4 ms·

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,

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.
      - sethammons 2y ago
        I know four very negative covid vaccine reactions and zero covid anythings aside from two people saying it was the sickest they have ever felt. I don't know 100k people. Make up any stat that makes you feel smug to throw shade at my math skills. From my personal, lived experience, you can't say the sky ain't blue.
        exe34 2y ago
        Yes, anecdotes trump population studies any day. You really are dumb.
        bavell 2y ago
        Or perhaps the studies are flawed? (you know, what this whole thread is about?)
        exe34 2y ago
        yes the studies are flawed, because you know four cases yourself. that's exactly how studies are proven to be flawed. get your head out of your arse.
  - ajsnigrutin 2y ago
    No, the question is, do you 'trust the science', the quote from the director of cdc: > 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. ...and the visit grandma, who cannot get vaccinated (immunocompromised), because you're vaccinated, and don't carry the virus and don't get sick? Or are you one of those 'conspiracy theorists' who say "the vaccinated are carrying the virus, even if you're vaccinated, you'll still get sick and kill grandma"?
- exe34 2y ago
  > Not "be skeptical, verify, repeat, etc.", but "trust"... that's because you don't have the skills for it. you can't even deal with poor reporting, but you want to verify/repeat? did you also let your kids operate the oven before they could walk?
  - ajsnigrutin 2y ago
    So a direct quote by the director of the cdc is poor reporting? And what skills do I need? "The science" was literally changing every few days. Trust us, vaccinated pople don't carry the virus. And then a few months later "whoops". https://www.reuters.com/article/world/fact-checkoutdated-video-of-fauci-saying-theres-no-reason-to-be-walking-arou-idUSKBN26T2T9/ https://www.reuters.com/article/world/fact-checkoutdated-vid... > In the clip, Dr Fauci says “There’s no reason to be walking around with a mask. When you’re in the middle of an outbreak, wearing a mask might make people feel a little bit better and it might even block a droplet, but it’s not providing the perfect protection that people think that it is. And, often, there are unintended consequences — people keep fiddling with the mask and they keep touching their face.” Trust us, there's no reason to be walking around with a mask. And then a few weeks later, again "trust us, you need a mask". To simplify for you, you can trust yor girlfriend (boyfriend, whatver), but after s/he cheats on you multiple times and changes her(his) story the same amount of times, the trust is lost.
    - exe34 2y ago
      > "The science" was literally changing every few days" the world's sum total knowledge about the virus was changing from day to day - what did you want - stone tablets and burning bushes? the mask message made sense: they were very clear, that in the early stages, it didn't make sense for everybody to wear them (community transmission was still low) and deprive medical personnel who needed them desperately (they were far more likely to encounter the virus for reasons I hope you are smart enough to figure out for yourself - but shout out and I'll try to explain further if it's not clear). later on when community transmission was high and we had much larger supplies of masks, it made sense for more people to wear them, because then it would make a difference to the total transmission. it seems that you just wanted an all knowing parental figure to tell you what to do and never change their opinion - that's not how real life works. in the adult world, when new information becomes available, or the situation changes, the rules can be changed. this isn't church. and yes, even the chief of the cdc can be wrong, speak wrong, make mistakes, or get a message across poorly trying to produce short and snappy soundbites that the likes of you have a chance of remembering. but the underlying message wasn't wrong, it was correct based on available evidence at the time. it was a stressful situation and they probably didn't get much sleep for several months.
- nicoburns 2y ago
  The emphasis on "trust the science" is the "the science", not "trust". Everyone ultimately needs to trust something, and it is better if that is a scientific consensus than if it's what the anchors on fox news are saying.

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.
    - sethammons 2y ago
      I know four very negative covid vaccine reactions and zero covid anythings aside from two people saying it was the sickest they have ever felt. I don't know 100k people. Make up any stat that makes you feel smug to throw shade at my math skills. From my personal, lived experience, you can't say the sky ain't blue.
      - exe34 2y ago
        Yes, anecdotes trump population studies any day. You really are dumb.
        bavell 2y ago
        Or perhaps the studies are flawed? (you know, what this whole thread is about?)
        exe34 2y ago
        yes the studies are flawed, because you know four cases yourself. that's exactly how studies are proven to be flawed. get your head out of your arse.
- ajsnigrutin 2y ago
  No, the question is, do you 'trust the science', the quote from the director of cdc: > 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. ...and the visit grandma, who cannot get vaccinated (immunocompromised), because you're vaccinated, and don't carry the virus and don't get sick? Or are you one of those 'conspiracy theorists' who say "the vaccinated are carrying the virus, even if you're vaccinated, you'll still get sick and kill grandma"?
exe34 2y ago
> Not "be skeptical, verify, repeat, etc.", but "trust"... that's because you don't have the skills for it. you can't even deal with poor reporting, but you want to verify/repeat? did you also let your kids operate the oven before they could walk?
- ajsnigrutin 2y ago
  So a direct quote by the director of the cdc is poor reporting? And what skills do I need? "The science" was literally changing every few days. Trust us, vaccinated pople don't carry the virus. And then a few months later "whoops". https://www.reuters.com/article/world/fact-checkoutdated-video-of-fauci-saying-theres-no-reason-to-be-walking-arou-idUSKBN26T2T9/ https://www.reuters.com/article/world/fact-checkoutdated-vid... > In the clip, Dr Fauci says “There’s no reason to be walking around with a mask. When you’re in the middle of an outbreak, wearing a mask might make people feel a little bit better and it might even block a droplet, but it’s not providing the perfect protection that people think that it is. And, often, there are unintended consequences — people keep fiddling with the mask and they keep touching their face.” Trust us, there's no reason to be walking around with a mask. And then a few weeks later, again "trust us, you need a mask". To simplify for you, you can trust yor girlfriend (boyfriend, whatver), but after s/he cheats on you multiple times and changes her(his) story the same amount of times, the trust is lost.
  - exe34 2y ago
    > "The science" was literally changing every few days" the world's sum total knowledge about the virus was changing from day to day - what did you want - stone tablets and burning bushes? the mask message made sense: they were very clear, that in the early stages, it didn't make sense for everybody to wear them (community transmission was still low) and deprive medical personnel who needed them desperately (they were far more likely to encounter the virus for reasons I hope you are smart enough to figure out for yourself - but shout out and I'll try to explain further if it's not clear). later on when community transmission was high and we had much larger supplies of masks, it made sense for more people to wear them, because then it would make a difference to the total transmission. it seems that you just wanted an all knowing parental figure to tell you what to do and never change their opinion - that's not how real life works. in the adult world, when new information becomes available, or the situation changes, the rules can be changed. this isn't church. and yes, even the chief of the cdc can be wrong, speak wrong, make mistakes, or get a message across poorly trying to produce short and snappy soundbites that the likes of you have a chance of remembering. but the underlying message wasn't wrong, it was correct based on available evidence at the time. it was a stressful situation and they probably didn't get much sleep for several months.
nicoburns 2y ago
The emphasis on "trust the science" is the "the science", not "trust". Everyone ultimately needs to trust something, and it is better if that is a scientific consensus than if it's what the anchors on fox news are saying.