Why conspiracies thrive in the pandemic

[UM-Bot 10,430]

The coronavirus pandemic has seen the proliferation of several - often damaging - conspiracy theories.

https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/news/343533/why-are-conspiracies-thriving-in-the-pandemic

[Jon the frog 2,609]

Conspiracies thriving one fear... Sickness and restrictions is a good media for it.

[Eldorado 61,370]

Related:

1 In 7 Brits Believe There Is A Huge Coronavirus Cover-Up Involving Politicians, Scientists And Journalists

1 in 5 thinks the government is deliberately letting people die.

Huffington Post UK article

[Xeno-Fish 109,593]

They thrive because a lot of people have lost trust in the media.

[OpenMindedSceptic 238]

They possibly thrive due to the dialogue used to develop induced fear which leads to many saying, this sounds like BS. 

Then their experts and faceless scientists get their projections wrong by factors of 12 to 15. 

They take a course of action never seen before and use the populations in some sort of social experiment called lockdowns.

They throw out a lifeline vaccine in an unheard timescale where the mantra previously was, it takes time to get this stuff to market.

One politician pumped money offshore via his buddy's business and influenced the use of the same small company he pumped money into with no prior track record in public health as an antidote to this virus.

All while death stats in the UK are still way below the death figure per 100,000 from 16 years ago which required no lockdown, just like 2 years which I think were 1957 and 1968  where deaths were abnormally high but no action taken.

And policiticians have been seen to be more about holding office and power over meaningful acts.

Also fewer people trust the media and the politicians and the big pharmaceutical companies have so much sway, it is open to abuse of power.

It has all the ingredients for people to look on and say to themselves, something else is going on.

Theories then abound.

[stereologist 24,567]

10 minutes ago, OpenMindedSceptic said:

They possibly thrive due to the dialogue used to develop induced fear which leads to many saying, this sounds like BS. 

Then their experts and faceless scientists get their projections wrong by factors of 12 to 15. 

They take a course of action never seen before and use the populations in some sort of social experiment called lockdowns.

They throw out a lifeline vaccine in an unheard timescale where the mantra previously was, it takes time to get this stuff to market.

One politician pumped money offshore via his buddy's business and influenced the use of the same small company he pumped money into with no prior track record in public health as an antidote to this virus.

All while death stats in the UK are still way below the death figure per 100,000 from 16 years ago which required no lockdown, just like 2 years which I think were 1957 and 1968  where deaths were abnormally high but no action taken.

And policiticians have been seen to be more about holding office and power over meaningful acts.

Also fewer people trust the media and the politicians and the big pharmaceutical companies have so much sway, it is open to abuse of power.

It has all the ingredients for people to look on and say to themselves, something else is going on.

Theories then abound.

Can you provide an example of any these stories of yours?

• Then their experts and faceless scientists get their projections wrong by factors of 12 to 15. 

What nameless experts? The experts are known. factors of 12 to 15? Please tell us what you are on about and please post links to support your tale.

• They take a course of action never seen before and use the populations in some sort of social experiment called lockdowns.

Lock downs are well known for pandemics. They have been used for centuries. Ships were turned away during pandemics as ports were locked down. China and New Zealand have stopped the corona virus with lock downs.

• They throw out a lifeline vaccine in an unheard timescale

That's just technology in action as well as many scientific discoveries in the last 5 to 10 years. The vaccine was designed before the first case in the US. That's just science and technology today.

• One politician pumped money offshore via his buddy's business and influenced the use of the same small company he pumped money into with no prior track record in public health as an antidote to this virus.

Can you explain this vague comment?

• All while death stats in the UK are still way below the death figure per 100,000 from 16 years ago which required no lockdown, just like 2 years which I think were 1957 and 1968  where deaths were abnormally high but no action taken.

So you reference the Asian flu pandemic. Here is a link to that event. The article from 2009 is saying we better learn from previous events how to handle future events. And the article does mention lock downs, but that they were local events and that there was no country wide effort to stem the pandemic

https://bjgp.org/content/59/565/622

• And policiticians have been seen to be more about holding office and power over meaningful acts.

That was true in the US with Trump as well as other leaders in the US, and leaders in Brazil.

 

 

 

[stereologist 24,567]

I think the problem is complicated.

• The internet gives all sorts of cranks a voice and the copy and paste of viral disinformation makes some think that it must be legitimate.
• There has been a steady drop in the belief in science since the 80s.
• People have the bizarre idea that their opinion is somehow a fact.
• Trolls online love to push garbage stories.
• There are all sorts of pretend news outlets that support political motives through fake stories.

The latter item was common with Trump in the US making up some bizarre claim and then these pretend news outlets generated the fake stories supporting his wacko statements. Then Trump tells everyone see I told you so.  But it is Trump priming the filth outlets as to what to make up. This has led to all sorts of CTs concerning things like HCQ, lock downs, anti-science sentiments, anti-expert sentiments, vaccine fears, are all examples of this troubling process.

One of the issues not mentioned in this OP article is the echo chamber. This is where social media sites push similar stories to a user giving them the impression that there is strong support for some nonsensical idea. Echo chambers fuel racist groups. Echo chambers fuel the anti-science sentiment. Echo chambers fuel CT in general.

There is this myth that is often used in really bad movies that science is always wrong and the real ideas are to be found only in those people that are outliers. They are the lone wolves that show everyone they are correct and the rest of the arrogant scientists are wrong. It's an idea that resonates with people that have no idea how science is actually done. It's an idea used by such nuts as Icke, and Childress, and EVD, and Didier Raoult. We saw it in the Front Line docs, and a bunch of other wackos. We have even seen it with the purposeful lying about statements by the inventor of PCR. We recently saw the big fat lies about Merck.

Are these CT stories dangerous?  I believe they are and they feed into each other.  If someone does not trust science to tell us if the Earth is flat, then are they going to trust science when it comes to health issues?

 

[Hawken 8,195]

4 hours ago, XenoFish said:

They thrive because a lot of people have lost trust in the media.

And politicians "Never waste a good crisis" -Hillary Clinton

Edited January 31 by Hawken

[Grey Area 1,856]

I had this discussion with a Psychologist colleague of mine a couple of months back and she had a really interesting insight into conspiracy theories, one which I think I subscribe to.

It goes like this.  Fear drives conspiracy theories, much of the time quite unconsciously, fear of the reality of the world, the reality being that despite governments and a thin layering of order, total chaos is only a heartbeat away, governments and law are completely fallible.  Conspiracy arises to apply and extra layer of perceived order in an otherwise very vulnerable society.

There you go, and I can totally see it.

[Tom1200 1,443]

4 hours ago, XenoFish said:

They thrive because a lot of people have lost trust in the media.

A sad and regrettable truth.

All media are biased.  Every editor has to decide what to include/exclude from publication/broadcast.  Editors are human, with opinions of their own, or answerable to influential agents - owners, sponsors, advertisers, politicians, etc.  We naturally migrate to certain media, to read/hear/see articulate people promote ideas we share.  We all accept this is part of a free society - the freedom to hold differing views on matters big or small.  When we buy a newspaper we know where it will stand on most contentious issues.

But we hold certain media to higher standards.  Here we've got the BBC, financed through an annual fee and merchandise.  It's supposed to be impartial, it claims to behave without prejudice, but most people in Britain agree it promotes a skewed left-wing agenda.  We saw this recently with the gloom-mongering over Brexit - hundreds of negative articles about the lack of progress, the disastrous prospects, etc.  And what really infuriated people was the steady message: you got it wrong, you voted the wrong way, you're stupid, selfish, bigoted, racist.

So people grew to dislike and distrust the BBC.  Is it therefore any great surprise, when it is used to promote the government's messages on Covid, that many people question the narrative?

• "Wear masks."  But do they actually stop the virus?
• "Keep two metres distance."  Based on what science?  
• "Stay in your bubbles - don't meet in large groups."  But we see certain groups going unpoliced and unchallenged.
• "Don't meet in groups of seven or more."  But schools are still open, with classes of 30+.

I'm not suggesting that everything the government or the BBC says is wrong.  But I have a right to question, consider, doubt and challenge the things I am being told.  That doesn't make me a Conspiracy Theorist - just your average, healthily cynical sceptic.  There are an awful lot of us.

 

[Tatetopa 18,486]

15 minutes ago, Tom1200 said:

A sad and regrettable truth.

Yep. Buyer beware.  We forget why the media is in business and think it is to inform us.  Their goal is to capture our attention and sell advertising, doesn't matter which market niche they pander too. 

 

17 minutes ago, Tom1200 said:

I'm not suggesting that everything the government or the BBC says is wrong.  But I have a right to question, consider, doubt and challenge the things I am being told.  That doesn't make me a Conspiracy Theorist - just your average, healthily cynical sceptic.  There are an awful lot of us.

Good.  Best to be aware and check sources, I hope you do question and consider and challenge.  If enough people do that, it might save us.

[OpenMindedSceptic 238]

2 hours ago, stereologist said:

Can you provide an example of any these stories of yours?

• Then their experts and faceless scientists get their projections wrong by factors of 12 to 15. 

What nameless experts? The experts are known. factors of 12 to 15? Please tell us what you are on about and please post links to support your tale.

• They take a course of action never seen before and use the populations in some sort of social experiment called lockdowns.

Lock downs are well known for pandemics. They have been used for centuries. Ships were turned away during pandemics as ports were locked down. China and New Zealand have stopped the corona virus with lock downs.

• They throw out a lifeline vaccine in an unheard timescale

That's just technology in action as well as many scientific discoveries in the last 5 to 10 years. The vaccine was designed before the first case in the US. That's just science and technology today.

• One politician pumped money offshore via his buddy's business and influenced the use of the same small company he pumped money into with no prior track record in public health as an antidote to this virus.

Can you explain this vague comment?

• All while death stats in the UK are still way below the death figure per 100,000 from 16 years ago which required no lockdown, just like 2 years which I think were 1957 and 1968  where deaths were abnormally high but no action taken.

So you reference the Asian flu pandemic. Here is a link to that event. The article from 2009 is saying we better learn from previous events how to handle future events. And the article does mention lock downs, but that they were local events and that there was no country wide effort to stem the pandemic

https://bjgp.org/content/59/565/622

• And policiticians have been seen to be more about holding office and power over meaningful acts.

That was true in the US with Trump as well as other leaders in the US, and leaders in Brazil.

 

 

 

Stereo, you've been warned already by the admin here. Move along.

If you want to know which politician pumped money into a company linked with coronavirus before it was a thing then YOU need to do your own homework. The company is registered in Bermuda. YOU need to do your own research now.

[Saru 8,721]

Front page story thread closed to further comments.