Its so f*ing dumb. The greatest killer in this pandemic has been our idiotic conformance to one of the two equally imbecilic but diametrically opposed narrative tribes. What a shameful state for such a great nation to find it self in.
b) the tribe that reacts to any criticism of public health experts with hostility and threats of violence, pushes an anti-intellectual agenda, pushes pseudo-treatments that are at best not known to work or at worst a health hazard, and tries to fill in the gap between their beliefs and reality with conspiracy theories?
Yep, fits like a glove and with that shows it is unwise to try to frame one of the sides of a polarised discussion. If you truly want to engage in a debate on such subjects the first thing to do is to leave your bias at the door, otherwise you'll only add fuel to the fire.
Whether Ivermectin works or not is something which can be found out through the scientific (with a small 's') process, is it not up to 'The Science' to decide this upfront. If it does work this would be a good thing given the relative safety and low price of the preparation. If it does not work, well, that's too bad, hopefully something else will be found which does work while having the same advantages - safety and low price - as Ivermectin has.
The thing with playing syntactic games like this is that your altered sentence. . . isn't actually true. The two sides in relation to COVID research and official guidelines actually do behave differently.
the reality is that there are many perspectives on many issues, and by bucketing things the way you have, you are re-enforcing bad mental models.
I feel you're being disingenuous.
I mean, where exactly do you see any "vindication" regarding the real threat of covid19 when in 2020 it was already the third leading cause of death in the US and it already overtook the 1918 flu as the deadliest pandemic[¹] ?
This assertion is even more ridiculous given that those criticising the initial covid19 response tried to downplay it as nothing more than a harmless mild flu, and now we're seeing in the US alone over 700 thousand deaths.
[1] https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/article/covid-19-...
But to expand this analogy, if you're in a plane in conditions nobody has seen before, where the pilots are desperately trying to save as many people as they can before they run out of fuel - do you want the pilot who is open to the reality of the situation and constantly learning new things, or the pilot who confidently follows the nearest checklist without asking if it even works?
I really don't know what you were trying to say. The article you linked was about how those who have previously recovered from COVID-19 have a stronger immune response after being vaccinated than those who have never been infected.
We have barely started to understand long term implications of covid infection, mRNA / classic vaccines or various treatments. For example, we are almost a year after mass vaccination campaigns started. We still don't know if/how many boosters are required for optimal vaccine performance. Nobody can cite 5-year effectiveness number for mRNA vaccines, which are by far the most popular vaccines in the West. This should raise red flags to any critically thinking person.
By necessity, we are operating in "faith" mode. And that's ok. Often times faith is a good enough action guide.
I fail to see the point of your remark, as it reads like a non-sequitur. I mean, the discussion was about the difference between those who listen to public health experts and the anti-intellectual covid denialists/anti-masks/anti-vaxers. Where do epistomological arguments lend any credence to anti-intellectual militants that try to counter science and public health safeguards with conspiracy theories?
The natural result is that you get two diametrically opposed narratives - truth and falsehood. And it is certainly not the case that simply because the two narratives are opposed that they are of equal merit. Your job is to pick the truth.
The truth is not where it is because of anyone's political beliefs. The truth is where it is because it is true. Your political beliefs can (and should) change to follow the truth. Or you can compromise between truth and falsehood, and end up at falsehood.
I am certainly not claiming that either "tribe" has been perfect at sticking with truth - but it's clear that the truth is not in the middle. Where both "tribes" have erred and killed, it has been when they were not extreme enough in the pursuit of truth and instead incentivized by political expedience.
Masking children outside in 90-degree weather (especially with cloth masks instead of medical ones) may be ineffective, but it is harmless, modulo speculation about children's need to recognize faces etc. It doesn't impact breathing capacity or anything, and it certainly doesn't put you at more risk of getting the virus.
Claims that the vaccines are poison are not only actively wrong but actively dangerous. Adopting this position, i.e., refusing to get the vaccine, puts you at risk.
I understand a whole lot of people are offended by people wearing masks outside. That's fine! It's a free country, you can be offended by whatever you want. But the claim that it is contraindicated by science just as much as the anti-vax position is ludicrous.
In any case, my argument is not that it has no potential harm - just that it's ludicrous to say it's as potentially harmful as not getting the vaccine.
> my argument is not that it has no potential harm
Also you:
> may be ineffective, but it is harmless
Masks restrict breathing. Restricting breathing is harmful. Particularly when your body is being taxed. This isn’t rocket science. Watching your contortions is entertaining though!
Seriously, have you ever worn a mask?
(Or maybe by "mask" you mean some shoddily-built cloth mask instead of an actual N95? I agree, "morons in California" should not give their children shoddily-built cloth masks to play outdoors, they should give them N95s.)
Generally speaking the gap between conservative and liberal vaccine uptake can be more charitably explained by the observation that conservative people score less on the big five Openness scale. No need to turn it into a partisan fight.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Openness_to_experience
https://www.economist.com/democracy-in-america/2012/05/21/th...
A better fitting narrative is class. The bottom half of society is distrustful of the top half.
What are you talking about? Do you think these people just didn't exist?
Nobody sane thinks that a lot of people haven't died from COVID - but it should be common sense that you should be careful when an organization or individual has an incentive to alter data.
As to GP's main point, separately from whether the official numbers are correct, there are ways that you can take the same data and "spin" it - the "blindly catastrophizing" mentioned. For instance, using "six hundred thousand" - the official number of all-time deaths - instead of the number of yearly deaths. You can also tactfully omit contextual information - for instance, COVID was the third leading cause of death in the US for 2020[1], making up only about 11% of the total, and close to half of the next leading cause, cancer (345k vs. 598k).
[1] https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2778234
[1]https://www.cbsnews.com/news/texas-arizona-coronavirus-death...
[2]https://healthandwelfare.idaho.gov/news/idaho-expands-crisis...
https://www.businessinsider.com/white-conservative-most-vacc...