5 ms·

> But nobody is "pathologically questioning" anything around vaccines, regardless of what some people may wish to believe. When the USA is having massive numbe

> But nobody is "pathologically questioning" anything around vaccines, regardless of what some people may wish to believe. When the USA is having massive numbers of deaths and severe lasting illnesses, due to refusal to take the safe and effective vaccines and other necessary precautions, this opinion is just not tenable. It's literally causing deadly disease, at scale. If that's not classifiable as "pathological", then I don't know what is.

torstenvl 5y ago
It is a documented fact that medical authorities in the United States lied to the American people to manipulate their COVID-related behavior. Specifically, Dr. Fauci discouraged people from wearing masks, not because there was a shortage and they needed to be saved for front-line medical workers (the real reason), but because - he claimed at the time - they were not particularly effective. "When you're in the middle of an outbreak, wearing a mask might make people feel a little bit better and it might even block a droplet, but it's not providing the perfect protection that people think that it is. And often there are unintended consequences. People keep fiddling with the mask and they keep touching their face." At this point, it is dishonest to characterize Americans' distrust of medical authority as pathological. The distrust is well and truly deserved.
- SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
  So, you're saying that the evolving understanding of the use of _masks_ explains the _vaccine hesitancy_ ? That seems like a loosely-related change of subject to me. Why bring out this talking point? If you're not happy with nuance, probabilities rather than certainties, and changing understandings of a new situation then the modern world might not be for you. To be clear, you're saying that the avoidable unvaccinated disease mass casualties, are not pathological, i.e. illness-related, because, that mask guy the one time? That seems more like the kind of bogus reason that people seize upon to explain what they want to believe, than a logical explanation.
  - native_samples 5y ago
    The subject hasn't changed - you're just trying to avoid it. The subject is trustworthiness of the public health authorities. They lie repeatedly in order to manipulate the public, there have been no consequences, and so it's rational to assume they're still doing it. You're trying to claim there's no link between a willingness to lie about one COVID related topic and willingness to lie about others, which is clearly wrong. But really, why bother. The propaganda has worked on you like a treat: you're arguing the science "evolved"! It did not evolve. That's an attempt to cover up what's really been happening. Public health authorities and scientists directly and knowingly lied about it to achieve policy goals, and in many cases, that's now either been admitted by them directly (with masks, herd immunity thresholds) or it's been proven in other ways (by DRASTIC).
    - dang 5y ago
      Personal attacks and name calling will get you banned here. No more of this, please. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
      > ut really, why bother. The propaganda has worked on you like a treat: you're arguing the science "evolved"! It did not evolve. That's an attempt to cover up what's really been happening. You are a pathological conspiracy theorist.
      - dang 5y ago
        Personal attacks and name calling will get you banned here. No more of this, please. We've had to ask you this multiple times before. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
        SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
        > We've had to ask you this multiple times before I've just seen this, and I don't recall any previous occurrences.
native_samples 5y ago
This is circular logic. You're quoting claims by the same authorities that have been making false claims since the beginning, as a way to attack anyone who questions claims by those same authorities.
- SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
  So, you are denying the pandemic?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - torstenvl 5y ago
    You need to stop doing this. It's against site guidelines and it's an asshole move besides. You don't get to strawman people or put words in their mouths. If you have no genuine desire to discuss these issues and learn from others, but just want to insult people, you should go take a break from the site. > Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.... Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
      Do you agree that there is a pandemic, that it is is (still) causing massive numbers of casualties, and that these are now largely avoidable by simply taking the safe effective vaccines, vaccines that are being baselessly "questioned" with terrible consequences? Or do you think that "nobody is "pathologically questioning" anything around vaccines" ? If so, what part of the above do you disagree with? Perhaps that's a more nuanced way to put it. Fair warning, I view the first paragraph as a filter for cranks, trolls and the deluded. Those who deny reality.
HelixEndeavor 5y ago
Nations that are almost fully vaccinated are having to lock back down because the vaccine is useless in stopping transmission.
- SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
  > the vaccine is useless in stopping transmission. This is factually incorrect. it is dangerous scaremongering to say "the vaccine is useless". "imperfect" not the same as "useless". This is simplistic, binary, "all or nothing" thinking that should have no place in this discussion. As stated before: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28699570 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28699570

torstenvl 5y ago

It is a documented fact that medical authorities in the United States lied to the American people to manipulate their COVID-related behavior. Specifically, Dr. Fauci discouraged people from wearing masks, not because there was a shortage and they needed to be saved for front-line medical workers (the real reason), but because - he claimed at the time - they were not particularly effective. "When you're in the middle of an outbreak, wearing a mask might make people feel a little bit better and it might even block a droplet, but it's not providing the perfect protection that people think that it is. And often there are unintended consequences. People keep fiddling with the mask and they keep touching their face." At this point, it is dishonest to characterize Americans' distrust of medical authority as pathological. The distrust is well and truly deserved.

SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
So, you're saying that the evolving understanding of the use of _masks_ explains the _vaccine hesitancy_ ? That seems like a loosely-related change of subject to me. Why bring out this talking point? If you're not happy with nuance, probabilities rather than certainties, and changing understandings of a new situation then the modern world might not be for you. To be clear, you're saying that the avoidable unvaccinated disease mass casualties, are not pathological, i.e. illness-related, because, that mask guy the one time? That seems more like the kind of bogus reason that people seize upon to explain what they want to believe, than a logical explanation.
- native_samples 5y ago
  The subject hasn't changed - you're just trying to avoid it. The subject is trustworthiness of the public health authorities. They lie repeatedly in order to manipulate the public, there have been no consequences, and so it's rational to assume they're still doing it. You're trying to claim there's no link between a willingness to lie about one COVID related topic and willingness to lie about others, which is clearly wrong. But really, why bother. The propaganda has worked on you like a treat: you're arguing the science "evolved"! It did not evolve. That's an attempt to cover up what's really been happening. Public health authorities and scientists directly and knowingly lied about it to achieve policy goals, and in many cases, that's now either been admitted by them directly (with masks, herd immunity thresholds) or it's been proven in other ways (by DRASTIC).
  - dang 5y ago
    Personal attacks and name calling will get you banned here. No more of this, please. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
    > ut really, why bother. The propaganda has worked on you like a treat: you're arguing the science "evolved"! It did not evolve. That's an attempt to cover up what's really been happening. You are a pathological conspiracy theorist.
    - dang 5y ago
      Personal attacks and name calling will get you banned here. No more of this, please. We've had to ask you this multiple times before. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
      - SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
        > We've had to ask you this multiple times before I've just seen this, and I don't recall any previous occurrences.

native_samples 5y ago

This is circular logic. You're quoting claims by the same authorities that have been making false claims since the beginning, as a way to attack anyone who questions claims by those same authorities.

SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
So, you are denying the pandemic?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- torstenvl 5y ago
  You need to stop doing this. It's against site guidelines and it's an asshole move besides. You don't get to strawman people or put words in their mouths. If you have no genuine desire to discuss these issues and learn from others, but just want to insult people, you should go take a break from the site. > Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.... Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
    Do you agree that there is a pandemic, that it is is (still) causing massive numbers of casualties, and that these are now largely avoidable by simply taking the safe effective vaccines, vaccines that are being baselessly "questioned" with terrible consequences? Or do you think that "nobody is "pathologically questioning" anything around vaccines" ? If so, what part of the above do you disagree with? Perhaps that's a more nuanced way to put it. Fair warning, I view the first paragraph as a filter for cranks, trolls and the deluded. Those who deny reality.

HelixEndeavor 5y ago

Nations that are almost fully vaccinated are having to lock back down because the vaccine is useless in stopping transmission.

SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
> the vaccine is useless in stopping transmission. This is factually incorrect. it is dangerous scaremongering to say "the vaccine is useless". "imperfect" not the same as "useless". This is simplistic, binary, "all or nothing" thinking that should have no place in this discussion. As stated before: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28699570 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28699570