6 ms·

> Expressing skepticism surrounding the efficiency of social distancing, masks, "non essential business" and all these lockdowns is not a "far right" talking po

> Expressing skepticism surrounding the efficiency of social distancing, masks, "non essential business" and all these lockdowns is not a "far right" talking point. You're absolutely right. This kind of misinformation isn't limited to the far right. > To this day we cannot say for certain that lockdowns did anything at all, LOL, what? This is a truly astonishingly statement. Literally every place that instituted lockdowns saw a drop in COVID transmission, and every place that reduced or eliminated lockdowns saw an increase. This isn't even controversial. It's an application of the basic germ theory of infectious transmission. You can't seriously be making this claim in good faith, can you?

spookthesunset 5y ago
I am absolutely making this claim in good faith. Where is your studies showing these restrictions worked well enough to justify their immense costs to society? They don’t exist. To date I’ve yet to see a single cost benefit analysis done for any of this. It simply wasn’t allowed to be done… you’d get shouted down by the mob. It worries me greatly how little critical thinking has been applied to the last 17+ months. It’s appeals to authority all the way down. Show me the proof this stuff worked… and even then we didn’t know it would work going in, which makes it incredibly ethically (and morally) challenged. The last 17 months have shown me the depths of what humanity can do when gripped with fear and hysteria… it is pretty terrifying.
- CarelessExpert 5y ago
  > Where is your studies showing these restrictions worked well enough to justify their immense costs to society? And predictably the goalposts shift. First it was that we "cannot say for certain that lockdowns did anything at all". Now it's that the results don't "justify their immense costs to society". > and even then we didn’t know it would work going in, Again: Lockdowns are a basic application of germ theory. The only way they could not work is if infection didn't pass from human to human but was transmitted via miasma or aether. You could absolutely make valid arguments for or against specific lockdown policy choices (i.e. capacity limits, sizes of gatherings, types of businesses affected, etc). But lockdowns in general? There's piles of evidence that shows they're extremely effective. Heck, in my own city, we saw a massive spike brewing prior to Christmas, and once a lockdown was instituted, the numbers immediately began to fall. That pattern is repeated anywhere you care to look. I honestly refuse to spend any time citing data for you, as I do not believe for a second that you're arguing in good faith. If you really wanted to find facts, you could easily dig them up. That you haven't done so tells me everything about your willingness to question your own beliefs.
  - spookthesunset 5y ago
    > There's piles of evidence that shows they're extremely effective. Heck, in my own city, we saw a massive spike brewing prior to Christmas, and once a lockdown was instituted, the numbers immediately began to fall. That pattern is repeated anywhere you care to look. That isn’t proof. I could very easily claim it was seasonality or things well beyond our control that caused cases to go down. And I am probably right. The charts and graphs all follow the same basic pattern everywhere in the world regardless of restrictions in place. Clearly if lockdowns worked so well you’d see orders of magnitude difference between a place like Florida or Sweden compared to California or New York. The burden of proof is upon those forcing it upon us and so far, crickets from all around. It’s truly insane how nobody is allowed call out the mounds of public data suggesting the effects of lockdowns or any of our non pharmaceutical interventions are minimal at best… we pissed away well over a year of people’s lives for basically nothing. Show me they work. And show me they worked well enough to justify the extreme damage they caused to society. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Where is the evidence?
    - wesleywt 5y ago
      This post is classic Dunning-Kruger. Florida arrested a statistician who was attempting to publish the real death toll. So can we seriously accept thier count as the truth? California and New York were hit before they could implement lockdowns. I don't understand why hundreds of thousands of deaths is okay for the right wingers like you?
      - abystander 5y ago
        > I don't understand why hundreds of thousands of deaths is okay for the right wingers like you? Kamala said she wouldn't take the vaccine cause it was from Trump. Cuomo/Murphy have clearly made massive mistakes in their handling of the most vulnerable during the pandemic likely directly causing 10s of thousands of deaths in those states. Never mind the liberals and others that called for a WWII-like mobilization and takeover of private industry to create ventilators that likely ended up causing more death, meanwhile calling anyone else that objected to those calls heartless murderers. No one is ok with 100s of thousands of deaths and implying that's true is slander.
- kwthrows 5y ago
  > It’s appeals to authority all the way down. Welcome to the new far-right.
- abystander 5y ago
  I notice a lot of run-of-the-mill liberals automatically assume their opponents who aren't manifestly crazy are "devil's advocates" or not making the argument in good faith. It seems intellectually lazy and the epitome of condescension to cast away all criticism in this way. As those opposing arguments are always beyond the pale and not worthy of thought. The overwhelming feeling I get from this type of person: "there's no possibility I'm wrong."
harpersealtako 5y ago
I would hope we're past the point now where we can write off legitimate complaints or concerns about the overall direction of COVID mitigation strategies implemented in most developed countries. Many well-intentioned anti-misinformation campaigns have been proven misguided and potentially harmful (for example, the debacle around the lab-leak theory, and the subsequent censorship and ostracization of anybody who dared suggest it), so we should be careful when we accuse others of arguing in bad faith, lest we repeat our past mistakes. This isn't 2020 anymore, we should be able to take a sober look at what likely worked (universal mask-wearing, vaccines, border closures, quick contract tracing) and what may not have worked (closing otherwise safe outdoor spaces, obsessive surface cleaning, the "6-foot-rule") without judgement now.

spookthesunset 5y ago

I am absolutely making this claim in good faith. Where is your studies showing these restrictions worked well enough to justify their immense costs to society? They don’t exist. To date I’ve yet to see a single cost benefit analysis done for any of this. It simply wasn’t allowed to be done… you’d get shouted down by the mob. It worries me greatly how little critical thinking has been applied to the last 17+ months. It’s appeals to authority all the way down. Show me the proof this stuff worked… and even then we didn’t know it would work going in, which makes it incredibly ethically (and morally) challenged. The last 17 months have shown me the depths of what humanity can do when gripped with fear and hysteria… it is pretty terrifying.

CarelessExpert 5y ago
> Where is your studies showing these restrictions worked well enough to justify their immense costs to society? And predictably the goalposts shift. First it was that we "cannot say for certain that lockdowns did anything at all". Now it's that the results don't "justify their immense costs to society". > and even then we didn’t know it would work going in, Again: Lockdowns are a basic application of germ theory. The only way they could not work is if infection didn't pass from human to human but was transmitted via miasma or aether. You could absolutely make valid arguments for or against specific lockdown policy choices (i.e. capacity limits, sizes of gatherings, types of businesses affected, etc). But lockdowns in general? There's piles of evidence that shows they're extremely effective. Heck, in my own city, we saw a massive spike brewing prior to Christmas, and once a lockdown was instituted, the numbers immediately began to fall. That pattern is repeated anywhere you care to look. I honestly refuse to spend any time citing data for you, as I do not believe for a second that you're arguing in good faith. If you really wanted to find facts, you could easily dig them up. That you haven't done so tells me everything about your willingness to question your own beliefs.
- spookthesunset 5y ago
  > There's piles of evidence that shows they're extremely effective. Heck, in my own city, we saw a massive spike brewing prior to Christmas, and once a lockdown was instituted, the numbers immediately began to fall. That pattern is repeated anywhere you care to look. That isn’t proof. I could very easily claim it was seasonality or things well beyond our control that caused cases to go down. And I am probably right. The charts and graphs all follow the same basic pattern everywhere in the world regardless of restrictions in place. Clearly if lockdowns worked so well you’d see orders of magnitude difference between a place like Florida or Sweden compared to California or New York. The burden of proof is upon those forcing it upon us and so far, crickets from all around. It’s truly insane how nobody is allowed call out the mounds of public data suggesting the effects of lockdowns or any of our non pharmaceutical interventions are minimal at best… we pissed away well over a year of people’s lives for basically nothing. Show me they work. And show me they worked well enough to justify the extreme damage they caused to society. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Where is the evidence?
  - wesleywt 5y ago
    This post is classic Dunning-Kruger. Florida arrested a statistician who was attempting to publish the real death toll. So can we seriously accept thier count as the truth? California and New York were hit before they could implement lockdowns. I don't understand why hundreds of thousands of deaths is okay for the right wingers like you?
    - abystander 5y ago
      > I don't understand why hundreds of thousands of deaths is okay for the right wingers like you? Kamala said she wouldn't take the vaccine cause it was from Trump. Cuomo/Murphy have clearly made massive mistakes in their handling of the most vulnerable during the pandemic likely directly causing 10s of thousands of deaths in those states. Never mind the liberals and others that called for a WWII-like mobilization and takeover of private industry to create ventilators that likely ended up causing more death, meanwhile calling anyone else that objected to those calls heartless murderers. No one is ok with 100s of thousands of deaths and implying that's true is slander.
kwthrows 5y ago
> It’s appeals to authority all the way down. Welcome to the new far-right.
abystander 5y ago
I notice a lot of run-of-the-mill liberals automatically assume their opponents who aren't manifestly crazy are "devil's advocates" or not making the argument in good faith. It seems intellectually lazy and the epitome of condescension to cast away all criticism in this way. As those opposing arguments are always beyond the pale and not worthy of thought. The overwhelming feeling I get from this type of person: "there's no possibility I'm wrong."

harpersealtako 5y ago

I would hope we're past the point now where we can write off legitimate complaints or concerns about the overall direction of COVID mitigation strategies implemented in most developed countries. Many well-intentioned anti-misinformation campaigns have been proven misguided and potentially harmful (for example, the debacle around the lab-leak theory, and the subsequent censorship and ostracization of anybody who dared suggest it), so we should be careful when we accuse others of arguing in bad faith, lest we repeat our past mistakes. This isn't 2020 anymore, we should be able to take a sober look at what likely worked (universal mask-wearing, vaccines, border closures, quick contract tracing) and what may not have worked (closing otherwise safe outdoor spaces, obsessive surface cleaning, the "6-foot-rule") without judgement now.