Overlander wrote: ↑Sun Jan 01, 2023 9:09 pm
It was a new virus. There were similarities to past viruses, but no one knew exactly HOW to battle it.
Faucci wasn’t wrong to make the statement that he made, given the limited experience.
I personally witnessed people trying to come to terms with and make plans for a virus that was NOVEL
Right.
How goddamn stupid it is to be playing gotcha games based on things that were basically well-reasoned guesses…on March 8, 2020.
The only thing that was CERTAIN at that point, is that real, actual isolation - not red county/blue county hodgepodge, not performative martyrdom, not isolation-but - would stop the spread.
For a great many reasons, that sort of effective isolation was neither practical nor, in the big picture, the right thing to do. Let alone legal or consistent with our country’s values.
It is simply INCONTROVERTIBLY TRUE that, on a high level, masking is better than not masking. That, on a high level, the vaccines we have are better than no vaccines.
It is also plainly true that addled rubes, goosed on by bad-faith puppeteer-profiteers, are compensating for insecurities and vulnerabilities by becoming vectors not for Covid, but for evidence-light (even evidence-less) conspiracy theories.
It’s really not so different from ancient times, where people made up stories about the gods and their offspring and their desires and whims and so on, because the people did not have the scientific tools to explain the world in which they live. Now, you have huge chunks of the populace who NEED these conspiracy theories to explain their world.
The WHY for that is perhaps the most important area for study in modern psychology. Not least because there is a TON of overlap between the groups who NEED these conspiracy theories, and groups that favor or at least harbor people who do grave damage, in myriad ways, to our order- and rules-based society and its people.
Best post on KCrim in quite a while.
Now, back to memes, YouTube’s and links to sketchy web sites
Re: Conspiracies
Posted: Mon Jan 02, 2023 2:15 pm
by Overlander
Hilarious. Dumbass, uneducated people on here, telling people who have degrees AND work daily in a field that they simply don’t know what they are talking about.
Re: Conspiracies
Posted: Mon Jan 02, 2023 2:23 pm
by MICHHAWK
there are roughly 13 contributors to this forum. half pretend to be experts in the field. color me skeptical.
Re: Conspiracies
Posted: Mon Jan 02, 2023 2:35 pm
by DCHawk1
Overlander wrote: ↑Mon Jan 02, 2023 2:15 pm
Hilarious. Dumbass, uneducated people on here, telling people who have degrees AND work daily in a field that they simply don’t know what they are talking about.
I know, right?
Re: Conspiracies
Posted: Mon Jan 02, 2023 2:41 pm
by PhDhawk
MICHHAWK wrote: ↑Mon Jan 02, 2023 2:23 pm
there are roughly 13 contributors to this forum. half pretend to be experts in the field. color me skeptical.
You help balance things out by being completely uninformed on every topic.
But no one is skeptical of your lack of expertise.
Re: Conspiracies
Posted: Mon Jan 02, 2023 2:46 pm
by jfish26
MICHHAWK wrote: ↑Mon Jan 02, 2023 2:23 pm
there are roughly 13 contributors to this forum. half pretend to be experts in the field. color me skeptical.
I am DYING to know which contributor pretends to be an expert 50% of the time, but not the other 50% of the time. Or is it that that particular contributor is 50% pretending to be an expert, at all times?
Boggles the mind, it does.
Re: Conspiracies
Posted: Mon Jan 02, 2023 2:49 pm
by DCHawk1
Re: Conspiracies
Posted: Mon Jan 02, 2023 3:01 pm
by RainbowsandUnicorns
StayCurious wrote: ↑Mon Jan 02, 2023 1:24 pm
JFish, you can live in your fantasy world. It reminds me this dude I saw at Trader Joes last week who put his 2 year old girl in a mask. Some customers were looking at this guy wondering what the hell he was thinking. Poor girl, gonna grow up with that kind of ignorant parent. As Leana Wen pointed out, masks harmed her child's speech development. They are not completely free of risks, although far safer than the vaccine. But totally unnecessary and useless. Children are at almost no risk from covid.
The Rittenhouse thing, I'm just pointing out that you should have known better. You're in the legal field, and you didn't even get that right. Reminds me of someone else on here who has a phd.
Further proof you're a fucking moron.
Two possible scenarios that is seems you are too stupid to take in to consideration....
A. The kid had Covid (or some other "virus"/"disease") and he was protecting YOUR ass.
B. The kid (like my buddy's son) has a heart condition and he feels she is at risk from assholes like you who have no problem going in to Trader Joe's knowing they are sick and not giving a shit they spread their sickness on to others.
StayCurious wrote: ↑Mon Jan 02, 2023 1:24 pm
JFish, you can live in your fantasy world. It reminds me this dude I saw at Trader Joes last week who put his 2 year old girl in a mask. Some customers were looking at this guy wondering what the hell he was thinking. Poor girl, gonna grow up with that kind of ignorant parent. As Leana Wen pointed out, masks harmed her child's speech development. They are not completely free of risks, although far safer than the vaccine. But totally unnecessary and useless. Children are at almost no risk from covid.
The Rittenhouse thing, I'm just pointing out that you should have known better. You're in the legal field, and you didn't even get that right. Reminds me of someone else on here who has a phd.
Further proof you're a fucking moron.
Two possible scenarios that is seems you are too stupid to take in to consideration....
A. The kid had Covid (or some other "virus"/"disease") and he was protecting YOUR ass.
B. The kid (like my buddy's son) has a heart condition and he feels she is at risk from assholes like you who have no problem going in to Trader Joe's knowing they are sick and not giving a shit they spread their sickness on to others.
And also...
C. The kid, being a kid, for some idiot reason threw a fit about wanting to wear a mask, and the parent made the (common and understandable!) decision that the stupidity of it was greatly outweighed by the desire to not cart a tantrum-throwing toddler around a grocery store.
randylahey wrote: ↑Mon Jan 02, 2023 1:40 pm
I wouldn't take it that far. But I would say people with degrees can seem less likely to think outside the box. Or assume everything they learn in their field is 100 percent correct. Which is false. Science is constantly evolving. Sometimes what we thought was correct we later learned was missing variables
Which you and squirt have never taken into account in your protests. Meanwhile PhD, Trad, Zsn, and a host of others have pointed this out in their defense of masks and the vaccine. You two wear the emperor's new clothes well.
The virus is continually evolving. For the most part the newer strains become weaker and our immune systems become more adapted.
It doesn't support the need of continuous masking or vaccinations
StayCurious wrote: ↑Mon Jan 02, 2023 1:24 pm
JFish, you can live in your fantasy world. It reminds me this dude I saw at Trader Joes last week who put his 2 year old girl in a mask. Some customers were looking at this guy wondering what the hell he was thinking. Poor girl, gonna grow up with that kind of ignorant parent. As Leana Wen pointed out, masks harmed her child's speech development. They are not completely free of risks, although far safer than the vaccine. But totally unnecessary and useless. Children are at almost no risk from covid.
The Rittenhouse thing, I'm just pointing out that you should have known better. You're in the legal field, and you didn't even get that right. Reminds me of someone else on here who has a phd.
Further proof you're a fucking moron.
Two possible scenarios that is seems you are too stupid to take in to consideration....
A. The kid had Covid (or some other "virus"/"disease") and he was protecting YOUR ass.
B. The kid (like my buddy's son) has a heart condition and he feels she is at risk from assholes like you who have no problem going in to Trader Joe's knowing they are sick and not giving a shit they spread their sickness on to others.
And also...
C. The kid, being a kid, for some idiot reason threw a fit about wanting to wear a mask, and the parent made the (common and understandable!) decision that the stupidity of it was greatly outweighed by the desire to not cart a tantrum-throwing toddler around a grocery store.
Right! C is a possibility too.
There are probably many other scenarios that would make sense but then we have a country full of StayQ's who see someone wearing a mask (for whatever reason it may be) and believe masks are "totally unnecessary and useless".
randylahey wrote: ↑Mon Jan 02, 2023 1:40 pm
I wouldn't take it that far. But I would say people with degrees can seem less likely to think outside the box. Or assume everything they learn in their field is 100 percent correct. Which is false. Science is constantly evolving. Sometimes what we thought was correct we later learned was missing variables
Which you and squirt have never taken into account in your protests. Meanwhile PhD, Trad, Zsn, and a host of others have pointed this out in their defense of masks and the vaccine. You two wear the emperor's new clothes well.
The virus is continually evolving. For the most part the newer strains become weaker and our immune systems become more adapted.
It doesn't support the need of continuous masking or vaccinations
At this moment I am 100% against forcing someone who is healthy to wear a mask and I am 100% against someone being forced to get a vaccination but I feel even stronger against someone ridiculing those who opt to wear masks and get vaccinated.
Further proof you're a fucking moron.
Two possible scenarios that is seems you are too stupid to take in to consideration....
A. The kid had Covid (or some other "virus"/"disease") and he was protecting YOUR ass.
B. The kid (like my buddy's son) has a heart condition and he feels she is at risk from assholes like you who have no problem going in to Trader Joe's knowing they are sick and not giving a shit they spread their sickness on to others.
And also...
C. The kid, being a kid, for some idiot reason threw a fit about wanting to wear a mask, and the parent made the (common and understandable!) decision that the stupidity of it was greatly outweighed by the desire to not cart a tantrum-throwing toddler around a grocery store.
Right! C is a possibility too.
There are probably many other scenarios that would make sense but then we have a country full of StayQ's who see someone wearing a mask (for whatever reason it may be) and believe masks are "totally unnecessary and useless".
Not to mention, once again the "but mah freedums" folks sure give a whole lotta fucks about things that don't really affect them at all.
What does Joe Doomsday Prepper care about little Billy wearing a mask in Trader Joe's?
What does Molly Chemtrails care about whether Jamie goes by him, her, it, they or Captain Fluffy?
Re: Conspiracies
Posted: Mon Jan 02, 2023 3:57 pm
by pdub
Consider me Molly Chemtrails then if caring means I just think it’s stupid.
Re: Conspiracies
Posted: Mon Jan 02, 2023 4:49 pm
by jfish26
pdub wrote: ↑Mon Jan 02, 2023 3:57 pm
Consider me Molly Chemtrails then if caring means I just think it’s stupid.
Sure. But as much as we disagree on things, I’m guessing you’re not making a scene over it at school board meetings and stuff.
Re: Conspiracies
Posted: Mon Jan 02, 2023 5:03 pm
by pdub
No. I did post about it on kcrim though.
Re: Conspiracies
Posted: Mon Jan 02, 2023 5:09 pm
by zsn
Explain to me how masking in public places is any different than no-smoking restaurants, public spaces and public transports, other than one requiring an act and the other preventing an act. But mah rights, right?
Btw, I’m one of about 50-70% of people in my area wearing a mask in stores. If it drops my susceptibility even a little it’s worth the apparent inconvenience. While it’s not as high as from other people masking it’s still something.
Re: Conspiracies
Posted: Mon Jan 02, 2023 5:32 pm
by jfish26
zsn wrote: ↑Mon Jan 02, 2023 5:09 pm
Explain to me how masking in public places is any different than no-smoking restaurants, public spaces and public transports, other than one requiring an act and the other preventing an act. But mah rights, right?
Btw, I’m one of about 50-70% of people in my area wearing a mask in stores. If it drops my susceptibility even a little it’s worth the apparent inconvenience. While it’s not as high as from other people masking it’s still something.
If anything, masking in public places is significantly less intrusive on others than no smoking rules/regulations. Someone in a mask could only even POSSIBLY be helping others, and hurting only even POSSIBLY themselves. It doesn't, and cannot POSSIBLY, negatively affect others.
Imagine devoting ANY meaningful time/attention to worrying about people who choose to wear masks. Sheesh.
Re: Conspiracies
Posted: Mon Jan 02, 2023 5:32 pm
by pdub
I don’t agree with no smoking restrictions from anything above the city level. I’d prefer to let the establishments decide.
I’ll personally go to the spots where it isn’t allowed and I’d expect most would do the same but that should be up to the business owner.