[allturtles]

> do you find it likely that nothing along these lines happened at all, and that, again, with billions of dollars getting moved around here and there, and basically zero chance of getting caught, everyone in positions of decision-making unilaterally chose to act 100% as honestly and altruistically as possible

You seem to be excluding a large middle. You seem to be saying that either COVID is a fraud perpetrated on us by hospitals, or else I must be arguing there is no such thing as corruption.

Your theory is not impossible but it would require a large amount of evidence to believe or even seriously consider. It's similar to the argument that Trump was actually elected president, but large amounts of independent local fraud threw enough votes to Biden to flip the result.

There's also the problem of independent lines of evidence that also point to major Covid death (e.g. excess deaths), and the fact that the Covid pandemic is a global problem - does every country have Covid money incentives that explain inflated deaths?

[adamrezich]

> You seem to be excluding a large middle. You seem to be saying that either COVID is a fraud perpetrated on us by hospitals, or else I must be arguing there is no such thing as corruption.

I didn't leave the middle out at all... in fact, I was claiming that it was you who was leaving out the middle by asserting that a non-zero amount of corruption by multiple separate hospitals would be a "conspiracy theory."

my goal in the posts in this thread is not any specific worldview that I may or may not subscribe to, but instead to point out that skepticism is healthy and shouldn't be shouted down with cries of "conspiracy theory." especially for a situation fraught with other such discrepancies, if one is willing to look for them, and, again, not assume honesty and altruism for 100% of humans in positions of power who are involved.

your comparison example is a poor analogy, because the voter fraud theory is that there was a conspiracy of multiple state/local actors acting in concert to obtain a desired electoral result. this specific aspect of the larger "covid situation" requires no such conspiracy, only human greed and corruption on the individual scale.

you state that you still require evidence to "believe or even seriously consider" my hypothetical scenario. why is that the case? again, do you think it's more likely that everyone at every hospital in the US acted 100% honestly & altruistically in this regard? when it comes to the individual, it's "innocent until proven guilty," of course. but when looking at large numbers of unconnected individuals making discrete decisions, from positions of power, with billions of dollars on the line... why do you assume "uncorrupt until proven corrupt?"

[allturtles]

> you state that you still require evidence to "believe or even seriously consider" my hypothetical scenario. why is that the case? again, do you think it's more likely that everyone at every hospital in the US acted 100% honestly & altruistically in this regard? when it comes to the individual, it's "innocent until proven guilty," of course. but when looking at large numbers of unconnected individuals making discrete decisions, from positions of power, with billions of dollars on the line... why do you assume "uncorrupt until proven corrupt?"

Again, I never claimed that there has been zero corruption, that is your strawman. What requires evidence is that corruption is the reason for large numbers of reported covid deaths, in the face of the obvious alternative explanation, which is that it's substantially more contagious and more deadly than the flu.

If I started from the assumption that if someone has a motive to do something nefarious then they probably did it, and then had to work to disprove it, that would be corrosive to all human relations. How could you even function in society under that worldview?

[adamrezich]

> If I started from the assumption that if someone has a motive to do something nefarious then they probably did it, and then had to work to disprove it, that would be corrosive to all human relations. How could you even function in society under that worldview?

again, for most individuals, you're right. when it comes to those in power, incentivized by large sums of money, with basically zero means of being caught, it's only pragmatic to assume that it happened. to what extent is up for debate to be sure, but only a few posts up, you instinctively deemed any amount of this hypothetical corruption a "conspiracy theory." why is that the reflexive term you reach for when presented with the scenario I outlined? why do you assume that those in power are uncorrupt until proven otherwise? where does this inherent, implicit complete trust in authority come from?