4 ms·

> If you can't distinguish between science, medicine, media and government policies, there's little we can do. I surely can. And this thing you say has nothin

> If you can't distinguish between science, medicine, media and government policies, there's little we can do. I surely can. And this thing you say has nothing to do with what I said, which is that they destroyed completely trust in all of those institutions. I don't know what you're arguing for, all of those things you list happened because of the desire to ignore the actual science and common sense in favor of preferred policies. 1 They caused a panic 2 They didn't fight off the virus very well 3 There was unrest, there is still unrest, and to all those problems, add that people don't trust science, medicine, governments or media 4 The policies enacted kind of were a dead end? A waste of 2 years for little benefit? 5 There was none. No studies, no data, no previous experience. 6 It came out anyway and thanks to point 3, all the goodwill is gone. I don't know, apply those standards to the course taken? What conclusion do you reach? That everything would be much worse otherwise? So that's my point. The "clever" policies are going to fail anyway and now nobody trusts the people who pushed them. It's not difficult: Don't lie. And whoever feels the need to censor people who disagree with them, well, I don't need to check if they're lying anymore.

didibus 3y ago
> So that's my point. The "clever" policies are going to fail anyway and now nobody trusts the people who pushed them. I get your point, but without any argument, rationale, or data, behind it, I don't know what to make of it. Now it just seems like your opinion. What policies do you think failed? How do you quantify failure? What do you think would have been more successful? How can you know it would have been more successful? How do you know trust was lost because of the policies themselves, and not because of some of the opposition's agenda to push mistrust? You say: "don't lie", ok, where did you see lies? Who did you see lying? Who censored what?
- MrPatan 3y ago
  > You say: "don't lie", ok, where did you see lies? Who did you see lying? Who censored what? The most obvious one, which you already admitted to in your original post, is the lab leak theory. They knew it was a very likely possibility, and lied. And dissenting opinions were labelled conspiracies, censored, deboosted, demonetized, the usual. The masks are the funniest one, because it's double dumb. When they thought they worked, they told us they didn't work, and after we knew they don't do much they still mandated masks. Or how about ivermectin being called a "horse dewormer" so that people didn't use it? If you think that's not lying or censoring because it can indeed be used to treat horses, I don't know what else to tell you. As for policy that failed, how about the lockdowns? You may argue that it's because they didn't go far enough, like in China or New Zealand (where they also failed, as excess deaths are through the roof anyway) but it would still make it a failed policy, failure of implementation is still failure. I'm not going to give you any sources, you can Google them on the spot as well as I can, and it seems like you need an out here.
  - didibus 3y ago
    > The most obvious one, which you already admitted to in your original post, is the lab leak theory This goes back to my original point. Policies have to also account for geopolitical tensions. You're at the beginning of a Pandemic, China just released the genetic material for the virus. You're hoping they collaborate with you to exchange more info about it and help fight it off. You're hoping not to hurt our trade with them, and other such things. It could be a lab leak, it could be a natural origin. China says it's not a lab leak, do you come out gun blazing and accuse them of hiding things and that they're responsible for COVID? Even though, it's not like you have proof it's a lab leak either. Or do you focus more on mitigation, containment, developing a better understanding of the virus, finding ways to fight it off. And leave actually figuring out if it was a leak or not and if there are responsible parties to later? I know your opinion is that you'd have accused China right then and there. And maybe it would have led to better outcomes, maybe not. My point is that this whole consideration is not part of the normal scientific inquiry, but something that policy making has to contend with. Now for masks, I mean they know they work when using real PPEs worn properly. There was a shortage. Again, it's a policy thing. Your medical staff needs PPEs, not even just for COVID, they need them for other pre-covid diseases too. Later, it was maybe a toss up. Individually it works, but collectively it's unclear, because it also encourages more social proximity, and how many people will wear crappy masks or wear them badly, take them off when they talk, etc. With Ivermectin, initially, you'd get things like this: > An adult drank an injectable ivermectin formulation intended for use in cattle in an attempt to prevent COVID-19 infection. This patient presented to a hospital with confusion, drowsiness, visual hallucinations, tachypnea, and tremors. The patient recovered after being hospitalized for nine days. Again, from a policy point of view. When you see things like that. You might think. Ok, hold on. It's not currently approved for COVID, we're still figuring out if it works. Then we're still working the guidance for when to prescribe it for COVID, how much to use, etc. In the meantime, we don't want more of these kind of situations where people think it's a miracle cure, so maybe let's tone down the hopes around it. I don't know if Lockdown is a failure either. With policy, again, you have to compare against alternatives, not like the outcome. Could there have been better policies that would have had better outcomes. A end COVID with zero death Policy most likely didn't exist. It clearly slowed down the spread, which gave the medical system breathing room. It clearly did something for me, since I didn't get sick at all during that time, not even a cold. Did it make everyone depressed, affected the economy, it did as well. I don't feel it's really clear if not having them would have been overall better or worse. You can have an opinion, but I doubt you have clear evidence one way or another. Let me end with, there also likely has been some corruption, some self interest, and what not. And I think we should continue with investigations, like how Biden opened up a bunch of investigation into figuring out the origin of COVID. And we should have retrospectives on the effectiveness of the policies chosen so we're able to make better policies next time and be better prepared. It does seem there was maybe some overreach in some instances on what was being censored, maybe too broad strokes were taken. I agree with all that. But had I been in charge of the policies, I'd have had to contend with all these considerations and also am not sure what I would have done better.

didibus 3y ago

> So that's my point. The "clever" policies are going to fail anyway and now nobody trusts the people who pushed them. I get your point, but without any argument, rationale, or data, behind it, I don't know what to make of it. Now it just seems like your opinion. What policies do you think failed? How do you quantify failure? What do you think would have been more successful? How can you know it would have been more successful? How do you know trust was lost because of the policies themselves, and not because of some of the opposition's agenda to push mistrust? You say: "don't lie", ok, where did you see lies? Who did you see lying? Who censored what?

MrPatan 3y ago
> You say: "don't lie", ok, where did you see lies? Who did you see lying? Who censored what? The most obvious one, which you already admitted to in your original post, is the lab leak theory. They knew it was a very likely possibility, and lied. And dissenting opinions were labelled conspiracies, censored, deboosted, demonetized, the usual. The masks are the funniest one, because it's double dumb. When they thought they worked, they told us they didn't work, and after we knew they don't do much they still mandated masks. Or how about ivermectin being called a "horse dewormer" so that people didn't use it? If you think that's not lying or censoring because it can indeed be used to treat horses, I don't know what else to tell you. As for policy that failed, how about the lockdowns? You may argue that it's because they didn't go far enough, like in China or New Zealand (where they also failed, as excess deaths are through the roof anyway) but it would still make it a failed policy, failure of implementation is still failure. I'm not going to give you any sources, you can Google them on the spot as well as I can, and it seems like you need an out here.
- didibus 3y ago
  > The most obvious one, which you already admitted to in your original post, is the lab leak theory This goes back to my original point. Policies have to also account for geopolitical tensions. You're at the beginning of a Pandemic, China just released the genetic material for the virus. You're hoping they collaborate with you to exchange more info about it and help fight it off. You're hoping not to hurt our trade with them, and other such things. It could be a lab leak, it could be a natural origin. China says it's not a lab leak, do you come out gun blazing and accuse them of hiding things and that they're responsible for COVID? Even though, it's not like you have proof it's a lab leak either. Or do you focus more on mitigation, containment, developing a better understanding of the virus, finding ways to fight it off. And leave actually figuring out if it was a leak or not and if there are responsible parties to later? I know your opinion is that you'd have accused China right then and there. And maybe it would have led to better outcomes, maybe not. My point is that this whole consideration is not part of the normal scientific inquiry, but something that policy making has to contend with. Now for masks, I mean they know they work when using real PPEs worn properly. There was a shortage. Again, it's a policy thing. Your medical staff needs PPEs, not even just for COVID, they need them for other pre-covid diseases too. Later, it was maybe a toss up. Individually it works, but collectively it's unclear, because it also encourages more social proximity, and how many people will wear crappy masks or wear them badly, take them off when they talk, etc. With Ivermectin, initially, you'd get things like this: > An adult drank an injectable ivermectin formulation intended for use in cattle in an attempt to prevent COVID-19 infection. This patient presented to a hospital with confusion, drowsiness, visual hallucinations, tachypnea, and tremors. The patient recovered after being hospitalized for nine days. Again, from a policy point of view. When you see things like that. You might think. Ok, hold on. It's not currently approved for COVID, we're still figuring out if it works. Then we're still working the guidance for when to prescribe it for COVID, how much to use, etc. In the meantime, we don't want more of these kind of situations where people think it's a miracle cure, so maybe let's tone down the hopes around it. I don't know if Lockdown is a failure either. With policy, again, you have to compare against alternatives, not like the outcome. Could there have been better policies that would have had better outcomes. A end COVID with zero death Policy most likely didn't exist. It clearly slowed down the spread, which gave the medical system breathing room. It clearly did something for me, since I didn't get sick at all during that time, not even a cold. Did it make everyone depressed, affected the economy, it did as well. I don't feel it's really clear if not having them would have been overall better or worse. You can have an opinion, but I doubt you have clear evidence one way or another. Let me end with, there also likely has been some corruption, some self interest, and what not. And I think we should continue with investigations, like how Biden opened up a bunch of investigation into figuring out the origin of COVID. And we should have retrospectives on the effectiveness of the policies chosen so we're able to make better policies next time and be better prepared. It does seem there was maybe some overreach in some instances on what was being censored, maybe too broad strokes were taken. I agree with all that. But had I been in charge of the policies, I'd have had to contend with all these considerations and also am not sure what I would have done better.