Lifting Masks = Back to Getting Down With The Sickness

[The Rogue Wolf]

What is it with these doorknobs thinking anti-parasitic drugs will have any effect on a viral infection?

"The vaccine is new, so I don't trust it. But this medication to treat an entirely different disease in an entirely different species is old, so it must be trustworthy!"

They wouldn't wear masks for you, so why would you do so for them.

Look: I smile nowadays when I read that some anti-vaxxer died from COVID. I enjoy the thought of them lying in a hospital bed, crying for the vaccine long after it could have actually helped, begging doctors to save their worthless lives with the last breaths they can manage before their lungs fill up and they drown in their own stupidity, immeasurably improving the species by leaving it. But there's someone else you need to think about- the people they can infect before they drop dead. Those other people may have no choice; they may have a legitimate reason they can't get vaccinated. If I have to preserve the stupid to save the innocent, so be it.

"I don't trust the gubmit/doctors/MSM/UN, but you know what, Random dude on the internet and that orange guy who bankrupted almost every business he's ever owned and ran the government I distrust so much, those guys know what's up!"

"Dem smarmy elites are always tellin' me what to do! I'll show 'em that I'm smarter than them by trustin' a guy who was a smarmy New York real estate mogul for decades; he knows how my kind lives!"

 

[BrawlMan]

But once HE got prostate cancer, ho BOY was he listening to those doctors and taking their advice! Idiotic hypocrites, the lot of them.

I almost want to point and laugh at this guy.

​

 

[Bartholomew]

But there's someone else you need to think about- the people they can infect before they drop dead. Those other people may have no choice; they may have a legitimate reason they can't get vaccinated.

The vaccinated can also infect others you know that right?

 

[Avnger]

The vaccinated can also infect others you know that right?

Houseman,

Vaccinated individuals are significantly less likely to catch it in the first place (a requirement to then spread it). Viral load peaks are also smaller in vaccinated individuals meaning even if they catch it, they're both less likely to spread it and anyone they spread it to will likely receive a smaller viral load themselves. I hope you're not making the intellectually dishonest argument that community COVID-19 spread by vaccinated individuals is anywhere as likely or as severe as that done by non-vaccinated individuals.

 

[tstorm823]

I saw a little snippet about the UK's nascent OAN equivalent, where one of the crazies presenters interviewed a doctor from Reading University. The doctor told him what's available to treat covid, and then the presenter asks him about HCQ (and later ivermectin, Vit D, etc.), and the academic says there's no evidence it works. At which point the presenter said some guy in Harvard and another in Yale say it does, and the academic just put his foot down and said no HCQ really doesn't, and he's not going there. (The so-called "evidence" the presenter had was not, of course, actual science.)

And so it proved. He ambushed the academic with bogus science - the academic is unlikely to know what those US academic said exactly, and it wouldn't be easy to refute them on the spot anyway. So at best, it's become one expert word against another, and of course by choosing Yale and Harvard, the presenter has implied they're at better universities than Reading, so more likely to be right.

I don't want to judge a person on hearsay, so don't consider this an attack on the doctor in reality, but a criticism of the scenario you're describing.

You seem to think this is an inescapable trap as soon as he entered the interview, but do you know how to make it not one expert word against the other? Don't lie! "There's no evidence..." is not a sentence that anyone should ever say seriously. It's always wrong. "I haven't seen evidence" is a perfectly valid statement. "There is no evidence" never is, because to claim there is no evidence of something is effectively to claim omniscience. One must know all things in order to claim no things are evidence of something. A regular person my not have intimate knowledge of medicine, but they can spot a jerk when they say something with absolute authority and then refuse to demean themselves to even have that conversation. The other option is that "there's no evidence of that, and I'm not going there" is the sort of thing a guilty person says when they're accused of something, which is even worse. But like, it would be 1000% better to say "I haven't seen evidence that those are effective, perhaps other researchers have. Regardless, I think it's important to emphasize that people should follow the advice of their doctors rather than attempt to self-medicate."

 

[Seanchaidh]

But like, it would be 1000% better to say "I haven't seen evidence that those are effective, perhaps other researchers have. Regardless, I think it's important to emphasize that people should follow the advice of their doctors rather than attempt to self-medicate."

This is unlikely to have a substantially different outcome with respect to the behavior of listeners, and it is also misleading.

 

[Satinavian]

But like, it would be 1000% better to say "I haven't seen evidence that those are effective, perhaps other researchers have.

Do you know what an important part of the job of a researcher is ? Reading new papers/preprints of your field to stay on top of developments. You don't want to know how many hours a week are just used up reading the stuff of your collegues/competitors. That does not mean that everyone is aware of everything new all the time. But it does mean that a researcher should be aware of all huge developments in their area that are at least a month old and have made any waves. Especially anything that is big and established enough to have been picked up by science journalism to end up in the public sphere.

If laypeople do know about some scientific results that are unknown to professionals in that field, it is most likely those are either a hoax or so much stuff got lost on the way that they are unrecognizable.

 

[Agema]

I don't want to judge a person on hearsay, so don't consider this an attack on the doctor in reality, but a criticism of the scenario you're describing.

You seem to think this is an inescapable trap as soon as he entered the interview, but do you know how to make it not one expert word against the other? Don't lie! "There's no evidence..." is not a sentence that anyone should ever say seriously. It's always wrong.

No, I don't think it's an "inescapable" trap and said nothing of the sort, but it's a trap much more likely to catch someone relatively unskilled in media communication - which includes the vast majority of academics and doctors. Your average scientist / medic is used to reasoning and talking through issues in a collegiate environment, not an interviewer setting out to attack them and posturing to the peanut gallery for likes, and they are often not experienced in how to deal with it.

As a similar thing, I remember reading about an evolutionary scientist who went to a talk by a creationist to challenge him when he asked questions from the audience. He asked a scientifically devastating question, and the creationist tossed off a technically accruate and superficial answer, that was essentially "wrong". The evolutionist said he stopped, requiring time to process the superficially accurate statement and formulate a correct counter-argument, but in the mere seconds it took him, the creationist moved on to another question. He was right, and he'd lost the argument, because the creationist had experience and preparation in that environment, and knew ways to fob off these sorts of questions. The evolutionist came out and realised if he wanted to combat creationists in public debate, he needed to learn to fight on that territory instead of like a scientist in an academic environment. This is something many climate scientists have learnt through harsh experience over the decades, too.

Spoiler: There is no evidence...

When we say "There is no evidence..." it is frequently a technically inaccurate thing people say when they mean "there is no proof..." or "the evidence is strongly against..." It's an incredibly common thing, which pretty much everyone does: I do, you do, and even top scientists and doctors do. A constructive debater would accept the assumed intended meaning (or a subsequent correction) and move on. A hostile one will not, they'll just attack it.It takes practice and training to avoid these sorts of things, especially in the heat of the moment.

It does not really matter what the specific wording the academic used, however. The presenter was always going to drop on him the bullshit. The academic is still faced with a challenge that is very difficult to deal with, on the spot and off the cuff, in a way that is accurate and convincing. It's hard even for more skilled operators. Take politicians: the sorts of non-answers like digressions and set talking points that we are all used to are ways they have of fending off difficult questions that they would struggle to explain, and we can often see they are superficial or avoidance.

 

[tstorm823]

Take politicians: the sorts of non-answers like digressions and set talking points that we are all used to are ways they have of fending off difficult questions that they would struggle to explain, and we can often see they are superficial or avoidance.

Well yeah, because it looks better to give an accurate and convincing answer to the wrong question than try and answer the question at hand and flub it. It's honestly one of the most shockingly humble things politicians do. And what I'm saying is the answer given in that interview was a flub.

Again, not trying to attack the person being described, but rather the sort of response you described. Because even if we extend leniency to that one particular scientist, most of the people making influential public statements on covid aren't university scientists, they're influential public figures who should be practiced in the art of public persuasion. But they're all doing stupid things like denigrating anyone who doesn't just accept their authoritative statements. The most perfect messages don't matter if the messengers suck at delivering them.

 

[Silvanus]

Also, I am not near the immunocompromised

You don't know if you are or not, unless you're never going out in public.

And even if you're not, any of the "right wingers" you're happy to infect could then go elsewhere and infect someone with a compromised immune system. You would be increasing the likelihood of that happening.

Don't fucking cast your lack of caution as an ethical stance, as if only bad people will get hurt. If you don't prevent the spread of the virus, you can't control who is endangered, and it's moronic to imagine otherwise.

 

[Gergar12]

You don't know if you are or not, unless you're never going out in public.

And even if you're not, any of the "right wingers" you're happy to infect could then go elsewhere and infect someone with a compromised immune system. You would be increasing the likelihood of that happening.

Don't fucking cast your lack of caution as an ethical stance, as if only bad people will get hurt. If you don't prevent the spread of the virus, you can't control who is endangered, and it's moronic to imagine otherwise.

I don't agree the majority of people who are getting this disease(delta) are unvaccinated right wing twats. Why should I inconvenience myself for them when they won't do so for me on a number of political, and personal issues.

 

[Avnger]

I don't agree the majority of people who are getting this disease(delta) are unvaccinated right wing twats. Why should I inconvenience myself for them when they won't do so for me on a number of political, and personal issues.

The reasoning behind why you're acting the exact same as the "unvaccinated right wing twats" doesn't matter. COVID-19 doesn't give a damn about your intentions. The only thing that counts is the fact that you're acting the exact same as the "unvaccinated right wing twats."

 

[Cheetodust]

I don't agree the majority of people who are getting this disease(delta) are unvaccinated right wing twats. Why should I inconvenience myself for them when they won't do so for me on a number of political, and personal issues.

I work in a restaurant. I am fully vaccinated. I have no choice but to deal with the public. I have family and friends who are high risk. There's a pretty low chance that you could infect me and that I could pass it on to my fully vaccinated mother. But she has COPD. So the lower that chance is the better. Wearing a mask makes that better. Like we're not Invincible just because we're vaccinated. Your motivation for not wearing a mask really doesn't matter.

 

[BrawlMan]

I don't agree the majority of people who are getting this disease(delta) are unvaccinated right wing twats. Why should I inconvenience myself for them when they won't do so for me on a number of political, and personal issues.

You lack the strength and conviction to do what's right. I got a mom with multiple sclerosis, and my older brother's diabetic. I'm not going to do anything to make their conditions worse. Every one of my family's been fully vaccinated, but I'm not going to be careless or reckless. My job involves me being around people, so I have no choice either, and I have no problem doing what needs to be done. That type of attitude you are displaying, is what made this pandemic spread so fast to begin with.

 

[Buyetyen]

I don't agree the majority of people who are getting this disease(delta) are unvaccinated right wing twats. Why should I inconvenience myself for them when they won't do so for me on a number of political, and personal issues.

In other words, you refuse to do the right thing because you don't believe you're being adequately rewarded for it. And if that's your sole motivation for doing the right thing, how good a person can you really be?

 

[happyninja42]

In other words, you refuse to do the right thing because you don't believe you're being adequately rewarded for it. And if that's your sole motivation for doing the right thing, how good a person can you really be?

According to religious leaders, you can be a pillar of the community if the reason you're doing stuff is the threat of eternal punishment, and promise of eternal reward.

 

[XsjadoBlayde]

Don't you just hate to see it.

 

[happyninja42]

Don't you just hate to see it.

Eh...I'm sure the whole situation will....rectify itself in due time.

 

[BrawlMan]

Don't you just hate to see it.

​

 

[Buyetyen]

Eh...I'm sure the whole situation will....rectify itself in due time.

Their problems will keep surging from behind until they learn. Ivermectin treatment may have a bit of a ring to it, though there is a fairly large "but" involved. Of course, if they weren't so anal about the vaccines, maybe this wouldn't be a running issue.