>>disputing every virus control measure proposed, despite the glaring evidence that they worked
Not only did the measures not work, they were doomed to fail from the start and could not have possibly worked.
You've provided little more than your own disagreement, but no supporting arguments as to why.
Political leaders and authorities knew this, but acted in the ways that they did for their own reasons. My position here puts me at odds with political partisans, but not scientists.
>> disputing every virus control measure proposed, despite the glaring evidence that they worked
> Not only did the measures not work, they were doomed to fail from the start and could not have possibly worked.
From mid-2020 to mid-2021, what were the average case counts in Australia or China vs. the US? That's proof there were measures that worked. If every country performed as well, or if China had acted as it did but earlier, it's quite possible that COVID would have gone extinct by now from that alone.
If we were doomed to fail, it was because of the perennial problems of human stupidity and selfishness.
> You've provided little more than your own disagreement, but no supporting arguments as to why.
I have: counterexamples. The bulk of your augment consists of adjectives and counterfactual assertions that things that did work well in places, couldn't work. My argument is if the rest of the world did as well as they actually did, then every place would have done even better, because "imported" cases wouldn't be a thing.
You brought up animal reservoirs, but that seems to be pure speculation, since I've seen nothing to indicate they've played a role, let alone an important one (excluding the initial human case). The counterexample countries seem like they'd be good natural experiments to actually provide data about how significant animal reservoirs actually are.
> My position here puts me at odds with political partisans
Only with some partisans, you're in quite good alignment with others.
>> what were the average case counts in Australia or China vs. the US?
Unknowable in the case of China. I say this not as a critic, but as a matter of fact: Policy in authoritarian states is to lie. Policy is also to arrest and intimidate people who tell the truth on such matters. To illustrate this another way, I put myself and my family at risk by merely discussing this honestly.
>> That's proof there were measures that worked.
As we are on the 4th calendar year of this pandemic, I suppose you need to specify your definition of worked. I suspect we have very different definitions of what the goals would be and how we would define success of an intervention method.
For example, the intervention of wearing a cloth mask in a crowded supermarket. One would think the goal is to prevent infection, but the article of clothing does no such thing as it is not capable of that. It is a fantastic intervention when dealing with influenza, but it is not a sufficient intervention for that particular goal of preventing infection in the case of the covid virus from 2019.
>> If every country performed as well, or if China had acted as it did but earlier, it's quite possible that COVID would have gone extinct by now from that alone.
You are praising something that you have neither understood nor experienced. Please, stop. I really should not be having this conversation because it could get me into trouble. For example, I know people who have been abducted by the government for these conversations. You have no idea and it is evident that you've not researched this at all. I cannot get into details, you should do that on your own.
>> If we were doomed to fail,
Doomed to fail were the experimental interventions that had no scientific merit.
We are now suffering deaths of despair (I know of multiple youthful suicides this past year) and in a global economic meltdown the likes of which will be written about for centuries.
In the coming year, many people around us will be saying no one could have known or seen these things coming or that these interventions would be failing, but these people will be wrong.
It does not require a 200 IQ to know that cloth masks do not work. This was known before and during the pandemic. Every* (it is certainly hyperbole for me to say _every_) pandemic conference that discussed big pandemics has noted that these interventions (notably mask mandates, etc of the nature we see in countries today) are equivalent to tinfoil hats... This science didn't change during the pandemic -- what changed was neo-propaganda and misinformation procured by the government.
Maybe I am just a relic from an age where humanity was a little less authoritarian and didn't view leaders as infallible. That is very possible.
>>it was because of the perennial problems of human stupidity and selfishness.
Your disgust for humanity is noted. I, for one, view humanity as a wonderful group. We succeed together. We suffer together. We advance together. I harbor no ill feelings for any group of humans, though we are all different and have different ways in which we can contribute to the joy and wonder of life.
>> Meta
My comment on your disgust for humanity was unfair. I take it back. I preserve the comment so that you can at least read it and know what my gut reaction was at the time of writing.
I am sure that you are a good person. I believe in you. I believe, upon reflection, over the coming years, your views will shift a little as more information becomes clear to you. I also believe the same is true of myself, my views too will shift. That is to say we are not static characters, we are not political mascots of some ideology, but instead we are dynamic characters in the wonderful story of life.
We have a lot in common. We are both on HN. I appreciate you, your time, and your contribution to this dialogue. I think we have both said much of what can be said on these topics.
We should digest each other's points of view over the next year and reflect on it.
>> Politics
Its part of your discussion with me, so I'll just disclose. Direct messages are not possible here.
I acknowledge you may be too partisan to hear or digest my reasoning here, but I'll share it anyways.
In the 1980s and 1990s, it appeared to me that the GOP became sick with a dependence on radical religious voters as a pillar of their electoral strategy. Too much of what was used to define the GOP boiled down to religion.
In the 2020s, it seems that the DNC is now sick with a similar dependence on a different radical religion that is equally anti-fact. The DNC is now comprised of both moderates (who I love) and extremists (who flirt with authoritarianism).
I will likely vote how I've always voted -- I vote against extremism and against authoritarianism. I will likely vote for the GOP in the coming mid term election. It will be the second time in my life that I've voted for GOP candidates. I've never voted for a GOP Presidential candidate, though I will always respect the winner of the vote.
Not only did the measures not work, they were doomed to fail from the start and could not have possibly worked.
You've provided little more than your own disagreement, but no supporting arguments as to why.
Political leaders and authorities knew this, but acted in the ways that they did for their own reasons. My position here puts me at odds with political partisans, but not scientists.