Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Honestly at this point who cares. We did the best we could under a unique and heretofore inexperienced event. This is for scientists to be studying to plan for future pandemics. Getting angry now is ridiculous.
The problem is we weren’t allowed to ask questions and dissenting views were discouraged. Anytime you’re not allowed to ask questions or push back on something you should be concerned. The climate at the time didn’t allow questioning of precautions.
What are you talking about? There were plenty of people who questioned everything and did whatever they wanted anyway. It’s not like the police came and arrested people for expressing dissenting views. Even in early covid when people were dying, plenty of people questioned why they had to be inconvenienced to save other people’s lives and behaved accordingly. Lockdowns were never going to work in this country because we are a narcissistic and selfish society who rarely behave for the greater good of community.
Oh so you think we should have been more like China with peoples doors nailed shut?
Dissent was absolutely impossible on a social level and as we know from the social media 1A case pending at the Supreme Court, the government was extremely closely involved in getting viewpoints on covid deleted from social media. Even if that case finds there was no 1A violation, it absolutely shows that the government acted to literally delete opposing views.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Honestly at this point who cares. We did the best we could under a unique and heretofore inexperienced event. This is for scientists to be studying to plan for future pandemics. Getting angry now is ridiculous.
The problem is we weren’t allowed to ask questions and dissenting views were discouraged. Anytime you’re not allowed to ask questions or push back on something you should be concerned. The climate at the time didn’t allow questioning of precautions.
What are you talking about? There were plenty of people who questioned everything and did whatever they wanted anyway. It’s not like the police came and arrested people for expressing dissenting views. Even in early covid when people were dying, plenty of people questioned why they had to be inconvenienced to save other people’s lives and behaved accordingly. Lockdowns were never going to work in this country because we are a narcissistic and selfish society who rarely behave for the greater good of community.
Oh so you think we should have been more like China with peoples doors nailed shut?
Dissent was absolutely impossible on a social level and as we know from the social media 1A case pending at the Supreme Court, the government was extremely closely involved in getting viewpoints on covid deleted from social media. Even if that case finds there was no 1A violation, it absolutely shows that the government acted to literally delete opposing views.
Anonymous wrote:The problem with this example is that Sweden is a small, culturally homogenous, fairly wealthy country in a northern climate. Would the same approach have the same outcome in the US? Probably not.
Like questions I'd want answered include:
- Did high conscientiousness among Swedish people result in voluntary social distancing during Covid peaks even without lockdowns?
- Did the climate in Sweden, with just a short summer season, allow Sweden to avoid the worst of the pandemic because people there socialize less outside their families in cold months anyway?
- Did Sweden's strong social safety net play a role?
I do tend to think that hard, very restrictive lockdowns likely have less of an effect on death rates than we think, and also that prolonged lockdowns have real costs that we are still reluctant to acknowledge in many cases.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Honestly at this point who cares. We did the best we could under a unique and heretofore inexperienced event. This is for scientists to be studying to plan for future pandemics. Getting angry now is ridiculous.
The problem is we weren’t allowed to ask questions and dissenting views were discouraged. Anytime you’re not allowed to ask questions or push back on something you should be concerned. The climate at the time didn’t allow questioning of precautions.
What are you talking about? There were plenty of people who questioned everything and did whatever they wanted anyway. It’s not like the police came and arrested people for expressing dissenting views. Even in early covid when people were dying, plenty of people questioned why they had to be inconvenienced to save other people’s lives and behaved accordingly. Lockdowns were never going to work in this country because we are a narcissistic and selfish society who rarely behave for the greater good of community.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Honestly at this point who cares. We did the best we could under a unique and heretofore inexperienced event. This is for scientists to be studying to plan for future pandemics. Getting angry now is ridiculous.
The problem is we weren’t allowed to ask questions and dissenting views were discouraged. Anytime you’re not allowed to ask questions or push back on something you should be concerned. The climate at the time didn’t allow questioning of precautions.
What are you talking about? There were plenty of people who questioned everything and did whatever they wanted anyway. It’s not like the police came and arrested people for expressing dissenting views. Even in early covid when people were dying, plenty of people questioned why they had to be inconvenienced to save other people’s lives and behaved accordingly. Lockdowns were never going to work in this country because we are a narcissistic and selfish society who rarely behave for the greater good of community.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Honestly at this point who cares. We did the best we could under a unique and heretofore inexperienced event. This is for scientists to be studying to plan for future pandemics. Getting angry now is ridiculous.
This 100%. People forget that there was virtually nothing known about this virus, and that we had no tests and no treatments. Oh, also it could spread asymptomatically. Would *you* want to be the one that made the call to send kids back to school only to have a breakout of the virus with a 10% fatality rate?
Calling the lockdowns an "experiment" is misinformed and deliberately incendiary. An experiment would be if we decided to lock down 50% of the schools in a school district and allowed the other 50% to operate as normal. An experiment is something that you do with planning and foresight and signed consent by the participants. An experiment also has predetermined metrics and measures of success and failure that are accepted by the experts in the field.
To say the lockdowns were a failed experiment is pure clickbait meant to anger people, and you fell for it, OP.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Honestly at this point who cares. We did the best we could under a unique and heretofore inexperienced event. This is for scientists to be studying to plan for future pandemics. Getting angry now is ridiculous.
The problem is we weren’t allowed to ask questions and dissenting views were discouraged. Anytime you’re not allowed to ask questions or push back on something you should be concerned. The climate at the time didn’t allow questioning of precautions.
Anonymous wrote:Honestly at this point who cares. We did the best we could under a unique and heretofore inexperienced event. This is for scientists to be studying to plan for future pandemics. Getting angry now is ridiculous.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Honestly at this point who cares. We did the best we could under a unique and heretofore inexperienced event. This is for scientists to be studying to plan for future pandemics. Getting angry now is ridiculous.
The problem is we weren’t allowed to ask questions and dissenting views were discouraged. Anytime you’re not allowed to ask questions or push back on something you should be concerned. The climate at the time didn’t allow questioning of precautions.
Because it was an EMERGENCY situation.
Having known several people who died or spent months in the hospital with Covid it was not something most of us wanted to just take our chances with.
Questions and dissent are most important during an emergency. No you don’t get to memory hole this.
What do you think should happen today? Are you advocating for anything in particular?
Anonymous wrote:So this is about you being in a snit fit over school closings?
Newsflash: Teachers were not going to return to the classroom because they were the exact demographic Covid was killing.
Anonymous wrote:So this is about you being in a snit fit over school closings?
Newsflash: Teachers were not going to return to the classroom because they were the exact demographic Covid was killing.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Apologies if this was already posted, but I came across this article from New York magazine that made me question the efficacy of lockdowns, and our whole response to the pandemic. Very much 20/20 hindsight, but the more I think about it, the angrier I get, especially with closing the schools.
Here’s a link, along with a key paragraph arguing that Sweden probably had the right response.
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/covid-lockdowns-big-fail-joe-nocera-bethany-mclean-book-excerpt.html
So in attempting to gauge the value of lockdowns, the most appropriate way is to look not just at COVID deaths but at all deaths during the pandemic years. That’s known as the “excess deaths” — a measure of how many more people died than in a normal year. One authoritative accounting was compiled by The Spectator using data gathered by the OECD. It showed that during the first two years of the pandemic — 2020 and 2021 — the U.S. had 19 percent more deaths than it normally saw in two years’ time. For the U.K., there was a 10 percent rise. And for Sweden — one of the few countries that had refused to lock down its society — it was just 4 percent. An analysis by Bloomberg found broadly similar results. In other words, for all the criticism Sweden shouldered from the world’s public health officials for refusing to institute lockdowns, it wound up seeing a lower overall death rate during the pandemic than most peer nations that shut down schools and public gatherings. It is not unreasonable to conclude from the available data that the lockdowns led to more overall deaths in the U.S. than a policy that resembled Sweden’s would have.
This is a stupid take.
That was enlightening. Let me guess, you’re a COVID cultist who’s angry that your extreme precautions proved to be a waste of time and resources.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Honestly at this point who cares. We did the best we could under a unique and heretofore inexperienced event. This is for scientists to be studying to plan for future pandemics. Getting angry now is ridiculous.
The problem is we weren’t allowed to ask questions and dissenting views were discouraged. Anytime you’re not allowed to ask questions or push back on something you should be concerned. The climate at the time didn’t allow questioning of precautions.
Because it was an EMERGENCY situation.
Having known several people who died or spent months in the hospital with Covid it was not something most of us wanted to just take our chances with.
Questions and dissent are most important during an emergency. No you don’t get to memory hole this.