You are giving an insane amount of good faith toward governments that have shown to get nearly everything wrong in the name of “we just didn’t know at the time so we were extra cautious”. It’s a bullshit position and absolves the people who took the stances they took of any wrong doing.
Number one, erring on the side of caution when one doesn’t have—and can’t yet have—all the data necessary is
logical. It’s not bullshit.
Number two, they didn’t get “almost everything wrong.” Vaccines worked, masks and social distancing helped, lockdowns worked well
in countries that participated and did them correctly.
Now, I am not saying that every decision governments made was good or right. I can list several that I disagreed with, including things Biden did, Cuomo in NY did, Newsom did, etc.
What I’m talking about here are decisions such as the one to lock down because of fear of how the pandemic *could potentirally* cause casualties and overwhelm healthcare personnel. Now, one may find out
later that wasn’t necessary, but that beats the hell out of not doing it and finding out later you needed to do it had the worst fears came true.
It was largely a no-win situation with a lot of the American public.
Yes, and we could go on and on about what didn’t make sense. Yet, when @Scerpi posted examples you hand waved them away.
This attitude is wrong and is why people get so upset.
He didn’t address a single thing I’d posted and responded with a wall of tweets that alleged a completely different thing than what I posted.
What he and I disagree on as far as I can tell is this false idea that social distancing guidelines weren’t backed by data. We don’t disagree that not letting a person walk up alone to a casket of a deceased loved one is a stupid decision and misapplication of the guidelines.
I did. Idiots at the top in the were filtering bad recommendations to idiots at companies who followed them. I advocated for full WFH and will advocate for it.
I think that’s great and I agree. I think in general we have a lot better infrastructure in place now should this happen again, than we did in 2020. And I generally oppose efforts to bring everyone back to the office.
This is a gross exaggeration. During the height of the “two weeks to flatten the curve” everyone was utterly freaked and following it. It was only after the CDC claimed natural immunity wouldn’t work and everyone had to wear cloth masks that didn’t filter the virus that people realized it was bullshit.
I think there’s a couple of errors here. The main issue with natural immunity was the massive numbers of sick and dying people it would’ve taken to a level of herd immunity that way.
There’s far less risk of prolonged symptoms or at worst, death, with vaccines. That’s why vaccination was preferable.
Likewise, I’ve already discussed Fauci’s error in saying the mask wouldn’t block the virus from escaping.
Now, does that mean that cloth masks are optimal? Of course not, we knew that then. It was better than nothing—and data shows that—and it’s what we had when N95s were needed by medical professionals.
Does it mean that they don’t do much good when idiots wear them below their nose and don’t clean them and wear the same gross mask day after day or whatever? Sure, they aren’t much help in that instance.
It seems maybe some misunderstandings about what flattening the curve was supposed to do.
I seriously cannot disagree more with this. The Trump side essentially said “do what you want” the left collectively wanted to put people in quarantine camps or jail if they disobeyed.
The left collectively wanted to put people in camps?? Absolute nonsense. There were a lot of false social media posts about that though.
I have posted before the study that was done that showed
40% of our COVID deaths were preventable if Trump had embraced scientific approaches instead of CTs and yelling “hoax” and “fake news” at it. A handful of red states used a disproportionate amount of emergency COVID medications, had much higher rates of infection due to their much lower rates of vaccination, and generally made getting through the pandemic a real bitch.
Really bad take again. Ivermectin was dismissed out of hand along with multiple other interventions before they had even been examined. You’re quick to define bad policy in the name of “we just didn’t know at the time” while dismissing this.
Et tu, Rob? You’re seriously going to try and defend this quack nonsense?
There was never any reliable data to indicate that people should be treated with Ivermectin for COVID. What I advocated for at the time was to continue to study it though—and we did, and it failed. I already posted some links to studies, I could probably post more. It doesn’t work, and can also cause serious effects, and it’s a damn good thing that medical professionals at large didn’t hurt people by using that shit.
