undefined | Better HN

0 pointsvkou4y ago0 comments

The skeptics have felt overwhelmingly in the right for the past 21 months, but throughout that time period, reality has not been particularly compliant to their wishes.

What reality has shown, time and again, is that medical systems across the entire world are incapable of dealing with COVID while providing the same standard of care that people generally expect. (For both non-COVID and COVID cases.)

I personally feel there are reasons to be optimistic over the next few months, but that its too early to say - and claiming otherwise is engaging in very speculative, very wishful magical thinking.

0 comments

11 comments · 4 top-level

notacoward4y ago· 5 in thread

Exactly. The self-professed "skeptics" have only seemed to doubt one narrative (the mainstream one) but have seemed singularly credulous when it comes to alternative theories, treatments, etc. All in an effort to stand out, not to help. Many have even supported multiple mutually exclusive beliefs at different times, pointing to the few hits as evidence of their perspicacity, quietly hoping everyone will forget the misses.

The world would be better off with some real skepticism, not just Oppositional Defiant Disorder disguised as skepticism. Real skepticism notes the absence or weakness of evidence behind a claim, but can be overcome as the evidence becomes stronger. True skepticism also does not require assertion of an alternate or opposite theory as Absolute Truth with no more evidence than the theory one is being "skeptical" about. People should ask for - even demand - evidence, but not misportray disagreement (or disagreeableness) as skepticism.

josephcsible4y ago

They're using "argument in the alternative" [1], which is logically sound. The goal isn't to show that any particular alternative theory is true, just to show that the mainstream one is false.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_in_the_alternative

woodruffw4y ago

It's "logically sound" in the sense that it's sound by disjunctive introduction. For most people, that's not an interesting sense of "soundness" (you haven't told me anything interesting by saying "it's either cloudy or not cloudy" when I've asked you for the weather.)

notacoward4y ago

No they're not.

> with the goal of showing that regardless of interpretation there is no reasonable conclusion other than the advocate's

For that part of the definition to apply, there must be some particular conclusion that the advocate supports. It's multiple arguments for a single conclusion, whereas what I was observing is multiple separate conclusions. That's pure contrarianism, neither skepticism nor argument in the alternative.

1 more reply

eli_gottlieb4y ago

My real skepticism, having been vaccinated and boosted, is that institutions like the CDC, FDA, and Pfizer are just being lazy foot-draggers about bringing out vaccines updated for specific variants.

And whatever happened to the project of vaccines that provide full, sterilizing immunity? Last publication I can find is for a study in freaking mice[1]. Is there no imperative to actually provide sterilizing immunity at "warp speed", because society can just shove non-sterilizing vaccines into people and save on ICU beds?

[1] -- https://www.cell.com/iscience/fulltext/S2589-0042(21)01005-1

disgruntledphd24y ago

I too desperately want a sterilizing vaccine. Given the existence of influenza and the common cold (a bunch of rhino and corona viruses), this seems unlikely unfortunately.

1 more reply

ekianjo4y ago· 1 in thread

> What reality has shown, time and again, is that medical systems across the entire world are incapable of dealing with COVID while providing the same standard of care that people generally expect. (For both non-COVID and COVID cases.)

Speak for your country. Numerous countries did not blink an eye, and did not panic either.

I think people forget that it all started by "lets flatten the curve" before it turned into a pandemic of fear for absolutely no reason.

vkouOP4y ago

> Numerous countries did not blink an eye, and did not panic either.

'Panic' can mean anything you personally want it to, so of course there will be countries that match your criteria.

Is wearing masks at the theatre panic? If you hate masks, yes! If you don't, no? Is requiring that foreign travelers have a negative test before admission at the border panic? Depends on where you stand. Is discouraging travel before vaccines were available panic? Well, that depends on whether or not you own a hotel! Is requiring that employers provide COVID sick days panic? Depends on your political view on labour relations. Eviction moratorium? Depends on whether you are a landlord!

908B64B1974y ago· 1 in thread

> is that medical systems across the entire world are incapable of dealing with COVID while providing the same standard of care that people generally expect. (For both non-COVID and COVID cases.)

That's despite billions in fundings and ever-growing budgets.

Time for a re-structuring and a culture change.

vkouOP4y ago

Restructuring to what? Socialized, privatized, mixed-market, none of them have had the ability to handle this pandemic in a business as usual world.

marvin4y ago

The population of skeptics might have changed during the last six months. You could be debating right now with someone who was strongly in favor of quarantine measures in 2020.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

11 comments · 4 top-level

notacoward4y ago· 5 in thread

josephcsible4y ago

They're using "argument in the alternative" [1], which is logically sound. The goal isn't to show that any particular alternative theory is true, just to show that the mainstream one is false.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_in_the_alternative

woodruffw4y ago

notacoward4y ago

No they're not.

> with the goal of showing that regardless of interpretation there is no reasonable conclusion other than the advocate's

1 more reply

eli_gottlieb4y ago

[1] -- https://www.cell.com/iscience/fulltext/S2589-0042(21)01005-1

disgruntledphd24y ago

I too desperately want a sterilizing vaccine. Given the existence of influenza and the common cold (a bunch of rhino and corona viruses), this seems unlikely unfortunately.

1 more reply

ekianjo4y ago· 1 in thread

Speak for your country. Numerous countries did not blink an eye, and did not panic either.

I think people forget that it all started by "lets flatten the curve" before it turned into a pandemic of fear for absolutely no reason.

vkouOP4y ago

> Numerous countries did not blink an eye, and did not panic either.

'Panic' can mean anything you personally want it to, so of course there will be countries that match your criteria.

908B64B1974y ago· 1 in thread

> is that medical systems across the entire world are incapable of dealing with COVID while providing the same standard of care that people generally expect. (For both non-COVID and COVID cases.)

That's despite billions in fundings and ever-growing budgets.

Time for a re-structuring and a culture change.

vkouOP4y ago

Restructuring to what? Socialized, privatized, mixed-market, none of them have had the ability to handle this pandemic in a business as usual world.

marvin4y ago

The population of skeptics might have changed during the last six months. You could be debating right now with someone who was strongly in favor of quarantine measures in 2020.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse