5 ms·

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.
        toast0 3y ago
        > 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 Not really. This was the first widely deployed modified adenovirus vaccine. Not the first developed, but if I'm remembering correctly, none of the others made it out of trials.
        OCASMv2 3y ago
        > 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. Of course they can: useless at preventing disease, damaging to the social development of children. > Minimizing the spread of covid. Did it? > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Warp_Speed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Warp_Speed The result: injections sold as vaccines that don't do what you expect a vaccine to do: stop transmission. > Also, people tried repurposing drugs (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivermectin#COVID-19 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivermectin#COVID-19). Individuals did, not the government, and the former were punished by the latter for it.
        MeImCounting 3y ago
        "noun 1. a substance used to stimulate immunity to a particular infectious disease or pathogen" Vaccines activate immunity against specific pathogens, reducing infection severity and transmission risk. COVID-19 vaccines decrease disease severity and transmission probability. This whole thing of "they arent vaccines" is bologna and everyone knows it

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.
      - toast0 3y ago
        > 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 Not really. This was the first widely deployed modified adenovirus vaccine. Not the first developed, but if I'm remembering correctly, none of the others made it out of trials.
      - OCASMv2 3y ago
        > 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. Of course they can: useless at preventing disease, damaging to the social development of children. > Minimizing the spread of covid. Did it? > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Warp_Speed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Warp_Speed The result: injections sold as vaccines that don't do what you expect a vaccine to do: stop transmission. > Also, people tried repurposing drugs (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivermectin#COVID-19 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivermectin#COVID-19). Individuals did, not the government, and the former were punished by the latter for it.
        MeImCounting 3y ago
        "noun 1. a substance used to stimulate immunity to a particular infectious disease or pathogen" Vaccines activate immunity against specific pathogens, reducing infection severity and transmission risk. COVID-19 vaccines decrease disease severity and transmission probability. This whole thing of "they arent vaccines" is bologna and everyone knows it