3 ms·

> Its completely possible for the authorities to be wrong, its also completely possible for charlatan opportunists and insane people to make a bad situation muc

> Its completely possible for the authorities to be wrong, its also completely possible for charlatan opportunists and insane people to make a bad situation much worse. In this case, the foremost authority was so wrong that no charlatan opportunist with reach outside the “maybe I should drink bleach” set of the public did any worse than them, and a majority of the “non-authoritative” sources I consulted this year got the important facts (evidence of human-to-human spread, a long tail of very long incubation periods, difficult-to-ascertain asymptomatic carriers, asymptomatic transmission, unlikely to have been transmitted in a purely natural setting) straight as soon as information was available, while WHO was still denying these things without evidence to back up their denials. Added to clarify: For example, if you watched Tim Pool's (political commentator, often struggles to read and understand things he's covering) podcast, he was able to tell you early this year that some reports saw the virus incubating for upward of two weeks, and transmissible during at least some of that time; and if I recall correctly, at that same moment, the WHO's official position was that there was “no evidence of human to human transmission”, a statement that would be irresponsible even if it were true at the time. While the WHO was denying early concerns that it could spread through aerosols, the same podcast was presenting the evidence for this, and cautioning people to be aware of it (but not to panic). If you ask me, this random independent podcast handled this subject so much more responsibly than the mainstream media (who were at the time saying that it was no worse than the flu, making fun of people for being concerned about it) and the WHO (who were basically advising people to ignore evidence entirely, and not take precautions, until they deemed it sufficient).

throwaway2048 6y ago
Yeah that's why there are mass protests against lock-down that are overwhelmingly attended by hardcore conspiracy theorists (go watch some interviews of these people). The WHO never once denied that human to human transmission was possible, the only thing they said very early on was that there was not enough evidence to conclusively support it yet. Somehow this has been twisted online (by people like you) that the WHO had some kind of campaign to deny fact, and all the nutcases on youtube were infact the correct ones.
- microcolonel 6y ago
  > Yeah that's why there are mass protests against lock-down that are overwhelmingly attended by hardcore conspiracy theorists (go watch some interviews of these people). It may be the case that people willing to participate in a mass gathering are not concerned about the virus, but the majority of ordinary Americans are not for sustaining the full force of lockdown measures. Also the incentives are a total mess, when it comes to selecting people to interview at a protest; especially when most news outlets seem, at the moment, to have an editorial interest in justifying the lockdowns in their full extent (meanwhile journalists, unlike most Americans, are not themselves subject to the lockdown orders anyway). P.S. there's a distinction between the subset of people who don't think the “non essential” economy should be locked down indefinitely, and the subset of people who will go out without masks to attend a mass gathering in protest. The latter is necessarily a fringe minority.
  - Androider 6y ago
    On what do you base your opinion that the "the majority of ordinary Americans are not for sustaining the lockdown measures"? All the polling strongly suggests the opposite, the vast majority of Americans are very concerned about the virus and support the lockdown, and the protesters represent a small fringe. For a funny take, see https://xkcd.com/2305 https://xkcd.com/2305
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

throwaway2048 6y ago

Yeah that's why there are mass protests against lock-down that are overwhelmingly attended by hardcore conspiracy theorists (go watch some interviews of these people). The WHO never once denied that human to human transmission was possible, the only thing they said very early on was that there was not enough evidence to conclusively support it yet. Somehow this has been twisted online (by people like you) that the WHO had some kind of campaign to deny fact, and all the nutcases on youtube were infact the correct ones.

microcolonel 6y ago
> Yeah that's why there are mass protests against lock-down that are overwhelmingly attended by hardcore conspiracy theorists (go watch some interviews of these people). It may be the case that people willing to participate in a mass gathering are not concerned about the virus, but the majority of ordinary Americans are not for sustaining the full force of lockdown measures. Also the incentives are a total mess, when it comes to selecting people to interview at a protest; especially when most news outlets seem, at the moment, to have an editorial interest in justifying the lockdowns in their full extent (meanwhile journalists, unlike most Americans, are not themselves subject to the lockdown orders anyway). P.S. there's a distinction between the subset of people who don't think the “non essential” economy should be locked down indefinitely, and the subset of people who will go out without masks to attend a mass gathering in protest. The latter is necessarily a fringe minority.
- Androider 6y ago
  On what do you base your opinion that the "the majority of ordinary Americans are not for sustaining the lockdown measures"? All the polling strongly suggests the opposite, the vast majority of Americans are very concerned about the virus and support the lockdown, and the protesters represent a small fringe. For a funny take, see https://xkcd.com/2305 https://xkcd.com/2305
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]