Concise, powerful refutations of bad Covid analogies

Mojambo

Sparrow
The goal of this thread is to present popular, seemingly "logical" (and I use that term very loosely) analogies from the Covid cult crowd, and to brainstorm the most concise "comeback", since the long form answer of presenting real data rarely works on those guided by emotions.

Generally I dislike new threads when others have addressed the same issue, but here I am guilty of creating one, so please forgive me.

It's difficult to sift through the thousands of pages of the other excellent threads. I believe a consolidation of concise refutations to very common Covid cult member mantras can act as a handy resource, ready for when you encounter one in person or online.

Examples of a Covid cult analogy:
  • "We need to start looking at the choice to remain unvaccinated the same as we look at driving while intoxicated. You have the option to not get vaccinated if you want, but then you can't go out in public." - Leana Wen, CNN
A possible answer (maybe not the best, but would like a brainstorm to refine it to a concise, irrefutable response):
  • Drunk people can at least have a designated driver to take them where they need to go. Unless someone agrees to do my job (for which I get paid) and do all my errands outside the house, your drunk driving analogy is awful. This is beside the fact that if you're not drunk (i.e. healthy and/or naturally immune) you aren't deprived of your choice to drive.
I will compile the bad analogies and their best refutations here: https://stopthepsyop.github.io/bad-covid-analogies/
 

Beacon

Pigeon
The goal of this thread is to present popular, seemingly "logical" (and I use that term very loosely) analogies from the Covid cult crowd, and to brainstorm the most concise "comeback", since the long form answer of presenting real data rarely works on those guided by emotions.

Generally I dislike new threads when others have addressed the same issue, but here I am guilty of creating one, so please forgive me.

It's difficult to sift through the thousands of pages of the other excellent threads. I believe a consolidation of concise refutations to very common Covid cult member mantras can act as a handy resource, ready for when you encounter one in person or online.

Examples of a Covid cult analogy:
  • "We need to start looking at the choice to remain unvaccinated the same as we look at driving while intoxicated. You have the option to not get vaccinated if you want, but then you can't go out in public." - Leana Wen, CNN
A possible answer (maybe not the best, but would like a brainstorm to refine it to a concise, irrefutable response):
  • Drunk people can at least have a designated driver to take them where they need to go. Unless someone agrees to do my job (for which I get paid) and do all my errands outside the house, your drunk driving analogy is awful. This is beside the fact that if you're not drunk (i.e. healthy and/or naturally immune) you aren't deprived of your choice to drive.
I will compile the bad analogies and their best refutations here: https://stopthepsyop.github.io/bad-covid-analogies/

I am not very good at it but how about "If you are drunk, you will sober up to drive another day. Is it the same if you are vaxxed and die from it?".

Advance apology: please forgive me if I am trying to be sarcastic for something serious.

Anyway its a good thing you started this thread. It will be useful.
 

mgill0600

Pigeon
The one I hear all the time in the US is - "But you are required to get immunizations to attend public school".

Interested in strong rebuttals to this argument.

Ones that come to my mind are:

1. The longer, more thorough testing of those vaccines (and there are way more shots today than there were 30 years ago, is it good for health or good business for pharma companies?)
2. The diseases they protect against had a much higher mortality rate for children than COVID (measles/mumps/small pox/polio).
3. Religious and medical exemptions are allowed and you can still attend school.
 

fortyfive

Woodpecker
These people are not using any logic in their reasoning when enforcing tyranny. There is no logic in having a mask on an empty street, and they know it.
They are using supposedly logical reason only to trap you because normal people have the urgency to explain their actions with logic.
But when they don't have logic and reason (except control and totality) then you don't need to answer them with logic and reason too.
 

Elipe

Pelican
The one I hear all the time in the US is - "But you are required to get immunizations to attend public school".
And yet, homeschooled kids don't need them and do just perfectly fine. Besides, this is an appeal to authority logical fallacy. Just because schools require a particular immunization doesn't mean that that is the right thing to do.

But herd immunity!

Then shut up and chemically lobotomize your kids so I don't have to, like we've been doing for the past century.
 

Mojambo

Sparrow
These people are not using any logic in their reasoning when enforcing tyranny. There is no logic in having a mask on an empty street, and they know it.
They are using supposedly logical reason only to trap you because normal people have the urgency to explain their actions with logic.
But when they don't have logic and reason (except control and totality) then you don't need to answer them with logic and reason too.

That actually is why I created this thread. The goal isn't so much to present data and logic to change that person's mind, it is to employ a similar tactic and trap them back, having them explain their bad analogy with their insane logic. It can subtly demonstrate to the person or bystanders of the discussion how stupid analogies are as replacements for facts and data to push dumb policy or social norms.

As juvenile as it is, I think those of us that have been trying with data and actual logic for too long simply fail to speak the language that persuades the cult.

If anything, this helps slow the propagation of these mantras, reducing the effect of the cult.

The goal is to trigger cognitive dissonance quickly so that the flock doesn't have the confidence to spread the analogy. The response should have an effect of making the original analogy sound like a ridiculous thing to say so people would stop saying it, because the obvious refutation is much more effective and convincing.
 
Last edited:

Sam Malone

Ostrich
Gold Member
The one I hear all the time in the US is - "But you are required to get immunizations to attend public school".

Interested in strong rebuttals to this argument.
"Yeah, and if I knew then what I know now, I would have never had vaccines done on any of my children."

Follow up that Gill Bates' children aren't vaxxed, and that we are currently in an age where information is literally at your fingertips. So one can look these things up for themselves.

Disclaimer: This and other tactics can only work with people who are truly willing to listen. Don't waste your time or effort with the overweight blue haired normies that are entrenched in their mindset.

Save the ones you can.
 

Sam Malone

Ostrich
Gold Member
The goal is to trigger cognitive dissonance quickly so that the flock doesn't have the confidence to spread the analogy. The response should have an effect of making the original analogy sound like a ridiculous thing to say so people would stop saying it, because the obvious refutation is much more effective and convincing.
Bold for emphasis.

Reminds me of when Trump Jr made the immigration/M&M analogy and the lefties went crazy that he was "comparing living breathing human beings to candy". The analogy was lost in a sea of Orange Man's Son Bad.

Another one:
"But Trump had four failed companies".
"Yeah out of something like 110, that's pretty goo-"
"BuT hE hAd FOUR failEd cOmpAniEs omg are you stoopid is there something wrong with you do you not see it omg"

Beat them at thier own game.

Good thread. Rep sent.
 

Elipe

Pelican
Though, I admit, the one about immunizing your kids for public school is a harder one to come up with a strong rhetorical retort for because most of the arguments you would bring up with a normie are positions that are inherently based on moving goalposts.
1. The longer, more thorough testing of those vaccines (and there are way more shots today than there were 30 years ago, is it good for health or good business for pharma companies?)
2. The diseases they protect against had a much higher mortality rate for children than COVID (measles/mumps/small pox/polio).
3. Religious and medical exemptions are allowed and you can still attend school.
1. Testing time is a moving goalpost that can be argued to be variable based on available technology (more advanced than 30 years ago), available funds (more than before), and better methods. Basically, there's no hard line between "not enough data" and "reasonably enough data". This is not a good hill to die on.
2. Moving goalpost. What about the seasonal influenza? What about the avian influenza? There are diseases out there that kill people that we don't require vaccinations for. There is no hard line between "kills enough people to justify school requirements" and "doesn't kill enough people to justify school requirements".
3. This is honestly one that will just make people hate Christians more. They'll point out that a religious exemption is not a basis for causing harm to others. The exemptions are already enough of a shaky ground for opposing COVID measures. And a medical exemption is going to require a doctor that is sympathetic to your side, which is rare enough already.

The problem here is that we're on the side of logic and reason, but theirs is on the side of hypochondriac emotion. "BUT YOU COULD DIE!" is a very hard position to emotionally/rhetorically argue against, and historically is something that has been addressed through psychotherapy. But clown world is adamantly refusing to offer psychotherapy for this type of hypochondriac hysteria. Also, psychotherapy is usually something that requires consent. A hypochondriac person has to understand that his hypochondria is unhealthy, unproductive, and an unnecessary source of anxiety/distress.

But normies are having a megaphone screaming into their face that they are supposed to be anxious, distressed, and worried about dying from touching a doorknob. They have to be brought first to the point of realizing that this is hypochondria which requires a compassionate, therapeutical psychological treatment.

This is another example of hypochondriac thinking. If it was human nature to run around naked and pee on each other, then we would have immune systems or bodily mechanisms designed to tolerate that (urine is sterile... mostly, by the way), and it wouldn't be seen as "odd" or "unsanitary". It's like shaking hands. Yes, your hands are teeming with pathogens. Do we need to be hypochondriacs and lock everyone up in giant hamster balls because of that? No. We've been shaking each other's hands and doing other "unsanitary" things for thousands of years. Disease is a small price to pay for having a society.

There used to be a time people didn't freak out over throwing trash and sewage into the streets. That's society. A sane, functioning society is inherently non-hypochondriac. Hypochondria is inherently anti-social.

The point is that people have been psychologically damaged, and the source of their psychological damage continues to have access to their minds. People like this need therapy. We used to give people therapy for having mental problems like this.
 

Viktor Zeegelaar

Pelican
Orthodox Inquirer
The goal of this thread is to present popular, seemingly "logical" (and I use that term very loosely) analogies from the Covid cult crowd, and to brainstorm the most concise "comeback", since the long form answer of presenting real data rarely works on those guided by emotions.
There are none :laughter:
 

Redcrosse

Woodpecker
These people are not using any logic in their reasoning when enforcing tyranny. There is no logic in having a mask on an empty street, and they know it.
They are using supposedly logical reason only to trap you because normal people have the urgency to explain their actions with logic.
But when they don't have logic and reason (except control and totality) then you don't need to answer them with logic and reason too.
Yeah, but there’s still an urgent need to answer them, not because they can be swayed, but to sway the middle group, the observers, the third parties, the people who are neither covid cult fanatics nor fully aware of the scamdemic. They’re going along not because they live in constant fear of the covid monster but because they don’t like conflict and want this nightmare all to be over and wrongly think that can be done via compliance.

If only one party is making public arguments for a certain policy, even if those arguments are terrible, that party wins by default. That’s why censorship and de-platforming is so effective. Certain arguments never get heard, or they’re only heard by the select crowd who are already fans of that person and on the same wavelength.

As for this,
These people are not using any logic in their reasoning when enforcing tyranny. There is no logic in having a mask on an empty street, and they know it.
you have to make a key distinction here between the liars at the top of the pyramid and the ordinary enforcers, between the elites and the Karens. Of course the globalists and their gofer politicians and bought “experts” know they’re lying about masks, but the dutiful Karen schoolteacher or principal really believes this stuff. She thinks she’s a good person and a moral person by forcing masks and deadly jabs on every last schoolkid. It’s crucial to realize that a hoax on this scale only works because of the participation of both personality types: the deliberate, intentional liar and the naive, brainwashed true believer.

The latter type does NOT “know it,” definitely does NOT realize “there is no logic in having a mask on an empty street.” YOU know it because you can think logically and dispassionately and intelligently evaluate evidence. But the pandemic true believers really, truly think there is something sensible about perpetual, ubiquitous mask wearing. That’s why they WILL wear a mask even where it’s not legally mandated on an empty street or empty beach with no one else around.
 

Mojambo

Sparrow
This is another example of hypochondriac thinking. If it was human nature to run around naked and pee on each other, then we would have immune systems or bodily mechanisms designed to tolerate that (urine is sterile... mostly, by the way), and it wouldn't be seen as "odd" or "unsanitary". It's like shaking hands. Yes, your hands are teeming with pathogens. Do we need to be hypochondriacs and lock everyone up in giant hamster balls because of that? No. We've been shaking each other's hands and doing other "unsanitary" things for thousands of years. Disease is a small price to pay for having a society.

There used to be a time people didn't freak out over throwing trash and sewage into the streets. That's society. A sane, functioning society is inherently non-hypochondriac. Hypochondria is inherently anti-social.

The point is that people have been psychologically damaged, and the source of their psychological damage continues to have access to their minds. People like this need therapy. We used to give people therapy for having mental problems like this.

Definitely no argument here, but those that can separate emotion from logic only come to such conclusions.

Any ideas how to convey the hypochondria hysteria in the same vein as the original analogy? I started with my suggested answer, so feel free to iterate on it or suggest an improvement.

For other readers of the thread:

I intended this thread to be different than the other threads. We're looking not for the logical, data driven response, but rather the strong, rhetorical retort that Elipe pointed out earlier in his post. The goal really is to create propaganda, to counter the prevailing propaganda that has worked so well with the entire world.

That being said, this thread is still open to discussions with actual logic and data countering the analogies as that is in the nature of a lot of us in this particular forum. It perhaps can help towards developing those concise rebuttals.
 

Elipe

Pelican
Any ideas how to convey the hypochondria hysteria in the same vein as the original analogy? I started with my suggested answer, so feel free to iterate on it or suggest an improvement.
A good start is agree and amplify.

The vaccine doesn't stop you from getting sick or infecting others, so clearly, we need to put children inside transparent rubber balls to protect them from COVID! And if you disagree, you're evil and want to kill children.
 

Mojambo

Sparrow
A good start is agree and amplify.

The vaccine doesn't stop you from getting sick or infecting others, so clearly, we need to put children inside transparent rubber balls to protect them from COVID! And if you disagree, you're evil and want to kill children.

Agree and amplify is definitely effective. Not much amplification is needed quite frankly, because most of these analogies are already so absurd to start with it just takes a little extra to make it sound undeniably absurd.
 

Elipe

Pelican
Another awful analogy: the Swiss Cheese model of Pandemic Defense

View attachment 33586
Possible concise and equally juvenile refutation:
  • Let me know how you plan on protecting yourself from a swarm of bees with seven hula hoops
The agree and amplify angle is: NOT ENOUGH LAYERS!!! MORE CHEESE! MORE!!! And then when you think you've had enough cheese. NO, MORE CHEESE!

The only way you'll ever have enough cheese to protect yourself is when you're dead.
 

Redcrosse

Woodpecker
That actually is why I created this thread. The goal isn't so much to present data and logic to change that person's mind, it is to employ a similar tactic and trap them back, having them explain their bad analogy with their insane logic. It can subtly demonstrate to the person or bystanders of the discussion how stupid analogies are as replacements for facts and data to push dumb policy or social norms.

As juvenile as it is, I think those of us that have been trying with data and actual logic for too long simply fail to speak the language that persuades the cult.

If anything, this helps slow the propagation of these mantras, reducing the effect of the cult.

The goal is to trigger cognitive dissonance quickly so that the flock doesn't have the confidence to spread the analogy. The response should have an effect of making the original analogy sound like a ridiculous thing to say so people would stop saying it, because the obvious refutation is much more effective and convincing.
What about, in response to this:
  • "We need to start looking at the choice to remain unvaccinated the same as we look at driving while intoxicated. You have the option to not get vaccinated if you want, but then you can't go out in public." - Leana Wen, CNN
maybe something like this:

“All the data out of Israel and elsewhere show clearly that the vaccinated, not the unvaccinated, are the ones mainly testing positive for COVID and driving up the case numbers. It’s also clear from VAERS that vaccine injuries and deaths are through the roof. Therefore, the vaccines definitely aren’t safe or remotely effective, no matter what a talking head on CNN, whose salary is paid by Big Pharma, their main advertiser, falsely claims. Therefore, forcing everyone to get vaccinated is really similar to forcing everyone to drink before driving, to recklessly endanger life - again, look at Israel for proof. It’s the non-vaccinated who are the responsible drivers.”

While they’re chewing over that, you can throw another quick punch by asking them why, if universal vaccination is so necessary to end the “pandemic”.....
President Biden’s executive order mandating COVID-19 vaccines among all federal workers does not apply to members of Congress, the federal court system or their staffers.
Read on...
 
Last edited:
Top