A famous US defence secretary once used the phrase "unknown unknowns". He was referring to weapons of mass destruction during the Iraq War. We might adapt this phrase, rather cryptic perhaps, to the corona pandemic. We seem to be getting contradictory advice from politicians and scientists about how to exit the pandemic. So our knowledge is elusive, and concerning. Whom should we trust? What IS know and unknown? Or will we ever know for sure?
Unknown unknowns and Covid-19. - Lung Conditions C...
Unknown unknowns and Covid-19.
Written by
Cateran
To view profiles and participate in discussions please or .
40 Replies
•
We need to trust ourselves Cateran. Too much is still unknown so best to err on the side of caution.
Hope you’re keeping safe, well and alert. Take care. Xxx😁😘🌈
Thank you for this courteous and agreeable reply sassy. I agree that we need to trust authority, wherever it comes from, but what is an authoritative voice, if not based on reliable knowledge? Rumsfeld in referencing WMDs was using knowing to mean that which we do not like to know, hence his unknown unknowns, or what we pretend not to know about. I apologise over descending into gibberish, and at the time the US press treated this as gibberish. Actually, it isn't when you think about it as unpalatable knowing. There may well be politicians who wish that it would all go away and that we can act as if the pandemic is safely contained. Teachers and others "know" that the exact opposite is the case, that the knowledge of government is not to be trusted. I think that you would agree with them sassy.
Terry.
There is a lot of known information, anyone can read, from China, NZ, Korea, France, Germany UK about the virus.
There is also a lot that is not known about the virus.
Trust that or not
Thank you Bkin. I refer you to my reply to sassy above.
So if your Doctor in UK diagnosed COPD and you were speaking to some medical person in the USA who said you don't have it, who are you gonna believe? gees
If you don't know go with your own gut - go with what you BELIEVE is right.
You don't need to debate anything at all, the facts are regarding the virus;
it is not fully understood,
the peoples around the world are advised by their own governments based on what is known about it.
One of the facts is';
it spreads like wildfire if you don't take steps to stop it
and advise the people to take precautions.
But, does it ? If so, why such a low level of infection in general population ? Are alot of people asymptomatic?
How did it get to pandemic stage do you think?
As above, you believe what you believe.
My point is I no longer know who , or what to believe . Common sense can only take you so far without some hard facts.
My point is - the facts are as stated - we are in a pandemic, governments around the world have offered guidance, much is known about the virus and a lot is still not known.
Its down to the individual if they want to believe the information offered them or believe those voices of the doubters.
Can I make a suggestion. If you are not interested in anything the Government and its advisers say, or anything printed on the .gov website, avoid reading anything regarding this, that way you could be less confused even though you could also be misguided.
No one can give hard facts at this time other than those already known.
Even Scientist discover 'facts' and offer them as such but a month or year later discover something else which actually prove the facts previously offered are in fact inaccurate. Its the way of the world.
Totally agree- so much theory but very little true fact. And so many contradictions happening. And government lies abound.
Could not agree more Perrythomas. See my reply to sassy above.
that is heresay (heresay when you believe someone who say's you can't believe what is written or said)
the individual chooses what they believe or not about medical reports sourced from anywhere. Scientists, Chief Medical advisers, from around the world.
It boils down to, do you believe we are in a pandemic and if you do then we can only take precautions on the reports and evidence from around the world to safeguard ourselves. Simple as that.
Yes Bkin, but what if believing is faulty based on disputable "knowing"and on epistemology?
Rumsfeld had a vested interest in talking up weapons of mass destruction,whether existent or not having a rather large fat finger in the armaments industry,his gibberish was designed to infer knowledge as going to war would bolster the profits of his company interests.
Known unknowns result from recognized but poorly understood phenomena.but i think in the case of Covid 19 the science is there for all to see.perhaps governments have a particular interest in manipulating those known facts into unknowns in order to follow their own agenda?
Cynic! Oh and I quite agree with you. 🤨 x
or not!
Early on it was factual that the main symptoms were fever and persistent cough (at that time that is what was known as being the main symptoms)
Time passes and more characteristics become known, some people never have any symptoms but still have the virus.
So does the main symptoms of fever and persistent cough become incorrect? No it doesn't because that is one of the main symptoms. as is other symptoms which also have to come light. None are wrong just because different symptoms are experienced.
Similarly Rumsfeld may have had the invested interest that you indicate, but suggesting the government has an invested interest in manipulation to follow their own agenda is purely your viewpoint not fact. Some people may believe you and other people may not with regard to COVID-19.
Of immediate concern is that the unknown unknowns of Boris' direction that it is safe for, the shielded to go out, for schools to open up and other lockdown easing and yes he now takes "personal responsibility for it", as he stated yesterday in Parliament. To my mind that means he has taken personal responsibility for every future unnecessary death due to his policies with Covid-19.
Yes 2g, BoJo s not the best or clearest of communicators and I think that his scientific knowledge is limited and his delivery of his not knowing, blustery and bombastic. The latin phrase is ignoramus et ignorabimus - "we do not know and will not know", which implies a moral blindness on his part. As for taking responsibility for his policies...hmmm.
Quote - Mr Johnson told MPs: ‘I take full responsibility for everything this Government has been doing in tackling coronavirus and I’m very proud of our record.’ - unquote
metro.co.uk/2020/06/03/bori...
My last sentence was meant to be seen as ironic in tone and taken in the spirit of If you believe that you can believe anything. BJ does not inspire confidence from me. I concur in the things that you say 2g.
(you say BJ does not inspire confidence from you) That is clear so why bother reading anything of guidelines.
Guidelines that are available for others to read if they wish, and indeed if they would like to make their own decisions and choices, based on what you say or government guidelines.
Here they are for those interested, regarding the most vulnerable:
gov.uk/government/publicati...
And those generally: gov.uk/coronavirus
Its optional if you disregard them, but why is it so important you want to convince others they are not valid. (I don't need your answer to that, but I wonder if you will ask yourself that question).
And dont forget hes got the shape of a plan of a roadmap....something like that !
And let's not forget Boris is a proven liar.
Nope !
Reminds me of Hannah Arendt’s seminal essay on Truth & Politics. Still seems very relevant. There’ve been a few articles about it recently, not surprisingly! She exercised her mind on epistemology too of course
Cateran in reply to
Hanne, I give you much respect for your knowledge of Hannah Arendt's work.I have read The Human Condition in the 1970s in Edinburgh and remember the row it caused between my feminist friends at university. Some railed at her epistemic blindness and ignorance of racial truths, but her book was seminal. A powerful intellect. Thank you for making my day, so to speak.
Terry.
in reply to Cateran
Ha, thanks Terry, don’t accord me too much respect tho 😊 I used to immerse myself in philosophy, political theory etc, to compensate for my lack of formal education, but long ago gave up the hard stuff in favour of things I actually enjoy reading, ie mainly novels. As I’ve got older & sicker, anything which makes me laugh is increasingly important! It’s good to use the “leetle grey cells” occasionally tho.
Angelagone in reply to
Please pass on what makes you laugh. So much literature seems to be about unpleasant people doing nasty things to other unpleasant people and I find I soon lose interest. I am re reading Mapp and Lucia at the moment.
in reply to Angelagone
Ooh yes Mapp & Lucia, must re-read that one. Yes I’m re-reading stuff too, atm I’m on PG Wodehouse’s Jeeves novels, always lift the spirits. The only recent book which made me laugh was Adam Kay’s “This is Going to Hurt”.
I expect you’ve read these & my other old favourites: Three Men in a Boat; Notes from a Small Island; The Queen & I; Rumpole of the Bailey; anything by Beryl Bainbridge (if your humour is black); Adolf Hitler: My Part in his Downfall; A Touch of Daniel & Tales From a Long Room. And of course the Just William series which I first read aged about 8 & return to every few years (love the Martin Jarvis audio books)
Angelagone in reply to
A few there I haven't read or not recently. I also love my 'golden age ' detective novels. The Provincial Lady books. Always make me laugh. I could go on, but wont...many thanks Hanne, take care x
What an idiot I am, a thousand times an idiot, to quote Poirot. Why don't we start a separate thread, perhaps entitled My Lock down Reading? What do you and Hanne think?
Terry.
Brilliant idea, I can always talk about books. I like Alexander MaCall too. Like Precious I am traditionally built ! And how could I not have mentioned Cranford and Diary of a Nobody ? Not one favourite poet but love Auden and Emily Dickinson and Manley Hopkins...and...!
Cateran in reply to
See below, Terry.
Cateran in reply to
Well, Hanne, you've kicked off a good reading thread with Angelagone below, so I hope if you both don't mind me joining in. I am " mostly reading " (to coin a phrase) the Isabel Dalhousie novels by Alexander McCall Smith, which are a joy but certainly not depressing. If you are still interested in moral reflections, then The Sunday Philosophers Club is both a serious part of this series, a type of murder mystery as well. Reasonably provoking about ethics and much in the line of McCall Smith's The Number One African Ladies Detective Agency series, which add a sense of wry humour to your reading.
The novels by Peter May, especially the Hebrides Trilogy are a firm fixture on my reading list, as are Ian Banks science fiction series of The Culture Novels. Perhaps not everyone's cup of tea, so I have to admit a particular liking for Jane Austen. As for poetry, WH Auden is my north and south. Thank you both for this thread. long may it continue.
Terry
in reply to Cateran
New thread great idea Terry. Nothing sad or worrying allowed tho. Must be funny, light hearted or just interesting!
Not what you're looking for?
You may also like...
Sats low during flight + CFTR variant unknown significance
23andme (of all places) a couple of variants of unknown significance in the CFTR gene that I...
Covid 
Covid
Bronchiectasis and Covid - no antivirals?
Covid Spring Booster 2023
Job-Covid-Mask-COPD & Emphysema
