Comment by gotoeleven | Hacker News Reader

Comment by gotoeleven | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I'd honestly love to have a real discussion with people about this topic. HN comment sections, as imperfect as they may be, are afaik about the only place left on the internet where somewhat fact-based discussions of contentious topics happen.

The flagged comment is pretty inscrutable but I think I can explain the overall sentiment a bit better: half the country is under the impression that much of the science spending in this country is wasteful or even pernicious. They hear stories about studies of "racist highways" and "periods in transgender men," or the CDC claiming racism and gun control are diseases it should control, and think "why am I paying for this?". Combine this with the perception that the science establishment really shat the bed in their response to covid--lying about its origins, lying about the efficacy of masks, lying about the efficacy of the vaccine, lying about two more weeks, pushing ineffective and harmful lockdowns, etc--and half the country is ready to burn the whole thing down.

I, personally, know that science in general is a great good and should be funded. But the craziness, corruption, and dishonesty have to be excised or people are not going to support it.

To your comment in particular, the people supportive of these cuts don't think they're dragging us back to the dark ages. They think they're excising a tumor.

I’m not telling people stories about “racist highways” or “periods in transgender men.” I’m sure you’re not either. Maybe the problem here is whoever is telling those stories.

But in all seriousness, the time to have discussions about this was last year. The time for discussion has passed at this point. The damage is locked in now, as is the blowback that will result when people realize what was done.

I don't think most here would disagree about the perceptions that each side has. The problem is that is imperfect a lens to reality they are, it sure seems like the one side has embraced much of the fundamentals of QAnon even if most haven't realized it.

> I'd honestly love to have a real discussion with people about this topic

https://www.themotte.org/

I'm happy to have this discussion, but I think you're making a false equivalence between the two sides. The examples you provided of liberal scientific overreach are either false or exaggerated. On the other side, you have an anti-vaxxer running the Department of Health and a president who suggested ingesting bleach to treat covid.

To respond to your examples specifically:

* Racist highways: I don't know what this is about.

* Periods in transgender men: This is a small, nuanced issue, not something worth destroying civilization over.

* Racism is a disease: Again, not familiar with this.

* Gun violence is a disease: It is the leading cause of death among children in this country, so treating it as an epidemic makes some sense. Should the CDC just pretend it's not happening?

* Lying about the origins of covid: Not sure who lied about this. The actual origin may never be known, but it most likely evolved from a disease that affected animals in Asia. There is no evidence that it was developed deliberately by China as a bioweapon.

* Lying about the efficacy of masks: Again, not sure what lie you're referring to. Masking was a rational response to an unknown virus. Since covid is a highly contagious respiratory disease, too much masking is certainly better than not enough masking.

* Lying about the efficacy of the vaccine: Again, not sure what lie you're referring to. The covid vaccines saved many thousands of lives.

* Pushing ineffective and harmful lockdowns: This was another rational response to an unknown virus. Lockdowns saved lives, even though they caused huge disruptions.

Your claim that the scientific community overreacted to covid is particularly unjustified and concerning to me. People like Anthony Fauci should be celebrated as heroes, not vilified.

>Lockdowns saved lives, even though they caused huge disruptions.

The problem with this argument and op's is that they're starting from different baselines. This next sentence is not meant to be as judgy as it sounds I'm afraid.

But your context is that lives are worth more than economic problems. The counterpoint that exists is that other people's lives aren't a valuable as my livelihood and income.

This is why rational debate breaks down so very quickly. We don't even have the same starting point anymore, let alone view of the facts at hand.

I think one can make a rational argument that the cost of the lockdowns was not worth the lives saved. I probably wouldn't agree with that argument, but I'd certainly hear it out, especially with regard to the impact on children's education.

The problem is that the current administration isn't interested in (or perhaps capable of) making rational arguments at all.

I just want to point out that America could have blunted the impact the lockdowns had on children, the government just chose to do nothing. It wasn’t a requirement of the lockdowns, it was a choice.

Was the last one? In quebec we were under curfew for two years.

> * Lying about the efficacy of masks: Again, not sure what lie you're referring to. Masking was a rational response to an unknown virus. Since covid is a highly contagious respiratory disease, too much masking is certainly better than not enough masking.

During the first few months of the pandemic the CDC, as well as various media commentators, stated that masks were not an effective measure. The advice was based on decades-old studies that established the "air-borne" vs "not air-borne" dichotomy, according to which COVID was not air-borne and thus masks were unnecessary. But the advice was also motivated by a desire to prevent a run on masks, which were in short supply and already being rationed in healthcare settings. Saying they lied is a stretch, but they were quite intransigent about it even as evidence piled up supporting masking efficacy. This history eventually became one kernel truth justifying a lot of anti-CDC, anti-institutional medicine rhetoric. Though that rhetoric existed before the incorporation of this history into their narrative, and of course the broader movement was always against masking, anyhow, so it's kind of inconsistent logically, but consistency isn't that important when it comes to politics.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com