LogFAQs > #956549349

Reigning_King posted...

I don't disagree with you there. I just think it's hilarious how the same people who were screaming stuff like "Trust the science!" and "The CDC knows more than you ever could, don't rely on your own feelings/thoughts/research and just do whatever they tell you to do!" followed along and hand waved contradictory bullshit like how they said masks weren't needed back when this started, as long as they were making people more frightened, but the second they say something optimistic and in the opposite direction suddenly they're a bunch of heartless idiots who can't be trusted. If they do fully flip flop on this I expect their fanatics turned detractors to flip flop accordingly.

Oh, I've always trusted the science. There were questions at one point about whether or not vaccines would prevent people from transmitting the disease without being (noticeably) infected, but the CDC's announcement indicated that that was no longer a concern. That was great news, and I fully trust that that announcement was made based on sound scientific evidence.

What I don't trust is people. The CDC was correct to arrive at that conclusion, but because people are stupid, announcing it was a terrible idea. On the day they made that announcement (May 13), approximately 30% of the country was fully vaccinated. Within two weeks, substantially more than 30% of people were going without masks. Even now, less than half the country can claim to have had both shots more than two weeks ago, yet mask requirements have been dropped pretty much country-wide.

By and large, the people eschewing masks aren't "trusting" the CDC as a scientific authority. They're treating the CDC's authority as something they can exploit now that it has said something they kind of almost agree with. The people saying the CDC should be trusted now that they're suggesting re-implementing masks didn't distrust them when they said vaccinated people don't need masks, they just recognized that such an announcement was never going to end well because people are idiots.

Reigning_King posted...

Sub 2%

I think you need to play more Fire Emblem games if you think a 1-2% chance of death isn't a problem. It's fairly unlikely, sure, and reasonable risk analysis dictates that it's fine to attack a guy that you have a 90% chance to one-shot and who only has a 15% chance to hit and 3% chance to crit you, but you will have characters die to those odds (0.045%, even less on the 2-RNG system used by some of the games) far more often than common sense would seem to dictate. And that's just a video game. When the consequence is literally dying alone and in excruciating agony, those odds are bloody awful.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.