5 ms·

> depending on what "side" you were on during covid It's bizarre that there should be "sides" for how to deal with a public health issue. I can understand diff

> depending on what "side" you were on during covid It's bizarre that there should be "sides" for how to deal with a public health issue. I can understand differing approaches, but it's the extreme polarisation that flabbergasts me.

kazinator 1y ago
If you don't want there to be sides during a pandemic, you have to engineer the pathogen such that it causes every infected person to melt in a puddle of grease with near 100% probability in about a week, with near 100% probability of transmission via any casual contact with infected persons at any stage of their infection. You just watch everyone scramble to the same side!
- whackernews 1y ago
  And look. The government doesn’t have to do anything!
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
- cryptonector 1y ago
  > If you don't want there to be sides during a pandemic, you have to engineer the pathogen such that it [...] Interesting phrase. "Engineer the pathogen".
- motorest 1y ago
  > If you don't want there to be sides during a pandemic, (...) Why do you believe a pandemic has sides?
  - kazinator 1y ago
    I believe it was recently observed.
    - ndsipa_pomu 1y ago
      It was mainly observed in parts of the USA
      - kazinator 1y ago
        1. Yes, parts of the USA inhabited by people. 2. Divided attitudes with regard to the locus of issues around Covid-19, and public policies, are far from exclusive to the USA.
firesteelrain 1y ago
[flagged]
- computerdork 1y ago
  Hmm, the number found online is that Covid killed 1.2 million in the US, so guessing the shutdown and vaccines probably saved millions. But your take is different. Guessing you disagree with the the 1.2m deaths figure? (not trying to be pushy, just curious on your take)
  - firesteelrain 1y ago
    The 1.2m number is what’s reported, but whether shutdowns and mandates prevented multiples of that is something we can’t actually prove. What we do know is that shutting the country down caused deep economic, educational, and mental-health damage that will take decades to unwind.
    - Graphon1 1y ago
      We had no idea what we were dealing with. It was unprecedented. People were doing the best they could. All the anger didn't help.
      - firesteelrain 1y ago
        I’m not sure it’s right to say we didn’t know what to do. Beaches and playgrounds were closed even though the risk of outdoor spread on surfaces was minimal. Those kinds of choices made the shutdown damage worse without clear public health benefit. We had the science to tell us that viruses don’t survive on beach surfaces for example
        acjohnson55 1y ago
        It was frustrating to have some of the outdoor ban stuff at a point when it was pretty clear that things were safe in highly ventilated environments. But in my opinion, that was relatively harmless compared to the backlash against common sense precautions, like properly fit N95 masks when sharing enclosed space. There's a lot of criticism of places that kept schools closed for longer than was necessary, in retrospect. But we really didn't know whether it would always be the case that the risks to children were low. The virus could have mutated in a way that brought more risk. Or there could have been chronic effects that could only be seen after the passage of time. Given the infectiousness of the virus, it could have been so much worse. I get the vaccine hesitancy. But I think a lot of people were not willing to accept that vaccination is not just about their own safety, but a collective safety issue.
cryptonector 1y ago
> It's bizarre that there should be "sides" for how to deal with a public health issue. It's a political issue no matter how you look at it, and it was a very political issue at that, considering what the state (throughout the Western world and elsewhere too) proposed doing. To paint it as merely a "public health issue" is doing people who don't agree a tremendous disservice, and it is very much part of the othering that has led us here. Please stop it.
- blackqueeriroh 1y ago
  Calling something a public health issue doesn’t take anything away from people who don’t agree (with what, exactly?)
  - cryptonector 1y ago
    > with what, exactly? The measures.
- ndsipa_pomu 1y ago
  Clearly, illnesses and diseases are public health issues as are systems to manage food safety. People who don't agree with trying to find the best way to manage public health are obviously sociopathic, though that doesn't mean that everyone has to agree on particular approaches e.g. masks may or may not be effective (though they seem to have now been shown effective in masking ICE agents which is ironic). Certain methods of dealing with public health issues have historically been shown to be incredibly effective (e.g. vaccination, milk pasteurisation etc), so it's disconcerning when there's a political movement that pushes an agenda that is clearly based on fear and not rational evaluation of the issues. It seems to me that there's a push to make the poorest sections of society become less healthy and more vulnerable.
  - cryptonector 1y ago
    > People who don't agree with trying to find the best way to manage public health are obviously sociopathic That's rich. People who want raw milk are sociopaths? Etc? Once again we have name-calling as a way to shut down debate. Might as well call for violence against people who don't agree with you, and I bet you have done just that. These false equivalences and exaggerations are in fact incitements to violence. You and all who do this should be ashamed of yourselves.
watwut 1y ago
It was simple. People without ethical limits seen their opening to weaponize fear and discomfort ... and succeeded.
- ttoinou 1y ago
  Your sentence can also be applied to both ‘sides’
  - ndsipa_pomu 1y ago
    I don't think that applies if one of the sides is using rational arguments and statistics. However, during the initial COVID outbreak, there was a lack of knowledge and statistics about it, so there was some element of guesswork involved (e.g. face masks may be effective as they help with some other infectious diseases, so let's try wearing them to see if that helps).
    - benmmurphy 1y ago
      There is a difference between 'lets try something out' and we will use the force of law to compel you to do something. A lot of people seem worried about over use of law enforcement but really its not a general problem with law enforcement but rather a problem with what laws are being enforced. They are happy to have law enforcement cracking down on people flouting a mask mandate but less happy when law enforcement is going after shop lifters.
      - ndsipa_pomu 1y ago
        Yes, there's often a lot of discussion about law enforcement priorities. In general, law enforcement is used to prevent harmful behaviour that disrupts society, so preventing theft is typically high up on the list. I think the people decrying shop lifters being targetted are highlighting the hypocrisy of societies that celebrate people who can steal huge amounts of money (e.g. not paying for work/services provided due to them being a large organisation) and yet demonise people who are struggling to survive and end up stealing food. I was somewhat on the fence about mask mandates (I'm in the UK by the way) as I didn't think the evidence for masks being effective was particularly strong, but I had no issue with wearing a mask in public as it seemed like a sensible precaution that wouldn't cause me any harm. Then, we had social distancing laws introduced which were fairly draconian, but most people tried to observe them. The real kicker was when Boris Johnson and his cronies were caught not following the laws that he himself had introduced.
qcnguy 1y ago
People who are scared award power to leaders, and leaders use that power to advance their social agenda rather than merely try and solve the problem that scared people. It was ever thus. Public health is not a technocratic field where there's always clearly one right answer. It presents itself as deciding on things that may hurt individuals but help the collective, and so it naturally attracts collectivists. In other words it's a political field, not a medical one. That then takes them into the realm of sides.
AbstractH24 1y ago
There’s nothing wrong with disagreement and discourse. As long as it’s founded in fact not emotion. What’s sad today is how much of “sides” today is based on emotion not fact. Very few facts in life are absolute.

kazinator 1y ago

If you don't want there to be sides during a pandemic, you have to engineer the pathogen such that it causes every infected person to melt in a puddle of grease with near 100% probability in about a week, with near 100% probability of transmission via any casual contact with infected persons at any stage of their infection. You just watch everyone scramble to the same side!

whackernews 1y ago
And look. The government doesn’t have to do anything!
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
cryptonector 1y ago
> If you don't want there to be sides during a pandemic, you have to engineer the pathogen such that it [...] Interesting phrase. "Engineer the pathogen".
motorest 1y ago
> If you don't want there to be sides during a pandemic, (...) Why do you believe a pandemic has sides?
- kazinator 1y ago
  I believe it was recently observed.
  - ndsipa_pomu 1y ago
    It was mainly observed in parts of the USA
    - kazinator 1y ago
      1. Yes, parts of the USA inhabited by people. 2. Divided attitudes with regard to the locus of issues around Covid-19, and public policies, are far from exclusive to the USA.

firesteelrain 1y ago

[flagged]

computerdork 1y ago
Hmm, the number found online is that Covid killed 1.2 million in the US, so guessing the shutdown and vaccines probably saved millions. But your take is different. Guessing you disagree with the the 1.2m deaths figure? (not trying to be pushy, just curious on your take)
- firesteelrain 1y ago
  The 1.2m number is what’s reported, but whether shutdowns and mandates prevented multiples of that is something we can’t actually prove. What we do know is that shutting the country down caused deep economic, educational, and mental-health damage that will take decades to unwind.
  - Graphon1 1y ago
    We had no idea what we were dealing with. It was unprecedented. People were doing the best they could. All the anger didn't help.
    - firesteelrain 1y ago
      I’m not sure it’s right to say we didn’t know what to do. Beaches and playgrounds were closed even though the risk of outdoor spread on surfaces was minimal. Those kinds of choices made the shutdown damage worse without clear public health benefit. We had the science to tell us that viruses don’t survive on beach surfaces for example
      - acjohnson55 1y ago
        It was frustrating to have some of the outdoor ban stuff at a point when it was pretty clear that things were safe in highly ventilated environments. But in my opinion, that was relatively harmless compared to the backlash against common sense precautions, like properly fit N95 masks when sharing enclosed space. There's a lot of criticism of places that kept schools closed for longer than was necessary, in retrospect. But we really didn't know whether it would always be the case that the risks to children were low. The virus could have mutated in a way that brought more risk. Or there could have been chronic effects that could only be seen after the passage of time. Given the infectiousness of the virus, it could have been so much worse. I get the vaccine hesitancy. But I think a lot of people were not willing to accept that vaccination is not just about their own safety, but a collective safety issue.

cryptonector 1y ago

> It's bizarre that there should be "sides" for how to deal with a public health issue. It's a political issue no matter how you look at it, and it was a very political issue at that, considering what the state (throughout the Western world and elsewhere too) proposed doing. To paint it as merely a "public health issue" is doing people who don't agree a tremendous disservice, and it is very much part of the othering that has led us here. Please stop it.

blackqueeriroh 1y ago
Calling something a public health issue doesn’t take anything away from people who don’t agree (with what, exactly?)
- cryptonector 1y ago
  > with what, exactly? The measures.
ndsipa_pomu 1y ago
Clearly, illnesses and diseases are public health issues as are systems to manage food safety. People who don't agree with trying to find the best way to manage public health are obviously sociopathic, though that doesn't mean that everyone has to agree on particular approaches e.g. masks may or may not be effective (though they seem to have now been shown effective in masking ICE agents which is ironic). Certain methods of dealing with public health issues have historically been shown to be incredibly effective (e.g. vaccination, milk pasteurisation etc), so it's disconcerning when there's a political movement that pushes an agenda that is clearly based on fear and not rational evaluation of the issues. It seems to me that there's a push to make the poorest sections of society become less healthy and more vulnerable.
- cryptonector 1y ago
  > People who don't agree with trying to find the best way to manage public health are obviously sociopathic That's rich. People who want raw milk are sociopaths? Etc? Once again we have name-calling as a way to shut down debate. Might as well call for violence against people who don't agree with you, and I bet you have done just that. These false equivalences and exaggerations are in fact incitements to violence. You and all who do this should be ashamed of yourselves.

watwut 1y ago

It was simple. People without ethical limits seen their opening to weaponize fear and discomfort ... and succeeded.

ttoinou 1y ago
Your sentence can also be applied to both ‘sides’
- ndsipa_pomu 1y ago
  I don't think that applies if one of the sides is using rational arguments and statistics. However, during the initial COVID outbreak, there was a lack of knowledge and statistics about it, so there was some element of guesswork involved (e.g. face masks may be effective as they help with some other infectious diseases, so let's try wearing them to see if that helps).
  - benmmurphy 1y ago
    There is a difference between 'lets try something out' and we will use the force of law to compel you to do something. A lot of people seem worried about over use of law enforcement but really its not a general problem with law enforcement but rather a problem with what laws are being enforced. They are happy to have law enforcement cracking down on people flouting a mask mandate but less happy when law enforcement is going after shop lifters.
    - ndsipa_pomu 1y ago
      Yes, there's often a lot of discussion about law enforcement priorities. In general, law enforcement is used to prevent harmful behaviour that disrupts society, so preventing theft is typically high up on the list. I think the people decrying shop lifters being targetted are highlighting the hypocrisy of societies that celebrate people who can steal huge amounts of money (e.g. not paying for work/services provided due to them being a large organisation) and yet demonise people who are struggling to survive and end up stealing food. I was somewhat on the fence about mask mandates (I'm in the UK by the way) as I didn't think the evidence for masks being effective was particularly strong, but I had no issue with wearing a mask in public as it seemed like a sensible precaution that wouldn't cause me any harm. Then, we had social distancing laws introduced which were fairly draconian, but most people tried to observe them. The real kicker was when Boris Johnson and his cronies were caught not following the laws that he himself had introduced.

qcnguy 1y ago

People who are scared award power to leaders, and leaders use that power to advance their social agenda rather than merely try and solve the problem that scared people. It was ever thus. Public health is not a technocratic field where there's always clearly one right answer. It presents itself as deciding on things that may hurt individuals but help the collective, and so it naturally attracts collectivists. In other words it's a political field, not a medical one. That then takes them into the realm of sides.

AbstractH24 1y ago

There’s nothing wrong with disagreement and discourse. As long as it’s founded in fact not emotion. What’s sad today is how much of “sides” today is based on emotion not fact. Very few facts in life are absolute.