This type of thing should really be common knowledge. I’ve seen it over and over in my industry - any high-level individual in a public-facing role is a brainless mouthpiece for some much lower-level grunt who’s doing the actual work. Once you reach a certain point on the ladder, your job responsibilities involving actual substantive work go to zero and your job responsibilities involving looking nice in a suit and selling bullshit to your target audience goes to 100%.
You think Fauci is poring over SAS code and data tables or whatever? Of course not - some dipshit 25 year old public health grad is doing that, then writing a report of his findings and interpretations, then sending it up to his boss for review and revisions, and then that guy is sending it up to his boss for review and revisions, and so on and so on, until someone abstracts it into 5 bullet points on a piece of paper for Fauci to read at a press conference that he sneaks in between whatever other celebrity bullshit he’s doing. He has no clue about anything - he’s a guy in a suit who reads talking points that have been spoon-fed to him. iN fAuCi We TrUsT.
Plus, everything is basically amounting to "people are being told this and that", including the people in power, who turn around and tell us what they're told, but who is doing the first-talking? Is it really some grunt trying to do an honest job, or is it someone else in a suit with ideas and an agenda?
Really good question. If I had to guess, I’d say the lowest-level grunt is probably some public health grad who’s sort of trying to do an honest job but isn’t that bright and has SJW leanings (which might bias his findings and interpretations), and as his work goes up the chain, it probably gets much more explicit spin applied to it in order to establish the narrative that TPTB want to establish.
In my experience in the Psychology field, AKA where nearly all "studies" are made, a high level executive says something and all of the grunts are then scrambled to find a way to make that true. If a rich politician wants to rail against violent games, a bunch of grad students desperate for a buck will get him a study saying games make you violent.
There is little "original" thought just vague ideas of what those in power want and those who give them the details to fill in that plan.
For Corona, they probably got some vague medical info and possible solutions, then wrote that plan to their benefit and had the info "updated" to better suit them. Still vaguely correct, but also massively into their playbook more so.
This type of thing should really be common knowledge. I’ve seen it over and over in my industry - any high-level individual in a public-facing role is a brainless mouthpiece for some much lower-level grunt who’s doing the actual work. Once you reach a certain point on the ladder, your job responsibilities involving actual substantive work go to zero and your job responsibilities involving looking nice in a suit and selling bullshit to your target audience goes to 100%.
You think Fauci is poring over SAS code and data tables or whatever? Of course not - some dipshit 25 year old public health grad is doing that, then writing a report of his findings and interpretations, then sending it up to his boss for review and revisions, and then that guy is sending it up to his boss for review and revisions, and so on and so on, until someone abstracts it into 5 bullet points on a piece of paper for Fauci to read at a press conference that he sneaks in between whatever other celebrity bullshit he’s doing. He has no clue about anything - he’s a guy in a suit who reads talking points that have been spoon-fed to him. iN fAuCi We TrUsT.
Same shit with this broad in Canada.
I dig that.
Plus, everything is basically amounting to "people are being told this and that", including the people in power, who turn around and tell us what they're told, but who is doing the first-talking? Is it really some grunt trying to do an honest job, or is it someone else in a suit with ideas and an agenda?
Really good question. If I had to guess, I’d say the lowest-level grunt is probably some public health grad who’s sort of trying to do an honest job but isn’t that bright and has SJW leanings (which might bias his findings and interpretations), and as his work goes up the chain, it probably gets much more explicit spin applied to it in order to establish the narrative that TPTB want to establish.
Yeah, that seems more realistic. Big-ass game of Telephone crossed with agenda-driven manipulation of information throughout the chain.
In my experience in the Psychology field, AKA where nearly all "studies" are made, a high level executive says something and all of the grunts are then scrambled to find a way to make that true. If a rich politician wants to rail against violent games, a bunch of grad students desperate for a buck will get him a study saying games make you violent.
There is little "original" thought just vague ideas of what those in power want and those who give them the details to fill in that plan.
For Corona, they probably got some vague medical info and possible solutions, then wrote that plan to their benefit and had the info "updated" to better suit them. Still vaguely correct, but also massively into their playbook more so.