4 ms·

There's some nuance there. The situation was not nearly as "unknown" as the CDC advocates would like to believe, and the international community provided plenty

by slily 3y ago

There's some nuance there. The situation was not nearly as "unknown" as the CDC advocates would like to believe, and the international community provided plenty of evidence for individuals to make more informed decisions. Even early on, the number of case reports of people getting sick despite following recommended practices or not having any contact with potentially contaminated objects made the droplet thesis dubious. I don't recall ever seeing convincing evidence that COVID-19 could be transmitted through produce in grocery stores for example... yet for a while people were told to disinfect them before using, and many avoided restaurants due to the perceived risk of contaminated food. I'll give you that for vulnerable populations it might have made sense in the early days of the pandemic to follow the most neurotic guidelines in an abundance of caution, but again, it took government agencies far longer than necessary to update their recommendations. And let's not forget the flip-flopping about masks which contradicted the available data even at the time. The CDC was still peddling unproven and disproved claims as of last year at least, and that's how the United States was practically the last country on Earth to maintain pointless mandates, like vaccination for international travelers, far longer than even other countries that acted more aggressively prior like Canada and Australia. The CDC was quick to make imprudent recommendations that led to authoritarian policies, and slow to retract them when they were shown to be presumptuous, so as far as I'm concerned that's grounds enough to consider them "discredited", in the sense that I'll be skeptical of what they publish in the future instead of taking their recommendations at face value.

wewtyflakes 3y ago
We are remembering things differently. I do not remember any consensus on these items within the first year of the pandemic. I remember things being uncertain. I think demanding vaccines for travel was reasonable, given the circumstances of the time. I do not think the mandates were pointless given what we knew at the time, and I think people who flouted them acted selfishly.
- slily 3y ago
  I can see how you'd get that impression if you followed the news through mainstream media and government spokespersons who stoked fear and uncertainty to push their recommendations, but I paid close attention to research and data, and there were countless instances of health authorities peddling obvious falsehoods, some of which I've already mentioned. I traveled freely internationally throughout 2020 before a blanket ban was implemented to force people to get vaccinated. Of course, by that time, the virus was circulating everywhere, so it already made little sense, but it's even worse when you consider that long-distance travel was not a significant vector for viral spread (at that stage). If I recall correctly, the Canadian government admitted in court that their own travel ban had no scientific basis. In the US, the health authorities issued recommendations based on weak or absent data and then refused to withdraw them until the amount of data disproving those recommendations became overwhelming. That's a double standard and can hardly be justified with "uncertainty". I'll add that many people pointed out the inconsistencies between government recommendations/policies and the available evidence at the time, and in response, they were fired, hidden or banned from social media, attacked, and demonized. Now history is being rewritten, but "in hindsight" there were plenty of warnings at all stages of this crisis.
  - wewtyflakes 3y ago
    I think by definition, most people get their information from "mainstream" media. It also seems like hindsight is being applied here. We have perfect information now, and it seems that you are claiming that this whole time _you_ had perfect information/sources from the beginning. How could you expect that people could reasonably believe this? You also seem to be implying that there was some sort of sinister motive to get people to do things like get vaccinated and wear masks. I do not think that is credible; I think it is more likely that uncertainty was high, and it was reasonable to work with a high degree of caution. This belief doesn't require sinister intent, but it does paint people who worked against the grain as being selfish; that seems to track.

by slily 3y ago

wewtyflakes 3y ago

We are remembering things differently. I do not remember any consensus on these items within the first year of the pandemic. I remember things being uncertain. I think demanding vaccines for travel was reasonable, given the circumstances of the time. I do not think the mandates were pointless given what we knew at the time, and I think people who flouted them acted selfishly.

slily 3y ago
I can see how you'd get that impression if you followed the news through mainstream media and government spokespersons who stoked fear and uncertainty to push their recommendations, but I paid close attention to research and data, and there were countless instances of health authorities peddling obvious falsehoods, some of which I've already mentioned. I traveled freely internationally throughout 2020 before a blanket ban was implemented to force people to get vaccinated. Of course, by that time, the virus was circulating everywhere, so it already made little sense, but it's even worse when you consider that long-distance travel was not a significant vector for viral spread (at that stage). If I recall correctly, the Canadian government admitted in court that their own travel ban had no scientific basis. In the US, the health authorities issued recommendations based on weak or absent data and then refused to withdraw them until the amount of data disproving those recommendations became overwhelming. That's a double standard and can hardly be justified with "uncertainty". I'll add that many people pointed out the inconsistencies between government recommendations/policies and the available evidence at the time, and in response, they were fired, hidden or banned from social media, attacked, and demonized. Now history is being rewritten, but "in hindsight" there were plenty of warnings at all stages of this crisis.
- wewtyflakes 3y ago
  I think by definition, most people get their information from "mainstream" media. It also seems like hindsight is being applied here. We have perfect information now, and it seems that you are claiming that this whole time _you_ had perfect information/sources from the beginning. How could you expect that people could reasonably believe this? You also seem to be implying that there was some sort of sinister motive to get people to do things like get vaccinated and wear masks. I do not think that is credible; I think it is more likely that uncertainty was high, and it was reasonable to work with a high degree of caution. This belief doesn't require sinister intent, but it does paint people who worked against the grain as being selfish; that seems to track.