HollowEarth wrote:I'm just addressing the part about science up there. That's true of all sciences. The scientific method is tentative. This is the benefit of science itself, we can discard what doesn't work to build on what does. No psychologist today is using the methods of Freud, Lovaas, or Freeman.
Thank you for pointing that out, I did express myself poorly. I also understand science to be tentative, and that's exactly the reason why I take issue with very radical and concrete measures being taken in the name of something that's neither definite nor unquestionable, but a constant work in progress.
What I should've said is that those very definite orders and acts of coercion which are imposed outside of any democratic framework have contradicted themselves since day 1, therefore indicating that the "science" behind those decisions is not to be taken as absolute and irrefutable.
My problem is with the blind conviction that what the politicians force on us is some kind of logical deduction of what the science says. That's simply not true, no matter how much it's repeated by the media and parroted by the people.
Science presents data and correlations of variables. I'm willing to accept someone saying that interpreting the data could be an act of science, but
I can't accept people saying that the ACTIONS inspired by such interpretation are scientific. That's dishonest. We can believe we have an idea, but the truth is we can't know what's gonna happen when we take decissions on such a massive scale, all we can do is hope for the best. And there's no way of contrasting the consequences of different actions at this scale, since you can't go back in time, and parallel studies lack the possibility of any honest ceteris paribus assumption.
We see that since vaccination deaths have decreased? That's great! Now, why turn that into a witch hunt pitting people against people because we're no longer individuals but a collective in which everyone must act as instructed by the unelected? Because of the eerily long forecasted assumption of deadlier strains that won't evolve unless every single person in this planet has been vaccinated in a very short time? I believe inciting civil conflict or stripping people of their autonomy is far more dangerous than having a 99% vaccination rate as opposed to a 85%.
But of course, no one's doing any science on my claim so I can't say this without being flooded with studies that show beyond the shadow of any doubt that that 14% will result in X millions of lives saved. That's settled and it can't be argued. Until it changes into something else and then that other thing will also be settled and unarguable.
Who cares about the children that have been ruined by isolation, the widespread effects of anxiety, suicides, domestic violence, lack of certainty in the future and absolute fear of the present? Who cares about the potential effects that is having and will continue to have in society, and how devastating they might be? We don't need no science on that! Common sense tells us those are all tragic consequences of the pandemic, and not the political decisions which were but a logical extension of science! And who cares about the nature of the pandemic iteslf, where the virus came from? Who cares if it was a one in a trillion mutation or made in a lab? That changes nothing! We don't have to look into that kind of stuff, we have bigger fish to fry! It's all about saving the lives of the elderly! And we have the numbers to show you! Just like we did at first, when "respected science" was forecasting millions upon millions of deaths in excess of what actually happened.
