4 ms·

There should be stigma for people who spread misinformation during a deadly pandemic, in my opinion. And yes, what you're implying heavily in your posts would

There should be stigma for people who spread misinformation during a deadly pandemic, in my opinion. And yes, what you're implying heavily in your posts would require some sort of conspiracy to be plausible. You're going against dozens of countries' thousands of experts and numerous studies, then choosing to believe quacks on panels on youtube whose wikipedia articles have giant "covid-19 misinformation" sections in them with ample citations.

throwaway51235 5y ago
twofornone 5y ago
>And yes, what you're implying heavily in your posts would require some sort of conspiracy to be plausible Look, regardless of whether what I'm saying is true, your primary argument is that it is implausible because of the logistics of organizing such a vast conspiracy. This is false. All it takes is an emergent culture to instill an implicit bias under threat of ostracization/unemployment/unpersoning and then without any overt conspiracy you will see discourse, studies, and policy all align in a single direction regardless of that direction's validity. This is the mechanism by which authoritarian governments flourish while simultaneously oppressing their peoples. Life in the Soviet Union was miserable, but the average person would not publicly speak against their leaders. Note that I don't mean to imply that anything about the covid response is "socialist" or anything to that effect, only that emergent consensus, especially when bolstered by propaganda, can influence individuals and society to together behave in an irrational manner in an emergent, implicit fashion. Let's try to materialize an example. Suppose that you indeed have a society which is irrationally biased in favor of the safety and efficacy of the vaccine, and you are trying to study adverse effects. Moving up the chain 1. Patients are less likely to connect adverse effects to their vaccines (e.g. it only recently came out that monthly cycles were disrupted, originally a "conspiracy theory") 2. Doctors are less likely to acknowledge that strange symptoms are related to vaccines (remember, I'm alleging that they're biased) 3. Researchers are less likely to look into adverse events, especially when from the bottom they now have substantially less data to review 4. Policymakers see this lack of evidence of adverse events as proof of safety when it is only bias which has an emergent muting effect on cataloging of adverse events. They continue to distribute "safe and effective" propaganda in good faith (no conspiracy). 5. The cycle continues. You may not agree that this bias exists, but my point again is that none of this requires a conspiracy, only a pervasive bias. Now remember, the phrase "safe and effective" was repeated across media from day one, long before there was ample time to gather evidence of harm. The seed of bias was planted early. I hope you'll at least acknowledge that this is far more plausible than some cooky "conspiracy theory".
- moonshinefe 5y ago
  Those series of events could potentially happen, but I just don't think it's the case with so many disparate countries at play. I don't really want to get into an extended debate about this, but I appreciate your detailed response and civility here nonetheless.

throwaway51235 5y ago

twofornone 5y ago

>And yes, what you're implying heavily in your posts would require some sort of conspiracy to be plausible Look, regardless of whether what I'm saying is true, your primary argument is that it is implausible because of the logistics of organizing such a vast conspiracy. This is false. All it takes is an emergent culture to instill an implicit bias under threat of ostracization/unemployment/unpersoning and then without any overt conspiracy you will see discourse, studies, and policy all align in a single direction regardless of that direction's validity. This is the mechanism by which authoritarian governments flourish while simultaneously oppressing their peoples. Life in the Soviet Union was miserable, but the average person would not publicly speak against their leaders. Note that I don't mean to imply that anything about the covid response is "socialist" or anything to that effect, only that emergent consensus, especially when bolstered by propaganda, can influence individuals and society to together behave in an irrational manner in an emergent, implicit fashion. Let's try to materialize an example. Suppose that you indeed have a society which is irrationally biased in favor of the safety and efficacy of the vaccine, and you are trying to study adverse effects. Moving up the chain 1. Patients are less likely to connect adverse effects to their vaccines (e.g. it only recently came out that monthly cycles were disrupted, originally a "conspiracy theory") 2. Doctors are less likely to acknowledge that strange symptoms are related to vaccines (remember, I'm alleging that they're biased) 3. Researchers are less likely to look into adverse events, especially when from the bottom they now have substantially less data to review 4. Policymakers see this lack of evidence of adverse events as proof of safety when it is only bias which has an emergent muting effect on cataloging of adverse events. They continue to distribute "safe and effective" propaganda in good faith (no conspiracy). 5. The cycle continues. You may not agree that this bias exists, but my point again is that none of this requires a conspiracy, only a pervasive bias. Now remember, the phrase "safe and effective" was repeated across media from day one, long before there was ample time to gather evidence of harm. The seed of bias was planted early. I hope you'll at least acknowledge that this is far more plausible than some cooky "conspiracy theory".

moonshinefe 5y ago
Those series of events could potentially happen, but I just don't think it's the case with so many disparate countries at play. I don't really want to get into an extended debate about this, but I appreciate your detailed response and civility here nonetheless.