3 ms·

There wasn't any real evidence for the use of Ivermectin. Some public policies were not perfect or misguided (lockdowns) some were inconsistent with both messag

There wasn't any real evidence for the use of Ivermectin. Some public policies were not perfect or misguided (lockdowns) some were inconsistent with both messaging and implementation (masks) some were really good and people are against them for no logical reason (vaccines, though maybe requirements are totalitarian in cases). I think the reality is that because there are holes in the response to covid, people dismiss the whole. Also, there's no real way for us to know what would have happened if we did nothing. Maybe another 1-2m dead - or maybe we'd be just where we are today.

headsoup 5y ago
All of your points have no certainty. I'm not sure what you're attempting to show here? > I think the reality is that because there are holes in the response to covid, people dismiss the whole I think a more salient point is perhaps that because so much effort was put into covering the 'holes' (not to mention the coining and dissemination of the label 'misinformation') rather than be honest about them, distrust was created. It is sensible to question when any groups make concerted efforts to dismiss and censor alternative views, regardless of the merits. Evidence and transparency on the side of the reason/truth should not need such measures. The authorities and press infantalised the population on the assumption people are too stupid to process information and make their own informed choices. This is bad precedent.