Yes they are. So one wonders why you consistently only air one side of the debate.

Containment isolation and eradication could have worked in the early stages, but there's no point in half the world containing and eradicating. So we had the unedifying scramble for vaccines, and let it rip amongst the poor. — unenlightened

A fair summary. One of the issues with policy here (masking is a good example) is how policymakers deal with the absolute known fact that the policy won't be enacted flawlessly. One of the main criticisms leveled by Peter Shergold at Australia's policy was an inability to adapt to the situations where early containment failed. People are flawed. Policies which assume they're perfect are destined to fail.

That said, I think policy failures had a lot more to do with lining wealthy pockets than technical errors. To think otherwise would require us to believe the powerful got richer by coincidence.

The issue goes beyond government though. There needs to be some account of the effect social media trends had on influencing policy. We can see from the leaked communications from Matt Hancock that ministers were implementing policies they themselves didn't even believe in, so the question is what social environment made them think such policies would be politically astute.

one wonders why you consistently only air one side of the debate. — Benkei

That's very simple. One side of the debate is responsible for enriching the most powerful people in the world in the largest transfer of wealth ever recorded. I really don't think it needs any more air, and I find it, by default, less compelling on those grounds alone.

When speaking to power one only need oppose that which seems wrong. That which seems right (but aligns with the objectives of the powerful) is happening anyway and needs no help from us.

So one wonders why you consistently only air one side of the debate. — Benkei

Only one side of the story is repeated over and over, and those seeing something wrong with this highlight the other side in an attempt to restore some semblance of balance back to the discussion, and are then asked "why they so consistently air only one side of the debate?"

Oddly reminiscent of the Ukraine situation.

How are healthcare workers dancing aligned with big-pharma (presumably powerful people you're talking about) because there we don't know but you opt to choose one-side and see nothing wrong with? And why make it appear as if you hold a particular opposing view, when in fact your view is "we don't know"? And if we don't know, why is a risk-averse and low impact policy such as mask wearing the wrong thing to do? Not all cases of "we don't know" is an argument for doing nothing?

Only one side of the story is repeated over and over, and those seeing something wrong with this, highlighting the other side in an attempt to restore some semblance of balance back to the discussion, are asked "why they so consistently air only one side of the debate".

Oddly reminiscent of the Ukraine situation. — Tzeentch

From a casual reading of the last few pages of this thread the story being repeated over-and-over is not what you think it is. Things have quieted down significantly with regard to Covid-19 which I would think would finally give room for more balanced discussions but instead it's like a pendulum swinging the other way. It's not very pretty to be honest.

How are healthcare workers dancing aligned with big-pharma — Benkei

Social media creates narratives which tribalise groups dissenting from the preferred narrative that presents covid as a very, very dangerous thing that require extreme measures to combat which directly benefits those corporations poised to profit from the extreme solutions. In this case, big pharma.

Healthcare workers dancing perpetuates that narrative by telling a story about uniquely extreme circumstances, coming together (but only of those who don't dissent), and overcoming (but only using profit-making solutions).

why make it appear as if you hold a particular opposing view, when in fact your view is "we don't know"? — Benkei

I've already explained, we speak against power. Balance just serves the interests of the powerful. "We don't know" is useless if powerful agencies are pushing in a direction which might be wrong. "Don't know" is performatively the same as consent in those circumstances since the objectives of the powerful will be met absent of equally powerful opposition.

if we don't know, why is a risk-averse and low impact policy such as mask wearing the wrong thing to do? — Benkei

Mask-wearing is neither risk averse, nor low impact. But it's not about the policy. It's about the debate. If scientific debate is stiffled by political tribalism then we will make mistake after mistake. Scientists opposed to masking were literally banned from taking part in the scientific debate. Even now, there's smearing and aspersions which artificially weigh one side above that which there is good statistical evidence for.

If you seriously can't see how the intense polemicism of the covid policy response debate harmed scientific progress then I doubt there's anything I could say now that would persuade you.

Things have quieted down significantly with regard to Covid-19 — Benkei

So we just forget about it? Don't look, don't learn any lessons?

Things have quieted down significantly with regard to Covid-19 which I would think would finally give room for more balanced discussions but instead it's like a pendulum swinging the other way. It's not very pretty to be honest. — Benkei

The difference between then and now is that no one is being censored.

If people don't want to speak in favor of the old narrative that's their prerogative.

I guess the part that isn't very pretty is how little the old narrative is supported now that the propaganda machines have ceased churning, at least on the topic of Covid.

I think I said: "would finally give room for more balanced discussions" not "let's forget about it".

more balanced discussions — Benkei

On one side, there is a lesson to learn that the world needs a coordinated response, if containment is to be effective, and any quarantine measures or zoning needs to be globally instituted, and enforced.

But against any such measures we have the danger of suppressing debate in order to achieve that coordination, particularly when global companies with friends in high places have financial interests that might override their, ahem, natural humanitarian concerns.

A post-moral world is a post-truth world, and in a post truth world there is no trust or honour, so in the end no lesson can be learned at all. Next time, it will probably be much worse, and the response more fragmented and self-serving than ever. "Let's forget about it" follows from the inability to take what is said by politicians or medics as honest and truthful.

I'll walk you out in the morning dew, my honey; I guess it doesn't matter, anyway. — Bonnie Dobson via The Grateful Dead

The difference between then and now is that no one is being censored. — Tzeentch

Who has been censored here? Seems like a bit of an exagerration.

If people don't want to speak in favor of the old narrative that's their prerogative.

I guess the part that isn't very pretty is how little the old narrative is supported now that the propaganda machines have ceased churning, at least on the topic of Covid.

Or maybe people are just done with Covid and tired of it? That's mostly it for me to be honest. Just noticed the last few pages and thought I'd share some other views. And yes, it's everybody's prerogative to only talk about one side of an issue but it's weird to me when someone's actual position is "we don't know" to then come across as "everything governments did was wrong". Hardly conducive to figuring out what went right and what went wrong.

I was a proponent for lockdowns; in fact I thought they happened too late and were too weak in the Netherlands and would've preferred them to be employed earlier and then, as a result, for a shorter duration. And I didn't need evidence for that because I think it's common sense that if you limit contact moments, the likelihood of passing on an infection goes down. Even so, almost all governments failed to ask the question: at what cost? And I don't mean economic cost but mental health, loss in education and social development for kids, etc., which were never taken into account.

I was also in favour of masking and still am if another pandemic would arise (next bird flu?) where it can spread via aerosols. Again common sense would indicate that since the airflow is disrupted the spread of aerosols will decrease and lower the likelihood of transmission. PPE were introduced for hygiene reasons around the 1900s based on our understanding of how diseases transmit. For me it's weird how research we did 100 years ago in these issues are no longer relevant and we have all this statistical research showing both sides of the debate while we have experimental data from the 1900s proving the efficacy of hygiene against the transmission of diseases. So yes, if you can't cough on things, they won't get contaminated and if they don't get contaminated, you can't contract if from those things.

What I didn't agree with was the fearmongering and the complete absence of an exit strategy (at least in the Netherlands). The lack of respect by paying healthcare workers a pittance and generally gutting our healthcare in the previous 20 years. And now again, for those healthcare workers that got long-Covid it's insane they're not properly compensated.

I saw more proof for the moral bankruptcy of capitalism and neo-liberal me-me-me. But hey, I know people blamed everything on the socialist government even when it's run by liberals/conservatives.

I blame Nietzsche.

Who has been censored here? Seems like a bit of an exagerration. — Benkei

Wake up, man.

Have you seen a single piece of mainstream media coverage that was critical towards the government's covid strategy during the pandemic?

The only place I found those was on independent media outlets. You might say, "Well then it's not censorship", but what you'd be skipping is the fact that actively preventing critical voices from being heard by wider audiences is censorship, especially in today's day and age. I'd go as far as saying that providing critical voices a platform is a fundamental duty of legitimate governments.

And this didn't extend only to opinions. When research was done that showed results at odds with the narrative - voided, or simply swept under the rug by barrages of sweet nothings like "99% of doctors agree..."

My impression is that people who do not consider that censorship, in fact just thought it was fine for critical voices to be silenced.

I think I said: "would finally give room for more balanced discussions" not "let's forget about it". — Benkei

I wasn't necessarily only using what you said in judgment. As you've pointed out in my analysis, my singular focus on the negative would belie any claim to balance I might make verbally.

Lots of things went badly wrong and thousands are now dying, or in desperate poverty as a result. I don't think the minor, and very obvious successes really need any amplification, but if need be...

An excellent vaccine was created in really short time which worked to reduce symptom severity.

Some places, like Australia closed borders quickly and gave health services vital breathing space.

... That's about it.

Then there's...

Scientific dissent was censored and where not actively censored, severely disparaged to the point of ridicule. The effect has been devastating on academic research in many fields, including my own.

Lockdowns were pursued even when they could be shown not to work and cause tremendous harms to the most vulnerable in society - but, more important than that mere policy mistake, they were pursued because of a social media induced hyperbole in favour of them among key demographics.

Masking was mandated without doing any randomized control trials even through the second year, children's vulnerability during language acquisition and learning was ignored, mental health effects were ignored, again, not just because of policy error, but because of social media driven tribalism creating a big political incentive to pander to extremest groups.

The vaccine was advised (and in some cases mandated) for people who it is absolutely clear now did not need it. This kept supplies short for the most vulnerable and risked not only an increase in side effects (and associated hospital pressure), but a concomitant loss of faith in vaccines in general which may still have a considerably greater impact on health (Measles particularly) than Covid ever could.

And again, this wasn't a simple policy error, but a policy driven by pharmaceutical corporations and social media campaigns who we allowed to dictate policy above general scientific consensus building.

And all of this has resulted in a social environment which now either distrusts health institutions (with good reason), or treats government sanctioned views as the word-of-God and everything else as 'disinformation'.

And we're now so much in debt that poverty reduction has been set back by decades, millions more are on the brink of starvation and no-one is interested in doing anything about that because the social media tribes created to service this crisis are too easily distracted from anything which doesn't serve corporate interests.

We lurch from one crisis to the next because corporations have seen how profitable crises are and how easily they can create and manipulate sufficient social media movements to sway any politicians they haven't already paid off.

__

There.

How's that for balanced?

actively preventing critical voices from being heard by wider audiences is censorship, especially in today's day and age.

And this didn't extend only to opinions. When research was done that showed results at odds with the narrative - voided, or simply swept under the rug by barrages of sweet nothings like "99% of doctors agree..."

My impression is that people who do not consider that censorship, in fact just thought it was fine for critical voices to be silenced. — Tzeentch

Exactly. Saying "Oh well, they got a slot on Tucker Carlson" is not the same as a lack of censorship. Many eminent, qualified, and well respected academics with dissenting views were driven to independent publishing and right-wing media platforms, just to get a voice.

Letting your opposition speak, but only on platforms which make that speech seem less authoritative than it deserves (according the the qualification of the speaker) is censorship by another name, if not censorship proper.

And indeed, it's no surprise that we see the same tactics used in relation to Ukraine, as you mentioned. Once something has been shown to work...

I would think would finally give room for more balanced discussions but instead it's like a pendulum swinging the other way. It's not very pretty to be honest. — Benkei

Oh, and this from my first comments in this latest instance...

To be clear, I think a general policy of mask wearing was a sensible public health precaution in the face of uncertainty. — Isaac

What the Cochrane review shows is not that masks are useless, nor that governments were wrong to mandate their use. — Isaac

Not sufficiently prostrate for you? Do I need to wax any more lyrical about how amazing our governments were in order to qualify as 'balanced' in your eyes?

Perhaps I should have recommended Matt Hancock for a knighthood...

It all just dissolves back into the mud from which it came.

Yeah.

This is how it's gone since Covid. Literally any criticism of government policy (that isn't saying they ought do even more of the brilliant stuff they're doing) is labelled as arising from some unhinged anti-government ideology. It instantly pours cold water on any genuine criticism of government or corporate agendas, basically leaving them unopposed.

It's a masterstroke of social control

Remember when the Democratic party actually spent millions promoting Trump because they thought he was so ludicrous he'd guarantee a Republican loss? That's the policy ever since. Set up an obviously ludicrous clown who'll take up any policy opposed to yours. Associate all of your opponents with that clown (who are obviously also opposing your policies) and suddenly all opposition looks less serious.

My hat goes off to whomever came up with it. Sociopathic, but brilliant.

On an unrelated note, anyone know what the old Cambridge Analytica team are up to now...?

I apologise for missing that. I jumped back in after that apparently.

I thought you were talking about this website in particular in the previous comment. But yes, I agree, stifling of dissenting opinions has been a problem in various shapes and forms lately. I thought this was less obvious during Covid then now with the Ukraine war. Dissent on Covid lockdowns and government mandates was vocal and reported on. The dissenters were framed as "wappies" though; which often worked due to them having idiotic opinions on unrelated issues (like Chemtrails, WEF reset conspiracy and other crap).

I thought you were talking about this website in particular in the previous comment. — Benkei

No, no. I haven't seen any form of censorship on this forum. Having voiced skeptical views throughout the pandemic I was met with some hostility, but that's the price of going against the grain, I suppose.

The dissenters were framed as "wappies" though; which often worked due to them having idiotic opinions on unrelated issues (like Chemtrails, WEF reset conspiracy and other crap). — Benkei

I genuinely wonder what percentage of skeptics truly held extreme views, on how much of that was simply framing along the lines of the same strategy that mentioned.

I appreciate the apology for missing my moderation. I might have preferred a charitable assumption it was present in the first place... but we take what we can get.

The dissenters were framed as "wappies" though; which often worked due to them having idiotic opinions on unrelated issues (like Chemtrails, WEF reset conspiracy and other crap). — Benkei

Exactly. Only they didn't did they. Because Vinay Prasad dissented, and last I checked he had a fairly normal view on chemtrails. Jay Bhattacharya dissented, and I'm pretty sure he's as convinced as the next man that the earth is round. Mark Woolhouse dissented and I'm 99% convinced he's happy with the government explanation for 9/11. Martin Kuldorff dissented, and I haven't heard much from him about UFOs. Paul Offit, Norman Fenton, Wes Pegden, John Ioannidis, Pete Doshi.... All experts in their fields, none (to my knowledge) with the slightest trace of tin-foil in their headgear, but every single one vilified for their views and every single layman repeating them treated like a flat-earther.

And yes, exactly the same is happening with Ukraine. Legitimate, qualified experts treated like lunatics because they disagree with mainstream narratives.

What scares me about all this is that what's being undermined here is faith in the scientific process (the one which brought us the vaccines in the first place). We have a system in place which, although flawed, is pretty good at ensuring that if you have the qualification (doctorate, usually) you are at least competent enough to be taken seriously in public debate over policy in your field. If we lose that, we just have rule by social media algorithm.

@Isaac, those people weren't shut up or their stuff wouldn't be around for all to see. (Thinking of Russia? :grin:) What you label "Dissent" is how things work. Then there's the rest of the community, too many to list I guess. (Have you scoffed at some of their interviews or whatever, manipulated/imposed by mass media / government narratives?) Casting it as dissent versus mainstream story-telling like so is politicizing it or enabling (political) misuse, ripe for en vogue toxicity.

^{Returning to my earlier comment, no calls for masking up, :mask:-industrial complex begone, saving the kids, no occasional lock-down, which would be fascist authoritarian anyway, no vaccine coverage, the evil Big Pharma to be purged, no travel or gathering restrictions, more authoritarian control done with, WHO and the CDC were once wrong, hence never to be trusted, ... Kind of business as usual, I suppose partially in the name of dissent (well, at least until there's harmony among all it would seem). Whichever of the above, and wherever outliers/disagreements can be found. Besides, it's up to every individual alone (freedom guaranteed by law), right? Thus, laissez-faire it is. ... Is ← ↑ that it, then, or ...? (Or, I'd hope.)}

... You name it, someone said it. — Mar 12, 2023

Sometimes we have a situation on our hands that we still have to deal with. The problem here isn't whatever an individual says in particular, it's a matter of taking all of it into consideration to get it dealt with, and there are experts doing that as well. (Are you one of them?) Are we ready for the next one?

those people weren't shut up or their stuff wouldn't be around for all to see. (Thinking of Russia? :grin:) What you label "Dissent" is how things work. — jorndoe

If you have anything more than simpering apologetics to contribute there might be more to discuss. As it is I don't know what can be added. You're wrong. It's not just 'how things work' and I've above cited the evidence of several of the respective countries' top scientists, lawyers, and public servants saying exactly that.

If you seriously think just saying 'it was fine' is some kind of stunning coup de grâce, I don't know of a more gentle way to let you down I'm afraid.

The problem here isn't whatever an individual says in particular, it's a matter of taking all of it into consideration to get it dealt with — jorndoe

Yes. Which is exactly what the people I cited above have concluded did not happen. Did you even read them?

there are experts doing that as well — jorndoe

The experts aren't the problem. Most experts have already recognised the mistakes and plan to learn from them. It's the public that are the problem. Morons like you who can't handle the fact that they were played by social media algorithms and so double down on their fanaticism which makes it harder for politicians to actually act on the more sound advice the experts are now giving them. You're the problem now.

I'm breaking a superstition to say this, but I've never had COVID-19. I've been up to my eyeballs in it, but somehow never contracted it. Most people I know have had it at least once, one person has had it four times even after vaccination.

Have you had it?

I'm breaking a superstition to say this, but I've never had COVID-19. — frank

Have you had it? — frank

I haven't had it either. My father had Covid twice, and my mother once.I live with them, and I don't know why I never got infected...
I've even taken public transportation and nothing has ever caught my eye.

I guess our immune system is strong and good, Frank. :up:

guess our immune system is strong and good, Frank. :up: — javi2541997

I don't think that coronavirus cares about strong immune systems. Sometimes a person can have some weird genetic thing that makes them immune to certain diseases.

I don't know what would have happened if I have never taken the vaccine, maybe a hard experience. But it is interesting that I never got infected despite the fact that I was surrounded by infected ones. :chin:

AstraZeneca has been banned in Australia due to causing severe, sometimes deadly, side-effects.

Considering a lot of people were misinformed about the risks of vaccination, and in some countries people were put under heavy societal pressure to take the vaccine against their will, at what point are we going to start calling this for what it is: murder.