6 ms·

> That even though the government is wrong a lot, sometimes they're right about important things They weren't right during the pandemic though. From initially

> That even though the government is wrong a lot, sometimes they're right about important things They weren't right during the pandemic though. From initially refusing to acknowledge the situation to lying and cohercing people into taking untested injections whose side effects on the population remain unknown, and of course censoring and character assassinating anyone who dared rise any objections against its conduct. And lets not forget actively avoiding finding out the origin of the virus because it wasn't politically convenient during an election year.

wewtyflakes 3y ago
This does not seem to disprove the statement of "That even though the government is wrong a lot, sometimes they're right about important things".
- mistermann 3y ago
  In this context, do you consider "even though the government is wrong a lot, sometimes they're right about important things" more informative than misinformative?
- OCASMv2 3y ago
  In the context of the pandemic response, without any specifics on what they got right I think it does.
  - wewtyflakes 3y ago
    To disprove "That even though the government is wrong a lot, sometimes they're right about important things", you would have to prove that the government is wrong _all_ the time about important things. You just mentioned some things you think the government got wrong, but that is covered by the clause "That even though the government is wrong a lot" anyway. So it then just seems you wanted to soapbox about covid and governments, even if that isn't your intent.
    - OCASMv2 3y ago
      In the context "lessons we learned from covid that we shouldn't forget", "the government is sometimes right about important things" cannot be one of them without specifics on what is it they supposedly got right.
      - wewtyflakes 3y ago
        How about wearing masks, minimizing in-person interactions, and funding medical research, during the height of the pandemic? Those seem reasonable.
        OCASMv2 3y ago
        > wearing masks Reasonable at first. Once it was known that the virus is transmitted via aerosols then forcing masks was the wrong thing to do, specially on children. Useless and damaging. > minimizing in-person interactions What benefit did it achieve? As a quarantine it was too leaky and it also led to mass psychological distress. > funding medical research What medical research? For some reason, the most obvious approach, repurposed drugs, was nowhere in sight. If anything demonizing it was the official policy (ie. the smear campaign against ivermectin).
        wewtyflakes 3y ago
        > Useless and damaging. This seems like a ridiculous thing to say; both useless _and_ damaging? Even if one of these things were true, they can't _both_ be true. > What benefit did it achieve? Minimizing the spread of covid. > What medical research? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Warp_Speed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Warp_Speed > the most obvious approach, repurposed drugs, was nowhere in sight Didn't the J&J vaccine use a more traditional approach? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janssen_COVID-19_vaccine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janssen_COVID-19_vaccine Also, people tried repurposing drugs (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivermectin#COVID-19 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivermectin#COVID-19). So your claim of "nowhere in sight" is incorrect.
hinkley 3y ago
[flagged]
- OCASMv2 3y ago
  What specifically would have been different with that infrastructure in place?
snakeyjake 3y ago
>cohercing people into taking untested injections The vaccines were extremely well-tested and anyone saying they weren't is either lying or was lied to by a liar. They did not follow the typical drug approval process. That does not mean they were not tested. I was one of the test subjects.
- OCASMv2 3y ago
  > The vaccines were extremely well-tested and anyone saying they weren't is either lying or was lied to by a liar. Starting human trials before animal trials were finished is not what I'd call "extremely well-tested". The standard testing procedure takes years. These injections were forced upon hundreds of millions of people after only a few months of testing, and that's even assuming that what little testing was done was done properly.
  - FireBeyond 3y ago
    > Starting human trials before animal trials were finished is not what I'd call "extremely well-tested". Citation needed. The FDA paperwork to authorize human trials and emergency authorization referenced the completed animal trials. > The standard testing procedure takes years. While testing processes do typically take years, this also factors in the production to testable levels of said vaccines, whereas mRNA vaccines are far more quickly and efficiently produced, reducing this time dramatically. Also to be taken into account, work on coronavirus vaccination in humans had already been in the pipeline since the Avian Flu crises. This wasn't something new. > These injections were forced upon hundreds of millions of people after only a few months of testing Most people couldn't access the vaccine for much longer periods of time. Certainly no-one was being forced early on (and that goes for varying definitions of the word 'forced'). Sources: - https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-covid-vaccines-animal-studies-947974839488 https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-covid-vaccines-animal-... - https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL2N2NJ1IK/ https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL2N2NJ1IK/ - https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/09/10/fact-check-pfizer-moderna-johnson-johnson-covid-vaccines-animal-studies/8262536002/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/09/10/fac...
cyberax 3y ago
> From initially refusing to acknowledge the situation to lying and cohercing people into taking untested injections whose side effects on the population remain unknown You're spewing bullshit right here. COVID vaccines went through clinical trials and had a great safety profile.

wewtyflakes 3y ago

This does not seem to disprove the statement of "That even though the government is wrong a lot, sometimes they're right about important things".

mistermann 3y ago
In this context, do you consider "even though the government is wrong a lot, sometimes they're right about important things" more informative than misinformative?
OCASMv2 3y ago
In the context of the pandemic response, without any specifics on what they got right I think it does.
- wewtyflakes 3y ago
  To disprove "That even though the government is wrong a lot, sometimes they're right about important things", you would have to prove that the government is wrong _all_ the time about important things. You just mentioned some things you think the government got wrong, but that is covered by the clause "That even though the government is wrong a lot" anyway. So it then just seems you wanted to soapbox about covid and governments, even if that isn't your intent.
  - OCASMv2 3y ago
    In the context "lessons we learned from covid that we shouldn't forget", "the government is sometimes right about important things" cannot be one of them without specifics on what is it they supposedly got right.
    - wewtyflakes 3y ago
      How about wearing masks, minimizing in-person interactions, and funding medical research, during the height of the pandemic? Those seem reasonable.
      - OCASMv2 3y ago
        > wearing masks Reasonable at first. Once it was known that the virus is transmitted via aerosols then forcing masks was the wrong thing to do, specially on children. Useless and damaging. > minimizing in-person interactions What benefit did it achieve? As a quarantine it was too leaky and it also led to mass psychological distress. > funding medical research What medical research? For some reason, the most obvious approach, repurposed drugs, was nowhere in sight. If anything demonizing it was the official policy (ie. the smear campaign against ivermectin).
        wewtyflakes 3y ago
        > Useless and damaging. This seems like a ridiculous thing to say; both useless _and_ damaging? Even if one of these things were true, they can't _both_ be true. > What benefit did it achieve? Minimizing the spread of covid. > What medical research? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Warp_Speed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Warp_Speed > the most obvious approach, repurposed drugs, was nowhere in sight Didn't the J&J vaccine use a more traditional approach? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janssen_COVID-19_vaccine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janssen_COVID-19_vaccine Also, people tried repurposing drugs (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivermectin#COVID-19 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivermectin#COVID-19). So your claim of "nowhere in sight" is incorrect.

hinkley 3y ago

[flagged]

OCASMv2 3y ago
What specifically would have been different with that infrastructure in place?

snakeyjake 3y ago

>cohercing people into taking untested injections The vaccines were extremely well-tested and anyone saying they weren't is either lying or was lied to by a liar. They did not follow the typical drug approval process. That does not mean they were not tested. I was one of the test subjects.

OCASMv2 3y ago
> The vaccines were extremely well-tested and anyone saying they weren't is either lying or was lied to by a liar. Starting human trials before animal trials were finished is not what I'd call "extremely well-tested". The standard testing procedure takes years. These injections were forced upon hundreds of millions of people after only a few months of testing, and that's even assuming that what little testing was done was done properly.
- FireBeyond 3y ago
  > Starting human trials before animal trials were finished is not what I'd call "extremely well-tested". Citation needed. The FDA paperwork to authorize human trials and emergency authorization referenced the completed animal trials. > The standard testing procedure takes years. While testing processes do typically take years, this also factors in the production to testable levels of said vaccines, whereas mRNA vaccines are far more quickly and efficiently produced, reducing this time dramatically. Also to be taken into account, work on coronavirus vaccination in humans had already been in the pipeline since the Avian Flu crises. This wasn't something new. > These injections were forced upon hundreds of millions of people after only a few months of testing Most people couldn't access the vaccine for much longer periods of time. Certainly no-one was being forced early on (and that goes for varying definitions of the word 'forced'). Sources: - https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-covid-vaccines-animal-studies-947974839488 https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-covid-vaccines-animal-... - https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL2N2NJ1IK/ https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL2N2NJ1IK/ - https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/09/10/fact-check-pfizer-moderna-johnson-johnson-covid-vaccines-animal-studies/8262536002/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/09/10/fac...

cyberax 3y ago

> From initially refusing to acknowledge the situation to lying and cohercing people into taking untested injections whose side effects on the population remain unknown You're spewing bullshit right here. COVID vaccines went through clinical trials and had a great safety profile.