Covid-19 Satire: Revelations from the World of the Perfect Forms – Casting the Epidemiological Rune Stones!

Covid-19 Satire: An occasional series of writings exploring the opportunism, incompetence, double standards, falsehoods, inaccuracies, contradictions, hypocrisy, ignorance, and general nonsense that flows from the mouths of celebrities, scientists, journalists, politicians, the self-righteous and judgemental, and others, as a result of the COV-SARS-2 virus, and that other virus that has infected human minds since time immemorial.

Satire – A Prime Minister (PM) listening to distinguished epidemiologists!

And the first distinguished epidemiologist said, “The Revelations of my Rune Stones are that Covid-19 peak deaths could reach 1800 per day. This is far worse than the Government’s reasonable worst case scenario. I must insist though that my Revelations are not a prediction or a forecast! I think that it is self evident that I should be given public money – a lot of public money – loads of lovely dosh! – so that I can cast my Rune Stones again, and again, and again, and predict … sorry, I mean explore, more Revelations.”

And the second distinguished epidemiologist said, “Sorry but the Revelations of my Rune Stones are better than yours for they reveal that Covid-19 peak deaths could reach 1900 per day. This is far, far worse than the Government’s reasonable worst case scenario. I must insist though that my Revelations are not a prediction or a forecast! I think that it is self evident that it is I who should be given public money – a lot of public money – loads of lovely dosh! – so that I can cast my Rune Stones again, and again, and again, and predict … sorry, I mean explore, more Revelations.”

And the third distinguished epidemiologist said, “Nonsense! My Rune Stones are better than either of yours. The Revelations of my Rune Stones forecast – sorry, I meant reveal – that Covid-19 peak deaths could reach 2100 per day. This is far worse than your excessive predictions – sorry Revelations! – enormously worse than the Government’s reasonable worst case scenario. I must insist though that my Revelations are not a prediction or a forecast! I think that it is self evident that it is I who should be given public money – a lot of public money – loads of lovely dosh! – so that I can cast my Rune Stones again, and again, and again, and predict … sorry, I mean explore, more Revelations.”

And the fourth distinguished epidemiologist said, “Well you three have very poor Rune Stones indeed. Mine are far better than yours. The Revelations of my Rune Stones are that Covid-19 peak deaths could reach 4000 per day. This is even more extreme than your claimed excesses beyond the Government’s reasonable worst case scenario. I must insist though that my Revelations are not a prediction or a forecast! I think that it is self evident that it is I who should be given public money – a lot of public money – loads of lovely dosh! – so that I can cast my Rune Stones again, and again, and again, and predict … sorry, I mean explore, more Revelations.”

“Gosh,” said the PM. “Right, let’s lock them down one more time. I’ll fund your Rune Stone work – forever! Money is no object. It’s not mine in any case! And you’ll all get knighthoods or peerages to make you look even more distinguished … and infallible!”

And Ginger Crackers, Queen of Scots, said, “Aye, you’re off your head! The Sassenachs are doomed. I’ll be shifting my throne to London, and all you Sassenachs will become Scots. In the meantime, by Royal Decree, I forbid Scots from visiting England.”

Then Batty Atty spoke, saying. “Look after nature. Make a place for it. How dare you wage this war on SARS-COV-2 – it’s a part of nature. All this Rune Stone casting is an excess of Capitalism! End these excesses now and you’ll all be happier! Trust me! I know what I am talking about. I’ve been to the past and it’s a far, far better place that the present or anything that the excesses of Capitalism can offer in the future.”

“We’re all going to die! Repent of your sins for the end is nigh,” retorted Cretin Thungerbird of International Rescue. “Listen to the scientists. How dare you spoil my future!”

“FUBAR!” said R.W. Littleman. “I’ll be renaming the party and campaigning for herd immunity. This, in any case, is what the Rune Stones are based upon! Surely? How else do all those predicted … sorry, I meant Revealed deaths just fall away to zero?”

 

Covid-19 Satire: We saw you Coming – Financing Covid-19 Vaccine Research!

 

Covid-19 Satire: An occasional series of writings exploring the opportunism, incompetence, double standards, falsehoods, inaccuracies, contradictions, hypocrisy, ignorance, and general nonsense that flows from the mouths of celebrities, scientists, journalists, politicians, the self-righteous and judgemental, and others, as a result of the COV-SARS-2 virus, and that other virus that has infected human minds since time immemorial.

 

Satire – A Prime Minister (PM) in conversation with a prestigious university’s Professor of BioMedical Research (PBMR):

PM: We desperately need a vaccine for Covid-19. Can you develop one? How much will is cost? How long will it take to develop it? What’s the probability of it being successful?

PBMR: Of course we can, you idiot. One billion pounds of course! It will take one week. There’s an 80% probability of success! By the way, normal due diligence procedures such as peer review are not needed. You will have to bypass normal safety and regulatory checks, and you will also have to give us full indemnity against any mishaps. It is after all, an emergency!

PM: Okay.

The PM signs a cheque for one billion pounds.

One week later.

PM: So where’s the Covid-19 vaccine?

PBMR: Early results are promising, you idiot, but we need more data so that means more money!

PM: How much and when will it be ready?

PM: Another billion you stupid fool. It will be ready next week.

PM: Okay.

The PM signs another cheque for one billion pounds.

One week later.

PM: So where’s the Covid-19 vaccine?

PBMR: Early results are promising, you idiot, but we need more data and that means more money!

PM: How much and when will it be ready?

PM: Another billion you dim wit. It will be ready next week.

PM: Okay.

The PM signs yet another cheque for one billion pounds.

One week later.

PM: So where’s the Covid-19 vaccine?

PBMR: Early results are promising, you cretin, but we need more data so that means more money!

PM: How much and when will it be ready?

PM: Another billion you simpleton. It will be ready next week

PM: Okay.

The PM signs yet another cheque for one billion pounds.

One week later.

PM: So where’s the Covid-19 vaccine?

PBMR: Early results are promising, you nincompoop, but, as I said last week, we need more data and that means we need more money!

PM: How much and when will it be ready?

PM: Another billion you naïve and gullible fool. It will be ready next week.

PM: Okay.

The PM signs yet another cheque for one billion pounds.

Six months later, and many, many, many, many, many, … one billion pound cheques issued.

PM: About the vaccine? You said it would be ready in a week and that the probability of success was 80%. So where’s the vaccine?

PBMR: Oh you stupid, ignorant politician. I’m a scientist, so what I say can always be trusted. Don’t you understand that we scientists are the only way out of this mess? Only we can save you. But we need more data, so more money please. A billion should suffice. It will be ready next week!

PM: Okay, that’s fine.

The PM signs yet another cheque for one billion pounds.

One year later …

Conservatives Are The REAL Rebels In 2020

At last someone who is prepared to take on the left leaning institutions like the BBC, universities, arts bodies, ... those one would expect to be able to demonstrate some critical thought!

The following letter appeared on the Harper's Magazine web site on July 7^th 2020. As an author and writer I fully agree with the sentiments expressed in this letter. I reproduce it here in my blog to increase awareness of the letter’s existence along with this appeal: that people stop labelling others as racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. for making comments about these matters that do not conform to the dogmatic and ideologically driven political correctness that is stifling debate, freedom of speech and the open sharing of ideas, all of which are fundamental to a liberal democracy. Those who demonstrate the illiberality mentioned in the letter, who attack others with the aim of undermining their credibility, or who seek to rewrite history, are just creating the circumstances that will lead more decent people to support those like Trump. To coin a phrase - a plague on both your houses!

Here is the web link to letter along with its signatories: A Letter on Justice and Open Debate

A Letter on Justice and Open Debate

July 7, 2020
The below letter will be appearing in the Letters section of the magazine’s October issue. We welcome responses at letters@harpers.org

Our cultural institutions are facing a moment of trial. Powerful protests for racial and social justice are leading to overdue demands for police reform, along with wider calls for greater equality and inclusion across our society, not least in higher education, journalism, philanthropy, and the arts. But this needed reckoning has also intensified a new set of moral attitudes and political commitments that tend to weaken our norms of open debate and toleration of differences in favor of ideological conformity. As we applaud the first development, we also raise our voices against the second. The forces of illiberalism are gaining strength throughout the world and have a powerful ally in Donald Trump, who represents a real threat to democracy. But resistance must not be allowed to harden into its own brand of dogma or coercion—which right-wing demagogues are already exploiting. The democratic inclusion we want can be achieved only if we speak out against the intolerant climate that has set in on all sides.

The free exchange of information and ideas, the lifeblood of a liberal society, is daily becoming more constricted. While we have come to expect this on the radical right, censoriousness is also spreading more widely in our culture: an intolerance of opposing views, a vogue for public shaming and ostracism, and the tendency to dissolve complex policy issues in a blinding moral certainty. We uphold the value of robust and even caustic counter-speech from all quarters. But it is now all too common to hear calls for swift and severe retribution in response to perceived transgressions of speech and thought. More troubling still, institutional leaders, in a spirit of panicked damage control, are delivering hasty and disproportionate punishments instead of considered reforms. Editors are fired for running controversial pieces; books are withdrawn for alleged inauthenticity; journalists are barred from writing on certain topics; professors are investigated for quoting works of literature in class; a researcher is fired for circulating a peer-reviewed academic study; and the heads of organizations are ousted for what are sometimes just clumsy mistakes. Whatever the arguments around each particular incident, the result has been to steadily narrow the boundaries of what can be said without the threat of reprisal. We are already paying the price in greater risk aversion among writers, artists, and journalists who fear for their livelihoods if they depart from the consensus, or even lack sufficient zeal in agreement.

This stifling atmosphere will ultimately harm the most vital causes of our time. The restriction of debate, whether by a repressive government or an intolerant society, invariably hurts those who lack power and makes everyone less capable of democratic participation. The way to defeat bad ideas is by exposure, argument, and persuasion, not by trying to silence or wish them away. We refuse any false choice between justice and freedom, which cannot exist without each other. As writers we need a culture that leaves us room for experimentation, risk taking, and even mistakes. We need to preserve the possibility of good-faith disagreement without dire professional consequences. If we won’t defend the very thing on which our work depends, we shouldn’t expect the public or the state to defend it for us.