think there are adults who buy into large narratives and are unable to consider them critically? I don't want to create a caricature of what you're saying, but are there adults who cannot help but believe a certain line of explanation. If so, what is the reason? I am thinking even if there are some, they are not the majority. We go through this world and learn very quickly that some statements are true and accurate and some inaccurate and false. Isn't that experience enough to ensure we have a responsibility to figure out which is which?

And keep the OP in mind, we are talking about people who buy into narratives which often claim the truth was hidden, but now it's being revealed by this new, revelatory narrative. To accept these grand narratives one is already critical of another possibility.

Remember you asked me the questions. So, if I happen to go on and on and get pedantic, it is partly your own fault for asking.

I think the majority of adults buy into narratives and have selective fact syndrome. Selecting only facts that reinforce their narratives and dismissing those that do not. IMO The reason is human nature. We all think we are very wise, much wiser than most other people, and if we have come to believe something that we have internalized we will usually reflexively consider that any contradictions to that thing are not worth examining. We won't consider them as facts even if there is ample reason to do so. Critical thinking is not about being critical of some other possibility. It is about questioning all possibilities in an attempt to discover whether something is true or not. When a bit of factual evidence challenges one's previously arrived at conclusions it is not a pleasant thing for one and many people will simply refuse to accept that ti is factual evidence. Especially, one needs to question one' s own beliefs, in order to find out if what one believes to be true is a valid belief or just something one was told to believe or was instructed to believe or is a thing that one wishes to believe. To do that one must gather and consider all the facts one can. Giving equal weight to each and also be able to distinguish what is factual from what is opinion based. One must put away one's biases, use logically sound reasoning and come to conclusions based entirely upon facts one can verify. One must not over assume. It is best to assume as little as possible. Certain assumptions are necessary, but I would say many assumptions I see people engage in are not only not necessary but are likely to lead one to an erroneous conclusion. One should not assume that one knows what statements are true and false based upon what wants to be true or false or what one has always considered to be true or false or because of what one thinks of the person or media or religious or scientific organization etc., that has made the statement. One should always be skeptical of everyone's statements of what they consider to be true or false most especially one's own self. More often than not one will end up concluding that one does not have enough information to be positive that one knows if a statement is true or false. Then one gives an opinion about what one thinks might be true without being absolutely sure.

 

[partinobodycular]

I think the majority of adults buy into narratives and have selective fact syndrome. Selecting only facts that reinforce their narratives and dismissing those that do not. IMO The reason is human nature. We all think we are very wise, much wiser than most other people, and if we have come to believe something that we have internalized we will usually reflexively consider that any contradictions to that thing are not worth examining. We won't consider them as facts even if there is ample reason to do so. Critical thinking is not about being critical of some other possibility. It is about questioning all possibilities in an attempt to discover whether something is true or not. When a bit of factual evidence challenges one's previously arrived at conclusions it is not a pleasant thing for one and many people will simply refuse to accept that ti is factual evidence. Especially, one needs to question one' s own beliefs, in order to find out if what one believes to be true is a valid belief or just something one was told to believe or was instructed to believe or is a thing that one wishes to believe. To do that one must gather and consider all the facts one can. Giving equal weight to each and also be able to distinguish what is factual from what is opinion based. One must put away one's biases, use logically sound reasoning and come to conclusions based entirely upon facts one can verify. One must not over assume. It is best to assume as little as possible. Certain assumptions are necessary, but I would say many assumptions I see people engage in are not only not necessary but are likely to lead one to an erroneous conclusion. One should not assume that one knows what statements are true and false based upon what wants to be true or false or what one has always considered to be true or false or because of what one thinks of the person or media or religious or scientific organization etc., that has made the statement. One should always be skeptical of everyone's statements of what they consider to be true or false most especially one's own self. More often than not one will end up concluding that one does not have enough information to be positive that one knows if a statement is true or false. Then one gives an opinion about what one thinks might be true without being absolutely sure.

WOW, I don't think that I could've made a better argument for epistemological solipsism if you gave me an entire day to write it. And I've been a solipsist for fifty years.

Well done.

 

[RDKirk]

Paul had a lot to say about delusion.

2 Thessalonians 2:8-12 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way. And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
​

Who is the liar? John explains.

John 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.​

If Satan is the father of lies, then we have to go back to the very first lie ever told to see what the lie is.

Genesis 3:4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die.
​

In this one act, he became the father of lies, and a murderer from the beginning, because the wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23).

The lie perpetuates through sin. Take a look at Revelation 22.

Revelation 22:14-15 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city. For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.​

Paul goes into detail about who God sends delusion to in Romans 1.

Romans 1:20-32

20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

21-22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

24-25 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

26-27 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

28-32 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
​

How does the above tie in with Mass Formation Psychosis and Moral Decay?

If Satan is the father of lies, it stands to reason that he is behind the perpetual spreading of lies that deceive the whole world. This would also mean that he is responsible for long-term deception—indoctrination, predictive programming, moral decay—you name it.

The original lie from which all other lies proceed is that there is no consequence for disobedience of God. I don't think of it as mass psychosis at all, because it's not some fluke, not some mental illness, it's the result of sin and the ongoing satanic agenda that will not end until the second coming.

I agree with that, but you missed an OT connection with Romans 1: Ahab.

Ahab asked Jehoshaphat to join him in besieging Ramoth-gilead in order to recapture it from the Syrians (2 Chronicles 18). Being a godly man, Jehoshaphat wanted first to hear from the Lord regarding the plan.

Ahab explicitly said that he did not want to hear from the Lord. Instead, Ahab called on his "house" prophets, who said God would give the city into the hands of Ahab.

Jehoshaphat still wanted to hear a true word from God. So, he asked the true prophet Micaiah, who said first that the Lord would give Ahab victory. Later, when pressed further by Jehoshaphat, Micaiah said that the message of success was from a lying spirit, sent by God to entice Ahab to go up against Ramoth-gilead and be destroyed.

The thing is this: Ahab decided from the beginning that he did not want to hear the truth of the Lord. For that reason, the Lord decided that Ahab would not get the truth. Thus, even the true prophet repeated the delusion to Ahab sent by command of the Lord.

But the prophet did not withhold the truth from Jehoshaphat, who had wanted the truth from the beginning.

 

[public hermit]

Remember you asked me the questions. So, if I happen to go on and on and get pedantic, it is partly your own fault for asking.

I think the majority of adults buy into narratives and have selective fact syndrome. Selecting only facts that reinforce their narratives and dismissing those that do not. IMO The reason is human nature. We all think we are very wise, much wiser than most other people, and if we have come to believe something that we have internalized we will usually reflexively consider that any contradictions to that thing are not worth examining. We won't consider them as facts even if there is ample reason to do so. Critical thinking is not about being critical of some other possibility. It is about questioning all possibilities in an attempt to discover whether something is true or not. When a bit of factual evidence challenges one's previously arrived at conclusions it is not a pleasant thing for one and many people will simply refuse to accept that ti is factual evidence. Especially, one needs to question one' s own beliefs, in order to find out if what one believes to be true is a valid belief or just something one was told to believe or was instructed to believe or is a thing that one wishes to believe. To do that one must gather and consider all the facts one can. Giving equal weight to each and also be able to distinguish what is factual from what is opinion based. One must put away one's biases, use logically sound reasoning and come to conclusions based entirely upon facts one can verify. One must not over assume. It is best to assume as little as possible. Certain assumptions are necessary, but I would say many assumptions I see people engage in are not only not necessary but are likely to lead one to an erroneous conclusion. One should not assume that one knows what statements are true and false based upon what wants to be true or false or what one has always considered to be true or false or because of what one thinks of the person or media or religious or scientific organization etc., that has made the statement. One should always be skeptical of everyone's statements of what they consider to be true or false most especially one's own self. More often than not one will end up concluding that one does not have enough information to be positive that one knows if a statement is true or false. Then one gives an opinion about what one thinks might be true without being absolutely sure.

That is very well put, thank you. I'm thinking most adults are capable of this, the usual exceptions noted, but they just don't do it. Earlier I claimed this reluctance to do so is probably laziness, or perhaps the grand narrative that has been uncritically accepted meets some non-epistemic need, e.g. supports one's religious assumptions, gives one something with which to identify, gives one an excuse to hate, whatever: it is is not truth-related. But I do think your answer is helpful, which I took to be pride or believing one is wiser than they are. It sounds like you think most adults could be critical in the sense you described but just aren't.