Thursday, 18 September 2025

The Psychology Behind “The Vaccine Hesitant”

I used to be deeply annoyed by (say) the Tony & Cherie Blairs of this world - whom to my mind, selfishly (and irresponsibly) seemed not to inoculate their children, hoping that the rest of us would generate enough herd immunity to save them from infection / harm. 

Such situation was made easier for me to deal with - when it was explained to me by a very Senior Officer with American Special Forces (= They have global responsibility on behalf of the US for Pandemic Control) - who holds a Masters in Clinical Psychology from Stanford (= 'Makes One a More Effective/Efficient Killer) that the issue with (COVID deniers /) the vaccine hesitant in that they fall into a particular situation that lawyers notice from years of experience = that various people are 'not right in the head' . . .

This is - that they appear to be functioning humans - but with a huge gap in some aspect(s) of their intellect - which manifests itself in a lack of understanding of the world around them / an inability to comprehend particular concepts.

For every person with an IQ of 140, there is someone with an IQ of 60 (= The standard to which airports have to be able to be managed by passengers - so that only the bottom decile cannot navigate them).

As regard the 'vaccine hesitant' - They are exclusively those who have absolutely no education or other experience/expertise in natural sciences (e.g. biology and chemistry).

In addition to the Blairs, one could add Boris Johnson (and Donald Trump / JFK Jr.).

Incredibly, for these people - if they can't see a virus (or a vaccine) they have significant issues with understanding the concepts.  

From an evolutionary perspective - one needs to think of a group of hominids of the plains of Africa facing a stalking wild cat. 

The best thing for a group (in terms of survival) in that situation is to let the brightest within the group work out what to do, and have the 'stupid ones' stay quiet (and not run out of the group in panic at not understanding how to deal with the threat) = Since this places them at risk. 

It's why Private Jones in Dad's Army is an unusual character (= he knows that there is an issue - which he does not have the intellectual ability to deal with - but panics) - rather than the evolutionary preferred trait of staying silent / inaction = he runs round shouting “Don’t Panic, Captain Mainwaring”.

However, in a pandemic situation the response is scrambled - since one is not facing (say)a visible lion, but rather the threat of a virus - which the individuals involved have (little to) no intellectual capacity to understand.

Faced with a virus (and needing a vaccine) - neither of which the deniers / hesitant understand - their natural reaction is to deny there is a problem / do nothing and try to convince others likewise.

This combines with the Dunning-Kruger effect =  A cognitive bias where people with low competence in a specific area tend to overestimate their ability or knowledge in that domain. 

This overestimation happens because their very lack of skill prevents them from accurately recognizing their own incompetence. 

The effect was named by psychologists David Dunning and Justin Kruger in 1999 after they observed this phenomenon where individuals with limited expertise lacked the self-awareness to know what they didn't know.

If you want an example - Look to Trump who has absolutely no understanding of what a virus is (let alone a vaccine) - but is convinced he's a expert in the field!

It has to be a very 'brave' (small) number of individuals = Who are prepared to post on a professional website showing clear evidence of the syndrome within their makeup (because they look like absolute cretins = it’s not like Trump where they have inherited wealth behind them to smooth their stupidity?) . . .

Sadly, faced with a (potentially) deadly virus the evolutionary trait bred into humans (and 'Dunning-Kruger') is exactly the wrong thing to so = It's why Dumb Asses like 'Meatloaf' died of COVID (whatever their other gifts / skills).

A lot of their complaints tend to be about control over them, which ironically - if they understood the science and would voluntarily quarantine themselves (as much as reasonably possible) - The need for lock downs would be much lessened.

Those with the relevant intellectual impediment aren’t that hard to recognise / identify. They have a complete lack of understanding of natural sciences (biology and chemistry) - but their lack of education/qualifications never seems to prevent them believing they are experts on the issues involved.

Sadly, the traits often blend into extreme susceptibility (as is common with weak minds).

Pandemics had been successfully controlled by the CDC etc. for years (e.g. Bird Flu, SARS and EBOLA = Which managed to get to the U.S.)

It was a vastly unfortunate circumstance that COVID hit the Developed World at a time of Populist Leaders like (Boris Johnson and) Donald Trump who fall squarely into the intellectually impaired / vaccine hesitant.

The World is again a dangerous place when Trump has appointed RFK Jr. as Heath Secretary - a man without any natural sciences education of qualifications.  Next time will be worse . . .  


Thursday, 16 July 2020

Memories of Berwin Leighton / Bryan Cave

https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/bclp-to-cut-40-jobs-in-global-redundancy-round-/5105014.article?utm_source=gazette_newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Criminal+justice+commission+%7c+BBC%27s+Legal+Affairs+snub+%7c+City+job+cuts_07%2f16%2f2020


It's a long time ago now (15 years plus), when I was brought in by a bank to save a couple of lending positions they had.


They had lent to two (2) 'food' producers, one of whom had a great brand (but the factory had 'burnt down' - after a particularly badly handled wage negotiation), the second a "much weaker" brand (and which 'unsurprisingly' had surplus 'factory capacity').


Berwin Leighton (as was) split the job between two (2) junior lawyers, one of which handled the JV formation, and one / the other dealt with the ongoing JV arrangements. Neither read the other's draft documents - although their client's were expected to read both.


The relevant 'Berwin Leighton Pasiner' lawyers were in separate (adjoining) buildings on Lower Thames Street, neither of which the other could (physically) access, they had never met each other (in person > not even for a 'beer'), and were unable to organise a three-way (x3) telephone call > on which both were present (without my assistance).

One of them spent eighteen (18) months resisting a requested provision in 'their' agreement (while the other had already agreed to its inclusion of the same in 'theirs').


We'll ignore why their counter-party #lawyers hadn't worked this out until I got involved, but let's record that six (6) months later that legal firm failed / went bust (and were rescued to become Bryan Cave's original London office).


I had to phone the 'Head of Corporate' in each firm, and point out there were several hundred million pounds of equity being prejudiced (by the inexperienced/inexpert - clowns/muppets' they had put on the job'), and a total of 9,000 jobs (in aggregate) at risk in Manchester and Liverpool.


The moral - Differentiate between 'big firms'> adept at extracting fees from their clueless clients; and expert and experienced lawyers (who may work in 'small firms') > It's like the A-Team (= 'If you can find them' etc.) / Any idiot can hire BCLP (and their ilk) . . . .


Both of the 'Heads of Corporate' are now long retired - So, I feel I'm released from my promise to NOT tell the market about this clusterf*ck . . .


@DanRJohnson

Sunday, 28 June 2020

I'm About To Start Looking At A Draft Share Sale & Purchase Agreement - That Is In Such An Old Format - It Uses 'WordPerfect' Fonts!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WordPerfect = Read and Learn!

You 'kids' don't remember an era before the internet, and when not every office worker had a PC on their desk.

Sadly, I do! 

Thankfully, the practice of law has moved on, and most draftspersons use the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of modern document production practices and protocols.

Not all, however . . . . 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FP6ZBqPlEzs

Every 'I Have A Bad Feeling About This' From All Eight (8) Star Wars Films

@DanRJohnson

www.EquitableLaw.UK

Saturday, 27 June 2020

UNAUTHORISED AND UNREGULATED LEGAL SERVICE PROVIDERS . . .

People are often surprised to discover that there are a significant number of 'legal/law' businesses in the U.K. that are completely unauthorised and unregulated, and have quite a 'variable' level of quality and competence.  

I had one recently make contact with my firm, misrepresenting themselves on initially phoning in (= ‘a [named personal friend of yours] referred me to you’); and who then immediately 'backtracked' when I recorded their statement in my first email to them.

Once asked to make the most minor financial contribution to this business, they have now swiftly declared that they have ‘solved’ their issue by . . . . errrrr, doing absolutely nothing – the relevant aspect discussed is carrying on regardless (and everything is exactly as it was)!

They have likely phoned every conceivable Solicitor and Barrister in London who will take her call (received the same preliminary advice - which they don't like - and then phoned the next one)  . . . 

These people are always the same – they want to compete with Solicitors / Barristers (without the overhead costs, and the requirement to be competent - that being authorised and regulated would involve); but when they have a problem – they come straight to try and get legal advice and assistance from Solicitors / Barristers – while never having any ability or intention of paying.

(I guess the old adage that the 'lawyer' who advises himself, has a fool for a client = is definitely true here).

Please 'Be Aware' > That use of a title 'lawyer' or 'legal advisor' means absolutely nothing in the U.K. regulatory sphere (and can accordingly be used by any and every person who has ever failed to take a law exam - and much, much worse)!  

After incorporating about a decade ago, 'this one' had managed to trade an unregulated legal company - which has been insolvent on a balance sheet basis every year since incorporation.

To be fair, their accounts appear to indicate they may have made a surplus of slightly less than GBP £20k last year, and they have got a little under GBP £10k in the bank.

They finally compounded the whole ridiculousness by being total fantasists > as to them indicating being involved in a multi-million-pound acquisition.

What total *rses and time-wasters!

Thank the heck - We’ve reluctantly started filtering 'people like this' with a requirement to leave a voicemail!

However, if you are a 'serious player' - please don't hesitate to make contact.

@DanRJohnson

www.EquitableLaw.UK

June 2020

Tuesday, 9 June 2020

If you are thinking of doing any business in the U.S. . . .

If you are thinking of doing any business in the U.S. > put a 'firewall' subsidiary company between the U.K. asset owning / holding company = https://stripe.com/atlas Top tip from @DanRJohnson x

Thursday, 21 May 2020

Two (2) Words > The Second One Of Which Is "Off" . . . (Never Heard From Him Again)!

 

Mr. [Idiot Ex-Boyfriend] 

 

BEmail Only:  Various Email Addresses 

  

 

Date:   

 [Date] 2020 

 

 

 

 

Our Ref: 

DRJ / SA   

 

 

 

 

 

 


Dear Sir, 

 

[Successful Business] (and its Sole Director, Ms. [Impressive Businesswoman) –v- Mr. [Idiot Boyfriend] 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE SAVE AS TO COSTS   

 

We are Solicitors of the Senior Courts in England and Wales, instructed on behalf of [Successful Business] (and its Sole Director, Ms. [Impressive Businesswoman). 

 

Our client(s) instructed us earlier this year in relation to a considerable volume of historic and ongoing correspondence that you have sent over recent periods to various persons associated with our client(s), post the ending of your business involvement with [Successful Business] and your personal relationship with Ms [Impressive Businesswoman]. 

 

We have recently been sent yet further correspondence which appears to relate to deferred payments / credit purchases of mobile phones by yourself (personally) - but which you had historically managed to get [Successful Business] to meet the costs of (by deceitful ongoing deductions from that company’s bank account). 

 

Your invoice is accordingly completely inappropriate, will not be paid by [Successful Business] and should accordingly be withdrawn. 

 

The present position arising appears to be that the liability for the particular payments will now rest with the appropriate party properly liable for the relevant debt(s) – i.e. you (personally).   

 

[Successful Business] fully reserves its position in relation to all contractual debt etc. matters relating to the relevant deferred payments / credit purchases. 

 

Further, this letter is formal notification that your correspondence with any staff member of [Successful Business] (including, without limitation Ms. [Impressive Businesswoman]) is extremely unwelcome and unwanted, and you are placed upon formal written notice of that position for the purposes of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. 

 

While the contents of this dated letter (sent by timed and dated email) have not presently been brought to the attention of (the Metropolitan Police and / or) [Idiot Boyfriend’s Local Constabulary], if there is any further evidenced attempt to communicate with our client(s), then I have little doubt that our client(s) instructions will be to do so.       

 

If you feel that you have any legal claim against our client(s), we confirm we are instructed to accept service upon their behalf (although we do NOT accept service by any other means than physical or Royal Mail postal service – i.e. we do not accept service by email or any method other than as stated). 

 

We bring to your attention that the general position regarding claims brought pursuant to the U.K. Court System is that a losing party in relation to a court action is habitually ordered to meet the other side’s legal (and other) costs – which may be on an indemnity (i.e. £ Pound for £ Pound) basis in appropriate circumstances. 

   

We trust that this concludes matters, and other than as stated earlier - we will not be entering into further correspondence with you. 

 

Yours faithfully 

 

 

Founding Principal & Business Law Solicitor 

Issued for and on behalf of Equitable Law 

 

Mob.:+44 (0) 7788 537 187U.K. Cellular (& e-Telephone) 

 

 

NO (0) Annexures