3 ms·

Content yourself with this revisionism all you want, but it wasn't the scientific consensus pushing harsher restrictions, it was anti-scientific political postu

by wddkcs 3y ago

Content yourself with this revisionism all you want, but it wasn't the scientific consensus pushing harsher restrictions, it was anti-scientific political posturing, from both the right and left. There was never scientific justification for mask mandates, or vaccine mandates, and now there is clear evidence that the mRNA vaccines have dubious efficacy and likely lead to greater adverse reactions for certain demographics, especially those that had natural immunity. Should those demographics have gone along to get along, despite unclear at best, or negative at worst, reactions to the vaccines? Obviously not- it is the height of unethical behavior to force a medical intervention that has negative health impact to the recipient. At least, it was universally agreed to be bad ethics, prior to the unbridled panic during COVID. Thankfully, there was a substantial push back from the same contrarian voices you derride, otherwise there's no way of telling how much more authoritarian things might have become. If you truly want to reach understanding of the opposing view, try steelmanning instead of this obvious and oblivious strawman.

kderbyma 3y ago
thank you, some sense.
Spivak 3y ago
I don't know how you took what I said as not steelmanning, I literally presumed the opposition was fully 100% correct. The point was that pushing so hard (and the manner it was pushed) against what was really was the scientific consensus at the time and the CDC recommendation only really served to birth a family of conspiracy theories and divide the country than promote a healthy skepticism even after the pandemic. People are still today dying of COVID because they're unvaccinated and in denial. It didn't do one iota of difference politically in terms of policy because at the time there was no evidence whatsoever of any negative effects. It was just all FUD without evidence and it was dismissed as such. There's the post-hoc opposing view which was revised in the presence of more substantive evidence and the opposing view in the moment which accepted the CDC's position but said the economy and killing the old and immunocompromised was a necessary trade for muh freedom.

by wddkcs 3y ago

kderbyma 3y ago

thank you, some sense.

Spivak 3y ago

I don't know how you took what I said as not steelmanning, I literally presumed the opposition was fully 100% correct. The point was that pushing so hard (and the manner it was pushed) against what was really was the scientific consensus at the time and the CDC recommendation only really served to birth a family of conspiracy theories and divide the country than promote a healthy skepticism even after the pandemic. People are still today dying of COVID because they're unvaccinated and in denial. It didn't do one iota of difference politically in terms of policy because at the time there was no evidence whatsoever of any negative effects. It was just all FUD without evidence and it was dismissed as such. There's the post-hoc opposing view which was revised in the presence of more substantive evidence and the opposing view in the moment which accepted the CDC's position but said the economy and killing the old and immunocompromised was a necessary trade for muh freedom.