Social Distancing Was Always A Guess – Why Did So Many Insist It Was Science?

In 2020, it was a bad idea to note that for most people, COVID-19, a coronavirus that belongs to the same family as the common cold and has been known to be different from the common cold since the 1960s, was just a bad cold, or that is if it cleared everything up with… Clorox wasn’t helpful, or a lab next door to Wuhan that followed a safety protocol so poor that one researcher jailed for selling lab animals to a nearby wet market may have accidentally leaked one of the 16,000 coronavirus samples collected. Conduct gain-of-function experiments.

You’ve been called an anti-science or, worse, a Republican.

Questions about the legality of six-feet social distancing will get you uninvited from a lot of parties. Even questioning the necessity of wearing a mask while walking in the woods would have made you look dirty.

I’m in favor of social distancing in general. When the government came up with that sweet six-foot figure, I asked, “Why so close?” And “let’s ban social hugs next” but I never thought it had a scientific basis.

Because he didn’t. That’s not to say you don’t want people to sneeze on you, you don’t. We’ve written about the impact of aerosol emissions here, but there’s no magic line that makes six feet a good thing and five feet a risk. It was a disease epidemiology version of dietary salt recommendations. ; It is arbitrary and volatile because it is based on an average with no underlying data.

Social Distancing Was Always A Guess - Why Did So Many Insist It Was Science?
Hey, having a mask near your Corona beer makes as much sense as a lot of other pandemic recommendations that say “bro, do you even know?” Ridiculous if you ask to see the source for that.

With Dr. Fauci testifying today about why so many Democrats in government are making a slew of crazy claims about science in an election year – a vaccine without years of FDA testing was bad! Until their candidate got into office and took credit for it – either Washington Post And The New York Times They started doing… journalism… about the epidemic. It is rare that they lead not with the phrase “Republicans are wrong” but with “The Washington Post.” It lost $77 million last year And half their readership since the last election through competition among other newspapers read only by Democrats, namely the Executive Editor Sally Buzbee is out And someone new in. (1)

They are saying what no one would have said (or perhaps could, given the unilateralism of their political stance) in the past – There was no flag for six feet social distancing(2) Like almost all the mistakes during the pandemic, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention invented them. The same group that invented diabetes and the vaping epidemic while those of us in science knew they were too incompetent to issue a warning about it. coli bacteria On lettuce within 6 weeks of occurrence.

These were not Trump appointeesThey are professional unionized government employees, and 90% of them are Democrats. Not a savior of science, President Biden then used the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to engage in nationwide rent control and mandate vaccinations for private sector employees — but not for his government union employees. So, it’s not as if Trump asked the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to mandate 6 feet and then Biden rescinded it, they’ve kept it in place until the summer of 2022 — all without showing any evidence of how it could help. . “It just seemed like six feet was going to be the distance,” Dr. Anthony Fauci finally revealed in 2024.

No one denies that you shouldn’t be around sick people, and Asia is right to wear a mask if you’re sick in public, but that’s very different from using allies in the media to ask legitimate questions about how it got more dangerous. The number and why it was imposed on Americans.

Social Distancing Was Always A Guess - Why Did So Many Insist It Was Science?

Washington Post They rightly wonder what went wrong, even if they don’t admit they were part of the problem.

They have a practical reason to return to being a legitimate part of the Fourth Estate. More balanced coverage of politics and science will train the new LLM to produce more articles at lower cost and with less political bias. Less wellness and climate talk about doomsday and more stuff that’s actual science, not epidemiology or other computer simulations.

AI content doesn’t count as journalism, but that’s not what they’ve done since 2016. Pessimists might say that with former President Trump being a convicted felon, his chances of winning have diminished so much that Washington Post I can honestly criticize Democrats who have messed up a lot of things during the pandemic — “China says it doesn’t exist, so we say Trump’s just a racist” followed by “Trump caused this” — but I’d rather believe that Washington Post He saw that the market wasn’t buying the bias they were selling, and they wanted to fix it before the billionaire who saved him from bankruptcy decided there were more fun ways to lose tens of millions of dollars a year.


(1) After the election, they will test the winds of culture and see whether they want to continue in journalism or be an opposition newspaper to the president again, like January 2017-2021.

(2) The SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 models developed by epidemiologists were also hot garbage.

Source link

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related Articles

Back to top button

Adblock Detected