It is people's lack of understanding of science that allows the likes of Sucharit Bhakdi and Dolores Cahill and Mike Yeadon and many others to suck in the unwary to believing their garbage. I can only assume their motive is to make a name for themselves.
Have a look what UCD students think about Dolores Cahill.
Well, I have said from the start that I have no knowledge of science and I have also said that this pandemic exploits this. This is a very important fact and given that the virus is being rendered socially and personally corrosive, or socially effective, via representations of its nature, I feel those of us who lack any scientific knowledge still, nevertheless, have a right to base our opinions on other factors. This is not merely about the science. It is also about the rights of institutions to intrude and obstruct people's lives and liberties. Now, we all have an inalienable practical grasp of the conditions required for our fruition and, we have every right to judge government policy on the extent to which it fosters our well-being or that of others. Now, these are moral questions. Even if the science did support the government measures, which it clearly does not, then, we are still at liberty to contest it and I have indicated alternative criteria that might have been used and should have been accommodated. I won't repeat this.
I have learned, from years dealing with universities and academic publishers, that there is a relation between the moral and the true: only if one is morally disposed can one be vulnerable to the truth in the human realm. My deference to Bhakdi, Cahill and Yeadon is also aesthetic and moral, I think they exhibit sincerity and courage. Bhahkdi, like Yeadon particularly, exhibit a concern that leads me to believe they have the integrity required to be concerned over the reality of this situation.
I do not care for the views of students unions, they are narcissistic organisations, like much social media, they are platforms for the elevation of the protagonists creating issues out of nothing. Actually, I think Dolores Cahills concern over the effects of masks on development are of little significance. She might make a more powerful case for the effects of good old fashioned poverty as the chief determinant of human development or health but we all have our blindspots and at least she is concerned to remove the masks.
At the end of the day, I don't have scientific expertise and, since I have to defer and delegate my expertise, of course, if you push me, then I will simply say these are my prejudices. Of course they are but prejudice is the foundation of knowledge. We have to take many things for granted in order to function cognitively. I don't know the science and cannot carry out the symbolic operations that constitute cognitive forms in these areas so, I choose my experts carefully. I look at SAGE, and one of their members was at the same university as me whilst I was there. He was an arrogant, narcissistic, well-connected scumbag, and then I look at the leaked document where they recommended the use of fear to ensure compliance. On what planet is this a form of expertise? It is really merely a testament of incompetence. How did they sustain jobs after such a suggestion? The Prime Minister should have sacked the lot and found some human beings to advise on appropriate strategies.
If you had junked the science. If we went back to the early twentieth-century, and used moral principles and communal strategies, could we have done much worse? The problem is the use of science to produce representations that use the authority of science to deleterious effects in the name of public health and other totemic abstractions. Sadly, this conversation can only be participated in if you have a PhD in science, so it achieves one of the main goals of the political field: the dispossession of the population of competence. So, anyway, I prefer the ethics and morality manifest by the expressivity of Bhakdi, Yeadon and Cahill, they at least seem to exhibit the effects of being affected by this calumny and that manifests an integrity of spirit born of compassion and intuitive connection, the exact opposite of the scum in SAGE and probably the other places advising a government equally alienated by precisely the distances that characterise their response to this. Their strategies lack compassion and insight and they hypocritical because no solution can be impractical and all of their response has been counter-productive for that reason and many people cleverer than me, Epidemiologists like Sunetra Gupta and Jay Bhattacharya have said this.