There's no good answer (that I can think of). But at this point, I'll take ANY answer from the Brownstone brain trust as a start. Ideally from Mr. Tucker (whom I, too, wish no ill will). He did give you some "answer" a few weeks back, but it was so disjointed I can't recall what it asserted.
It's discrediting to Brownstone's raison d'être that it has danced around the most fundamental premise(s)-of-all for 4 years. Moreover, they "can't get there from here" if they/he just keep whining about "lockdown" and moralizing. The REPPARE project has shown promise, but it doesn't "bring it home" (it's still "in the box" and is likely to stay there).
For a while, BI/Tucker did seem focused on getting to the bottom of it, but that was 1-3 years ago. Remember the October 2022 piece, "The 70 Seconds that Shook the World" (https://brownstone.org/articles/the-70-seconds-that-shook-the-world/)? I think it's (past) time for Brownstone to "shake the world."
What fallout is Mr. Tucker trying to avoid? I suspect Dr. Bhattacharya (and others?) won't be happy if Brownstone "goes there," but that is not a good reason to pretend and avoid. Maybe it has to do with donors. Like you, Ms. Jessica, I don't get it.
This succinct piece serves up what has needed to be said for some time. Thank You. Bravo.
In his response to our proposal, Jeffrey said, "While I see huge value in this NYC research, I don't see that there is much to be gained by hammering Ridley and Chan on this topic really. I feel the same about those who argue that there was no pandemic: I'm agnostic on that and entirely focused on the policy response to any pathogenic wave, real or imagined."
I strongly disagree that whether a pathogenic wave was real or imagine is irrelevant - and that the only matter of public import is the response thereto.
Without an alleged threat, there would be no response of any kind. If the WHO, governing authorities, et al lied about a threat, it matters - irrespective of what the alleged threat was.
If Jeffrey and Brownstone as an organization believe the government is likely to pull this exercise again, they can be sure it will involve an alleged threat.
The best way to prevent "Next-Threat Threats" is NOT to put fingers in our ears and ignore questions about whether there was a deadly coronavirus sweeping the globe.
I'm at an impasse with anyone who wants to hand-wave or look past the question of whether there was an emergency, because we can only assess whether a response was disproportionate or necessary - and to what extent - if we know what the threat was.
Below is the reply/response from Mr. Tucker that I had in mind when I wrote my comment. I mischaracterized the time frame inadvertently—probably because I read it a few weeks back and that's where it was (mis)filed in my brain. The reply was actually on April 30, 2024. In response to your entreaty for explanation, he wrote:
"Because there are 103,000 issues and this is your specialization. I don't know what you think I have to add. I try to focus where I can make a contribution."
This^, of course, is nonresponsive and effectively incoherent. (The various exchanges/replies below the above are interesting to look at too.)
Here are two additional similar responses from Mr. Tucker on April 4, 2023:
"There are many moving pieces, and this is far from the only one."
AND
"yeah agree, yes, there are many questions about NYC, Northern Italy, Wuhan, and vast numbers of events before during and after, from bottom to top and back again as far as wide as the eye can see. The more research the better from everyone."
Again, the "explanations" are insubstantial, inadequate.
In light of your post here ("Precious Little Talk About It - Jeffrey Tucker's Lament"), the brush-off à la the above is untenable/unsustainable if the esteemed proprietor of Brownstone Institute is operating in good faith and/or not compromised. To simply accept the party line "as if everyone knows what The Emergency [was] and the imminent dangers it pose[d]"[1] does not look like "intellectual dissent" to me. Mr. Tucker may as well have responded: "Inconceivable!"
"There is tacit agreement that The Emergency must be dealt with. Authority figures use The Emergency as an ever-present threat to justify why things are the way they are — including things that don’t make much sense."
Could replace The Emergency with The Threat. Same vibe!
Yes, very good, exactly. I meant to work in "The Threat" to my reply, but I lost track of it. I appreciate your redirection/focus. "The Threat" is good lingo and framing (although The Emergency works/applies too).
The more I think about this "real simulation" (oxymoron alert), the more I less understand Mr. Tucker's editorial avoidance/judgment. I guess the "Brownstone Journal" is not the heart of the Brownstone enterprise (Mr. Tucker has somewhat downplayed it recently [I don't want to hunt down source]), but his background is in publishing (among other areas of expertise), and publishing wants eyes/traffic. For Brownstone to announce an initiative to pursue the very basis/bases of the Presumptive Pandemic (in the Journal or beyond in Brownstone's scholarly way) would not only be the right move, it would be stupendous.
There's no good answer (that I can think of). But at this point, I'll take ANY answer from the Brownstone brain trust as a start. Ideally from Mr. Tucker (whom I, too, wish no ill will). He did give you some "answer" a few weeks back, but it was so disjointed I can't recall what it asserted.
It's discrediting to Brownstone's raison d'être that it has danced around the most fundamental premise(s)-of-all for 4 years. Moreover, they "can't get there from here" if they/he just keep whining about "lockdown" and moralizing. The REPPARE project has shown promise, but it doesn't "bring it home" (it's still "in the box" and is likely to stay there).
For a while, BI/Tucker did seem focused on getting to the bottom of it, but that was 1-3 years ago. Remember the October 2022 piece, "The 70 Seconds that Shook the World" (https://brownstone.org/articles/the-70-seconds-that-shook-the-world/)? I think it's (past) time for Brownstone to "shake the world."
What fallout is Mr. Tucker trying to avoid? I suspect Dr. Bhattacharya (and others?) won't be happy if Brownstone "goes there," but that is not a good reason to pretend and avoid. Maybe it has to do with donors. Like you, Ms. Jessica, I don't get it.
This succinct piece serves up what has needed to be said for some time. Thank You. Bravo.
Well done.🎯
In his response to our proposal, Jeffrey said, "While I see huge value in this NYC research, I don't see that there is much to be gained by hammering Ridley and Chan on this topic really. I feel the same about those who argue that there was no pandemic: I'm agnostic on that and entirely focused on the policy response to any pathogenic wave, real or imagined."
I strongly disagree that whether a pathogenic wave was real or imagine is irrelevant - and that the only matter of public import is the response thereto.
Without an alleged threat, there would be no response of any kind. If the WHO, governing authorities, et al lied about a threat, it matters - irrespective of what the alleged threat was.
If Jeffrey and Brownstone as an organization believe the government is likely to pull this exercise again, they can be sure it will involve an alleged threat.
The best way to prevent "Next-Threat Threats" is NOT to put fingers in our ears and ignore questions about whether there was a deadly coronavirus sweeping the globe.
I'm at an impasse with anyone who wants to hand-wave or look past the question of whether there was an emergency, because we can only assess whether a response was disproportionate or necessary - and to what extent - if we know what the threat was.
I tried to get at the "What was the emergency?" questions in a lighter way here: https://www.woodhouse76.com/p/the-emergency
TY🤍
Below is the reply/response from Mr. Tucker that I had in mind when I wrote my comment. I mischaracterized the time frame inadvertently—probably because I read it a few weeks back and that's where it was (mis)filed in my brain. The reply was actually on April 30, 2024. In response to your entreaty for explanation, he wrote:
"Because there are 103,000 issues and this is your specialization. I don't know what you think I have to add. I try to focus where I can make a contribution."
SOURCE: https://x.com/jeffreyatucker/status/1785274450864206258
This^, of course, is nonresponsive and effectively incoherent. (The various exchanges/replies below the above are interesting to look at too.)
Here are two additional similar responses from Mr. Tucker on April 4, 2023:
"There are many moving pieces, and this is far from the only one."
AND
"yeah agree, yes, there are many questions about NYC, Northern Italy, Wuhan, and vast numbers of events before during and after, from bottom to top and back again as far as wide as the eye can see. The more research the better from everyone."
SOURCE OF BOTH: https://x.com/jeffreyatucker/status/1775976233588629683
Again, the "explanations" are insubstantial, inadequate.
In light of your post here ("Precious Little Talk About It - Jeffrey Tucker's Lament"), the brush-off à la the above is untenable/unsustainable if the esteemed proprietor of Brownstone Institute is operating in good faith and/or not compromised. To simply accept the party line "as if everyone knows what The Emergency [was] and the imminent dangers it pose[d]"[1] does not look like "intellectual dissent" to me. Mr. Tucker may as well have responded: "Inconceivable!"
[1] SOURCE: https://www.woodhouse76.com/p/the-emergency
This^ btw is a marvelous post. TY for showing it to me/us (I hope Mr. Tucker will read/reread it).
Thanks.
This sounds familiar doesn't it?
"There is tacit agreement that The Emergency must be dealt with. Authority figures use The Emergency as an ever-present threat to justify why things are the way they are — including things that don’t make much sense."
Could replace The Emergency with The Threat. Same vibe!
Yes, very good, exactly. I meant to work in "The Threat" to my reply, but I lost track of it. I appreciate your redirection/focus. "The Threat" is good lingo and framing (although The Emergency works/applies too).
The more I think about this "real simulation" (oxymoron alert), the more I less understand Mr. Tucker's editorial avoidance/judgment. I guess the "Brownstone Journal" is not the heart of the Brownstone enterprise (Mr. Tucker has somewhat downplayed it recently [I don't want to hunt down source]), but his background is in publishing (among other areas of expertise), and publishing wants eyes/traffic. For Brownstone to announce an initiative to pursue the very basis/bases of the Presumptive Pandemic (in the Journal or beyond in Brownstone's scholarly way) would not only be the right move, it would be stupendous.
I think Jeffrey will come around
👀
Well said