Reasonable at first. Once it was known that the virus is transmitted via aerosols then forcing masks was the wrong thing to do, specially on children. Useless and damaging.
> minimizing in-person interactions
What benefit did it achieve? As a quarantine it was too leaky and it also led to mass psychological distress.
> funding medical research
What medical research? For some reason, the most obvious approach, repurposed drugs, was nowhere in sight. If anything demonizing it was the official policy (ie. the smear campaign against ivermectin).
This seems like a ridiculous thing to say; both useless _and_ damaging? Even if one of these things were true, they can't _both_ be true.
> What benefit did it achieve?
Minimizing the spread of covid.
> What medical research?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Warp_Speed
> the most obvious approach, repurposed drugs, was nowhere in sight
Didn't the J&J vaccine use a more traditional approach? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janssen_COVID-19_vaccine
Also, people tried repurposing drugs (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivermectin#COVID-19).
So your claim of "nowhere in sight" is incorrect.
Not really. This was the first widely deployed modified adenovirus vaccine. Not the first developed, but if I'm remembering correctly, none of the others made it out of trials.
Of course they can: useless at preventing disease, damaging to the social development of children.
> Minimizing the spread of covid.
Did it?
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Warp_Speed
The result: injections sold as vaccines that don't do what you expect a vaccine to do: stop transmission.
> Also, people tried repurposing drugs (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivermectin#COVID-19).
Individuals did, not the government, and the former were punished by the latter for it.
Vaccines activate immunity against specific pathogens, reducing infection severity and transmission risk. COVID-19 vaccines decrease disease severity and transmission probability.
This whole thing of "they arent vaccines" is bologna and everyone knows it
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smallpox_vaccine
"Vaccine" is actually a pretty broad term and loses usefulness in these conversations outside of its use as a rhetorical tool. Yes MRNA vaccines are vaccines and yes they are different from other types of vaccine such as Live-attenuated vaccines, conjugate vaccines and others.
Their rapid development and adaptability make them probably the best type of vaccine for fighting quickly mutating viruses. This is shown by the rapidity and relative ease of development and deployment of bivalent vaccines. mRNA vaccines are one of the great technological triumphs of the American industry and science apparatus.
And that's the reason we have governments for. So that people like you can't do unlimited damage. You can privately hate the government, but as long as you follow the rules, the damage is contained.
Masks saved people, including children: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9968482/
This study doesn't control its variables properly. Places with no mask mandates are also places where people typicaly didn't take other precautions such as avoiding mass gatherings.
...
Therefore, the differential impact of face masks on emotion recognition can have an effect on children’s social interactions. For example, better recognition of anger can facilitate greater physical and social distance from one another (Calbi et al., 2021). On the other hand, lower recognition of happiness and sadness can be potentially detrimental for children’s social interactions. Happiness has been identified as key to boosting social interactions (Quoidbach et al., 2019), whereas recognizing sadness in others is important to display appropriate interpersonal emotion regulation (Kwon & López-Pérez, 2022)."
Partially(mostly?) was because during class breaks they were not allowed to interact.
Please state in quantitative (percentage) terms what "the damage is contained" means at object level reality.
Also please state the source(s) of this knowledge (this way it makes it explicit whether what you are describing is your opinion vs facts, as you seem to be presenting it as).
Let's check out the language from the link you did include:
>> Our results imply that...
>> This suggests that...
Wow, that's a neat trick. Is science not THE institution that we can turn to for non-misinformative information? I always hear that it is LITERALLY THE BEST at discovering and distributing truth, but then I constantly encounter this sort of thing, and rarely anything else.
Does this situation seem strange to you, even in the slightest?
No I don't.
This might help you understand your experience:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_mind
> ...but you have not reciprocated that patience.
Apologies. How could I have done that?
> It is so easy...
So is what you are doing. I'd say your approach is even easier.
> when you foist expectations on others
I've foisted no expectations, I have only posed some questions or requests for clarifying detail regarding your facts.
Please do not misrepresent reality, it is rude, and can be harmful. If you would like others to be concerned about the safety of the collective, you should reciprocate.
> then wonder why people don't want you engage with you
Do you believe yourself to know why people don't want to engage with me, or that I wonder about such things? How could you possibly acquire such knowledge?
> then claim it is the science that is wrong.
I made no such claim (though, I did criticize the questionably accurate memetic reputation and marketing of "science", the institution that proclaims in their scriptures and marketing (though not so much in behavior) to welcome all criticism), why are you speaking as if I have? Are you perhaps "trying" (I use quotes, as it may seem like I am implying conscious intent, which I am not) to trick people into believing something that is not true, are you perhaps at least to some degree engaging in rhetoric in order to persuade other people to believe your preferred story?
What?
The vaccines we do have are because we have vaccines for coronaviruses in animals and had nearly a decade of work for using them in humans.
> the smear campaign against ivermectin
The smear campaign against a drug that did not, does not, and could not work, because it is an antiparasitic, not an antiviral?
Combatting disinformation (and at a certain point, it became deliberate disinformation) is not a "smear campaign".
Which vaccine specifically are you talking about here?
> The smear campaign against a drug that did not, does not, and could not work, because it is an antiparasitic, not an antiviral?
I see you haven't checked out the research that's been done this past decade:
https://portlandpress.com/biochemj/article/443/3/851/80615/I...
The first reference to that study?
"Ivermectin for COVID-19: Addressing Potential Bias and Medical Fraud"
> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8774052/
"The results suggest that the significant effect of ivermectin on survival was dependent on largely poor-quality studies. ... This highlights the need for rigorous quality assessments, for authors to share patient-level data, and for efforts to avoid publication bias for registered studies. These steps are vital to facilitate accurate conclusions on clinical treatments."
More specifically, to your point, and the research you cite, what actually appears to be happening:
> [patients] who were infected with the human immunodeficiency virus (five with AIDS-defining conditions) and harbored Strongyloides stercoralis received ivermectin on a compassionate basis for persistent intestinal infection.
Strongyloides. A _parasite_.
I hate the "I did my research" trope and everything surrounding it.