‘Science’ vs. Thinking – The Introduction


   So, how are we all doing one Great Depression, one 6 trillion-dollar giveaway (and still higher deaths) later? After we have let ‘Science’ and the medical professionals run the whole show for us – on the virus? In fact, my worst problem (with covering the ‘science’ crowd) is sticking to just 5 ways to describe their errors.

   Nevertheless, I will attempt to do so. Here is the shorthand version of this article. Regarding, that is, ‘science’ vs. how, say, just thinking logically might have been a better alternative:

   Error #1) There are 3,142 government agencies – all of which could have stopped the epidemic dead in its’ tracks. But ‘Science’ overlooked all of them – and continues to do so now.

   Error #2) It is possible to do an effective isolation campaign – and with virtually no economic damage. But ‘science’ has dismally failed to deliver it for us.

   Error #3) It is possible to keep every business in the entire United States open and to INCREASE the safety from the virus. But ‘Science’ adamantly disagrees with me on that.

   Error #4) ‘Science’ has protected hundreds of millions of people who have no need for it. And cannot figure out why the people who do need it keep dying.

   Error #5) I could go on excessively so I will do just one more. Real science has a ton of practical measures that we can use on the virus in the right here and right now. But ‘Science’ is obstructing every one of them.




   My main point here is that every one of the 3, 142 counties in America has its own crack health departments. But how many people are familiar with the following names: Donald Trump, Andrew Cuomo, Jay Inslee, Gavin Newsom vs., say, the names of any of the 3,142 heads of the County Health Departments.

   And, while I may hate to bruise egos, it is the people you see on TV: Cuomo, Inslee, Newsom, ‘Witless’ Whitmer (Governor of Michigan) and et al who are the LEAST consequential in the fight. It is actually the real scientists (at the front lines) who are left under-resourced and relegated to the sidelines – but are the real essential people.

   So, the first truly scientific thing to do is to get more resources to the front-line scientists. And get more of their front-line involvement at the center of the fight. We need to have way more direct, CDC to County Official connections. And, while it is not necessarily the only solution, in other writings I have noted that there are 687 federal courthouses spread across the country among the 3,142 counties. Maybe, with a little investment and retrofitting, you could wind up with 687 staging areas (in better contact) with the counties – where most of the action is at.

   Just one dreadful example: The many thousands of people who have all died in senior care facilities. And all because the senior care industry has been a complete basket case since time immemorial. There have never been enough resources going into the senior care industry to even begin protecting them from infectious diseases.

   And even if we started properly resourcing them, the money would just go to waste if we are minus the County level health departments doing their necessary inspections. Just this one item, alone, would have been able to save countless thousands of lives.

   Or look for a moment at other things you can’t expect someone on the national ‘science’ scene to pick up on. There have been, for example, countless times – over and over – where we could have broke the virus had we acted stronger at a more local level. And also acted there on a much sooner basis.

   There are many local level things left undone. The most tragic is the complete neglect of what is called surveillance testing. Virtually every virus could be broken, early, if every County Health Department was resourced to do regular and widespread surveillance testing. This would tell us the best information on when and where to strike in using our State and National resources.

   I will demonstrate that last statement, and the deep gravity involved, by walking you through the epidemic timeline. The main brunt started out in my state, Washington State. And in the County where I live in – King County. Now, had the crisis ACTUALLY revolved around science and being data-driven (by County-led regular and wide spread surveillance testing) what would we have known and how soon would we have known it?

   We would have soon discovered that just some very small measures would have solved the crux of the matter – with little more needed to stop the loss of lives. I still have no problems with businesses being required to do a Safe-but-Open plan and working with the citizenry to ramp up aggressive self-protection. But just by securing the elderly and infirm even a badly infected hot spot area would have had few fatalities. All of which would have been known (and from early on) had the effort been science and data driven – and worked by inspectors and scientists at the local levels.

   So … enough of if-this and that. What evolved next is that we wound up with 10 counties doing half of all the emissions for the whole country. (And do any of you know the names of any of the ten County Health Commissioners of these 10 counties? Or of any significant role they played at helping to resolve the crisis? Neither do I.) Then it evolved to where we are at now: we still have 80% of all cases occurring in 12 major metropolitan areas.

   But … still no locally based solutions from ‘science’ and the medical professionals. So, I will summarize for now as I conclude this point: we still can (and should) use local strategies to fight the virus. It is possible to do a strategic quarantine of an area (to stop it from creating other hot spots) – and with little economic damage.

   For, again, once you have sheltered the elderly and the infirm there is little danger to anyone else. All of which, again, would have been well known by now if we had had a truly scientific and data driven approach. And done at county levels throughout all the localities in America.


   Then there is the ‘science’ of the isolation campaigns. Or they got us started down this road without even attempting any ‘science’ – or anything else for that matter. Do you ever remember hearing something to the effect of: “Here is my systematic presentation demonstrating that ‘social distancing’ and having to fire everyone from their jobs are one and the same? And that the one thing can’t be done without the other”? I do not remember hearing anything like this for a simple reason: no such presentation has ever been spoken. Not by anybody, not at any time and not anywhere.

   So, why are we still doing it then? Well, it is not because of science or data driven. Because, in this case, they never even tried to make a case tying the two things together. Not with science, not with data driven, not with anything whatsoever. Yet, we have still bought into their …. non-case (is that what you would call something like this?)

   And, from my other writings, there are several other matters that ‘science’ overlooked regarding the virus crisis. And the quickest way to describe it is to note how the case (or non-case?) is self-contradictory. To begin with, there have been no actual shut downs executed anywhere in the United States of America. There have been only shut down orders (not the same thing) – and with serious ramifications.       

   Because you have a bunch of idiot governors just issuing shut down orders (and leaving the people to their own devices to somehow shut themselves down) it has forced a contradiction. Because people still have to resource themselves to stay shut down (and still do things like eat food, have the utilities on and etc.) they have had to exclude 50-60% of the people as ‘essential’ workers. So, what real purpose does  the exercise still serve? Even among the 40-50 percent of the ‘shutdown’ people a large amount of them are going to be personally connected to the other 50-60 percent. Thus you have only a small percent of the population that is even, truly, sheltered-in-place to begin with.

   Next, because this ever decreasing percent of people still have to keep themselves shut down with their own devices, then they are only doing a limited sheltering. They will have to keep going in and out of their shelter to keep themselves provided. They will have to keep doing it more and more and more and more as the process keeps going on and on and on and on. Human nature will get them restless so that they will start to do it more and more even when they may not have to. So … in a virus this contagious how is this still supposed to kill a virus with an R factor of 3 people to 1?

   The only way that it is physically possible to have an actual shutdown (rather than just a shutdown order – not the same thing) is to execute it through the National Guard delivering the necessary food – and thereby have it be a 100% of the public, 100% of the time for 3 weeks type of a measure. But, if you are not going to do it correctly (with the National Guard), then you should not do it all – since it would then simply serve no purpose. That is, you will still have 50-60 percent of the populous with full exposure, the other part with only limited shelter (since they are left to their own devices to keep themselves fed). And that this will then keep getting more and more porous as the whole exercise goes on and on and on and on …. and the people have to keep going out more and more as it does.

   Or, let’s go the other way. Let’s say it is possible for the 50-60% ‘essentials’ to learn to operate more smartly and navigate around the virus. Then why can’t the other 40-50% of the people learn to do likewise? In which case, the shutdowns would never have been necessary. Thus, once you decline to execute a shut down properly (by way of the National Guard) then there can only be two possible outcomes. It will either turn out to be totally un-effective or totally unnecessary – with no other possible outcomes. And, no, this does not come from ‘science’ or ‘data driven’ – it comes from basic logic.


   Back, again, to the (non) case about the firing of everyone from their jobs because there is no other way to do ‘social distancing”. In numerous other writings, I have already made the point about physical barriers and the directional nature of the virus being better ways to block infection. But let us have some specifics from an actual example. Here, from restaurant advisers themselves, is the precise how for every restaurant to be laid out. And to wind up being laid out safer than every grocery store.

   So … why is eating out still perfectly ‘scientific’? It is because every restaurant can use a combination of

      a) masks (before you sit down to eat and before you get back up after eating).

      b) partitioning – give every booth a 270-degree partition using inexpensive materials. Thereby setting up a physical barrier to block transmission between table and table. Many restaurants (the Black Angus comes to mind) already have their booths set up this way.

   Now you simply combine b) (how you have your at-the-table safe environment) with common sense about your surroundings. (If you see an elderly couple coming your way: can’t you just wait until they have passed you – before you do your get up to leave process?)

      c) still not happy with b)? – Then how about a 15 to 20-dollar clear curtain to pull back and forth as people sit down and get up from the table?

     d) directional functions – Tables in the center of the room are not a problem. Put plexiglass (or other clear partitioning materials) in the center areas of the tables. Thus, the people you are facing are physically shielded from you. And the people you would be 3 feet away from are the ones who would be facing away from you. Thus, you would be safer, rather than less safe, than “6 feet, social distancing.”

     e) 6 feet, social distancing but plus – Like all businesses (essential or otherwise) there is still a point where you will have to be around other people at least somewhat: waiting to get seated, getting up and down from your table, leaving the restaurant, going to the restroom, etc. But ‘scientific’ only demands that you do 6 feet. I would demand that you do 6 feet plus masking.

     f) environmental controls. A finale would be to set up inexpensive UV or artificial sunlight to change the entire nature of the indoor area. This would make the virus less contagious as they would be inhibited by the controls involved.

   All of these retrofits would have a chump change cost. (Especially as compared with the ‘scientific’ types who never even proved that they needed to be closed in the first place.) But here is the ultimate reason that we must start allowing economics to triumph over both ‘science’ and central government planning. Where, under the present circumstances, is the incentive for any restaurants to do this? Since there is no guarantee that they will not keep you closed anyways.

   On the other hand: you give businesses the chance to do Safe-but-Open plans. Then they have their economic incentives to do all these things and will, therefore, do them. And here you finally come to the worst aspects of this of all.

   What most of the ‘science’ crowd will never think about is that most of these features would then stay in place AFTER the coronavirus. They would still be in place during all the next flu seasons – and, thereby, be SAVING us future lives. They would still be in place during the next novel virus like another C19 – and, thereby, be SAVING us future lives.

   But what if you have no incentive to do any of this? I.e., your fate is decided by Gavie Newsom rather than anything you might try to do to help yourself? Then all these things will not happen. And, thus, they will NOT be there for the next flu season – COSTING us more future lives. They will also not be there during the next novel virus outbreak like C19 – COSTING us more future lives. So, thank you, ‘scientific’ micromanagement for costing us more lives, over the long haul, than we would have suffered otherwise. Well done.


   Actual science and actual data driven: if you are under 65 and have no underlying health conditions, we now know that your fatality chances are less than 1 in many thousands. That you could take everyone between 18 and 65 (that are healthy), deliberately infect every one of them and still have less than 20,000 fatalities in America. So why are we now above the 70,000 fatalities mark – and with no apparent end in sight?

   From the beginning, the sole relevant issue has never been how many people get sick – but what types of people get sick. Literal example: I have 100 healthy young men and women in, say, their 20s sitting at a bar in a pre-corona style of doing business. Opposed to that I have one person, 75 plus w/ underlying conditions, who is not getting the protection he needs from society against infectious diseases. The one 75+ plus person is 100 times more likely to result in a fatality than all 100 of the other people combined.

   But here was the ‘scientific’ reasoning (of the ‘professionals’ and the ruling classes): they did not try to directly shield this population. Instead, the effort was to bubble wrap the entire population – to indirectly protect them. Because “they have to get it from somewhere”? That is, if you don’t want Group B to get something bad from a Group A then you have to quarantine BOTH groups. Even if the one Group B is a relatively small group and is relatively manageable – while the both groups would constitute trying to bubble wrap an entire population.

   But we have already discussed the second part of their ‘scientific’ reasoning: that we are not bubble wrapping the rest of the population anyways. Nor even any plausible amount that is even close to that. Sixty percent is totally un-bubbled due to being ‘essential’, another 30 is only half bubbled because they are left to their own devices to get themselves bubbled. And, thus, they must keep bobbing in and out of their bubbles.

   And, all throughout this time, the only in-danger group is the remaining 10 percent. But the ‘scientific’ consensus was, rather than directly protect this group through all feasible measures, we should leave them totally un-bubbled. Then we will leave another 60 percent of the populous totally un-bubbled and have the other 30 percent be only partially bubbled – to indirectly protect them. Smart ‘science’? Then why aren’t we getting better outcomes?


   So … we are coming to the end of our grand tour of ‘science’ – and how we have let other people do our thinking for us. I will be the first to admit that it is not much of a ride (and I appreciate you still staying on board if you are still reading this.) Therefore, we will make this final leg of the journey as quick as possible. What follows are a short list of practical, right here and now helps for the virus:

   1) Viruses have less tolerance to several chemicals than humans. Therefore, there should most likely exist a someway, somehow method of deploying chemotherapies to fight it. (As was successfully done against the AIDS virus.)

   2) Per the contagiousness question: viruses have less tolerance to several radiations and heat (in the outdoor environment) than humans do. Therefore, there should most likely exist a someway, somehow method of deploying these things into our outdoor/indoor environments. Thus, making the virus less contagious in these cases where environmental controls are inhibiting it.

   My point is that there are legit scientists, medical doctors and others who are working on all types of alternative medicines, chemotherapies, environmental controls etc. But where has the ‘data driven’ and ‘science’ crowds been? I refer not to the medical doctors but to the medical establishment: how much have you been hearing from them about the need for practical medicine in the right here and right now? I have heard little of that while Trump is often ridiculed simply for pushing for an “everything including the kitchen sink” approach.

   Therefore, I make my blunt assessment: I regard them as being little more than an ass-pain simply being in the way. Didn’t any of these high-level medical (and ‘scientific’) types ever take any classes on “Lead, follow or just get out of the way”?

    Thus, you have now been given my introductory tour on ‘Science’ vs. Thinking – this is the start of a trilogy on this important matter. That is, where we allow others to do our thinking for us on ‘scientific’ grounds. The three parts of this Trilogy (that will be coming out soon) are ‘Science’ and Human Behavior, ‘Science’ and God to then be finished with ‘Science’ and Nature.

   But here is the short, short, short form wrap up for all of it in advance. Never let anyone else do your thinking for you – ESPECIALLY if they claim to be talking ‘scientifically’!


2 thoughts on “‘Science’ vs. Thinking – The Introduction

  1. A motivating discussion is definitely worth comment.
    There’s no doubt that that you ought to publish
    more about this issue, it may not be a taboo subject but generally people do not speak about these subjects.
    To the next! Many thanks!! asmr 0mniartist

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *