7 ms·
> The issue with this is that this is happening with full support of government employees, and even the courts cooperate to a lesser extent. Why is that an iss
by regularfry 5mo ago
> The issue with this is that this is happening with full support of government employees, and even the courts cooperate to a lesser extent.
Why is that an issue? The simplest explanation is that the underlying rate of mental illness is inconveniently high. Which would tally with, as you say:
> In fact, nothing is expected at all (other than medical evidence).
Also I would take a look at the date when the upcurve starts on that chart and ask myself: was there some sort of mass disabling event that happened about then? Might that be contributing?
- 9x39 5mo ago> Why is that an issue? What’s the counterweight to keep the system in check and from growing out of control? If the only message is yes, it sets up a positive feedback loop. Looking back and guessing whether Covid justifies it is post hoc rationalization. It says nothing about the validity of individual claims. Fraud schemes in the same timeframe could benefit just as well.
- spwa4 5mo agoPlus it just isn't fair. You're making other people work for you without anything in return.
- regularfry 5mo agoThe alternative is a society that says "work or starve". I don't live in that society and I don't want to.
- regularfry 5mo ago> What’s the counterweight to keep the system in check and from growing out of control? If the only message is yes, it sets up a positive feedback loop. Nice try, but that's begging the question. Why is it a problem for the government employees to do their jobs and for the courts to enforce the law? > Looking back and guessing whether Covid justifies it is post hoc rationalization. So is making an accusation of rampant fraud that just happened to coincide with a badly-contained pandemic. Occam's Razor makes increased sickness the null hypothesis. It's on you to do more than raise vague insinuations if you want to show the main weight of the problem here is anything other than that, with the usual derisory level of fraud at the edges as a rounding error. > It says nothing about the validity of individual claims. Let me introduce you to a concept you may find useful: go and read up on this thing called "statistics", you might find it helps. > Fraud schemes in the same timeframe could benefit just as well And? Show they're the problem. Show them increasing. Show why they started increasing exactly then.