Can't read it.

If it says anything about masks usefulness then vs now then throw it all out

Why can't you read it?
It wasn't blocked for me.

It was an interesting read.

Stopped reading after the first sentence.

Quote:

---

and as those who chose to forgo vaccination became infected

---

One could read that and almost think that it was only unvaccinated people catching Covid which we obviously know was not the case. No point continuing when the article clearly has an agenda.

that whole article is revisionist history.

Quote:

---

At the outset of the pandemic, we had a shared sense of the threat and a shared willingness to sacrifice a lot to deal with it.

---

This statement completely dismisses the fact there were a very large contingency of folks who were screaming that the "cure" was going to be worse than the disease. Economist and business owners were ignored, dismissed or often not even invited to speak.

I'll agree that none of us knew what Covid-19 was going to bring, but there were a lot of people that knew what our over-reaction was going to do, and they were silenced.

I'll give it a pass.

Quote:

---

and as those who chose to forgo vaccination became infected (often more than once)

---

It's wild to me that the author can just make this statement with absolutely no proof. Has any credible expert been saying that?

"Shared willingness to sacrifice"

Sounds nice except NPI's only hurt people and the economy. It was needless added sacrifice.

96ags said:

---

that whole article is revisionist history.

Quote:

---

At the outset of the pandemic, we had a shared sense of the threat and a shared willingness to sacrifice a lot to deal with it.

---

This statement completely dismisses the fact there were a very large contingency of folks who were screaming that the "cure" was going to be worse than the disease. Economist and business owners were ignored, dismissed or often not even invited to speak.

I'll agree that none of us knew what Covid-19 was going to bring, but there were a lot of people that knew what our over-reaction was going to do, and they were silenced.

---

I wasn't willing to share in the sacrifice of our children's development to keep granny alive. I'm not willing to share my business' future to keep granny alive.

I have already come to the conclusion that we need to end all, yes every damn one, of the restrictions and I also feel that if I went back in time and of overlord of the world, I wouldn't shut down nor would I institute many restrictions. Honestly question whether any of it actually worked. We panicked in my opinion and did not need to. I might look at small, non invasive level things, but I'd kept businesses open, schools open, no masking (Pandora's Box was opened with that one that may never really be closed unfortunately) and pretty much have business as usual except for the most threatened. They are the ones we encourage to stay home, stay indoors, mask etc. But the key is encourage, not mandate.

Regardless, I think if we looked back many would agree that things were not handled well at all and that has very much lead to the mistrust regarding the vaccine and angst and anger plus the ridiculously overly tight restrictions we have seen lately in certain parts of the world where they overreacted to a variant that was less severe than the flu in Omicron. I really believe part of all the issues going on is that each side wants to almost rub the other side's nose in this and it's a game of one upping the other. Heck, saying that and reading what I wrote above, maybe I am guilty of that myself, lol.

That's fine and dandy. But hindsight is 20/20. We were preparing for the unexpected. Not saying I agree with the decisions now nor did I agree with them then. But it's also unfair to look back and judge decisions based on knowledge and experiences that weren't available at the time.

htxag09 said:

---

That's fine and dandy. But hindsight is 20/20. We were preparing for the unexpected. Not saying I agree with the decisions now nor did I agree with them then. But it's also unfair to look back and judge decisions based on knowledge and experiences that weren't available at the time.

---

That's the reason doing nothing is better than doing something without proof it will work.

And a LOT of people were saying that early on, just nobody wanted to hear that.

htxag09 said:

---

That's fine and dandy. But hindsight is 20/20. We were preparing for the unexpected. Not saying I agree with the decisions now nor did I agree with them then. But it's also unfair to look back and judge decisions based on knowledge and experiences that weren't available at the time.

---

The argument yours truly was making in early 2020 was that it's illogical to react so harshly due to a lack of evidence. Many others were saying the same.

It's perfectly fair to judge the decisions of those that overreacted when there were people, including public health experts, urging calm and patience. Nobody should be getting a free pass for overreacting.

96ags said:

---

htxag09 said:

---

That's fine and dandy. But hindsight is 20/20. We were preparing for the unexpected. Not saying I agree with the decisions now nor did I agree with them then. But it's also unfair to look back and judge decisions based on knowledge and experiences that weren't available at the time.

---

That's the reason doing nothing is better than doing something without proof it will work.

And a LOT of people were saying that early on, just nobody wanted to hear that.

---

A LOT of people were also saying it was the cold, nobody was dying from it, all the pictures were media propaganda, and people were making up every bit of it to line their pockets.

Both sides can selectively pick out points where they were right and the other was wrong.

Here's the major issue I have with everything. The day this virus left China and went global was the day we should all have known we would be living with this virus forever. This is common sense and we shouldve just kept everything open. and now for my political take...the powers that be knew that but took an opportunity to control the general population, and succeeded doing that. This isnt a hindsight situation, this was powerful people taking an opportunity and capitalizing on it by scaring a massive portion of the population.

htxag09 said:

---

96ags said:

---

htxag09 said:

---

That's fine and dandy. But hindsight is 20/20. We were preparing for the unexpected. Not saying I agree with the decisions now nor did I agree with them then. But it's also unfair to look back and judge decisions based on knowledge and experiences that weren't available at the time.

---

That's the reason doing nothing is better than doing something without proof it will work.

And a LOT of people were saying that early on, just nobody wanted to hear that.

---

A LOT of people were also saying it was the cold, nobody was dying from it, all the pictures were media propaganda, and people were making up every bit of it to line their pockets.

Both sides can selectively pick out points where they were right and the other was wrong.

---

Yeah, but we didn't force mandates and shutdowns on people based on their nonsense. So the whole "both sides" thing is incorrect.

This is BS.

I thought we were following the science and that the experts knew what they were doing? You can't make those claims during the pandemic and the. When it doesn't go your way provide a BA excuse that "hindsight is 20/20."

Doesn't work that way. Where's the accountability and humility?

Gordo is posting this as if it's some new revelation but it's an opinion that's been out there for months. It's something that would've been labelled as misinformation months ago.

GAC06 said:

---

"Shared willingness to sacrifice"

Sounds nice except NPI's only hurt people and the economy. It was needless added sacrifice.

---

Exactly. There was no shared sacrifice from the people who put the NPIs in place. They never missed a pay check and some of the scammers like Hotez have purposely instilled panic so they can use it to get speaking engagements and book deals.

htxag09 said:

---

That's fine and dandy. But hindsight is 20/20. We were preparing for the unexpected. Not saying I agree with the decisions now nor did I agree with them then. But it's also unfair to look back and judge decisions based on knowledge and experiences that weren't available at the time.

---

It's actually completely fair to perform an After Action Review. The point of a retrospective is to learn from it so as to be better in the future.

So I'm this case: ask who was proved right and why. Ask who was wrong and why (and how quickly they course corrected). Then, going forward, listen more closely to those who can be trusted, and discard all who cannot be trusted.

If your trusted sources have dropped masks this month despite preaching them a month ago: you owe it to the rest of us to change sources. Clay Travis may not have Faucci's credentials - but his track record is far better. And it's not a mistake.