What to do with anti-vax/anti-maskers...

Post Reply New Topic

If you read what people post, you'd have seen that no-one here has claimed that...

I was simply pointing out how much your attitude towards a group of people during the covid outbreak have in common with those who held those views in the 1980's regarding the AIDS outbreak - It's like seeing history repeat.

Either the shared attitude indicates you'd have joined that opinion in the 1980's (ie: you truely believe those with certain "risk factors" should be discriminated against unless\until they cease the actions behind the "risk factors" during major disease outbreaks such as AIDS or covid), or you don't truely believe that "risk factors" are an appropriate reason to discriminate against people and are merely being opportunistic in weaponising them to attack a group you do not agree with...

I'm not sure if you noticed but I was parodying the let businesses do whatever it takes to maximize profits mindset that's often embraced by portions of the political right so pointing out that I don't sound that far off from how conservatives might have spoken about HIV in the 80s shows you at least half get my point but wish to interpret the parody as sincere even though it's out of step with the values I consistently espouse.

It's easy to claim "parody" when called out on a claim such as this...

Given posts such as https://wrongplanet.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=399208&p=8874062#p8874062 and https://wrongplanet.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=399208&p=8875829#p8875829 which also attack people for their "personal"\"lifestyle" choices on this same subject, it seems unlikely to have actually been "parody", and more an expression of personal belief\attitude - The same attitude which I had noted was held by some during the AIDS outbreak in the 1980's.

Unless, of course, the "values you constantly espouse" are that words\actions\etc. taken against those whose beliefs\actions\opinions\etc. you "disagree with" are prefectly fine, whilst the same words\actions\etc. against those whose beliefs\actions\opinions\etc. you "agree with" are wrong?

Are you suggesting being an anti-vaxxer isn't a bad decision that raises the risks of one ending up taking horse paste and calling on their prayer warriors?

The things you're trying to compare are unequal but you're not someone I've come to expect honest arguments or engagement from.

Which, in 1980's terms would have been:
"Are you suggesting performing promiscuous, and\or homosexual acts (or sharing syringes) isn't a bad decision that raises the risks of one ending up catching this disease...".

The same attitude in both situations: attack\stigmatise those making certain choices\performing certain acts which increase the likelihood of transmission of the disease, to which those passing "judgement" disagree with - "History Does Not Repeat Itself, But It Rhymes".

Last edited by Brictoria on 12 Oct 2021, 1:53 am, edited 1 time in total.

You're still trying to compare being queer with letting conspiracy theories from social media make your health decisions for you.

@Brictoria, I don’t think you are making an appropriate comparison. Too many distinguishing factors. For historical comparisons to work, they have to be more similar, with less variables involved complicating the discussion. This discussion is being trapped by the variables, IMHO. You keep talking past each other as a result.

Instead of continuing to spin with this debate point, try a different one.

No - Merely showing the identical attitudes of those who would condemn others for their choices during a virus outbreak, where those actions are believed\known to contribute to transmission of the disease.

I'm looking at the identical attitudes (now with covid, then with AIDS) of those who condemn others for their choices\actions\attitudes\etc. during an outbreak, not trying to highlight the differences in the specific victim groups as you appear fixated upon...

Let's simplify things for you, removing the irrelevent details you are attempting to focus upon and look at the basics:
1980's an epidemic occurs.
Scientists publicise ways to lower risk of infection\transmission
Group A ignores this information
Group B attacks\stigmatises the above group for not following advice\being more likely to contract\spread disease.

2019\2020 a pandemic starts
Scientists publicise ways to lower risk of infection\transmission
Group C ignores this information
Group D attacks\stigmatises the above group for not following advice\being more likely to contract\spread disease.

Groups D (to which you appear to be a member) and B hold the same judgemental attitude towards members of Groups C and A (respectively), despite minimal similarities in the membership of those groups, or methods of transmission of the disease\prevention thereof...

Still not that simple. What the information requires of the individuals matters. A lot. The publicized suggestions were highly specific to group A, and generally ignoring group B. Group B didn't feel they had to do much of anything to be in compliance.

Please just get out of the 1980s for this debate.

One could argue that it wasn't about being gay, it was about a lifestyle choice involving promiscuous unprotected sex and drug use, especially once the transmission method was known. I'm not even sure that's wrong as an argument, AIDS was deadlier but covid is more transmissible, but either way once could make the argument that people were being irresponsible and choosing to put themselves at risk, and therefore should be denied medical care or charged a premium. There's also the obesity angle, which is a similar argument.

In the 80s promiscuous people consented to the risky behavior with another person who consented to said behavior. Going to the indoor crowded places involves taking an unknown risk, you do not know who or how many other people are engaging in the risky behavior. The anti-mandate people will correctly say you have a choice not to go to areas that have people who may pose a risk to you. If the anti-mandate people get what they want, no mitigation mandates, totally your choice many more people, locations, and activities will be off-limits for those who choose to be cautious than for those who chose not to engage in casual sex back in the 80s.

Also in our zero-sum game, tribal political era there has been incorrect conflating libertarianism with anarchism. Libertarians do not advocate no government at all. Most libertarians advocate as limited government as possible but would reluctantly agree to government involvement to protect against outside threats that would significantly cause damage to the nation. If COVID-19 happened via bat transmission, accidental or deliberate lab leak it came from "outside". How much mandatory mitigation is the rub. With 720 children deaths out of over 700,000 American deaths IMHO most of the school mitigation and closures were unnecessary.

What needs to be factored in but often is not or underplayed is should COVID be allowed to run wild is the economic damage caused by loss or disabling of talented people and people voluntarily choosing severe mitigation.

I think DW preemptively addressed where you're trying to go with this pretty well in her reply to Bric and that ASPartOfMe basically covered anything that was missing more thoroughly than I could have.

It's really not analogous no matter how it's spun and some interpretations make it outright distasteful. Like I said, it's not my rake to step on but depending on how much stomping other people want to do they might end up stepping on it. I'd be careful about stomping my feet on this issue.

School closures weren't really about protecting the children---after all, children have a 0.0002% risk of getting severely sick with Biden-19. They were more about protecting the teachers and the parents, who are at higher risk. And even then, unless an adult is over 65, their risk level is still 0.03%.

Even so, it was never about the virus. It was about enhancing government control, to bring in the Great Reset and the New World Order. School closures were just an easy way to impress upon the children that their lives will never be the same, and that the Great Reset is upon us. All while George Soros and Anthony Fauci snicker at us inside their mansions, while having crowded, maskless parties.

Last edited by Aspie1 on 12 Oct 2021, 8:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.

On that last paragraph ... none of the rest of us are ever going to buy that. You expressed a view, you are fully entitled to that view, I am stating I don't buy it for even the slightest fragment of a second, moving on.

On the first paragraph ... I don't think we knew the relative risks at the time, not for the first few weeks. As that information became available, it was true that it was the teachers not feeling safe returning to their classrooms that stalled things. While K-12 has mostly returned to the classroom, finally, for this school year; universities, where the push from families and governments isn't as strong, are much slower at returning, often leaving it up to individual professors. My daughter's university is officially back on campus, but 2/3s of her courses are on-line, professor's choice. The return of the rest of campus is slow and halting due to severe staffing shortages in all the support areas. The way people work permanently shifted with the pandemic in ways that large segments of workers seem quite happy about. They won't go back to crappy jobs at crappy pay; they've already found better ones. It will be interesting to see where it all ends up. And, no, while life is resetting, I don't think Soros or Fauci have anything to do with it. Not to mention, I'm generally not complaining about the ways it is resetting. Some industries needed a worker-favored reset.

Last edited by DW_a_mom on 12 Oct 2021, 8:23 pm, edited 2 times in total.

I wouldn't have worded it quite that way, but you are pointing a very important difference in who one's behavior choices affect.

Note: The number of deaths and hospitalizations doesn't mean the precautions have been ineffective. They mean things could have been worse without the precautions. (And I don't buy the government was just trying to exert control because they just wanted to exert control, what they did was obviously bad for the economy and that is bad for the folk in charge.)