7 ms·

He was pointing out the hypocrisy in "trust the science" buzzwords used during the pandemic. Science is based on skepticism, not "trust", and being a skeptic b

He was pointing out the hypocrisy in "trust the science" buzzwords used during the pandemic. Science is based on skepticism, not "trust", and being a skeptic back then was somehow considered censorship-worthy. edit: because i'm being rate-limited for some reason (thanks mods), i'm refering to stuff like this: https://web.archive.org/web/20210402002315/https://www.msnbc.com/transcripts/transcript-rachel-maddow-show-3-29-21-n1262442 https://web.archive.org/web/20210402002315/https://www.msnbc... > And we have -- we can kind of almost see the end. We`re vaccinating so very fast, our data from the CDC today suggests, you know, that vaccinated people do not carry the virus, don`t get sick, and that it`s not just in the clinical trials but it`s also in real world data. Hey, the media, the CDC, "the science" says that if you're vaccinated, you're safe, you won't infect your immunocompromised grandma, you won't get sick, you won't spread covid. I mean... don't be a skeptic, "trust" them. Or you can say "even if you're vaccinated, you'll still get covid and still infect grandma", and be censored from most platforms" (back then).

exe34 2y ago
no, the skepticism is for people who understand what they are being skeptical about. if you have a degree in chemistry and you disagree with one other chemist, I'd have to listen to both of you and try to make up my own mind. if you disagree with 99% of chemists, then I'm not ingesting what you suggest nor avoiding what they recommend. you don't get to point to Facebook posts by uncle Rob who reposts crackpot ideas 24/7 and call that "a controversy". there is such a thing as being wrong.
wewtyflakes 2y ago
There seemed to be a lot of loud, bad-faith, antagonists in that era that likely ended up killing a lot of people. Things like drinking bleach, using de-wormer, don't get vaccines, masks are bad for you, etc... It was exhausting to hear because it got a whole big group of people to cosplay domain experts and the rest of us had to deal with the fallout of millions dying.
- ajsnigrutin 2y ago
  Sure, there are nutjobs everywhere, but contrary to principles of science, everyone was told to "trust the science". Not "be skeptical, verify, repeat, etc.", but "trust".... you shouldn't have to blidndly trust science, that's reserved for nutjobs speaking to god by yelling into a hat, where there's no way to verify. Many people also got vaccinated because the science mentioned 94% (or whatever) effciveness against covid infections, about preventing spread, and guess what, trusting that killed immunocompromised grandma too.
  - wewtyflakes 2y ago
    > trusting that killed immunocompromised grandma too. This is the sort of stuff that I was referring to above. It sounds shocking and plausible, but at the end of the day, if you flatly ask someone "would you like a 10% chance to die from covid (being a grandma), or would you like (some lower %) chance to die to prevent it", then why not try?
    - micka32123 2y ago
      [dead]
    - sethammons 2y ago
      What if you ask them, instead, "would you like a 1% chance of dying of covid (being a healthy male under 40) or an unknown chance at an unknown reaction that may include myocarditis from a new treatment?", then why do it? For a while, this was what those around me were saying. It was much, much later that covid itself was associated with even more myocarditis than the vaccine.
      - exe34 2y ago
        > unknown chance for values of "unknown chance" well under 1 in 100,000. you sound like the same kind of American who prefers the quarter pounder to the third pounder because 4 > 3.
8note 2y ago
> Hey, the media, the CDC, "the science" says that if you're vaccinated, you're safe, you won't infect your immunocompromised grandma, you won't get sick, you won't spread covid. to my knowledge, this is not what the science said. the science always said "if youre vaccinated, you are less likely to experience severe covid symptoms"
- lmm 2y ago
  The actual science, sure. But "the science" in the sense of what the media, and people arguing online, were claiming the science said, absolutely went a lot further than the evidence. It was widely claimed that the vaccines gave immunity, for example.
  - defrost 2y ago
    That's free speech in the US for you. Meanwhile, actual science, medical practitioners, have been clear for many decades that vaccines reduce infection and transmission rates, etc. Vaccines didn't "cure Polio" in any absolute sense, but they did make it possible to suppress it until it no longer appeared "in the wild" .. until it came back again.
    - lmm 2y ago
      Free speech beats the alternative. But it's important to realise that just because the media (or anyone) confidently claims something doesn't mean it's true (not generally because they're lying, just because they're wildly overconfident), and that's still true when they tell you what they're saying is "the science".
      - defrost 2y ago
        > (US) Free speech beats the alternative(s). Questionable. > and that's still true when they tell you what they're saying is "the science". Ditto "the earth is flat", "they are eating the cats", "it was a lab leak", .. etc. These are opinions not science.
      - 2y ago

exe34 2y ago

no, the skepticism is for people who understand what they are being skeptical about. if you have a degree in chemistry and you disagree with one other chemist, I'd have to listen to both of you and try to make up my own mind. if you disagree with 99% of chemists, then I'm not ingesting what you suggest nor avoiding what they recommend. you don't get to point to Facebook posts by uncle Rob who reposts crackpot ideas 24/7 and call that "a controversy". there is such a thing as being wrong.

wewtyflakes 2y ago

There seemed to be a lot of loud, bad-faith, antagonists in that era that likely ended up killing a lot of people. Things like drinking bleach, using de-wormer, don't get vaccines, masks are bad for you, etc... It was exhausting to hear because it got a whole big group of people to cosplay domain experts and the rest of us had to deal with the fallout of millions dying.

ajsnigrutin 2y ago
Sure, there are nutjobs everywhere, but contrary to principles of science, everyone was told to "trust the science". Not "be skeptical, verify, repeat, etc.", but "trust".... you shouldn't have to blidndly trust science, that's reserved for nutjobs speaking to god by yelling into a hat, where there's no way to verify. Many people also got vaccinated because the science mentioned 94% (or whatever) effciveness against covid infections, about preventing spread, and guess what, trusting that killed immunocompromised grandma too.
- wewtyflakes 2y ago
  > trusting that killed immunocompromised grandma too. This is the sort of stuff that I was referring to above. It sounds shocking and plausible, but at the end of the day, if you flatly ask someone "would you like a 10% chance to die from covid (being a grandma), or would you like (some lower %) chance to die to prevent it", then why not try?
  - micka32123 2y ago
    [dead]
  - sethammons 2y ago
    What if you ask them, instead, "would you like a 1% chance of dying of covid (being a healthy male under 40) or an unknown chance at an unknown reaction that may include myocarditis from a new treatment?", then why do it? For a while, this was what those around me were saying. It was much, much later that covid itself was associated with even more myocarditis than the vaccine.
    - exe34 2y ago
      > unknown chance for values of "unknown chance" well under 1 in 100,000. you sound like the same kind of American who prefers the quarter pounder to the third pounder because 4 > 3.

8note 2y ago

> Hey, the media, the CDC, "the science" says that if you're vaccinated, you're safe, you won't infect your immunocompromised grandma, you won't get sick, you won't spread covid. to my knowledge, this is not what the science said. the science always said "if youre vaccinated, you are less likely to experience severe covid symptoms"

lmm 2y ago
The actual science, sure. But "the science" in the sense of what the media, and people arguing online, were claiming the science said, absolutely went a lot further than the evidence. It was widely claimed that the vaccines gave immunity, for example.
- defrost 2y ago
  That's free speech in the US for you. Meanwhile, actual science, medical practitioners, have been clear for many decades that vaccines reduce infection and transmission rates, etc. Vaccines didn't "cure Polio" in any absolute sense, but they did make it possible to suppress it until it no longer appeared "in the wild" .. until it came back again.
  - lmm 2y ago
    Free speech beats the alternative. But it's important to realise that just because the media (or anyone) confidently claims something doesn't mean it's true (not generally because they're lying, just because they're wildly overconfident), and that's still true when they tell you what they're saying is "the science".
    - defrost 2y ago
      > (US) Free speech beats the alternative(s). Questionable. > and that's still true when they tell you what they're saying is "the science". Ditto "the earth is flat", "they are eating the cats", "it was a lab leak", .. etc. These are opinions not science.
    - 2y ago