3 ms·

> Then the correct response should have been for experts to say they didn’t know, instead of saying the lockdowns were the solution. That kind of is why they s

> Then the correct response should have been for experts to say they didn’t know, instead of saying the lockdowns were the solution. That kind of is why they said: that lockdowns were about the only reliable tool until we understood more, built out testing infrastructure, track and trace etc… it’s just that the government then didn’t do any of that. > And maybe offer a split deal. Anyone who wants to lock down, go ahead, here’s some protections. Don’t want to lock down? Your body your choice. Even a cursory look towards labor rights in the US would make it very clear it wouldn’t be “your body your choice”, it would be “want to keep your job? Turn up to work or you’re fired”.

gjsman-1000 5y ago
I’m can understand that, but here’s the thing that still grids my gears. There were people and even doctors back then saying they didn’t know it was a good idea. There were people back then worried about how it would affect education, suicide attempts (this article!), and businesses, and whether the cure was worse than the problem. These people were not allowed to speak, in policies or on television. If they spoke on social media, say they want people to die and they are heartless. Once the vaccine comes out, lump them in with the anti-vaxxers. The cure was worse than the problem. Except we got screwed and the problem remains.
- afavour 5y ago
  > These people were not allowed to speak, in policies or on television. That’s just flat out untrue, though. These views were widely aired at the time. It’s revisionist history to say they were censored. The government made a choice they didn’t agree with but that doesn’t mean they were silenced.
  - chrismcb 5y ago
    A lot of them were silenced. A lot of scientists were also afraid to speak out against the status quo. If you disagreed with the government you are called anti science (despite the policies having nothing to do with science) it belittled for wanting to kill grandma. Shoot people are still saying that.
    - afavour 5y ago
      I see this perspective a lot and it baffles me. If you say something and in return are called "anti-science" you are not being "silenced". You are hearing the reaction to the words that you spoke. We're well on the path towards "censorship" being a word that means absolutely nothing.
      - gjsman-1000 5y ago
        Yes, you are being silenced, because what does "anti-science" imply? Science is a process about learning from the world. These people (who are scientists themselves!) have disagreements about how scientists are doing science, and they are called "anti-scientific" as a result of disagreeing with their interpretation of science. That's a direct "censor this guy" threat.

gjsman-1000 5y ago

I’m can understand that, but here’s the thing that still grids my gears. There were people and even doctors back then saying they didn’t know it was a good idea. There were people back then worried about how it would affect education, suicide attempts (this article!), and businesses, and whether the cure was worse than the problem. These people were not allowed to speak, in policies or on television. If they spoke on social media, say they want people to die and they are heartless. Once the vaccine comes out, lump them in with the anti-vaxxers. The cure was worse than the problem. Except we got screwed and the problem remains.

afavour 5y ago
> These people were not allowed to speak, in policies or on television. That’s just flat out untrue, though. These views were widely aired at the time. It’s revisionist history to say they were censored. The government made a choice they didn’t agree with but that doesn’t mean they were silenced.
- chrismcb 5y ago
  A lot of them were silenced. A lot of scientists were also afraid to speak out against the status quo. If you disagreed with the government you are called anti science (despite the policies having nothing to do with science) it belittled for wanting to kill grandma. Shoot people are still saying that.
  - afavour 5y ago
    I see this perspective a lot and it baffles me. If you say something and in return are called "anti-science" you are not being "silenced". You are hearing the reaction to the words that you spoke. We're well on the path towards "censorship" being a word that means absolutely nothing.
    - gjsman-1000 5y ago
      Yes, you are being silenced, because what does "anti-science" imply? Science is a process about learning from the world. These people (who are scientists themselves!) have disagreements about how scientists are doing science, and they are called "anti-scientific" as a result of disagreeing with their interpretation of science. That's a direct "censor this guy" threat.