Seriously, though, educate yourselves as much as you can. Your value in this world (to yourself and others) is what you know.

And here's something I have told my patients forever (words handed down over the millennia by the great sages)...Eat well, sleep well, exercise regularly, and pray/meditate daily.

Good luck to you all. Enjoyed the conversation.

I think I get your point.

Speaking of expert opinion, this expert believes the virus escaped from the Wuhan lab, which presumably also employs experts. Experts at the WHO say the idea it escaped from the lab as “extremely unlikely”, even though Chinese experts refused to give raw data. So which expert will teach us which expert we should believe?

In order to cease our reliance on experts, we'd have to get into some fairly kinky experimentation on ourselves and others, and, in my experience, that is not always appreciated. — Baden

Exactly. I'd far rather cease to a defiance of a medical practitioner's oath (with the foreknowledge of its possibility), than succumb to my own partially accurate, and rudimentary understanding of medicine (say, perhaps, by ingesting a fatal tablet). Maximalism, in this regard, is unfeasible; it's a quagmire of two discomforts - one of which is livable, and the other perilous.

Medicine is not that difficult to get a reasonable handle on. — synthesis

I agree with you -- under the condition that one do a lot of reading (reliable sources only) over time. It is not reasonable to expect a population of hundreds of millions to do this. It isn't that they are dependent state / corporate teat suckers. You know perfectly well that a good share of the population would have considerable difficulty maintaining a high level of laymen's knowledge.

Public Health is a different beast than medical practice--one patient at a time, generally anxious to be treated, and usually cooperative. Public Health deals with millions of people, many of whom resent any instruction directed at the whole population, like social distancing, masking, avoiding large gatherings, hand washing, etc. Same thing for MMR and other vaccination, smoking, drinking, eating too much fat and sugar, unprotected promiscuous sex with strangers (one of my past favorites) and the like.

Oddly, people who regularly follow individual medical advice (taking meds for chronic diseases or acute infection) balk when it comes to 'group health'. My uneducated sister is well informed about ordinary health issues but has taken up all sorts of misinformation and non-information about this specific vaccination. This is consistent with her very conservative political views. Trump managed to politicize what should have been an a-political issue.

And of course that expert. Well, if were going to leave off scraping the barrel and go right to the sewer, I have some expert right here.

The point is that given the conflicting expert opinions, anyone who proposes listening to experts is left going in circles. At some point he must make up his own mind and come to his own conclusions.

Depends on what you call an expert. I suspect I'm a little more demanding than you are in that regard. Also depends on your purposes, yours suspect.

Yes, all you have left is to disregard someone’s expertise on political grounds, or for some other specious reason, which in my mind isn’t too bright.

It seems to me that whatever expertise he had, he abandoned on political grounds. But by now you're just a tired fish in a barrel, and now that we know what you are, no longer sport. So why don't we quit this and consider evidence. You make a claim indorsing his claim. Evidence?

I’m not concerned; you couldn’t hit a fish in a barrel anyways. As for the lab theory, I don’t claim to know the answer. I do know that accidents happen, the CCP hasn’t been forthcoming with the data, and that their cover-up has been well established. Why would you dismiss this theory?

and that their cover-up has been well established. — NOS4A2

What cover-up? How well-established? You have no credibility. All evidence and only evidence, please.

What cover-up? How well-established? You have no credibility. All evidence and only evidence, please.

You don’t know about any of this, do you? Who should we blame for your ignorance?

Non-sequitur. Par for the course. And my ignorance, which I assure you contains multitudes, is circumstantial. What's your point?

My point is it isn’t my duty to educate you.

But it was your claim. You're disowning any responsibility for your own claim. All I asked for was evidence, not education. And this just part and parcel of why you are an asshole without redeeming qualities.

Speaking of expert opinion, this expert believes the virus escaped from the Wuhan lab, which presumably also employs experts. Experts at the WHO say the idea it escaped from the lab as “extremely unlikely”, even though Chinese experts refused to give raw data. So which expert will teach us which expert we should believe? — NOS4A2

Classic anti-intellectualism. This is why no one trusts NOS4A2.

The only claim I made is that I do not know the answer.

What cover-up? How well-established? You have no credibility. — tim wood

It was in the NYT. It's mentioned in a Frontline documentary. You should know this already.

Classic anti-intellectualism. This is why no one trusts NOS4A2

Not much of an argument, but it’s Banno and we shouldn’t expect much else.

But there is no point in arguing with you. You don't recognise facts. Hence there can be no common ground.

But there is no point in arguing with you. You don't recognise facts. Hence there can be no common ground.

All I’ve ever read from you were unwarranted opinions derived from your fee-fees. If you ever mention facts I’ll be sure to consider them.

You reject expert opinion, but agree with Synthesis, who's entire argument is

Believe me... — synthesis

I do not reject expert opinion. I reject appeals to authority.

I do not reject expert opinion. I reject appeals to authority. — NOS4A2

The point is that given the conflicting expert opinions, anyone who proposes listening to experts is left going in circles. — NOS4A2

Sure.

The point was about which expert to trust, and if we believed all of them we would believe contradictory things. Over your head and below your knees, I suppose.

The point is that you seek to undermine expertise and end up putting your trust in Synthesis' beliefs.

The point is that you seek to undermine expertise and end up putting your trust in Synthesis' beliefs.

I just said “I think I get your point”. Pesky facts.

Do you trust all experts?

More rhetorical splurging.

Here's my point for you, again:

Classic anti-intellectualism. This is why no one trusts NOS4A2. — Banno

Cheers.

I didn’t think you would be able answer. More fee-fees. Cheers.

There is no answer, because you don't do facts.

...there is no point in arguing with you. You don't recognise facts. Hence there can be no common ground. — Banno