3 ms·
To be clear: you’re saying we shouldn’t believe any science at all because a snap reaction to an emerging pandemic turned out to be excessive?
by afavour 4y ago
To be clear: you’re saying we shouldn’t believe any science at all because a snap reaction to an emerging pandemic turned out to be excessive?
- nxm 4y agoI think the point is there’s a lot hypocrisy of elitists telling us to reduce our emissions while they’re flying on private jets.
- afavour 4y agoThat’s a completely different point.
- sieabahlpark 4y ago[dead]
- whimsicalism 4y agoTurned out to be excessive? The countries that were actually successful averted the deaths of millions of their own citizens.
- afavour 4y agoI've given up debating this with the COVID skeptic folks because it's impossible to definitively prove exactly what would have happened without lockdowns. Instead my general argument is that it was a situation where a great deal was unknown, if with the benefit of hindsight we learn that we overreacted that doesn't mean the original choice was the wrong one. We worked with the evidence we had available at the time and we played it safe. Playing it safe seems sensible to me.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- lelanthran 4y agoNo, he's saying that pandemic-induced outrights lies delivered to the population may have hurt the credibility of politicians who used "science" as the justification. Administration's could restore some of that credibility by walking back statements that turned out to be wrong. I say this as someone who lost a parent to COVID.