3 ms·

This wasn't about science, it was about political science. I think the lockdowns were not about "stopping spread" but actually a sort of test to see how populat

This wasn't about science, it was about political science. I think the lockdowns were not about "stopping spread" but actually a sort of test to see how populations respond to absurd orders in preparation for climate lockdowns in the next few years, per the WEF. People just accepted this "six-feet / two-meter social distancing" and forcing others to comply with this rule, which has never been demonstrated or proven by any sort of scientific fact. Anyone who questioned these orders was treated as a heretic. This collective trauma will be very difficult to recover from. Because I do not trust the WEF, I suspect the trauma, confusion, and hypocrisy is the point.

kashunstva 4y ago
> I think the lockdowns were not about "stopping spread" but actually a sort of test to see how populations respond to absurd orders in preparation for climate lockdowns in the next few years That's quite an assertion about intent. Sources? > People just accepted this "six-feet / two-meter social distancing" They accepted it because they assume good faith until proven otherwise and because it's highly plausible that a virus that is spread primarily by airborne means can rendered less transmissible by putting distance between infected persons and uninfected persons. > This collective trauma will be very difficult to recover from. I'm sure some are more traumatized than others. I imagine among the most traumatized are those who experienced the death of family and friends due to Covid-19. > which has never been demonstrated or proven Since it would be an exceedingly difficult study to control for, let alone perform, personally I've just continue to accept the basic biological plausibility of simple interventions such as distancing and masking. It does raise the legitimate question about what level of evidence is required to make a given intervention. At the same time, one person's trauma is another person's minor inconvenience. All of that said, Canada's decision to drop some of the cross-border rules seems due.
- moralestapia 4y ago
  Source isn't needed, though. "I think" means it's an opinion, which is fine. You are also allowed to opine in the opposite direction. As for me in particular, I'm also inclined to think that the "pandemic" restrictions were less about the actual disease vs. a test on how much control can a state exert over its citizens.

kashunstva 4y ago

> I think the lockdowns were not about "stopping spread" but actually a sort of test to see how populations respond to absurd orders in preparation for climate lockdowns in the next few years That's quite an assertion about intent. Sources? > People just accepted this "six-feet / two-meter social distancing" They accepted it because they assume good faith until proven otherwise and because it's highly plausible that a virus that is spread primarily by airborne means can rendered less transmissible by putting distance between infected persons and uninfected persons. > This collective trauma will be very difficult to recover from. I'm sure some are more traumatized than others. I imagine among the most traumatized are those who experienced the death of family and friends due to Covid-19. > which has never been demonstrated or proven Since it would be an exceedingly difficult study to control for, let alone perform, personally I've just continue to accept the basic biological plausibility of simple interventions such as distancing and masking. It does raise the legitimate question about what level of evidence is required to make a given intervention. At the same time, one person's trauma is another person's minor inconvenience. All of that said, Canada's decision to drop some of the cross-border rules seems due.

moralestapia 4y ago
Source isn't needed, though. "I think" means it's an opinion, which is fine. You are also allowed to opine in the opposite direction. As for me in particular, I'm also inclined to think that the "pandemic" restrictions were less about the actual disease vs. a test on how much control can a state exert over its citizens.