[bigdollopenergy]

I don't think so. I think Covid was unique in that it occupied a sweet-spot in it's severity. A more severe virus would play out very differently. I don't think we'd see such a huge conspiracy movement around it and much greater compliance from the population.

The danger of the covid virus was concentrated in specific demographics such that a lot of people didn't directly see how dangerous it was. This created a disconnect between what was being reported vs what people saw with their own eyes, creating the perfect environment for conspiracy theories to run rampant. For example, I don't know anyone that died or had a bad time with it, nor does anyone else in my family/close circle. But that's because I don't really know any old or medically vulnerable people, but with our aging populations in the western world this group is actually huge. We had people dropping like flies in certain sub-groups while in others nothing much happened and only where the groups intersected was it visible how bad it really was (healthcare workers, people with old grandparents not taking it seriously). It also doesn't help that older demographics almost always have something else wrong with them and Covid a lot of the time was one contributing factor that pushed them over the edge, this really fueled the conspiracy theorists narrative of falsely attributing causes of death to "inflate" numbers.

I also think the media took a wrong turn in it's messaging and told too many noble lies. It was really important that the young and healthy also thought that this might be real threat to them personally so they'd actually take it seriously and stop spreading it. But young people would lookup the statistics for their own risk and would see fatality/complication rates of sub 1%, and also note that those affected were primarily the morbidly obese and immuno-compromised. I recall seeing a lot of articles indicating that there was a surge of young people in ER and articles showing obituaries of young people in order to hammer home the message that it was a real danger to them too. The problem is the official statistics didn't back that message up to the degree that it needed to, so you had this big disconnect that was exploited heavily by conspiracy theorists. IMO this was likely a misguided effort directed towards reducing spread, because it was determined that quarantining to save other people wasn't a strong enough incentive to curb risky behavior (which is depressing), but backfired heavily and likely caused more harm than good.

If a more serious virus came around that had fatality rates in the double digits, I don't think conspiracy theories would be able to form. Because very quickly people would see people they know in their lives dying/becoming extremely sick. There's no uncertainly/disconnect to exploit in that scenario like there was with covid.

[giantg2]

"A more severe virus would play out very differently."

It wouldn't necessarily. It could still be nearly impossible to contain given the right characteristics, like asymptomatic carriers, a latency period, or benign early onset symptoms. With the right parameters and fast global travel, it would be global before any measures could even be implemented (theory is this was the case with Covid).

"I don't think we'd see such a huge conspiracy movement around it and much greater compliance from the population."

There might be better compliance, but not likely enough to make a difference. Many of the things that they're supposed to be complying with were misunderstood, ineffective (maybe marginally effective), and wouldn't prevent transmission. Even if you were to lock almost everyone in their homes, you still have some essential personnel who must travel/work/etc. Most lack the training necessary for consistently complying with prevention protocols.

Just look at the number of people dying of drugs every year. They know it's bad. Some think it won't happen to them. Others don't care. There's no reason to believe that a non-zero portion of the population would share these two thought processes in this sort of situation and still cause significant damage. Including the people who see no/limited risk for themselves.

[briHass]

I agree with your broader point, but this statement strikes me as odd:

> "I recall seeing a lot of articles indicating that there was a surge of young people in ER and articles showing obituaries of young people in order to hammer home the message that it was a real danger to them too. The problem is the official statistics didn't back that message up to the degree that it needed to, so you had this big disconnect that was exploited heavily by conspiracy theorists. "

That seems like whitewashed phrasing for what was, at best, manipulation and at worst, outright lies. The 'official statistics' were hidden from everyone, and particularly the young, because telling someone under 40 that their IFR for COVID was only about 5-10X what it is for the flu just isn't that scary.

[spookthesunset]

> IMO this was likely a misguided effort directed towards reducing spread, because it was determined that quarantining to save other people wasn't a strong enough incentive to curb risky behavior (which is depressing), but backfired heavily and likely caused more harm than good.

Perhaps a large set of people have a different set of values and consider the tradeoff between endless (and mostly useless) lockdowns and restrictions not worth it compared to taking their risks of getting covid.

Perhaps they have decided that the costs to society far outweigh any benefits from these mitigations. These are a perfectly valid set of values, just different than your own--it requires absolutely no "conspiracy theories" to think this.

> conspiracy theorists

There is not many conspiracy theories about covid and a very small set of people peddle them. Most of the "conspiracy theories" turned out to be perfectly true. For example requiring proof of vaccination to sit down at a starbucks turned out to be true. Vaccines turned out to do very little to stop infection or transmission. Masks not working as well as some people would like to believe. Lockdowns and school closures hurt children--especially those who are low-income.

Writing off everything you disagree with as "conspiracy theory" is poor intellectual thinking. Maybe if you put aside your preconceived notions and dug harder into the arguments people have against everything society has done for covid, you'd discover that they have very valid points.

[ikrenji]

it was calculated how many lives were saved thanks to vaccines, wearing masks, social distancing, lockdowns etc. just because some people with different sets of values don't believe those numbers doesn't mean they aren't true...

"We estimate that across these 6 countries, interventions prevented or delayed on the order of 61 million confirmed cases, corresponding to averting approximately 495 million total infections."

"COVID-19 vaccination has substantially altered the course of the pandemic, saving tens of millions of lives globally. However, inadequate access to vaccines in low-income countries has limited the impact in these settings, reinforcing the need for global vaccine equity and coverage."