4 ms·

A certain subset of the population which supported mandates, a now obviously failed and unjustifiable policy which caused immense harm, are going to soldier on

A certain subset of the population which supported mandates, a now obviously failed and unjustifiable policy which caused immense harm, are going to soldier on as though that was always the right thing to do, rather than deal with the cognitive dissonance involved.

RhodesianHunter 3y ago
This is easy to say in hindsight. You would be singing a far different tune had the initial numbers turned out to be worse, or had one of the mutations led to far more severe risk. When dealing with the unknown at "global pandemic" scale, it seems better to be safe than sorry, given that you're potentially juggling millions of lives.
- logicalmonster 3y ago
  > it seems better to be safe than sorry All other things being equal, it is better to be safe than sorry. But that's not the choice offered. One thing that you never needed the benefit of hindsight to understand is that there's a non-trivial risk to the vaccines as well. This always exists. For instance, it took science years to understand the full impact of Thalidomide. In the small chance that these injections end up having substantial long-term problems with something like cancer or fertility, a universally applied treatment could be the destruction of humanity. Trying to compel universal injections was always a foolish risk-management decision.
- throwawayfear 3y ago
  Where do you draw the line? Did you see how Australia was dealing with it? They stopped being a democracy once their politicians got a taste of the immense and inordinate new powers to control the average person. This happened in the United States to a lesser extent too, with hall monitors enjoying new unwarranted authority over people's bodies and livelihood even when evidence like from this latest study was already known. Anybody who questioned the narrative or warned about the direction was treated like a pariah.
  - trog 3y ago
    So weird, I live in Australia and everywhere I look we continue to have democracy, just all over the place. (And, I'd argue, more freedom than the average American citizen in many areas, most notably healthcare.)
    - aakresearch 3y ago
      In my corner of Australia healthcare is effectively closed to me, as GPs around here demand wearing masks and allow no exemptions. I guess that's democracy in action. No mask - no rights, as per majority decision. One of the biggest regrets is letting my US GC "win" to lapse a few years ago. Oh well, it all went down the toilet over there just the same, isn't it?
      - trog 3y ago
        > In my corner of Australia healthcare is effectively closed to me, as GPs around here demand wearing masks and allow no exemptions. I guess that's democracy in action. No mask - no rights, as per majority decision. This is like whining that the pub requires shirt and shoes but more bizarre. It has nothing to do with 'democracy'; in QLD at least GPs have no requirement for mask wearing so it's just up to the good old "free market" where businesses can set their own rules. Complaining that a GP requires basic healthcare precautions is truly bizarre to me.
        cempaka 3y ago
        How long do you think it will be reasonable to continue requiring ineffective cloth masks to visit a doctor's office? Should this new requirement remain in effect indefinitely? Were we just failing to institute "basic healthcare precautions" pre-2020?
        trog 3y ago
        They're not required here, as I noted - not sure what your question is about? Just asking generally? I don't think 'cloth masks' should be used at all; I think people should probably be required to wear respirators in certain healthcare circumstances - particularly at GPs - as long as there are virulent airborne illnesses around. And there are all the time, to the point where respiratory disease is a top five killer. I think if we review indoor air quality guidelines & get better at indoor air filtration we can probably relax that requirement. But sitting in a closed indoor space with a bunch of sick people not wearing even the most basic protective equipment is not my idea of a good time. (FWIW my GP requires people who have cold/flu symptoms sit outside in a separate area and then they have to come in via a back entrance. So there's some segregation of symptomatic people, but not a huge amount.)
- cempaka 3y ago
  "If this set of facts had been slightly different, then your take on firing people and excluding them from public venues for refusing to agree to an unproven and experimental medical procedure might be different." I mean, not really? Some things in life are more important than assiduously avoiding death by a respiratory infection.
moribvndvs 3y ago
> obviously failed and unjustifiable policy which caused immense harm Citations needed.
- clemailacct1 3y ago
  I think the burden of research and citations can also be put back onto you as well. You can fully research this information yourself - it’s trivial.
  - moribvndvs 3y ago
    Sorry, that’s not how this works. Burden of proof is not new, nor is it complicated. Thus: > what may be asserted without evidence may be dismissed without evidence. It’s trivial to find sweeping and unsubstantiated opinions. It’s trivial to find arguments on both[1] sides[2]. Why should I trust either? Either way, what evidence trivially and unquestionably supports “immense harm”? This argument has been going in circles for 2+ years, it’s not like I haven’t seen more rigorously defended and less hyperbolic opinions before. That stuff, I’ll consider. What you and OP are doing is just noise. [1] https://www.heritage.org/public-health/commentary/the-failing-case-covid-19-mandates https://www.heritage.org/public-health/commentary/the-failin... [2] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/vaccine-mandates-are-lawful-effective-and-based-on-rock-solid-science/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/vaccine-mandates-...
    - cempaka 3y ago
      It's not clear, do you believe that firing people from their jobs did not cause them great harm, or do you just believe that that harm was justified?
      - pritambaral 3y ago
        > It's not clear, do you believe that firing people from their jobs did not cause them great harm ... It's clear to us all that you're not here in good faith.

RhodesianHunter 3y ago

This is easy to say in hindsight. You would be singing a far different tune had the initial numbers turned out to be worse, or had one of the mutations led to far more severe risk. When dealing with the unknown at "global pandemic" scale, it seems better to be safe than sorry, given that you're potentially juggling millions of lives.

logicalmonster 3y ago
> it seems better to be safe than sorry All other things being equal, it is better to be safe than sorry. But that's not the choice offered. One thing that you never needed the benefit of hindsight to understand is that there's a non-trivial risk to the vaccines as well. This always exists. For instance, it took science years to understand the full impact of Thalidomide. In the small chance that these injections end up having substantial long-term problems with something like cancer or fertility, a universally applied treatment could be the destruction of humanity. Trying to compel universal injections was always a foolish risk-management decision.
throwawayfear 3y ago
Where do you draw the line? Did you see how Australia was dealing with it? They stopped being a democracy once their politicians got a taste of the immense and inordinate new powers to control the average person. This happened in the United States to a lesser extent too, with hall monitors enjoying new unwarranted authority over people's bodies and livelihood even when evidence like from this latest study was already known. Anybody who questioned the narrative or warned about the direction was treated like a pariah.
- trog 3y ago
  So weird, I live in Australia and everywhere I look we continue to have democracy, just all over the place. (And, I'd argue, more freedom than the average American citizen in many areas, most notably healthcare.)
  - aakresearch 3y ago
    In my corner of Australia healthcare is effectively closed to me, as GPs around here demand wearing masks and allow no exemptions. I guess that's democracy in action. No mask - no rights, as per majority decision. One of the biggest regrets is letting my US GC "win" to lapse a few years ago. Oh well, it all went down the toilet over there just the same, isn't it?
    - trog 3y ago
      > In my corner of Australia healthcare is effectively closed to me, as GPs around here demand wearing masks and allow no exemptions. I guess that's democracy in action. No mask - no rights, as per majority decision. This is like whining that the pub requires shirt and shoes but more bizarre. It has nothing to do with 'democracy'; in QLD at least GPs have no requirement for mask wearing so it's just up to the good old "free market" where businesses can set their own rules. Complaining that a GP requires basic healthcare precautions is truly bizarre to me.
      - cempaka 3y ago
        How long do you think it will be reasonable to continue requiring ineffective cloth masks to visit a doctor's office? Should this new requirement remain in effect indefinitely? Were we just failing to institute "basic healthcare precautions" pre-2020?
        trog 3y ago
        They're not required here, as I noted - not sure what your question is about? Just asking generally? I don't think 'cloth masks' should be used at all; I think people should probably be required to wear respirators in certain healthcare circumstances - particularly at GPs - as long as there are virulent airborne illnesses around. And there are all the time, to the point where respiratory disease is a top five killer. I think if we review indoor air quality guidelines & get better at indoor air filtration we can probably relax that requirement. But sitting in a closed indoor space with a bunch of sick people not wearing even the most basic protective equipment is not my idea of a good time. (FWIW my GP requires people who have cold/flu symptoms sit outside in a separate area and then they have to come in via a back entrance. So there's some segregation of symptomatic people, but not a huge amount.)
cempaka 3y ago
"If this set of facts had been slightly different, then your take on firing people and excluding them from public venues for refusing to agree to an unproven and experimental medical procedure might be different." I mean, not really? Some things in life are more important than assiduously avoiding death by a respiratory infection.

moribvndvs 3y ago

> obviously failed and unjustifiable policy which caused immense harm Citations needed.

clemailacct1 3y ago
I think the burden of research and citations can also be put back onto you as well. You can fully research this information yourself - it’s trivial.
- moribvndvs 3y ago
  Sorry, that’s not how this works. Burden of proof is not new, nor is it complicated. Thus: > what may be asserted without evidence may be dismissed without evidence. It’s trivial to find sweeping and unsubstantiated opinions. It’s trivial to find arguments on both[1] sides[2]. Why should I trust either? Either way, what evidence trivially and unquestionably supports “immense harm”? This argument has been going in circles for 2+ years, it’s not like I haven’t seen more rigorously defended and less hyperbolic opinions before. That stuff, I’ll consider. What you and OP are doing is just noise. [1] https://www.heritage.org/public-health/commentary/the-failing-case-covid-19-mandates https://www.heritage.org/public-health/commentary/the-failin... [2] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/vaccine-mandates-are-lawful-effective-and-based-on-rock-solid-science/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/vaccine-mandates-...
  - cempaka 3y ago
    It's not clear, do you believe that firing people from their jobs did not cause them great harm, or do you just believe that that harm was justified?
    - pritambaral 3y ago
      > It's not clear, do you believe that firing people from their jobs did not cause them great harm ... It's clear to us all that you're not here in good faith.