3 ms·

But for science to change, you must NOT trust existing science. The opposite of what 'the science' was telling people to do - "trust science". The first mask m

But for science to change, you must NOT trust existing science. The opposite of what 'the science' was telling people to do - "trust science". The first mask message was that you don't need a mask. If you then censor and ban everyone who says "don't listen to fauci, buy a mask", and a few weeks later ban everyone who says "listen to fauci's statement two weeks ago, you don't need a mask", who's left then? If the "science changed", then the people not trusting the first "truth" were correct in not trusting it. But we censored them and called them idiots for buying and wearing masks, before the 'science changed'. They didn't trust fauci and the science, and had masks, the ones who trusted, didn't. People literally died, that could have been saved by wearing a mask before mask mandates. Also people died because they trusted the vaccines, and killed other people, because they trusted the vaccines wold prevent spread. If you trusted the CDC director and visited grandma, you might have killed her. If you didnt trust the effectiveness of vaccines, you didn't visit her, and she could be still alive. We had 4 types of vaccines in my country, astrazeneca, j&j, moderna and pfizer. All of them were "safe and effective". Then astrazeneca was pulled out, because of heart issues, but the other three were safe and effective. Then j&j was pulled out. Then moderna. In my country (~2mio pop), we had 5 deaths with(!) covid in the sub 35yo group (with the wonky counting of deaths), which is less than suicide deaths, overdoses, etc. Also 1 vaccine death ( https://www.gov.si/en/news/2021-11-30-expert-commission-confirms-link-between-janssen-vaccine-and-death-of-20-year-old-woman/ https://www.gov.si/en/news/2021-11-30-expert-commission-conf... ) Look, I know what you're trying to say, scientists know what they're doing, but i'm pointing out that "trust" is not the right word to be used with science. Church? Sure, trust someone with some imaginary friend, because more than trust is impossible. But with science (as you said "total knowledge about the virus was changing from day to day"), you cannot call people to 'trust' it, because (again, as you said yourself), the science was wrong and "changed" and trust is broken. Also "hey, we lied to you before, because we were incompetent at buying masks for medcical workers, so we instead chose to risk your life instead" is a stupid argument. This is how you lose what little is left of "trust" in those authorities. TLDR: if you trust, you're stuck with stone tablets and burning bushes (well, leeches and smoke enemas in case of medical treatments). Only with distrust can science go forwards. If we banned all the smoke-enema skeptics back then, we'd never more onwards from there.

exe34 2y ago
> The first mask message was that you don't need a mask. If you then censor and ban everyone who says "don't listen to fauci, buy a mask", and a few weeks later ban everyone who says "listen to fauci's statement two weeks ago, you don't need a mask", who's left then? If the "science changed", then the people not trusting the first "truth" were correct in not trusting it. But we censored them and called them idiots for buying and wearing masks, before the 'science changed'. They didn't trust fauci and the science, and had masks, the ones who trusted, didn't. Firstly, nobody in the medical establishment nor government told anybody they were idiots for wearing a mask. They said masks were not necessary. Nobody censored them, you are getting your timelines confused. You should talk to a medical professional about that. The people whose comments had a "fact check" added were the ones saying you shouldn't wear a mask when it became important to wear one. I think I can see where you're struggling. It's likely you are too stupid to understand it, but I'm feeling generous, so I'm going to try anyway. Early on in a pandemic, if you have 300M people, and 1% have the virus, and 1% of that shows symptoms and go to the hospital, you have 30,000 people showing up at hospitals with the potential to infect say 10 medical personel they come into contact each - so you need fully 300,000 masks being worn by the professionals. If the national supply of masks is 500,000, then it makes no sense for the whole population to wear them. The individual non-medical person is very unlikely to come across an infected person during their day, while the doctors desperately need them to be able to keep helping those who need it. Does that make sense? Once there is community transmission, and 20% of the population has the virus, then the average person has a much higher probability of coming across the virus and getting infected - this was also much later in the pandemic, so the supply of masks was much higher. Then it makes sense for everybody to wear them, and cunts like you who then went around pulling them off people's faces put them at risk. Do you get it? There is a very big difference here, and I really hope you get it this time, I have tried really hard to explain it. > But for science to change, you must NOT trust existing science. The opposite of what 'the science' was telling people to do - "trust science". Who's "you"? You? No, you're a dumb idiot. It's not about not trusting - it's about knowing that new information could justify a change in policy and not trying to hide it. This isn't the republican convention or the catholic church trying to hide criminal evidence - it's about accepting that new information can and should change your mind. > People literally died, that could have been saved by wearing a mask before mask mandates. I think you're full of shit. Nobody was stopped from wearing a mask if they wanted. The message was that there was no need for the general population to wear them and deprive the doctors who did absolutely need them. People with compromised immune systems were told early on to avoid crowds, to take precautions, etc. I suspect a very small number of people died from that. If you think it's a significant population, that's on you to provide evidence. > Also people died because they trusted the vaccines, This one is very well documented - a minuscule number of people died from the vaccines, and they had conditions that would have killed them if they got the actual virus anyway. It wasn't a vaccine specific issue. > and killed other people, because they trusted the vaccines wold prevent spread. If you trusted the CDC director and visited grandma, you might have killed her. If you didnt trust the effectiveness of vaccines, you didn't visit her, and she could be still alive. Again, I think you are full of shit. The people who decided to visit and kill grandma were specifically those who didn't give a shit about anybody but themselves, and were doing it anyway. They weren't likely to have been vaccinated in the first place. > We had 4 types of vaccines in my country, astrazeneca, j&j, moderna and pfizer. All of them were "safe and effective". Then astrazeneca was pulled out, because of heart issues, but the other three were safe and effective. Then j&j was pulled out. Then moderna. In my country (~2mio pop), we had 5 deaths with(!) covid in the sub 35yo group (with the wonky counting of deaths), which is less than suicide deaths, overdoses, etc They weren't pulled out because of heart issues, they were replaced by newer versions for the new variants. Pull your head out of your arse for once. > Look, I know what you're trying to say, scientists know what they're doing, but i'm pointing out that "trust" is not the right word to be used with science. Church? Sure, trust someone with some imaginary friend, because more than trust is impossible. But with science (as you said "total knowledge about the virus was changing from day to day"), you cannot call people to 'trust' it, because (again, as you said yourself), the science was wrong and "changed" and trust is broken. The word you're thinking about is faith. You want unshakable faith in the word of the great leader - you're not going to find peace that way.

exe34 2y ago

> The first mask message was that you don't need a mask. If you then censor and ban everyone who says "don't listen to fauci, buy a mask", and a few weeks later ban everyone who says "listen to fauci's statement two weeks ago, you don't need a mask", who's left then? If the "science changed", then the people not trusting the first "truth" were correct in not trusting it. But we censored them and called them idiots for buying and wearing masks, before the 'science changed'. They didn't trust fauci and the science, and had masks, the ones who trusted, didn't. Firstly, nobody in the medical establishment nor government told anybody they were idiots for wearing a mask. They said masks were not necessary. Nobody censored them, you are getting your timelines confused. You should talk to a medical professional about that. The people whose comments had a "fact check" added were the ones saying you shouldn't wear a mask when it became important to wear one. I think I can see where you're struggling. It's likely you are too stupid to understand it, but I'm feeling generous, so I'm going to try anyway. Early on in a pandemic, if you have 300M people, and 1% have the virus, and 1% of that shows symptoms and go to the hospital, you have 30,000 people showing up at hospitals with the potential to infect say 10 medical personel they come into contact each - so you need fully 300,000 masks being worn by the professionals. If the national supply of masks is 500,000, then it makes no sense for the whole population to wear them. The individual non-medical person is very unlikely to come across an infected person during their day, while the doctors desperately need them to be able to keep helping those who need it. Does that make sense? Once there is community transmission, and 20% of the population has the virus, then the average person has a much higher probability of coming across the virus and getting infected - this was also much later in the pandemic, so the supply of masks was much higher. Then it makes sense for everybody to wear them, and cunts like you who then went around pulling them off people's faces put them at risk. Do you get it? There is a very big difference here, and I really hope you get it this time, I have tried really hard to explain it. > But for science to change, you must NOT trust existing science. The opposite of what 'the science' was telling people to do - "trust science". Who's "you"? You? No, you're a dumb idiot. It's not about not trusting - it's about knowing that new information could justify a change in policy and not trying to hide it. This isn't the republican convention or the catholic church trying to hide criminal evidence - it's about accepting that new information can and should change your mind. > People literally died, that could have been saved by wearing a mask before mask mandates. I think you're full of shit. Nobody was stopped from wearing a mask if they wanted. The message was that there was no need for the general population to wear them and deprive the doctors who did absolutely need them. People with compromised immune systems were told early on to avoid crowds, to take precautions, etc. I suspect a very small number of people died from that. If you think it's a significant population, that's on you to provide evidence. > Also people died because they trusted the vaccines, This one is very well documented - a minuscule number of people died from the vaccines, and they had conditions that would have killed them if they got the actual virus anyway. It wasn't a vaccine specific issue. > and killed other people, because they trusted the vaccines wold prevent spread. If you trusted the CDC director and visited grandma, you might have killed her. If you didnt trust the effectiveness of vaccines, you didn't visit her, and she could be still alive. Again, I think you are full of shit. The people who decided to visit and kill grandma were specifically those who didn't give a shit about anybody but themselves, and were doing it anyway. They weren't likely to have been vaccinated in the first place. > We had 4 types of vaccines in my country, astrazeneca, j&j, moderna and pfizer. All of them were "safe and effective". Then astrazeneca was pulled out, because of heart issues, but the other three were safe and effective. Then j&j was pulled out. Then moderna. In my country (~2mio pop), we had 5 deaths with(!) covid in the sub 35yo group (with the wonky counting of deaths), which is less than suicide deaths, overdoses, etc They weren't pulled out because of heart issues, they were replaced by newer versions for the new variants. Pull your head out of your arse for once. > Look, I know what you're trying to say, scientists know what they're doing, but i'm pointing out that "trust" is not the right word to be used with science. Church? Sure, trust someone with some imaginary friend, because more than trust is impossible. But with science (as you said "total knowledge about the virus was changing from day to day"), you cannot call people to 'trust' it, because (again, as you said yourself), the science was wrong and "changed" and trust is broken. The word you're thinking about is faith. You want unshakable faith in the word of the great leader - you're not going to find peace that way.