I have also noticed this: "When faced with the reality of a control group who knew otherwise about Covid because they referenced other sources that proved to be true - including lay accessible regulatory documentation - these shirkers of responsibility curl up in a ball and try to kill the undosed messenger". People get angry.
Pre 2020, I used to explain to people that I liked reading certain authors across different newspapers, as I could then triangulate a view of 'something that might be close to the truth' from known positions that were relatively trustworthy from the back test, e.g. Martin Kettle (Guardian), AEP (Telegraph) etc.
Of course, what has happened since is that all pre-2020 assumptions have been blown out of the water - serious respect to those that saw through the lies beforehand, and I feel like a bit of a mug not to have seen things earlier.
Final point: I think an interesting angle is the 'serious amateur'. Much as many amateur commentators / influencers got bought with dirty money (various Covid centrists and their sudden 'about turns') and essentially became dark 'professionals', there are some out there who remained fiercely independent. An early model of this might loosely be seen as how cricket developed - gentlemen players would happen to have a handy bowler on the estate 'staff'... the origins of the paid pro. Clearly this is simplistic example, but - if their credentials can be trusted (and of course they may came from a self-selecting background, or have other viewpoints / axes to grind that are related to their actual profession) these independents are probably a useful part of the ecosystem.
Re "People get angry", VST's seen a number of reactions. Degrees of denial is common. People try to vaguely recall scenarios in which they were instructed to do things and claim it as a valid reason both then and today. In the face of requests for evidence then or now, they cannot provide such and switch angle or subject. Someone claimed who claimed to work in the pharma field and therefore had faith in the regulatory and professional pharma environment claimed that mRNA was a wonderful technology and would definitely have been well tested over x years as it's not new etc. When challenged in reference to FDA docs, they claimed to have read them but could not recall any content. Under that challenge, they deflected and abandoned their own claims. There are people out there still locked in their own version of nonsense, clinging to masking on behalf of the "safety of immunocompromised people" despite being totally unable to rationally explain the logic. The same person they bemoaned half a town hall meeting for not masking, but they said that they personally were absolved of masking if they were wearing makeup. Clearly insane.
There are people who have begun to accept that they have been variously duped but, naturally, they often don't like the "it's your responsibility" angle. Basically, there's nothing helping to assuage any latent fear they may have about their health post-jab and now they are all waiting for someone to come along and tell them all what to do. In the absence of that, they are hoping not to get ill with post-jab issues. Not a great place to be, given that a post-jab issue is going to be denied by their medics, and in USA it's likely to lead to massive medical debt for the uninsured and possibly even the insured, depending on cover and diagnosis.
Re triangulation, the thinking is sound but it's a question of sources. You cannot expect to triangulate between a few mainstream outlets alone. You're testing agit-prop with agit-prop. You have to cast a fairly wide net and establish reference points where possible. One way of doing this is to find trusted views in the financial field on macro issues, and trace out from there into other fields, where there is overlap if possible. This is based on following the money. Money people get certain aspects of politics right more often, for obvious reasons. But it's finding ones who discuss enough freely. This is not a recommendation to follow economists, they are not finance people.
Re serious amateurs, this is a total minefield and VST is right in the middle with a whole bunch of amateurs. Take your pick. How do you validate an amateur? There's largely only one way - back test. What you will notice about any pundit, commentator, amateurs, and experts is that they will avoid two things: predictions and back test. They will only talk in the present and provide an opinion on now, or explain present meaning or context. They will never be held or hold themselves to account. If you only follow such people, what value do you get from them? Why are you listening, if you can never evaluate their insight?
This is why VST does back tests of its own output, and of some of the people cited e.g. Ritter and MacGregor (article coming today). It's a simple principle. If you think you understand a system, you should have a degree of predictive power commensurate with your understanding. If you're not willing to predict, what's your opinion worth? This applies to amateurs and pros alike.
Interestingly, the back test argument is partly the reason for writing. Articles are time-stamped evidence of what one was saying, writing and thinking at the time. Putting these arguments on record is what can be used to build credibility later. "No-one is reading these articles you are putting out on some obscure blog, whoever heard of substack anyway" (paraphrasing some 2021 feedback...) - is of course entirely missing the point in that these articles are published & dated and can be referenced in the future.
I have also noticed this: "When faced with the reality of a control group who knew otherwise about Covid because they referenced other sources that proved to be true - including lay accessible regulatory documentation - these shirkers of responsibility curl up in a ball and try to kill the undosed messenger". People get angry.
Pre 2020, I used to explain to people that I liked reading certain authors across different newspapers, as I could then triangulate a view of 'something that might be close to the truth' from known positions that were relatively trustworthy from the back test, e.g. Martin Kettle (Guardian), AEP (Telegraph) etc.
Of course, what has happened since is that all pre-2020 assumptions have been blown out of the water - serious respect to those that saw through the lies beforehand, and I feel like a bit of a mug not to have seen things earlier.
Final point: I think an interesting angle is the 'serious amateur'. Much as many amateur commentators / influencers got bought with dirty money (various Covid centrists and their sudden 'about turns') and essentially became dark 'professionals', there are some out there who remained fiercely independent. An early model of this might loosely be seen as how cricket developed - gentlemen players would happen to have a handy bowler on the estate 'staff'... the origins of the paid pro. Clearly this is simplistic example, but - if their credentials can be trusted (and of course they may came from a self-selecting background, or have other viewpoints / axes to grind that are related to their actual profession) these independents are probably a useful part of the ecosystem.
Re "People get angry", VST's seen a number of reactions. Degrees of denial is common. People try to vaguely recall scenarios in which they were instructed to do things and claim it as a valid reason both then and today. In the face of requests for evidence then or now, they cannot provide such and switch angle or subject. Someone claimed who claimed to work in the pharma field and therefore had faith in the regulatory and professional pharma environment claimed that mRNA was a wonderful technology and would definitely have been well tested over x years as it's not new etc. When challenged in reference to FDA docs, they claimed to have read them but could not recall any content. Under that challenge, they deflected and abandoned their own claims. There are people out there still locked in their own version of nonsense, clinging to masking on behalf of the "safety of immunocompromised people" despite being totally unable to rationally explain the logic. The same person they bemoaned half a town hall meeting for not masking, but they said that they personally were absolved of masking if they were wearing makeup. Clearly insane.
There are people who have begun to accept that they have been variously duped but, naturally, they often don't like the "it's your responsibility" angle. Basically, there's nothing helping to assuage any latent fear they may have about their health post-jab and now they are all waiting for someone to come along and tell them all what to do. In the absence of that, they are hoping not to get ill with post-jab issues. Not a great place to be, given that a post-jab issue is going to be denied by their medics, and in USA it's likely to lead to massive medical debt for the uninsured and possibly even the insured, depending on cover and diagnosis.
Re triangulation, the thinking is sound but it's a question of sources. You cannot expect to triangulate between a few mainstream outlets alone. You're testing agit-prop with agit-prop. You have to cast a fairly wide net and establish reference points where possible. One way of doing this is to find trusted views in the financial field on macro issues, and trace out from there into other fields, where there is overlap if possible. This is based on following the money. Money people get certain aspects of politics right more often, for obvious reasons. But it's finding ones who discuss enough freely. This is not a recommendation to follow economists, they are not finance people.
Re serious amateurs, this is a total minefield and VST is right in the middle with a whole bunch of amateurs. Take your pick. How do you validate an amateur? There's largely only one way - back test. What you will notice about any pundit, commentator, amateurs, and experts is that they will avoid two things: predictions and back test. They will only talk in the present and provide an opinion on now, or explain present meaning or context. They will never be held or hold themselves to account. If you only follow such people, what value do you get from them? Why are you listening, if you can never evaluate their insight?
This is why VST does back tests of its own output, and of some of the people cited e.g. Ritter and MacGregor (article coming today). It's a simple principle. If you think you understand a system, you should have a degree of predictive power commensurate with your understanding. If you're not willing to predict, what's your opinion worth? This applies to amateurs and pros alike.
Thanks 👍
Agree on all counts.
Interestingly, the back test argument is partly the reason for writing. Articles are time-stamped evidence of what one was saying, writing and thinking at the time. Putting these arguments on record is what can be used to build credibility later. "No-one is reading these articles you are putting out on some obscure blog, whoever heard of substack anyway" (paraphrasing some 2021 feedback...) - is of course entirely missing the point in that these articles are published & dated and can be referenced in the future.