Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="zubenelgenubi" data-source="post: 4623686" data-attributes="member: 63706">A lot of things people say are B.S. because people feel very comfortable talking about things they don&#039;t understand, and social media helps push a lot of bad info out for more people to consume. It&#039;s all natural for the human condition, though, and I&#039;ve explained why elsewhere. You have to learn how to think critically about ideas and information, and weigh logic of arguments and the evidence. Most people just go with &quot;everyone knows&quot;, and &quot;experts say&quot;. In this case they don&#039;t even evaluate the credentials of the experts, they rely on the media to let them know what is real and not.We believe in science. We just understand it better than sheep wearing people clothes. The original strategy for dealing with the pandemic was two weeks to flatten the curve. That was so as not to overwhelm the healthcare system. If you flatten the curve, which most places failed to do anyway, using lockdowns, which caused more elderly to get exposed and die, the number of infected people won&#039;t change. The length of pandemic condition simply stretches out. As Dr. Kulldorf from Harvard explained, a targeted approach protecting the high risk people while allowing low risk people to get exposed and generate herd immunity as quickly as possible, would allow everyone yo get back to normal as quickly as possible, while minimizing deaths. A number of us on here, who can read and understand scientific literature, have all been proponents of that exact strategy since early on. Why are we listening to an immunologist&#039;s advice on an epidemic and public health policy when he is an expert in neither field?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="zubenelgenubi, post: 4623686, member: 63706"] A lot of things people say are B.S. because people feel very comfortable talking about things they don't understand, and social media helps push a lot of bad info out for more people to consume. It's all natural for the human condition, though, and I've explained why elsewhere. You have to learn how to think critically about ideas and information, and weigh logic of arguments and the evidence. Most people just go with "everyone knows", and "experts say". In this case they don't even evaluate the credentials of the experts, they rely on the media to let them know what is real and not. We believe in science. We just understand it better than sheep wearing people clothes. The original strategy for dealing with the pandemic was two weeks to flatten the curve. That was so as not to overwhelm the healthcare system. If you flatten the curve, which most places failed to do anyway, using lockdowns, which caused more elderly to get exposed and die, the number of infected people won't change. The length of pandemic condition simply stretches out. As Dr. Kulldorf from Harvard explained, a targeted approach protecting the high risk people while allowing low risk people to get exposed and generate herd immunity as quickly as possible, would allow everyone yo get back to normal as quickly as possible, while minimizing deaths. A number of us on here, who can read and understand scientific literature, have all been proponents of that exact strategy since early on. Why are we listening to an immunologist's advice on an epidemic and public health policy when he is an expert in neither field? [/QUOTE]

Verification