7 ms·

This is exactly what people said about covid. You completely missed the point.

naasking 4y ago
> This is exactly what people said about covid. You completely missed the point. But such evidence didn't exist for COVID. Effectiveness of lockdowns and mask mandates is still hotly contested, for instance.
- calculatte 4y ago
  - naasking 4y ago
    In principle, HCQ can be effective against some coronaviruses and not others. Ditto for masks. So I'm not convinced we knew anything specific about COVID-19 just due to prior research, but the precautionary principle suggests being overly conservative in most assumptions. Fauci actually did mislead the public about masks, but he actually believed they were effective, so he lied to the public claiming their ineffectiveness at first due to fears of shortages.
- spookthesunset 4y ago
  > Effectiveness of lockdowns and mask mandates is still hotly contested, for instance The fact their effectiveness is still being questioned suggests that we never should have done them in the first place. You don't get to make broad, highly disruptive mandates with almost zero evidence they would even work. For the mandates to actually be worth it, you should be able to show the data to any reasonable person and they'd immediately see an order of magnitude difference between test & control. The fact you can barely tell florida apart from california is pretty damning. If you need fancy math to see a difference, it wasn't worth it.
  - naasking 4y ago
    > The fact their effectiveness is still being questioned suggests that we never should have done them in the first place. Not necessarily. Precautionary principle and all when we didn't know much. Mask mandates aren't that disruptive. Lockdowns obviously more disruptive, and definitely justified at the very beginning when we didn't know anything.
    - spookthesunset 4y ago
      The era of the precautionary principle ended the day all the field hospitals closed virtually unused. That should have been the complete end of all mandates. Covid clearly wasn’t as bad as what all these “experts” computer models suggested so there was no reason to continue acting out of such great caution. Instead governors doubled down. That was the end of “science and data” and the beginning of 2.5 years of stupidity.
banannaise 4y ago
There's a very large difference in that COVID science was weeks to months old and extremely urgent, which caused a lot of wacky behaviors due to organizations panicking. Climate science has been churning for decades. Would disagreeing conclusions be laughed off at first? Sure, probably. When most disagreement has been junk science by quacks, it's natural to reflexively make that assumption of new disagreement. But there's ample time and space for new studies to be analyzed, expanded on, replicated.
- tomp 4y ago
  But as COVID science got clearer, the spreaders of fake news (“vaccines prevent virus” “masks work” “kids are endangered”) didn’t bear any responsibility nor suffer any consequences. Same as with climate science. When predictions turn wrong (glaciers still existing in 2020, Great Barrier Reef recovering) everyone just moves on to new fear-mongering.
  - chrisan 4y ago
    What kind of consequences do you want those people to suffer? Surely you aren't going to argue the the vaccines did more harm than good? Or that wearing a mask caused someone personal harm? Or that trying to keep kids safe was a bad idea? My wife personally took care of many sick covid kids. They had all kinds of weird ailments no one was used to pre-pandemic. Not sure why you are citing glaciers still existing as something to stand on, they are clearly and measurably disappearing.
    - tomp 4y ago
      At the very least they should lose their jobs/positions, never again be in position of power or consequential decision making, and the institutions that promoted them, should internally review their policies so the lies don’t happen again.
  - banannaise 4y ago
  - 4y ago
TurkishPoptart 4y ago
I was always onboard with the climate change agenda until 2020. Now I understand that this is "political science" (the application of "science" as interpreted by people in power) as opposed to pure "science". See the current Dutch farmer protests and those in Sri Lanka, and soon to come in Canada.

> This is exactly what people said about covid. You completely missed the point. But such evidence didn't exist for COVID. Effectiveness of lockdowns and mask mandates is still hotly contested, for instance.

calculatte 4y ago
- naasking 4y ago
  In principle, HCQ can be effective against some coronaviruses and not others. Ditto for masks. So I'm not convinced we knew anything specific about COVID-19 just due to prior research, but the precautionary principle suggests being overly conservative in most assumptions. Fauci actually did mislead the public about masks, but he actually believed they were effective, so he lied to the public claiming their ineffectiveness at first due to fears of shortages.
spookthesunset 4y ago
> Effectiveness of lockdowns and mask mandates is still hotly contested, for instance The fact their effectiveness is still being questioned suggests that we never should have done them in the first place. You don't get to make broad, highly disruptive mandates with almost zero evidence they would even work. For the mandates to actually be worth it, you should be able to show the data to any reasonable person and they'd immediately see an order of magnitude difference between test & control. The fact you can barely tell florida apart from california is pretty damning. If you need fancy math to see a difference, it wasn't worth it.
- naasking 4y ago
  > The fact their effectiveness is still being questioned suggests that we never should have done them in the first place. Not necessarily. Precautionary principle and all when we didn't know much. Mask mandates aren't that disruptive. Lockdowns obviously more disruptive, and definitely justified at the very beginning when we didn't know anything.
  - spookthesunset 4y ago
    The era of the precautionary principle ended the day all the field hospitals closed virtually unused. That should have been the complete end of all mandates. Covid clearly wasn’t as bad as what all these “experts” computer models suggested so there was no reason to continue acting out of such great caution. Instead governors doubled down. That was the end of “science and data” and the beginning of 2.5 years of stupidity.

banannaise 4y ago

There's a very large difference in that COVID science was weeks to months old and extremely urgent, which caused a lot of wacky behaviors due to organizations panicking. Climate science has been churning for decades. Would disagreeing conclusions be laughed off at first? Sure, probably. When most disagreement has been junk science by quacks, it's natural to reflexively make that assumption of new disagreement. But there's ample time and space for new studies to be analyzed, expanded on, replicated.

tomp 4y ago
But as COVID science got clearer, the spreaders of fake news (“vaccines prevent virus” “masks work” “kids are endangered”) didn’t bear any responsibility nor suffer any consequences. Same as with climate science. When predictions turn wrong (glaciers still existing in 2020, Great Barrier Reef recovering) everyone just moves on to new fear-mongering.
- chrisan 4y ago
  What kind of consequences do you want those people to suffer? Surely you aren't going to argue the the vaccines did more harm than good? Or that wearing a mask caused someone personal harm? Or that trying to keep kids safe was a bad idea? My wife personally took care of many sick covid kids. They had all kinds of weird ailments no one was used to pre-pandemic. Not sure why you are citing glaciers still existing as something to stand on, they are clearly and measurably disappearing.
  - tomp 4y ago
    At the very least they should lose their jobs/positions, never again be in position of power or consequential decision making, and the institutions that promoted them, should internally review their policies so the lies don’t happen again.
- banannaise 4y ago
- 4y ago

TurkishPoptart 4y ago

I was always onboard with the climate change agenda until 2020. Now I understand that this is "political science" (the application of "science" as interpreted by people in power) as opposed to pure "science". See the current Dutch farmer protests and those in Sri Lanka, and soon to come in Canada.