PART 1 OF 3
Just because people like Robbins now 'think' they were wrong doesn't mean they are now actually right.
Which he suggests right there in the video. It's not about thinking you're right. To the contrary, it's about questioning everything, including yourself, never thinking you or anyone else knows it all, and heavily scrutinizing those who claim they do.
It's always good to question things that seem clearcut, even if just to verify it.
Below is what we can surmise (and should have back then) regarding SARS-CoV-2 based on the best available information:
1.) Ventilation should have been a messaging priority.
Something that was completely missed during this whole ordeal is that the best measure against the spread of an aerosolized virus, which we've known (or should have known) since the days of the tuberculous outbreak, is ventilation, i.e. opening the damn windows. Contained, recycled air is an airborne contagion’s best friend. I find it inexplicable that this was not the primary focus of any messaging, which for me instantly made anything else touted highly dubious. Seriously, barely a peep on this front. And yet, while not a complete solution, being only one component of a combined approach, it would have made more difference than anything else alone.
2.) While lockdowns did slow spread, they only delayed the inevitable.
Regarding lockdowns, they were most effective if implemented immediately (for the duration of the lockdown only), but in many cases they were misused to justify social overreach for political or other reasons. Arresting people on beaches, in parks or gathering for church outdoors was counter to medical science since the chances of transmitting it outdoors is very small, motivated by power mongering or errant beliefs, causing social harm. Yes, isolation logically did slow the spread, serving to help prevent hospital overflow, and studies show a decline in infection rates during lockdown mandate periods, but it didn’t produce an optimal endgame outcome.
And this is what Tim Robbins and Russell Brand are talking about. They aren’t countering the idea that lockdowns prevent the spread of disease. They’re questioning the method with which they were implemented, the way some of them continue to this day despite studies that show net negative impacts, and the abuse and overreach that many of these lockdowns evolved into.
Some countries locked down very early on and saw better results during the short-term than those that waited (which is completely logical, stopping propagation before it got started), or those who had no lockdowns. But once all was said and done here two and half years later, the percentage of sick/dead were similar to countries that had little to no lockdowns (there are other factors that play into these numbers). The lesson might be that lockdowns can be effective, but have little value if delayed, and negative value if prolonged, especially if abused. And when weighing all factors in totality they almost certainly cause more harm than good. So yes they worked, but they worked too well, killing jobs, destroying economies, trashing immune systems, devastating education, damaging socialization of the young with lifelong impacts, etc., while only postponing the ultimate result. I don’t call that a win, but a massive misstep.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9426308/
https://ihpi.umich.edu/news/lockdowns-during-early-pandemic-saved-lives-not-go-strategy-moving-forward
https://www.abc4.com/coronavirus/did-lockdowns-actually-help-prevent-spread-of-covid-19/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7879021/
https://www.acsh.org/news/2022/09/21/did-covid-lockdowns-work-16563
https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/wellness/study-finds-lockdowns-didn-t-work/ar-AATERgf
https://www.themainewire.com/2022/03/sweden-once-mocked-for-its-covid-strategy-now-has-one-of-the-lowest-covid-mortality-rates-in-europe/
https://health.wusf.usf.edu/health-news-florida/2022-02-02/a-johns-hopkins-study-says-ill-founded-lockdowns-did-little-to-limit-covid-deaths
https://www.aier.org/article/lockdowns-do-not-control-the-coronavirus-the-evidence/
Plus, lack of exposure to other viruses and bacteria, even the common cold, weakened immune systems, which is now producing a burst of people getting sicker than usual, especially the very young. I just experienced this myself when catching RSV and Mono from a grandchild, and it was the worst thing I’ve experienced since a bad bout with strep in my 20s—I’m 5 weeks in and still fighting it. The good news is that this is probably temporary, and is not the product of the so-called erroneous and disproven “hygiene hypothesis” some have claimed. Instead, the current phenomenon is probably the result of those viruses all crashing together as people return to “normalcy”, back into a daily pattern of exposure, and it will over time level out as the species readapts to physical interaction.
CONTINUE TO PART 2>>>
reply
share
warrior-poet (1364)
2 years ago
PART 2 OF 3
Life on Earth evolved alongside viruses, and through natural processes the more we’re exposed to them, the better the ultimate outcome for the species, i.e. we tend to come out with a stronger, broader spectrum of immunity.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/26/health/rsv-immunity-gap/index.html
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/the-super-cold-phenomenon-what-is-it-and-should-we-be-worried
https://www.newsweek.com/covid-lockdowns-causing-spike-children-illnesses-1766013
https://www.inverse.com/mind-body/did-lockdowns-weaken-my-immune-system
https://nypost.com/2022/06/14/kids-immune-systems-weakened-after-covid-lockdowns/
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/may/16/how-will-isolation-affect-long-term-immunity
3.) The vaccines, while providing protective value, did little to stop spread
Statistically, the mRNA vaccines, while having side effects—sometimes fatal—in a very small percentage of people, helped reduce the impact of those who were infected (although with only a 6-month efficacy). But the claims by those in power that they prevented spread were patently false. They weren’t even designed to prevent transmission, only as a mitigation measure if infected, with evidence suggesting some reduction of being infected (but not stopping transmission once infected). This gave people a false sense of security, who ended up infecting others. The misinformation (and blocking of valid questions) around the COVID vaccines misled many people into engaging in social behaviors that put them in close proximity with each other, usually in their own unventilated homes – and this is a very important point –negating much of the good initial public short-term lockdowns may have had.
https://www.bmj.com/content/376/bmj.o298
https://www.michigancapitolconfidential.com/news/pfizer-admits-covid-vaccine-was-never-meant-to-stop-transmission
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/oct/28/covid-vaccinated-likely-unjabbed-infect-cohabiters-study-suggests
https://www.stardem.com/news/national/cdc-covid-vaccines-won-t-stop-transmission-fully-vaccinated-can-still-get-spread-delta-strain/article_5f83d0cb-8b0a-535d-bbad-3f571754e5ae.html
https://www.audacy.com/kmox/news/national/cdc-director-says-vaccines-are-not-preventing-transmission
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/19/health/omicron-vaccines-efficacy.html
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00768-4/fulltext
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-10-28/getting-vaccinated-doesn-t-stop-people-from-spreading-delta
https://healthfeedback.org/claimreview/scientific-studies-show-pfizer-biontech-covid-19-vaccine-reduces-transmission-claim-rob-roos-misleading/#:~:text=But%20this%20is%20an%20overstatement,virus%2C%20if%20they%20get%20infected.
4.) Cloth masks did little to prevent spread
Yes, they stop large droplets from sneezing, coughing, etc., but very little to stop transmission by simply breathing (i.e. the only way to truly stop COVID transmission would be to stop breathing). The notion that they worked led to spreading the virus. Few want to admit this. Many people believed the instructions that wearing a cloth mask, or even two or three, prevented the spread of COVID-19. Instead, because COVID-19 is only .1 to .3 microns in size, much smaller than the pores of a cloth mask, all it did was give them a false sense of security like with the vaccines, duping them into gathering in unventilated enclosed spaces and infecting each other. Only N95 masks would have been effective. They cause their own problems when wearing them for prolonged periods of time, but it’s a worthy tradeoff. Cloth masks should have never even been mentioned. N95s should have been pushed hard from the get-go. The botched handling and confused messaging of this contributed to spread, diminishing any good the lockdowns had.
https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2022-03-01/cloth-masks-dont-cut-it-for-keeping-covid-away
https://khn.org/morning-breakout/cdc-says-cloth-masks-dont-protect-against-covid-as-much-as-n95s-kn95s/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7510705/
https://www.webmd.com/covid/news/20220115/cdc-updates-mask-guidelines-cloth-masks--least-effective
https://www.cbs42.com/news/health/coronavirus/health-experts-warn-to-stop-wearing-cloth-masks/
https://www.infectioncontroltoday.com/view/cloth-masks-are-useless-against-covid-19-redux-omicron-version
CONTINUE TO PART 3>>>
reply
share
warrior-poet (1364)
2 years ago
PART 3 OF 3
Conclusion:
Yes, the lockdowns worked to varying degrees, but only temporarily since they can’t be kept in place indefinitely. I wonder if we should have combined letting the thing run its course with versions of measures we should have known to begin with like ensuring adequate ventilation in enclosed spaces, requiring N95 masks for gatherings indoors, voluntary social distancing, and vaccination. Delaying the spread via long-term mandated lockdowns in combination with disastrous messaging may have only prolonged damage that extends far beyond the virus itself. And yet even today there are some still trying to mandate harmful lockdowns while impeding open discourse, i.e. preventing free speech, using it as a political weapon, or perhaps more accurately stated, a tool for those in power to exert and garner even more power under the guise of a public safety measure.
Interestingly, after a spike in February daily COVID deaths have plummeted throughout the rest of 2022 despite hardly anyone wearing masks any longer, a much smaller number of people getting new boosters, and there being barely any lockdowns anywhere anymore. I surmise that enough people got vaccinated and infected that herd immunity may have been achieved. I’m not going to form a concrete conclusion about that data, but it might suggest that if we’d just let things play out without the long-term lockdowns (keeping them short-term only), evangelizing vaccines (not mandating but educating) while openly admitting that they wouldn’t prevent transmission by the infected, requiring N95 masks while educating that cloth masks are useless, all while prioritizing the effectiveness of ventilation, we may have hit this point sooner and avoided the wide-reaching, long-term impacts of the lockdowns while also preventing deaths that might have occurred prior to reaching herd immunity.
My posting history reveals that this is in line with my stance from the beginning. Some of this information was hinted at early on, with some known long beforehand. Anyone who tried to disseminate this were shut down, actively suppressed because it wasn't in line with the narrative being pushed. Perhaps elites trying to save face? Bottom line: "we" knew enough to do better from the get-go, but there was an active effort to suppress information that might have allowed us to course-correct.
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-death-toll/
In the end my point is that, like Tim Robbins, we should always question, especially proclamations by those in authority or by so-called self-described “experts”, and that we should all wise up and learn from experience when those authorities and “experts” turn out to be wrong again and again, those who are now proven to have been labeling valid information as “misinformation” while suppressing legitimate questions. The ultimate moral here isn’t about COVID and whether or not lockdowns worked. It’s about believing those who speak as if they have authority or who claim to be experts, when history tells us that blindly trusting those in power, even if they’re spouting a kernel of truth (which they often do to lend credence to their overreach), will invariably lead to negative social consequences while they get more rich and powerful at the expense of the citizenry.
No situation is ever black and white, but ideologues will always be trapped in a prison of two ideas while ignoring possible insights from those whom they perceive to be the “other side”, and more often than not those whom they have come to hate for no logical or legitimate reason. Meanwhile, reality is more nuanced and complex, requiring greater effort to grasp accurately.
Which is why it’s important that we all strive to…
_________________________________________
Never believe. Always question. Rebuke belief, a.k.a. bias, a.k.a. groupthink, a.k.a. ideology, the bane of skeptical, logical reason.
reply
share
WhoToTrust (1130)
2 years ago
Proving anti-vaxxers will try to rationalize away common sense/common societal courtesy in any way they can if it counters THEIR OWN ideologies, including trying to use examples of admissions of being wrong from their opposition even if that admission is an end-all-be-all example of being objectively "right".
reply
share
warrior-poet (1364)
2 years ago
Those right-leaning (usually) hardline beliefs weren't a focus of my discussion (although I do touch on ideologies of any type in general, which includes that component), as they're obvious low-hanging fruit, but you're not wrong.
My main point is that those who subscribe to one ideology or the other tend to ignore common sense, eschewing critical thinking for blind belief, and just accept what they're told by those they deem authoritative figures, even when common sense should reveal to them something's off. While those on the "other side" will tend to see what's off... until the authoritative figure is someone they deem on "their side", at which time that scrutiny gets thrown out the window.
This applies to hardcore or even moderate believers, actually believers of any type and degree, really, on both the Left and Right or any other side. Reality is always a blended combination of both (if framing it within that context of duality), or all possible spectrums, i.e. anyone who picks a side is immediately at least partially wrong because all else is then ignored.
We should all always consider all viewpoints, and yes question everything and everyone, no matter their ideology, religion, credentials, education, expertise, etc., especially if they're in a position of authority. We should all try our best to...
_________________________________________
Never believe. Always question. Rebuke belief, a.k.a. bias, a.k.a. groupthink, a.k.a. ideology, the bane of skeptical, logical reason.
reply
share
WhoToTrust (1130)
2 years ago
Which is why I am able to reasonably question Robbins' changed intent.
reply
share
warrior-poet (1364)
2 years ago
Which you absolutely should. But the opposite should be questioned also. "Everything", means "everything". But Robbins makes a hindsight point that has value for consideration, starting with how he sensed something was off with how certain things unfolded (which is expounded upon throughout their conversation), i.e. he's willing to learn from some of the mistakes (many are too unwilling to even begin to consider all viewpoints and information, blocking out/ignoring legitimate counterpoints, for example the references I included in my post).
Furthermore, you clearly didn't take the time to actually read my post. Instead, you just assumed I fell into an extreme antivaxxer position merely for employing a scientific mindset instead of blindly believing misinformation, which only proves that a) you didn't read my post with an open mind, if you truly read it at all, including studying all the references I provided, and b) you clearly don't know my pro-vaccine stance history on this board.
That doesn't mean upon his questioning where Robbins landed is correct. Often when people wake up from one belief they rubber-band too far the other way (why? because there's still a strong element of needing to believe in play). But his example of at least questioning was the entire point of my initial post. So definitely question his take.
But don't ignore it, either. Consider it, using it to spark questions about your own beliefs.
_________________________________________
Never believe. Always question. Rebuke belief, a.k.a. bias, a.k.a. groupthink, a.k.a. ideology, the bane of skeptical, logical reason.
reply
share
WhoToTrust (1130)
2 years ago
Again, his current example of questioning does not automatically mean he is NOW right about what he is questioning. Which leads me to question whether YOU are reading MY posts with an open mind.
reply
share
warrior-poet (1364)
2 years ago
Again, I agree. But I also read your other posts in this thread, including your initial reply that attempts to imply that my post could be reasonably associated with the below, instead of what it actually was.
Proving anti-vaxxers will try to rationalize away common sense/common societal courtesy in any way they can if it counters THEIR OWN ideologies, including trying to use examples of admissions of being wrong from their opposition even if that admission is an end-all-be-all example of being objectively "right".
Which in general I agree with. But it far from describes my own mindset, or my post. In other words, just because someone questions something you believe doesn't somehow instantly indicate that person believes the opposite of you or falls into some extreme segment of an ideology opposing your own.
Your narrow-minded reaction and premature, knee-jerk assumption proves my point.
_________________________________________
Never believe. Always question. Rebuke belief, a.k.a. bias, a.k.a. groupthink, a.k.a. ideology, the bane of skeptical, logical reason.
reply
share
WhoToTrust (1130)
2 years ago
And yet the fact remains that people who refused to get vaccinated comprised the highest percentage overall of those who have died from COVID, AGAIN proving Robbins (and by proxy, you for promoting his "admission"), in the long run, wrong.
reply
share
LogicalLeftist (869)
2 years ago
this guy seems to think if he just says "question everything" he's a deep thinker and actually looking all options objectively. he seems to use it as an excuse to believe nonsense in the guys of "intellectual curiosity". to him anyone who accepts accepted truths of science just isn't "open minded".
its a neat little trick he seems to try to justify believing whatever nonsense he wants to
reply
share
warrior-poet (1364)
2 years ago
And yet the fact remains that people who refused to get vaccinated comprised the highest percentage overall of those who have died from COVID
That's absolutely true (until recently) but has nothing to do with this discussion. Somehow, you've gotten fixated on antivaxxers instead of imbibing and spending time contemplating my posts, or what Robbins actually said. Read through the references I provided. They're all pro-science and/or left of center sources according to Media Bias Factcheck, BTW. You're letting belief and preconception cloud viable information being presented to you, in essence rejecting reality and substituting your own, almost as much as the so-called antivaxxer ultra-MAGA segment of the population is.
Do better. Be better.
_________________________________________
Never believe. Always question. Rebuke belief, a.k.a. bias, a.k.a. groupthink, a.k.a. ideology, the bane of skeptical, logical reason.
reply
share
WhoToTrust (1130)
2 years ago
Actually it has EVERYTHING to do with this conversation, because at the time Robbins and Brand had their conversation, THE DATA WAS ALREADY IN, so the premise of "questioning authority" regarding the subject was already a moot point at the time, and it was simply a bad choice on their parts to use it as an example on the premise, and, on yours for promoting their conversation as such.
reply
share
warrior-poet (1364)
2 years ago
If I'm understanding correctly, you have a valid point. I think what you're saying is that it'd be easy for Robbins to claim he had these questions back then even if he actually didn't, and is only now coming forward because what at the time was considered fringe by the loudest, most authoritative, voices, is being verified so extensively that they can no longer deny it. If that's what you just indicated, then I can't disagree. It's very possible that he's being disingenuous and only now trying to jump on a bandwagon because he sees the writing on the wall.
I should note that regardless of Robbin's integrity on the matter, my own history of posts like those here on this board will corroborate that this has always been my stance about the various details surrounding this subject because of how I approach everything I contemplate, and that I've been attacked from both sides of the ideological spectrum because I didn't land squarely on either side, the conclusions and facts I presented rubbing both sides the wrong way.
Not that I need vindication, or am trying to tell anyone "I told you so". But if certain voices had been listened to, we'd most likely be in a much better place today, so my hope is that in the future logic and common sense will prevail over the trappings of power, politics and ideology. So when I came across this video it sparked a thought that I've posted many times in the past on this and other boards about always questioning, especially authoritative sources.
_________________________________________
Never believe. Always question. Rebuke belief, a.k.a. bias, a.k.a. groupthink, a.k.a. ideology, the bane of skeptical, logical reason.
reply
share
WhoToTrust (1130)
2 years ago
Not what I was saying about Robbins since such "fringe" claims suggesting the invalidity of COVID and the experts who were and still are working to address it have retrospectively been proven invalid and moot by verifiable data.
reply
share
warrior-poet (1364)
2 years ago
No, what I'm saying is that legitimate questions, along with assertions that have now been proven true but were being shut down (which I've outlined several times in this thread so won't repeat), including that it came from a lab, were being lumped in with fringe kook nonsense like COVID is a hoax. Why? To save face? Blind belief? Politics?
And half the population didn't begin to question it. They just stumbled around infecting each other with COVID cloth-masked up and vaccinated, staying indoors unventilated. Another portion of the other half ran around without a care if they got infected. While a handful questioned and shook their heads increduously at everyone else's stupidity.
_________________________________________
Never believe. Always question. Rebuke belief, a.k.a. bias, a.k.a. groupthink, a.k.a. ideology, the bane of skeptical, logical reason.
reply
share
WhoToTrust (1130)
2 years ago
I've been well aware of what you have been saying/promoting from the beginning.
What I was pointing out is that you trying to put words into my mouth to try to make it appear that I've said what I did NOT say didn't make your argument come across as any more valid than all the times you've tried to make your argument sound valid by simply making long-winded posts that miss the point entirely about what Robbins and Brand were trying to do.
reply
share
warrior-poet (1364)
2 years ago
Okay now I'm just confused. I didn't try to put words in your mouth. I was attempting to understand what you were saying so you could verify/correct.
And what Robbins/Brand were doing is question mainstream dogma. I thought you were saying that Robbins doing so in hindsight didn't hold much merit.
I don't really disagree with that, but at least he's questioning what he believed. We all should, no matter what that belief might be, adapting as information is known.
_________________________________________
Never believe. Always question. Rebuke belief, a.k.a. bias, a.k.a. groupthink, a.k.a. ideology, the bane of skeptical, logical reason.
reply
share
WhoToTrust (1130)
2 years ago
And I DID correct you, so there should have been no reason for you now to be confused, unless of course you WERE trying to put words into my mouth and are now simply trying to deny it...along with obviously continuing to try to justify the Robbins/Brand discussion as valid.
But thank you for illustrating how adapting as information is known is NOT done.
reply
share
warrior-poet (1364)
2 years ago
I'm not sure how else to process "at the time Robbins and Brand had their conversation, THE DATA WAS ALREADY IN, so the premise of "questioning authority" regarding the subject was already a moot point at the time" other than how I just described it, i.e. that it's too little too late, after-the-fact, in hindsight, etc. What else could that sentence possibly mean?
I think you're playing games here, so I'm done.
_________________________________________
Never believe. Always question. Rebuke belief, a.k.a. bias, a.k.a. groupthink, a.k.a. ideology, the bane of skeptical, logical reason.
reply
share
WhoToTrust (1130)
2 years ago
warrior-poet said - "I think you're playing games her, so I'm done."
Given the fact that the majority of
accusations from the side of politics that has tried from the very beginning to dismiss COVID as not being a valid concern have historically/eventually been documented to have actually been
admissions, I totally understand why YOU would now be accusing ME of playing games, which is why I was ALREADY done. ; )
reply
share
They4cedTheVax (318)
2 years ago
"the fact remains...." Dude you fail to realize you've been lied to. Very few have actually died FROM covid. It just isn't a deadly virus. 99.8% Survival Rate. People like you refuse to acknowledge that the governments of the world LIED to the rest of us. You refuse to accept that those "in charge" of you, do not actually have your best interest at heart.
WhoToTrust - DON'T TRUST THE GOVERNMENT
reply
share
WhoToTrust (1130)
2 years ago
"Very few" is obviously a relative term, and despite YOUR apparent refusal/failure to accept/acknowledge the facts, the majority of those who DID die were comprised of the UNvaccinated, although that's obviously something you never heard from the mainstream, right-wing media.
And since you brought it up, it also bears pointing out that it was the then-current trump government/administration that was responsible for the MAJORITY of the misinformation regarding COVID at the time, so in THAT regard, I would agree that there ARE times when the government has been documented as having lied to the American people, and not having our best interests at heart...which is why I refused to accept the word of those who were "in charge" at the time and followed the guidance of the CDC instead - despite all of the efforts of the then-current trump government/administration to mock/ridicule/discredit/dismiss the knowledge of those at the CDC who ACTUALLY had knowledge/expertise on the subject.
So in that regard, you've obviously proven yourself wrong about my ability to discern my best interests for myself and when it's best to refuse to accept the word of those "in charge". Based on your comments though, you've made it obvious that you do not possess the same capability.
reply
share
LogicalLeftist (869)
2 years ago
you seems to think if you just says "question everything" you are deep thinker and actually looking all options objectively. youuse it as an excuse to believe nonsense under the guise of "intellectual curiosity". to you anyone who accepts accepted truths of science just isn't "open minded".
its a neat little trick you try to justify believing whatever nonsense you wants to
reply
share
warrior-poet (1364)
2 years ago
Want some genuine "truths of science"? Contemplate my post and study every single reference I provided. Until you do so you have no legitimate ground to stand on regarding this discussion, because, like most on both sides of political aisle, you're clinging to beliefs instead of adapting conclusions with each new bit of information discovered. If you do actually take the time, I suspect you'll find that we'd agree on matters surrounding this subject more than you expect. You may even - gasp - find yourself changing your mind about a few things. But not if you stay stuck in a mindset of belief.
_________________________________________
Never believe. Always question. Rebuke belief, a.k.a. bias, a.k.a. groupthink, a.k.a. ideology, the bane of skeptical, logical reason.
reply
share
LogicalLeftist (869)
2 years ago
believe it or not I am not reading your gishgalloping junk.
You aren't an expert. you aren't a scientist. you didn't do any research. not real scientific research. you created a narrative, then gishgalloped and found things you think backed this up.
all you wrote could have been summed up in "covid had no silver bullet to address it so the things we did to address it weren't perfect. and Tim Robbins changed his opinion on some things"
is Tim robbins a biologist? a virologist or vaccinologist? so why do I care and what does his feelings have to do with covid.
reply
share
warrior-poet (1364)
2 years ago
Spoken like a true, narrow-minded, ideological zealot unwilling to expose yourself to diverse information. I suppose leaving your head firmly stuck up your @$$ is certainly an available choice. Time will reveal how that works out for you. Or, perhaps study currently available information on the matter. I made it easy with those URLs.
_________________________________________
Never believe. Always question. Rebuke belief, a.k.a. bias, a.k.a. groupthink, a.k.a. ideology, the bane of skeptical, logical reason.
reply
share
LogicalLeftist (869)
2 years ago
not it isn't. and no matter how many buzzwords you use you won't sound intelligent or knowledgeable or make any more sense.. You could use all these same buzzwords you just seem to regurgitate as a reason to be open to and embrace flat earth, the Jfk death or the fake moon landing conspiracies and nothing would change. that is an issue. it means you re equally receptive to possibly legitimate questioning, as you are to utter nonsense conspiracy theories and just bullshit.
why? because you don't actually say anything of substance. you are just here to conflate questioning with knowledge, and accepting all sorts of nonsense in the name of "being open minded" as just as valid. its a neat trick ill give you that! it lets you frame anyone who shuts down your made-up BS as just being ideological and not open to learn and the facts.
you made it easy for me to just casually brush through your 3 posts, including 14 massive paragraphs and THIRTY ONE LINKS. this is like mental illness level of gishgalloping.
you do know WhotoTrusts reply to you was 3 small paragraphs and that is what you responded with??
its a common tactic gishgalloping. You say and bring up soo much its impossible to pin you down on any one thing.
reply
share
warrior-poet (1364)
2 years ago
Let's change to a simpler approach with some yes/no questions.
"Do you believe that..."
1) ...cloth masks prevent COVID transmission, even moderately?
2) ...telling the public that they did reduced (as opposed to increased) COVID deaths?
3) ...the vaccines prevent COVID transmission?
4) ...telling the public that they did reduced (as opposed to increased) COVID deaths?
5) ...the vaccines are pointless since you'll develop natural immunity if infected anyway?
6) ...the vaccines cause a higher rate of mortality than COVID itself?
7) ...prolonged (as opposed to short-term) lockdowns reduced overall death rates?
8) ...implementing lockdowns to this day produces a net benefit?
If you answered yes to any of those questions, your belief is in direct conflict with current studies.
And also in conflict with information some were attempting to disseminate very early on but were cancelled, suppressed, shut down and ostracized because it didn't fit the politicized and/or erroneous belief-based narrative being pushed, i.e. "we" had the knowledge to have handled this better and it was ignored.
"Do you believe that..."
1) ...N95 masks prevent COVID transmission?
2) ...never mentioning proper ventilation increased COVID deaths?
3) ...the vaccines greatly reduce the effects of COVID, all but guaranteeing survival, if infected?
4) ...short-term lockdowns helped reduce hospital overflow on the outset?
5) ...long-term lockdowns only delayed the inevitable with little impact to overall death rates?
6) ...long-term lockdowns produced devastating side effects beyond the virus itself?
7) ...the COVID vaccines and boosters at most last 6 months before waning?
8) ...natural immunity last close to a year after infection?
If you answered yes to any of those questions, your belief is in line with an increasing number of studies.
Read. Those. References. But don't feel obligated to reply further. No judgement.
________________________________________
Never believe. Always question. Rebuke belief, a.k.a. bias, a.k.a. groupthink, a.k.a. ideology, the bane of skeptical, logical reason.
reply
share
LogicalLeftist (869)
2 years ago
great so the science got better. why did you have to post 15 paragraphs and 31 links?
but that's not the issue here. you are trying to reframe events that happened as
"diehard unchanging covid scientism vs the other group who said lets be open to changing science".
that wasn't what happened. it was people accepting the best scientific evidence at the time, vs largely conservatives denying covid even existed, that it was even that bad, that we don't need to do anything, that "they did their own research" and know better.
your reinvention and reframing of events is laughable.
reply
share
warrior-poet (1364)
2 years ago
I'm not reframing. That's how it was. Yes, there were aspects of the science that required some learning, but instead of course-correcting they just doubled down. I'm saying information that was espoused then was ignored, that politics and belief got in the way of science, veering it off course and obfuscating progress, and that opinions about what they once considered fringe (lumping good science in with crazy deniers and conspiracy theorists) are changing after-the-fact. If those ideas hadn't been shut down, and if ideologues and politicians on both sides had stayed the hell out of the way, the entire ordeal could have been handled better. Ultimately, if everyone, not just a select few, had been asking questions instead of propagating false beliefs, the outcome could have been different.
It took "15 paragraphs and 31" links because I'm thorough and verbose and wanted to share that information. There's a lot of detail to cover. But I'm elucidating, not reframing. Yes there were/are far-right conspiracy theories like COVID is a hoax (although it was abused) or magnets in the vaccines that contributed to the confusion. I'm avoiding giving time to that nonsense in lieu of measured, civil, science-based, discussion, which I've found over the past two years few on this board are capable of. Some on the Right argued with me about the value of the vaccines, while some on the Left argued with me about the dangers of touting cloth masks. It's one reason I rarely post here anymore.
________________________________________
Never believe. Always question. Rebuke belief, a.k.a. bias, a.k.a. groupthink, a.k.a. ideology, the bane of skeptical, logical reason.
reply
share
Rorikon (17940)
2 years ago
In conclusion, when the next new novel virus hits, do nothing, is that right? Because clearly we will have to do lockdowns again until we know what a unknown virus is capable of before learning the lessons that we know now for this particular one. If that's the case then China has clearly won of has the advantage in bio-warfare if they intend to use chemical attacks seeing how effective it worked once before that sowed the seed of doubt.
reply
share
B1cKsurN (17486)
2 years ago
I vote do nothing. I'd rather die from the virus than live like a fucking scared little slave to rich oligarchs. Telling me to put a useless dirty rag on my face, destroy my immune system staying home getting fat and lazy, and injecting me with their experimental poison... FUCK THAT SHIT.
Life is too fucking short, man.
reply
share
WhoToTrust (1130)
2 years ago
So you'd obviously rather live like a scared little sycophantic slave to the rich oligarchs that YOU believe in due to your (and their) ideologies.
Good luck with that when it comes to new novel viruses that arise in the human population over the course of history that science can actually address based on ever advancing human knowledge...at least in some anyway.
reply
share
Spiffy666 (400)
2 years ago
Of all the unbelievable idiocy coming for these clowns, honestly the most hysterical must be that they think they're voting Republican to "stick it to the wealthy elite" etc.
Although all the recent talk about the "liberal FBI" is pretty close.
reply
share
WhoToTrust (1130)
2 years ago
Apparently, "questioning everything" for some stopped when it came to the "wealthy elite" folks in the fox "news" mainstream media who were telling them 24/7/365 to believe COVID was a "hoax", "wasn't that serious", "no more harmless than the flu", etc, etc, etc....and more recently that it wasn't possible that there might be a portion of the Secret Service who subscribed to the "right wing/maga" ideology, because it's only the OTHER side that can be guilty of such things.
Oh the irony. -Eyeroll-
reply
share
LogicalLeftist (869)
2 years ago
you had to do the minimal for two years. wear masks, swash your hands, leave a little distance for people. and that's "like a slave"
conservatives are crybabies and can't even do the minimum to help America
reply
share
brux (14736)
2 years ago
> I vote do nothing. I'd rather die from the virus than live like a fucking scared little slave to rich oligarchs.
You're hilarious, you do live in fear of the dreaded Woke Liberals ... you post about it all day every day, you are quite afew others here.
reply
share
warrior-poet (1364)
2 years ago
Well, no, definitely not nothing. But many aspects of the pandemic were mishandled and counterproductive, with various ways it was handled in conflict with each other. Which is why in the end those measures did little good, slowing the spread temporarily only for it all to catch up later on, ultimately prolonging everything. It's not done yet, and most likely never will be. COVID-19 is here to stay just like most other viruses that are easily spread, and along with all the others will spike every winter.
Our species will evolve to deal with it just like every virus in the past and it will become a blip in human history. So perhaps a better approach to the pandemic would have been a combination of: 1) tweaking the mitigation factors that were woefully botched to minimize but not delay the inevitable and 2) letting nature run its course toward so-called herd immunity. And importantly, those who attempted to relay this early on but were shut down should have been allowed to speak.
Based on what we now know, these were my thoughts from Part 3 of my post:
Interestingly, after a spike in February daily COVID deaths have plummeted throughout the rest of 2022 despite hardly anyone wearing masks any longer, a much smaller number of people getting new boosters, and there being barely any lockdowns anywhere anymore. I surmise that enough people got vaccinated and infected that herd immunity may have been achieved. I’m not going to form a concrete conclusion about that data, but it might suggest that if we’d just let things play out without the long-term lockdowns (keeping them short-term only), evangelizing vaccines (not mandating but educating) while openly admitting that they wouldn’t prevent transmission by the infected, requiring N95 masks while educating that cloth masks are useless, all while prioritizing the effectiveness of ventilation, we may have hit this point sooner and avoided the wide-reaching, long-term impacts of the lockdowns while also preventing deaths that might have occurred prior to reaching herd immunity.
China hasn't won. Despite extended hardcore lockdowns they've been hit the hardest by COVID, and still are today while most other countries treat it as an afterthought. Not only did they piss off their entire population, they didn't adequately vaccinate.
https://www.reuters.com/breakingviews/china-covid-ills-go-bad-chronically-worse-2022-12-19/
_________________________________________
Never believe. Always question. Rebuke belief, a.k.a. bias, a.k.a. groupthink, a.k.a. ideology, the bane of skeptical, logical reason.
reply
share