4 ms·
You’re not reading what 0xy wrote, so you’re just arguing against yourself. An appeal to authority isn’t convincing when the authorities themselves have been ut
by zaroth 5y ago
You’re not reading what 0xy wrote, so you’re just arguing against yourself. An appeal to authority isn’t convincing when the authorities themselves have been utterly clueless and entirely politicized.
0xy say many measures were essentially nonsensical and non-scientific, and then gave a perfect example of restaurant masking which is perhaps the pinnacle of COVID absurdity.
Wearing masks outdoors is another great example of something where the science was unequivocal, and yet the politicians persisted.
Non-N95 masks being worn improperly (which is essentially all of non-professional masking) was even declared by the CDC as ineffective so I think it’s safe to say the mitigations were not only deeply unpopular but also unscientific.
- VikingCoder 5y ago"authorities themselves have been... entirely politicized" I'm honestly curious what you think the word "politicized" means. Politicized: "(of an activity or event) made political in character." Political: "relating to the government or the public affairs of a country." So, to be clear, you think it's a problem that "authorities" have made assertions about the public affairs of a country? I get that you think they've been utterly clueless, and if that's true, of course I think that's a problem. But I'm focusing on the second part of what seemed to bother you. That, people with authority, have made assertions about how public affairs should be handled? That's a problem, to you? What would have been better, in your mind?