“Impelled by the notions that science is oppression and criticism is violence, the central regulation of debate and inquiry is returning to respectability — this time in a humanitarian disguise. In America, in France, in Austria, and Australia and elsewhere, the old principle of the Inquisition is being revived: people who hold wrong and hurtful opinions should be punished for the good of society. If they cannot be put in jail, then they should lose their jobs, be subjected to organized campaigns of vilifi cation, be made to apologize, be pressed to recant. If government cannot do the punishing, then private institutions and pressure groups — thought vigilantes, in effect — should do it.”
The only metrics that matter are warning level: legitimate and related hospitalizations, and danger level: fatality rates in one's personal demographic or among those whom an individual may have repeated and sustained contact, an elderly family member sharing the same house for example. Further, even these metrics must be quantified before a choice of action can begin to be determined: are the hospitalizations a direct result of the perceived/claimed threat? Was the threat simply the 'straw that broke the camel's back' of existing medical issues and thus forcing hospitalization? Was the threat determined to be present only after the hospitalization occurred? Fatalities: Where did they occur? What age groups? What co-morbidity?
Here's a ridiculous but applicable analogy: media unleashes the fear drums of a mysterious ailment that is wiping out most who contract it. It knows no age or gender barrier. Daily the media is presenting the now patented pandemic scorecard showing the infection and death statistics. Run for cover everyone!!! What the media neglects to mention in this example is that 99% of the fatalities are in people only born with one leg. Kinda changes things a wee bit, no? In the context of covid, of course anyone who has an existing respiratory or immune crushing ailment be at a higher fatality risk, for any disease, but particularly those of the respiratory variety. In the right population(s), the common cold can kill with impunity.
My Bottom Line: The metric 'cases', particularly as it it being used by the media is an utterly useless, blatantly misleading and potentially dangerous manner in which to (media) cover the so called SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.
Lazy language translates into lazy thinking; lazy thinking is one of the reasons we're getting our collective asses bitten right the F off these days. Not proud to recognize my pretty substantial life experience in this practice.
Here though is a biologically related definition among the collection; all the other definitions are not applicable.
Clearly 6a is directly related and is the obvious candidate: case as it is being used today is in a medical/biological/physical context, screech, halt. 6b/c are not applicable.
|6a:||an instance of disease or injury
// a case of pneumonia
also : PATIENT
// Dr. Berg's cases
|b:||an instance that directs attention to a situation or exhibits it in action : EXAMPLE|
|c:||a peculiar person : CHARACTER
// The gangsters were hard cases.
|1:||a condition of the living animal or plant body or of one of its parts that impairs normal functioning and is typically manifested by distinguishing signs and symptoms : SICKNESS, MALADY
// infectious diseases
// a rare genetic disease
// heart disease
|2:||a harmful development (as in a social institution)
// sees the city's crime as a disease
Who defines the 'typically' scale? It's a subjective term for the most part. Why the qualifier that changes the base meaning?
For disease to be effective as a word: it either does or does not manifest, there is no typically. Setting that silliness aside, we're left with two related and measurable/observable key components: signs and symptoms.
As I mention again below, beyond categorization purposes, what's the point of having the word disease if there nothing negative or no manifestations? Doesn't sound much like dis-ease to me.
Not quite apples-to-apples but close enough to make a point: would one say they had Salmonella (food) poisoning if there were no signs or symptoms yet some poultry was consumed that contaminated with the Salmonella? No, you wouldn't even know or, and this is directly related, there was not a large enough culture to cause dis-ease and illness. The is particularly important with a virus as this protien bag cannot reproduce on its own and requires a cell's reproductive functionality to do so.
If we are to keep adding typicallys and sometimeses and perhapsees and once in a blue moonses to our definitions, words are going to get real useless real fast.
Further, it's simply pointless to define a word then add conditions to it resulting in effectively diluting it to the point of meaning nothing, or actually meaning every frickin' thing which is a more accurate description. Either way, high ranking on the uselessity scale.
|1a:||subjective evidence of disease or physical disturbance broadly : something that indicates the presence of bodily disorder|
|b:||an evident reaction by a plant to a pathogen|
|2a:||something that indicates the existence of something else symptoms of an inner turmoil|
|b:||a slight indication : TRACE|
Asymptomatic is often used for the symptom bit. As for disease with no symptoms/signs then, how about, well, 'Arflukenationousness', completely different, little chance for confusion.
To top things off, it's 'dis-ease' which is obviously counter to 'ease', itself a word encompassing a pleasurable/desirable status in a physical/medical/biological context. The net result then is a state, disease, that is not pleasurable, counter to ease, which in and of itself is a manifestation (result) of whatever caused the state to change from one of ease to one of dis-ease. ('whatever' is not to be inferred as singular in nature; injury in particular often has more than one part, vehicle accident injuries a good example, often multiple injuries are sustained)
Lol, pretty sure I smacked that one over the fence right past Clarity Pond and on in to Mud Pit. Hopefully it can be eventually expressed better, suggestions always welcomed, but for the time being I'll just sum it up with: as a result of logical analysis, I do not accept the use of the word 'typically' in a definition of disease…so there media, take that.
Finishing up the disease definition, the second important term is injury but I don't think any cycles need be spent here:
for virtually every one of us, injury is a known and experienced concept.
Now, it's safe to assume we need one more action here in order to be able to confidently assign a label/categorization of Such-and- Such disease and that is a diagnosis process, essentially a guide for decision making. In a document entitled "Improving Diagnosis in Health Care" hosted on the nih.gov website, we find the following policy and procedure for making an accurate disease diagnosis:
“The Diagnostic Process - Improving Diagnosis in Health Care - NCBI Bookshelf>
… bunch of good stuff in the middle outlining even further checks/balances, when to initiate treatment before full diagnosis, and other stuff; worth reading but left out for brevity …
- First, a patient experiences a health problem. The patient is likely the first person to consider his or her symptoms and may choose at this point to engage with the health care system. (the covid clown show blows up right off the bat since many testees have no health problems but are still considered by this group as a 'case' if there is a positive return on the RT-PCR assay; ridiculous)
- Once a patient seeks health care, there is an iterative process of information gathering, information integration and interpretation, and determining a working diagnosis. Performing a clinical history and interview, conducting a physical exam, performing diagnostic testing, and referring or consulting with other clinicians are all ways of accumulating information that may be relevant to understanding a patient's health problem. The information-gathering approaches can be employed at different times, and diagnostic information can be obtained in different orders. The continuous process of information gathering, integration, and interpretation involves hypothesis generation and updating prior probabilities as more information is learned. Communication among health care professionals, the patient, and the patient's family members is critical in this cycle of information gathering, integration, and interpretation.
- The committee identified four types of information-gathering activities in the diagnostic process: taking a clinical history and interview; performing a physical exam; obtaining diagnostic testing; and sending a patient for referrals or consultations. The diagnostic process is intended to be broadly applicable, including the provision of mental health care. These information-gathering processes are discussed in further detail below.
The above snippets outline part of the check/balance policy/procedure routine with regards to arriving at a disease diagnosis which in turn allows the specific individual instance of this disease to be accurately referred to as a 'case'. Sure seems like an example of the artform 'Splitting Of The Hair' but it's not. Some clarity can be gained from one of the parts brevity sent packing:
"It is important to note that clinicians do not need to obtain diagnostic certainty prior to initiating treatment…"
The fact that this section is included clearly indicates the overall focus: removing/curing/solving/eliminating/wiping out that which is causing the disease and not futzing around looking for labels and categories to assign…and rightly so.
While disease can and routinely does cause hardship all across the spectrum, the bottom line is two things:
- will I die
- if I recover, will my life be worse than it was prior to disease
Attempting to put some sort of wrap on it all, in the context of medical/physical/biological which covid surely qualifies exclusively as, 'case' refers to instances where, after diagnostic processes have been followed, the clinician can, with reasonable confidence, assign as the contributing/leading/sole cause of the dis-ease as thingy this or thingy that. Outcomes can begin to be forecast but only after diagnostic assessment and even then predicted outcomes are not a foregone conclusion.
What a case is NOT but is exactly how the media is using it: a positive indicator for the presence of RNA material believed to be from a virus that has been given the designation SARS-CoV-2 as a result of running a certain number of cycles of a amplification/multiplication/manufacturing tool called a RT-Polmerase Chain Reaction with the RT bit one of 'Reverse Transcription' or 'Real Time' AKA qPCR, with the q being for quantitative.
This is part of the bamboozle: a PCR test is not even a test, it's instead an RNA manufacturing tool. A positive indicator does not give any guidance whatsoever towards determining the answers to our two question points above, nor, by the admission of the manufacturers, can it for certain be determined that whatever is considered as SARS-CoV-2 was the entity/item that caused the positive result in question! To make matters worse, a large number of those being tested outside of the hospital system are manifesting NO symptoms, do not ever manifest symptoms, but are still considered a 'case'. Blah, but sadly it doesn't stop there. The majority of those who do manifest symptoms require no hospitalization or medical intervention at all beyond a nice warm blankie, hot tea, Star Trek and pizza…but are still a 'case'.
That's a lot of wordage to be sure but it's the thought process behind my adoption of the following:
To push a narrative that is anything other than this reality is downright despicable, criminal, and that is exactly what the corporate and taxpayer funded state media are doing in Canada, 100%.
Defund the govt group which in turn will result in defunding the CBC…a twofer!
There have been no comments yet