5 ms·

> We're watching the wealthy equivalent of that COVID-denier who, with their last breath before being intubated, calls the doctors and nurses who diagnosed them

> We're watching the wealthy equivalent of that COVID-denier who, with their last breath before being intubated, calls the doctors and nurses who diagnosed them liars. Which is a work of fiction. Such a thing probably happened no more than a few times. The only reason it gets parroted back is because it serves as a nice bit of propaganda to gin up fear and get people to fall in line.

babypuncher 4y ago
Herman Cain's Twitter account was still tweeting COVID denialism after he died of COVID.
- macspoofing 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - raverbashing 4y ago
    > making it seem like his death was justified. Death by Denialism? Darwin sends his regards "The good thing about science is that it doesn't give a f about what you think"
    - macspoofing 4y ago
      [flagged]
      - scottLobster 4y ago
        The science is with him how? Masking is somewhat effective, even the cloth masks may prevent infection in passing. It's only when sharing the same space for extended periods of time that it becomes ineffective, and N95s and Surgical masks remain effective in such environments. Before vaccines masking and lockdowns were the best things we could do to even blunt the death count, refusing to blunt the death count because you considered masks of all things inconvenient is still repugnant, selfish behavior. And validating said behavior in others from a position of influence is even worse. He may or may not have gotten COVID anyway before the vaccines, or perhaps he would have avoided it until vaccines were available and survived, like many people did. We'll never know, because he didn't even try and actively made the problem worse than it had to be. Now there were public health measures that were misguided, outright dumb, and completely ineffective. But the fact that they existed does not vindicate Herman Cain or anyone who agreed with him at the time. They weren't misjudged prophets who knew something other people didn't, they were selfish people making selfish decisions who happened to be partially correct, but also made the problem worse than it had to be.
        macspoofing 4y ago
        >Masking is somewhat effective, even the cloth masks may prevent infection in passing. It's only when sharing the same space for extended periods of time that it becomes ineffective, and N95s and Surgical masks remain effective in such environments. KN95/N95 - yes. Surgical and cloth - very limited, especially at the population level. Large-scale masking was MAYBE effective at reducing transmission by something like 10%. This means that it wasn't stopping anything. >Before vaccines masking and lockdowns were the best things we could do to even blunt the death count, Woah woah woah. No. That is not true at all. It isn't true now, and it wasn't true then. The policy of "lockdowns" (including school closures) or "no lockdowns" wasn't the only thing on the table. It was certainly presented this way, and ANYONE who dared to question that was labeled, well ... the way you labeled Herman Cain in the next paragraph, or worse. The sad part is, we had a century of knowledge when it came to fighting respiratory pandemics .. that we threw out and just winged it based on the Chinese zero-COVID policy (even though it was clear as day that China was lying about its numbers and in hindsight their zero-COVID policy was an abject failure). We could have done targeted lockdowns at high-risk populations, and while letting the low-risk population live their lives and take appropriate measures commensurate to their risk-tolerance. Sweden was heavily criticized for that kind of policy - WHY? Florida was heavily criticized. In the end, there was no difference in outcomes when comparing lockdown regions to non-lockdown regions - comparing Florida to California. >They weren't misjudged prophets who knew something other people didn't, they were selfish people making selfish decisions who happened to be partially correct, but also made the problem worse than it had to be. They weren't prophets. They were people who had major issues with the public health policy. And even if they turned out they were wrong (and in hindsight, they weren't wrong), it was disgusting how celebrated, for example, Herman Cain's death was EVEN THOUGH he was just a victim of viral pandemic, like millions of others. Him masking would not have made a difference, just as it hasn't made a difference to 70% of the population that, regardless of masks, lockdowns, and vaccines, got COVID. The rest of the population will get COVID eventually. Speaking of misguided prophets .. in July 2020, the consensus was that vaccines aren't going to be there potentially for years - so what was the end-game for lockdown policy? I remember that that time. There literally was the idea, amongst the lockdown proponents, that we could kill the pandemic by locking-down even though it was clear that was never going to happen.
    - helloworld11 4y ago
      [flagged]
      - freejazz 4y ago
        Because he didn't argue those positions because they were sensible responses to COVID, he argued those positions because he was reactionary. Coincidentally, at the time, they were the best methods we had to control against covid. So, maybe at best your point can be taken that he didn't deny covid, just the implications of it. I'm sure any reasonable person can see why this is a distinction with little meaning.
        macspoofing 4y ago
        >Because he didn't argue those positions because they were sensible responses to COVID, he argued those positions because he was reactionary. You're impugning intent on this man, because you don't like his politics. You don't even know what his reasons were, do you. >Coincidentally, at the time, they were the best methods we had to control against covid. No. Those were not the best methods. It was never a choice of "Lockdows or no-lockdowns", even back then. We had 100 years of experience fighting respiratory pandemics, that we threw out and decided to follow the Chinese 'zero-covid' policy (which was an abject failure for us, and them). The traditional approach was a targeted policy. Protect (or even lockdown) high-risk populations, and let low-risk population live their lives commensurate to their risk tolerance. Sweden, one of the few western nations, to adopt this, was HEAVILY criticized for this, for no good reason. The idea that we would lockdown the entire population (healthy and/or low-risk) was something we made up on the spot. It wasn't based on any science.
        freejazz 4y ago
        I'm not imputing anything on him, he freely expressed it on his own and you are in total denial if you take his words as being merely just exploring the idea of alternative solutions. That you called what happened in the US the "zero-covid" solution is similarly significantly distanced from reality as to render you incapable of reasonable judgment.
CharlesW 4y ago
> Which is a work of fiction. Anyone who's spent time browsing r/HermanCainAward, or knows nurses who've been on the COVID front lines, can assure you that it's not. People die horrible deaths, often clawing harder than ever to the conspiracy theories they've been fed.
scottLobster 4y ago
How does pointing out idiots doing idiotic things "gin up fear"? If it gins up anything it's pity. The fearful ones are the people being intubated and denying the cause up to their last breath, they're so fearful that they might be even partly responsible for their circumstances, they lack the moral constitution to admit it. They're weak, and weak people do not induce fear unless they're in a mob. If I showed you a homeless person dead from a heroin overdose, would you fear heroin? No, because it's entirely within your control whether you use it or not. I think you need to learn how propaganda works.

babypuncher 4y ago

Herman Cain's Twitter account was still tweeting COVID denialism after he died of COVID.

macspoofing 4y ago
[flagged]
- raverbashing 4y ago
  > making it seem like his death was justified. Death by Denialism? Darwin sends his regards "The good thing about science is that it doesn't give a f about what you think"
  - macspoofing 4y ago
    [flagged]
    - scottLobster 4y ago
      The science is with him how? Masking is somewhat effective, even the cloth masks may prevent infection in passing. It's only when sharing the same space for extended periods of time that it becomes ineffective, and N95s and Surgical masks remain effective in such environments. Before vaccines masking and lockdowns were the best things we could do to even blunt the death count, refusing to blunt the death count because you considered masks of all things inconvenient is still repugnant, selfish behavior. And validating said behavior in others from a position of influence is even worse. He may or may not have gotten COVID anyway before the vaccines, or perhaps he would have avoided it until vaccines were available and survived, like many people did. We'll never know, because he didn't even try and actively made the problem worse than it had to be. Now there were public health measures that were misguided, outright dumb, and completely ineffective. But the fact that they existed does not vindicate Herman Cain or anyone who agreed with him at the time. They weren't misjudged prophets who knew something other people didn't, they were selfish people making selfish decisions who happened to be partially correct, but also made the problem worse than it had to be.
      - macspoofing 4y ago
        >Masking is somewhat effective, even the cloth masks may prevent infection in passing. It's only when sharing the same space for extended periods of time that it becomes ineffective, and N95s and Surgical masks remain effective in such environments. KN95/N95 - yes. Surgical and cloth - very limited, especially at the population level. Large-scale masking was MAYBE effective at reducing transmission by something like 10%. This means that it wasn't stopping anything. >Before vaccines masking and lockdowns were the best things we could do to even blunt the death count, Woah woah woah. No. That is not true at all. It isn't true now, and it wasn't true then. The policy of "lockdowns" (including school closures) or "no lockdowns" wasn't the only thing on the table. It was certainly presented this way, and ANYONE who dared to question that was labeled, well ... the way you labeled Herman Cain in the next paragraph, or worse. The sad part is, we had a century of knowledge when it came to fighting respiratory pandemics .. that we threw out and just winged it based on the Chinese zero-COVID policy (even though it was clear as day that China was lying about its numbers and in hindsight their zero-COVID policy was an abject failure). We could have done targeted lockdowns at high-risk populations, and while letting the low-risk population live their lives and take appropriate measures commensurate to their risk-tolerance. Sweden was heavily criticized for that kind of policy - WHY? Florida was heavily criticized. In the end, there was no difference in outcomes when comparing lockdown regions to non-lockdown regions - comparing Florida to California. >They weren't misjudged prophets who knew something other people didn't, they were selfish people making selfish decisions who happened to be partially correct, but also made the problem worse than it had to be. They weren't prophets. They were people who had major issues with the public health policy. And even if they turned out they were wrong (and in hindsight, they weren't wrong), it was disgusting how celebrated, for example, Herman Cain's death was EVEN THOUGH he was just a victim of viral pandemic, like millions of others. Him masking would not have made a difference, just as it hasn't made a difference to 70% of the population that, regardless of masks, lockdowns, and vaccines, got COVID. The rest of the population will get COVID eventually. Speaking of misguided prophets .. in July 2020, the consensus was that vaccines aren't going to be there potentially for years - so what was the end-game for lockdown policy? I remember that that time. There literally was the idea, amongst the lockdown proponents, that we could kill the pandemic by locking-down even though it was clear that was never going to happen.
  - helloworld11 4y ago
    [flagged]
    - freejazz 4y ago
      Because he didn't argue those positions because they were sensible responses to COVID, he argued those positions because he was reactionary. Coincidentally, at the time, they were the best methods we had to control against covid. So, maybe at best your point can be taken that he didn't deny covid, just the implications of it. I'm sure any reasonable person can see why this is a distinction with little meaning.
      - macspoofing 4y ago
        >Because he didn't argue those positions because they were sensible responses to COVID, he argued those positions because he was reactionary. You're impugning intent on this man, because you don't like his politics. You don't even know what his reasons were, do you. >Coincidentally, at the time, they were the best methods we had to control against covid. No. Those were not the best methods. It was never a choice of "Lockdows or no-lockdowns", even back then. We had 100 years of experience fighting respiratory pandemics, that we threw out and decided to follow the Chinese 'zero-covid' policy (which was an abject failure for us, and them). The traditional approach was a targeted policy. Protect (or even lockdown) high-risk populations, and let low-risk population live their lives commensurate to their risk tolerance. Sweden, one of the few western nations, to adopt this, was HEAVILY criticized for this, for no good reason. The idea that we would lockdown the entire population (healthy and/or low-risk) was something we made up on the spot. It wasn't based on any science.
        freejazz 4y ago
        I'm not imputing anything on him, he freely expressed it on his own and you are in total denial if you take his words as being merely just exploring the idea of alternative solutions. That you called what happened in the US the "zero-covid" solution is similarly significantly distanced from reality as to render you incapable of reasonable judgment.

CharlesW 4y ago

> Which is a work of fiction. Anyone who's spent time browsing r/HermanCainAward, or knows nurses who've been on the COVID front lines, can assure you that it's not. People die horrible deaths, often clawing harder than ever to the conspiracy theories they've been fed.

scottLobster 4y ago

How does pointing out idiots doing idiotic things "gin up fear"? If it gins up anything it's pity. The fearful ones are the people being intubated and denying the cause up to their last breath, they're so fearful that they might be even partly responsible for their circumstances, they lack the moral constitution to admit it. They're weak, and weak people do not induce fear unless they're in a mob. If I showed you a homeless person dead from a heroin overdose, would you fear heroin? No, because it's entirely within your control whether you use it or not. I think you need to learn how propaganda works.