5 ms·

We were all told to shut the fuck up and listen to a handful of cherry picked “doomsday experts” who refused to follow their own data, didn’t follow their own s

We were all told to shut the fuck up and listen to a handful of cherry picked “doomsday experts” who refused to follow their own data, didn’t follow their own science and refused to acknowledge that society has millions of problems beyond one very single, very specific thing. And if we didn’t follow their edict’s or if we were to express any doubt of any kind, we were evil alt-right grandma killers who deserved horrible Covid deaths. Heathy discourse was absolutely not allowed. You were either 100% on board with whatever crazy shit your local politicians threw against the wall or you were a pile of shit sub human scumball. Didn’t matter they had no definition of success, no long term gameplan, no acknowledgment of the harms they were causing… in fact it didn’t even matter that these experts and politicians didn’t follow their own policies, you were told to suck it up buttercup this is the “new normal” and it’s forever. I don’t think this is a “both sides have a good argument” kind of deal. What the Covid “side” did was abhorrent and history will not look fondly on them at all.

ben_w 2y ago
> What the Covid “side” did was abhorrent and history will not look fondly on them at all. History will look on this the same way as it did on Spanish Flu: Barely at all, even when it has valuable lessons for the next pandemic. The former told me that people would stop wearing masks very very quickly.
- lc9er 2y ago
  I’ll never understand the people that want their offense at being labeled a “Typhoid Mary” to be taken as seriously as their anti-social, Typhoid Mary behavior.
  - ben_w 2y ago
    Mm. Humans are social animals, I find a lot of things makes a lot more sense through that lens — shooting the messenger included.
  - aakresearch 2y ago
    Mary Mallon's case was singled out of many more similar cases. She was treated unfairly and with prejudice. No wonder she behaved "anti-socially".
    - ben_w 2y ago
      Two people being treated unequally doesn't tell you who was being treated unfairly. In her case, if there were indeed comparable cases of people repeatedly refusing to follow medical isolation, it's the others who were unfairly given freedom to continue to infect and kill innocent people.
      - aakresearch 2y ago
        It has nothing at all to do with treatment being unequal. I only form my opinion from the current Wikipedia article, and this is how it looks to me. - Mary Mallon, herself, was just as innocent, yet she was treated as a criminal, which is unfair. - Her treatment was "hectic" as per Wikipedia. I'd say it was unreasonable and dangerous, with a big pile of negligence. - Communication and information given to her was inconsistent at best. - She had all the rights and reasons to disbelieve and dispute all conjectures made about her. Contemporary state-of-the-art knowledge and practices in medicine and "public health" was nowhere near conclusive and confident. She had a good shot at collecting evidence to prove her case, but to my understanding she was denied a fair judgement - case was dismissed before hearing. However, I believe that her continuous isolation could not be justified "beyond reasonable doubt" even by our modern knowledge and standard of proof! - The demands put on her were unreasonable and excessive. - He name was dragged through media, forever tainted in the process. - She was never given appropriate consideration/compensation for all the conditions of her treatment and limitations of release. They could have offered her a lifetime pension which would have removed the need for her to work as a cook. They could have recruited her for research program, compensated accordingly. Instead, she was expected to bear full cost of all conditions put on her. The best shot at compensation was a promise of royalties for yet-unwritten book dragging her name through more mud. Which only added insult to injury, understandably, as it would absolutely do for so many of us. - My understanding is that other similar cases were not "refused requests to isolate", but such requests were not even made, making Mary's case unfairly singled out. - Last but not least, I absolutely disagree with your chosen turn of phrase that others were "unfairly given freedom". Freedom is not given, it is a default state of being. To take it away requires extraordinary justification, which in Mary's case was awfully deficient and remains so to this day.
Zenzero 2y ago
> We were all told to shut the fuck up and listen to a handful of cherry picked “doomsday experts” No, you were told to out aside your opinions and allow people educated in epidemiology to guide a rapidly changing situation. It turns out the there were too many people with a chip on their shoulder to make the policy recommendations effective. > if we were to express any doubt of any kind, we were evil alt-right grandma killers who deserved horrible Covid deaths. Pointless hyperbole. > no acknowledgment of the harms they were causing Such as? > What the Covid “side” did was abhorrent and history will not look fondly on them at all. Reading between the lines it seems like you have many baked in assumptions that distort your perception of the event.
- electrondood 2y ago
  Thank you. The revisionism in this thread is ridiculous. There was no oppressive regime forcing you to do anything. There were common sense, effective public health recommendations for mitigating a novel virus that spread faster than anything we'd seen, whose death rate was not known, and for which we had no vaccine or mitigation except for masking/distancing. No one was forcing you to stay indoors. You were asked to wear a mask around other people, and most private businesses chose to require customers and employees to wear one, as is their right.
  - Zenzero 2y ago
    Exactly. It's maddening seeing all of these uneducated people spouting full throated delusions as fact and everyone else allows these people to have room to spread their nonsense. Im frankly pretty shocked that HN, which usually has a relatively educated user base compared to most other sites, is allowing this kind of drivel from people who have no idea what they are talking about.
    - aakresearch 2y ago
      Eloquent primer on "cogent argument" which is totally not "rambling stream of anger and emotion". Perfect basis for a healthy, respectful debate. I'm really sorry I did bite on this provocation, but hope your post stays up for everyone to see and make their own judgement.

ben_w 2y ago

> What the Covid “side” did was abhorrent and history will not look fondly on them at all. History will look on this the same way as it did on Spanish Flu: Barely at all, even when it has valuable lessons for the next pandemic. The former told me that people would stop wearing masks very very quickly.

lc9er 2y ago
I’ll never understand the people that want their offense at being labeled a “Typhoid Mary” to be taken as seriously as their anti-social, Typhoid Mary behavior.
- ben_w 2y ago
  Mm. Humans are social animals, I find a lot of things makes a lot more sense through that lens — shooting the messenger included.
- aakresearch 2y ago
  Mary Mallon's case was singled out of many more similar cases. She was treated unfairly and with prejudice. No wonder she behaved "anti-socially".
  - ben_w 2y ago
    Two people being treated unequally doesn't tell you who was being treated unfairly. In her case, if there were indeed comparable cases of people repeatedly refusing to follow medical isolation, it's the others who were unfairly given freedom to continue to infect and kill innocent people.
    - aakresearch 2y ago
      It has nothing at all to do with treatment being unequal. I only form my opinion from the current Wikipedia article, and this is how it looks to me. - Mary Mallon, herself, was just as innocent, yet she was treated as a criminal, which is unfair. - Her treatment was "hectic" as per Wikipedia. I'd say it was unreasonable and dangerous, with a big pile of negligence. - Communication and information given to her was inconsistent at best. - She had all the rights and reasons to disbelieve and dispute all conjectures made about her. Contemporary state-of-the-art knowledge and practices in medicine and "public health" was nowhere near conclusive and confident. She had a good shot at collecting evidence to prove her case, but to my understanding she was denied a fair judgement - case was dismissed before hearing. However, I believe that her continuous isolation could not be justified "beyond reasonable doubt" even by our modern knowledge and standard of proof! - The demands put on her were unreasonable and excessive. - He name was dragged through media, forever tainted in the process. - She was never given appropriate consideration/compensation for all the conditions of her treatment and limitations of release. They could have offered her a lifetime pension which would have removed the need for her to work as a cook. They could have recruited her for research program, compensated accordingly. Instead, she was expected to bear full cost of all conditions put on her. The best shot at compensation was a promise of royalties for yet-unwritten book dragging her name through more mud. Which only added insult to injury, understandably, as it would absolutely do for so many of us. - My understanding is that other similar cases were not "refused requests to isolate", but such requests were not even made, making Mary's case unfairly singled out. - Last but not least, I absolutely disagree with your chosen turn of phrase that others were "unfairly given freedom". Freedom is not given, it is a default state of being. To take it away requires extraordinary justification, which in Mary's case was awfully deficient and remains so to this day.

Zenzero 2y ago

> We were all told to shut the fuck up and listen to a handful of cherry picked “doomsday experts” No, you were told to out aside your opinions and allow people educated in epidemiology to guide a rapidly changing situation. It turns out the there were too many people with a chip on their shoulder to make the policy recommendations effective. > if we were to express any doubt of any kind, we were evil alt-right grandma killers who deserved horrible Covid deaths. Pointless hyperbole. > no acknowledgment of the harms they were causing Such as? > What the Covid “side” did was abhorrent and history will not look fondly on them at all. Reading between the lines it seems like you have many baked in assumptions that distort your perception of the event.

electrondood 2y ago
Thank you. The revisionism in this thread is ridiculous. There was no oppressive regime forcing you to do anything. There were common sense, effective public health recommendations for mitigating a novel virus that spread faster than anything we'd seen, whose death rate was not known, and for which we had no vaccine or mitigation except for masking/distancing. No one was forcing you to stay indoors. You were asked to wear a mask around other people, and most private businesses chose to require customers and employees to wear one, as is their right.
- Zenzero 2y ago
  Exactly. It's maddening seeing all of these uneducated people spouting full throated delusions as fact and everyone else allows these people to have room to spread their nonsense. Im frankly pretty shocked that HN, which usually has a relatively educated user base compared to most other sites, is allowing this kind of drivel from people who have no idea what they are talking about.
  - aakresearch 2y ago
    Eloquent primer on "cogent argument" which is totally not "rambling stream of anger and emotion". Perfect basis for a healthy, respectful debate. I'm really sorry I did bite on this provocation, but hope your post stays up for everyone to see and make their own judgement.