4 ms·

So to get your cooperation the next time the world needs collective sacrifice, the people defining the emergent worldwide problem on day one must be precisely c

So to get your cooperation the next time the world needs collective sacrifice, the people defining the emergent worldwide problem on day one must be precisely correct in their predictions for what will happen over the next year?

sjwalter 6y ago
Of course not. But they have actually acted in such a way as to completely obliterate any credibility they had. From lying about masks being useful (Fauci), to the WHO carrying water for China, to the "it's 100% proven zoonosis, couldn't possibly be a lab creation), to the rapid shift away from any commentary about IFR/CFR once it became clear that it was an order of magnitude off. What's strange is I'm not arguing against crazy strict measures during a deadly pandemic. What I'm arguing is that we have learned a lot about this coronavirus, which is just one of thousands/millions of coronaviruses, and even though we learned it was nothing like what we feared, the policy response never changed.
- flyingcircus3 6y ago
  Why do you associate the lack of credibility with investigation into the virus's origin? What lends any credibility to the lab theory? Science isnt a team sport, yet a certain group of people seem very invested in the sinister explanation. It's been repeated over and over that initial recommendations against mask usage was in the hope that people didn't hoard them and prevent healthcare workers from getting them. Predicting the irrational behavior of large populations is a key skill of leadership. Judging by way people hoard toilet paper, hand sanitizer, and other goods, that prediction seems pretty spot on. The disease being less deadly than we feared, and our response to it remaining the same are not contradictory. Even 10x less deaths than originally predicted is still a major crisis. It is still worthy of attempts to mitigate the problem, and the mitigation strategies are still the same.

sjwalter 6y ago

Of course not. But they have actually acted in such a way as to completely obliterate any credibility they had. From lying about masks being useful (Fauci), to the WHO carrying water for China, to the "it's 100% proven zoonosis, couldn't possibly be a lab creation), to the rapid shift away from any commentary about IFR/CFR once it became clear that it was an order of magnitude off. What's strange is I'm not arguing against crazy strict measures during a deadly pandemic. What I'm arguing is that we have learned a lot about this coronavirus, which is just one of thousands/millions of coronaviruses, and even though we learned it was nothing like what we feared, the policy response never changed.

flyingcircus3 6y ago
Why do you associate the lack of credibility with investigation into the virus's origin? What lends any credibility to the lab theory? Science isnt a team sport, yet a certain group of people seem very invested in the sinister explanation. It's been repeated over and over that initial recommendations against mask usage was in the hope that people didn't hoard them and prevent healthcare workers from getting them. Predicting the irrational behavior of large populations is a key skill of leadership. Judging by way people hoard toilet paper, hand sanitizer, and other goods, that prediction seems pretty spot on. The disease being less deadly than we feared, and our response to it remaining the same are not contradictory. Even 10x less deaths than originally predicted is still a major crisis. It is still worthy of attempts to mitigate the problem, and the mitigation strategies are still the same.