[cruffle_duffle]

We were all told to shut the fuck up and listen to a handful of cherry picked “doomsday experts” who refused to follow their own data, didn’t follow their own science and refused to acknowledge that society has millions of problems beyond one very single, very specific thing.

And if we didn’t follow their edict’s or if we were to express any doubt of any kind, we were evil alt-right grandma killers who deserved horrible Covid deaths.

Heathy discourse was absolutely not allowed. You were either 100% on board with whatever crazy shit your local politicians threw against the wall or you were a pile of shit sub human scumball. Didn’t matter they had no definition of success, no long term gameplan, no acknowledgment of the harms they were causing… in fact it didn’t even matter that these experts and politicians didn’t follow their own policies, you were told to suck it up buttercup this is the “new normal” and it’s forever.

I don’t think this is a “both sides have a good argument” kind of deal. What the Covid “side” did was abhorrent and history will not look fondly on them at all.

[Zenzero]

> We were all told to shut the fuck up and listen to a handful of cherry picked “doomsday experts”

No, you were told to out aside your opinions and allow people educated in epidemiology to guide a rapidly changing situation. It turns out the there were too many people with a chip on their shoulder to make the policy recommendations effective.

> if we were to express any doubt of any kind, we were evil alt-right grandma killers who deserved horrible Covid deaths.

Pointless hyperbole.

> no acknowledgment of the harms they were causing

Such as?

> What the Covid “side” did was abhorrent and history will not look fondly on them at all.

Reading between the lines it seems like you have many baked in assumptions that distort your perception of the event.

[electrondood]

Thank you. The revisionism in this thread is ridiculous.

There was no oppressive regime forcing you to do anything. There were common sense, effective public health recommendations for mitigating a novel virus that spread faster than anything we'd seen, whose death rate was not known, and for which we had no vaccine or mitigation except for masking/distancing.

No one was forcing you to stay indoors. You were asked to wear a mask around other people, and most private businesses chose to require customers and employees to wear one, as is their right.

[Zenzero]

Exactly. It's maddening seeing all of these uneducated people spouting full throated delusions as fact and everyone else allows these people to have room to spread their nonsense.

Im frankly pretty shocked that HN, which usually has a relatively educated user base compared to most other sites, is allowing this kind of drivel from people who have no idea what they are talking about.

[aakresearch]

Eloquent primer on "cogent argument" which is totally not "rambling stream of anger and emotion". Perfect basis for a healthy, respectful debate.

I'm really sorry I did bite on this provocation, but hope your post stays up for everyone to see and make their own judgement.

[aakresearch]

What revisionism? There was nothing sensible, measured, effective, justified, "common sense" or genuine in the "response" to that "pandemic". I came to believe that it was not even well-intended beyond the first couple of months. No, in my book, authorities lying and manipulating to save their own arse and cover incompetence cannot be absolved or rationalized as well intended.

What you describe is the idealistic picture of how it, perhaps, should have unfolded. You may even genuinely believe it is what actually transpired, and sure as hell you want us to believe the same, but reality disagrees. We remember how it was and we "have receipts".

In Victoria (AU) people were definitely not "asked" but very much demanded to perform all these theatrics. I remember watching some news with police wallowing in pride of scolding and ultimately fining a man who they "caught" sitting in his own car "outside of property boundary" after curfew, apparently needed to escape a heated family situation. By sitting alone and unmasked in the car he would surely cause a mass-spreading of your beloved "virus". We were, in fact, forced to stay indoors. What is the other meaning of "curfew"?

In other multiple examples people were jumped from behind by police, tasered, hand-chocked and even rammed by police cars - again, for being found in "non-compliance" with this nonsense. There was no lack of footage showing people forcibly masked by police. Other measures included arresting people in their homes for "inciting" on social media, large scale deployment of armored vehicles, helicopters and drones to spy on those having BBQ "over allowed number of visitors". Tear gas and rubber bullets for transgressors. Mounted police "kettling" of protesters of such "measures". Care to quantify anti-viral properties of curfews?

We knew all there was to know very early in the show. Diamond Princess was perfect in-vivo experiment. A sardine can full of old farts had 700 out 3700 "infected". Pardon, "tested positive" - I imagine with a PCR test. I wonder was the PCR test at the time used at 40 cycles, which is enough to find traces of this "deadly virus" in orange juice and machine oil? Apparently 14 people later died "from" the "virus". Interestingly, both "tested positive" and "died" were reported after half- to one-and-half-months since vessel was fully abandoned. I can only conclude that those poor 14 were ventilated to death, as it was a preferred method of disposal at the time. Is it even so much over the "baseline" for 3000 septagenarians regardless of covid or any other malaise?

Epidemiology has proven itself to be full of it and unable to take on any new learnings. I suspect it was always like that. "People educated in epidemiology to guide a rapidly changing situation" were even unable to follow their own "guidance"! When they were "blowing off steam" in underground orgies or similarly unable to hold their urges. Do you need reference for that?

There was no justification for anything. Masks were mandated on a whim. Premier of the state went from "wearing a mask for this virus is a waste of mask" to "you are an extremist and far-right if you don't wear one" in one day. Some "health advice" was cited, but request to release that advice later on was denied, and denied it stays to this day. Apparently, it was "not in public interest" to release. Yeah, sure. I totally believe it wasn't pulled out of.. thin air.

On a personal front, not showing unbounded enthusiasm was branded "conspiratorial thinking" and "actively wanting 10% of over-60s dead". By people I considered friends, not less.

So, who really engages in revisionism and newspeak here? Who is an extremist - the one who shuns a useless mask or those who point a (rubber bullet) gun at them or break into their home with handcuffs? What is this derogatory, offending rhetoric spouted from highest level of political and bureaucratic power, if not gaslighting? Who is "spouting full throated delusions as fact"?

I cannot possibly fit all my points into this HN post, or I won't have any time left to work today. But for every bit of nonsense we have a pile of receipts completely refuting it. Even if some "measures" in isolation could be argued reasonable, the whole well was so deeply poisoned that it is absolutely impossible to look at it positively. My most charitable interpretation is that they wanted the measures to be first and foremost visible, and effectiveness or even necessity was not a priority. But my appetite for being charitable went away too, as the stench of their BS was overwhelming. It probably does not matter for establishing the truth, as the trenches have been dug out and the war is declared for many decades ahead. Covid enthusiasts' camp "won the battle" - we were all subjected to all these outlandish orders and demands. Did it help in the end? I do not understand. Not only they were successful with inflicting the maximum pain, but they also now demand us to remember it fondly??? Why? How twisted one's mind has to be? Or is it intoxication from the high of righteousness? Righteousness is a hell of drug, indeed.

If I may address the "such as?" insinuation in the GP post. I'm sure they aren't really genuine in wanting to hear the answer. Otherwise their claimed "education" would have allowed them to see at least some of reasons. If "education" doesn't stand for "brain-washing" and "indoctrination", as it mostly does these days, unfortunately. But I would like to point out at least some political harm. Prior to 2020 I didn't care about politics at all. I do not "consume" news, I didn't know my state's Premier name, and only know our federal PMs for the laughing stock they are, "left" and "right" alike. I can say I was largely onboard with "consensus" on "climate change" and an "ally" on most cultural "issues". But living through the stress of three-year-long torrent of vile, unadulterated lies not only broke my physical body (I developed a condition which will finish me much sooner than I would like), but also made me feeling so incredibly dirty for even remotely associating with that camp. If anything was "baked into my perception", it was by this experience only, not by my apriori position or any media influence. I'm not sure I'll ever be able to wash off this filth, but the only way I'll be able to live with myself and not to finish myself off before my condition does it for me is to deny, defy and sabotage every initiative of everyone who sits atop of this pyramid or wants to climb up to it. No matter how "educated" they are, it is now proven to me that they have less capacity to reflection and learning than even the worst LLMs of today. In fact, calling them "bots" or "NPCs" is an insult to bots or NPCs. In my opinion all they deserve is Nuremberg trial and guillotine, and by association all others who are willingly singing the same song.

[Zenzero]

As expected, instead of a cogent argument for why you believe what you do, you simply deliver a rambling stream of anger and emotion.

Fundamentally, COVID public health recommendations revolved around minimizing transmission and preservation of medical resources while awaiting development of treatment options. No amount of ranting about being forced to sit in your house, other people being mean to you, or political gamesmanship changes that. No amount of complaining about imperfect solutions like masking or distancing detract from the overall validity of why they were recommended.

As a doctor I have had to have this kind of talk with people over and over. The underlying biology cares zero for your schedule or convenience in life. Given how noncompliance is a constant problem on an individual healthcare level, it's not surprising that we ended up with millions of people just like you who can't follow simple instructions and formed communities in support of their collective failure to do so.

[aakresearch]

Yeah, it was a mistake to expect anything beyond thought-stopping cliches that were delivered by you. In hindsight it was a mistake to post at all. I don't think you've read my post anyways, or you've processed it on a level below a typical LLM.

Righteousness is the most potent drug of them all, is it not? No need to answer. Have a good day.

[AlexeyBelov]

> In hindsight it was a mistake to post at all.

Yes, absolutely. You just don't see how it looks from the outside, so it all appears normal to you. It absolutely isn't normal and makes you look unhinged.

[AlexeyBelov]

You really, really need professional help.

[aakresearch]

Case in point.

[ben_w]

> What the Covid “side” did was abhorrent and history will not look fondly on them at all.

History will look on this the same way as it did on Spanish Flu:

Barely at all, even when it has valuable lessons for the next pandemic.

The former told me that people would stop wearing masks very very quickly.

[lc9er]

I’ll never understand the people that want their offense at being labeled a “Typhoid Mary” to be taken as seriously as their anti-social, Typhoid Mary behavior.

[aakresearch]

Mary Mallon's case was singled out of many more similar cases. She was treated unfairly and with prejudice. No wonder she behaved "anti-socially".

[ben_w]

Two people being treated unequally doesn't tell you who was being treated unfairly.

In her case, if there were indeed comparable cases of people repeatedly refusing to follow medical isolation, it's the others who were unfairly given freedom to continue to infect and kill innocent people.

[aakresearch]

It has nothing at all to do with treatment being unequal.

I only form my opinion from the current Wikipedia article, and this is how it looks to me.

- Mary Mallon, herself, was just as innocent, yet she was treated as a criminal, which is unfair.

- Her treatment was "hectic" as per Wikipedia. I'd say it was unreasonable and dangerous, with a big pile of negligence.

- Communication and information given to her was inconsistent at best.

- She had all the rights and reasons to disbelieve and dispute all conjectures made about her. Contemporary state-of-the-art knowledge and practices in medicine and "public health" was nowhere near conclusive and confident. She had a good shot at collecting evidence to prove her case, but to my understanding she was denied a fair judgement - case was dismissed before hearing. However, I believe that her continuous isolation could not be justified "beyond reasonable doubt" even by our modern knowledge and standard of proof!

- The demands put on her were unreasonable and excessive.

- He name was dragged through media, forever tainted in the process.

- She was never given appropriate consideration/compensation for all the conditions of her treatment and limitations of release. They could have offered her a lifetime pension which would have removed the need for her to work as a cook. They could have recruited her for research program, compensated accordingly. Instead, she was expected to bear full cost of all conditions put on her. The best shot at compensation was a promise of royalties for yet-unwritten book dragging her name through more mud. Which only added insult to injury, understandably, as it would absolutely do for so many of us.

- My understanding is that other similar cases were not "refused requests to isolate", but such requests were not even made, making Mary's case unfairly singled out.

- Last but not least, I absolutely disagree with your chosen turn of phrase that others were "unfairly given freedom". Freedom is not given, it is a default state of being. To take it away requires extraordinary justification, which in Mary's case was awfully deficient and remains so to this day.

[ben_w]

Mm.

Humans are social animals, I find a lot of things makes a lot more sense through that lens — shooting the messenger included.