|
|
|
|
|
|
by mike_hearn
354 days ago
|
|
|
You seem to be under the impression there were no conspiracies during COVID, which is nonsense. You can read the Slack logs of the channels where conspiracies were organized (e.g. the papers denying lab leaks were organized that way). You can read emails where people were given their top-down orders. You can read meeting notes and journal reviews where people say that whilst claim X is true it would cause people to stop following government orders so it should be suppressed. You can read interviews with public health officials who say they organized conspiracies to lying, and you can observe that the entire medical profession went along with that. The synchronized flipflops on masks alone was enough to destroy many people's belief in doctors and public health. By all means, try and wordsmith your way out of these facts. It doesn't work. Trust in the medical profession has dropped through the floor, and it will keep falling further for as long as responses like yours are common in discussions of it. As for your 60 number, those are mostly state level boards, who have a monopoly over licensing in that state. If a doctor gets struck off in a state they could move to another, lose all their customers and home, and try to start again, but in practice those boards don't approve doctors who were struck off in another state regardless of reason. So in reality it's not much different to having one. The wider argument is of course silly, akin to arguing that if two dictators happen to make the same decision their countries aren't dictatorships because all decisions are emergent phenomena arising from the wisdom of the crowds. |
|
|
You seem to be continuing to put words into other people's mouths.
> You can read emails where people were given their top-down orders.
This is literally not true (I've read the emails)
> The synchronized flipflops on masks alone was enough to destroy many people's belief in doctors and public health.
One man's "synchronized flipflop" is another's "appearance of new evidence and tradeoffs."
> You can read meeting notes and journal reviews where people say that whilst claim X is true it would cause people to stop following government orders so it should be suppressed.
Can you link me to this?
> You can read interviews with public health officials who say they organized conspiracies to lying
Can you link me to this?
> akin to arguing that if two dictators happen to make the same decision their countries aren't dictatorships
No, it's like arguing that if two dictators happen to make the same decision, it doesn't mean they are acting in coordination with one another. Which is obviously true.
All I see in this thread is someone confidently asserting that he needs to be trusted with the truth despite reflexively dismissing data that doesn't fit his priors and, apparently, believing that it's unreasonable to assume that being physically closer to a person with a respiratory virus produces a higher risk of infection than standing further away. (I find that you're never far from truly insane opinions in convos with these "just a skeptic" types)
You have done a fine job of demonstrating the loss of trust in the profession though, I'll give you that! It is almost entirely (not entirely, but almost entirely) due to people who have simply decided to be confidently wrong and, when asked for examples or sources over and over and over again, fail to produce them.
You obviously have a right to form your own opinion on all of this stuff, but demonstrably don't have the capability to do it. Many such cases!