[avloss11]

What about those who deny "HIV causing AIDS", and don't take their medications? I guess it's really about people. And if the people in charge have your best interests at heart.

With COVID, I feel like it was a bunch of technocrats, that had no "human touch".

As for "heliocentric / geocentric" - didn't that all become irrelevant once we've learned there's no "ether"? All models are equally valid/invalid. Or perhaps I'm missing something.

[anonymouskimmer]

The problem with communicable diseases is that "the people in charge" are both people at various levels trying to impose or convince people to act in certain ways, as well as the individuals who are literally walking around infectious, or with disregard to whether or not they and those they interact with are infectious.

> With COVID, I feel like it was a bunch of technocrats, that had no "human touch".

No one speaking ex cathedra to a populous has a human touch that will speak to everyone they're speaking to. I once went to a personality theory conference and enjoyed myself, but the endnote speaker gave a talk where he mentioned the need for love (or something in that vein using the word "love"), and I immediately felt alienated from the entire event.

[anonymouskimmer]

crap, "populace".

[smsm42]

> What about those who deny "HIV causing AIDS", and don't take their medications?

You may consider that for the argument "current consensus is not always true and should not be enforced as if it were always true" the argument "but what about this one case where it was true" is not a counter-argument.

[analog31]

It became irrelevant when experiments were able to detect a rotating reference frame through precise tests of Newton's laws. I'm thinking of the Coriolis force and Foucault's pendulum as examples.