Silly Little Country

H1N1 - An Interesting Talk

I have forgotten who deserves the hat tip but this seems well worth the watch.
As I watch it I remain curious about why I am ready to believe this guy.
In no particular order, I would say, some items are:

• The MIT imprimatur - helps a tad, but is decidedly not decisive. :-) After all, the MIT campus, like many campuses I know, can readily invite total quacks to speak.
  
• The tone of the claims. The speaker has no arrogance about his conclusions. He appears to have great background knowledge of previous virus attacks, as of course do cranks so appear, but they are rarely so intelligent as to outline the limits of knowledge.
  
• The tone of the response to questions. Little to say here - cranks tend not to be so reasonable.
  
• The message. There is no miracle. There are only trade-offs under uncertain knowledge. And by the way, he explains why the inluenza virus(es) is/are such a devil to make clear claims about.
  
• That along the way, some debunking is done - there is a claim that it is pointless for a healthy person to wear a mask (though it would be great if sick people did).
  
• Some other things I cannot recall.
  

So there are lessons out of this. What will I do this fall? He makes a case for me to get both seasonal and H1N1 vaccinations this fall, though he promises no miracle from that, and I plan to do so. At the moment, I am too young to get a seasonal flu vaccination (yup, under our single payer, I am pretty sure I cannot even PAY to get it), and plan to monitor the provincial plans to get in as early as possible. It WILL mean queuing, but I Can bring a book, and am retired.
He makes dodging human contact seem pretty uncertain as a protection, which is sad in a way. I can pretty much dodge human contact right now, except with SillyWife, who cannot, and maybe she becomes a dangerous node. But he points out that such provisions in 1918-1919 did not really do much.
The other question is, "Do I re-evaluate my credibility-checking circuits?" I can probably make more sense after a few months. But really, this guy sounds nothing like what are the obvious idiot conspiracy theorists, like those dorks who think the World Trade Towers fell through a controlled demolition. They meet NONE of the criteria I listed below.
I'd love to hear more criteria, including guesses at why I buy into this guy and not the idiotic Troofers.
UPDATE: Ten minutes after original post. I understand every sentence he utters. Maybe this is the most important point - there is no self-serving bafflegab.

posted by Alan Adamson @ 3:02 PM