I blame the combination of how over-hyped the (real) issue of Y2K was combined with how successfully we handled it (partly because everyone was so worked up about it) leading to the (common issue for IT professionals) take away of “well nothing went wrong, why did we put all that effort into trying to stop something going wrong?” for no small part of why people weren’t as willing to try to stop/minimise Covid as they otherwise might have been (of course it was always going to be a harder sell as Y2K mostly required from the general public that they don’t have a tantrum about organisations paying professionals to fix the problem directly whereas Covid required the general public to follow the advice of the professionals in taking action in their own lives.)
That’s not how any of the COVID vaccines were reported to work. No such thing as total immunity.
The virus is deadly depending on what conditions are met (underlying risk factors, etc.). Not all of those conditions are obvious or well-studied, so it always seemed to me like a lottery who gets killed by the virus.
Furthermore, I don’t believe the article is fearmongering. As I said in a separate comment, it’s more like “hey, there might be a bit of an outbreak in some places this flu season, so keep some N95s on hand just in case numbers go up.” I HIGHLY doubt we would see another shutdown.
Chicken pox? Pretty much one and done. COVID? Falls off rapidly after 3 months, whether you catch it or get the vaccine
Plus, every mutation is a dice roll on how much existing immunity will apply. It could be exactly the same as the last strain, or the old immunity might not help at all
To answer your question, while you didn’t say it outright, your response makes a likely inference to be that you believe COVID reporting was overblown to generate revenue.
That is the far-right taking point they are most likely referring to.
The number of hospitalizations and deaths is a statistic that was tracked and the far-right lead a campaign to discredit those statistics. Later, the far-right lead a campaign to say that vaccination should have resulted in full immunity, which it was never reported to do, in an effort to discredit scientists and make their followers feel validated in their decision to not vaccinate.
I don’t believe that reporting about the pandemic was overblown at the time that the pandemic was a public health crisis, actually I believe it was underreported, quite significantly.
However, I believe that the combination of the huge uncertainty, people desperately trying to keep up to date, people being off work or working from home, the huge amount of conversation around COVID news stories, etc. that the news websites got an unprecedented amount of traffic, clicks and revenue, and since that has tapered off, they’re basically like an addict desperate for a fix. They’ll present any minor COVID news, no matter how inconsequential, as a far bigger issue than it really is.
I don’t really believe that COVID will make a resurgence, but if it does, I’ll be there encouraging people to wear a mask. But I’m not gonna freak out and declare a state of emergency because a researcher tweeted some toilet thought.
The pushback against the perfectly sensible responses to the pandemic was orchestrated by far-right political entities as a way to rally their supporters against “the oppressive left-wing/liberal agenda to control and exploit you!”.
deleted by creator
We dont have immunity, that’s the point. read the article.
deleted by creator
Did you read the article?
deleted by creator
What? 7 million people died from COVID-19. How many more would it have been without all the safety measures?
https://covid19.who.int/
Bruh.
The curse of successful mitigation is skeptics will then say afterwards that ‘X was no big deal, look how few people died’
Don’t be one of those.
I blame the combination of how over-hyped the (real) issue of Y2K was combined with how successfully we handled it (partly because everyone was so worked up about it) leading to the (common issue for IT professionals) take away of “well nothing went wrong, why did we put all that effort into trying to stop something going wrong?” for no small part of why people weren’t as willing to try to stop/minimise Covid as they otherwise might have been (of course it was always going to be a harder sell as Y2K mostly required from the general public that they don’t have a tantrum about organisations paying professionals to fix the problem directly whereas Covid required the general public to follow the advice of the professionals in taking action in their own lives.)
Removed by mod
We all knew you had already drawn your conclusion that this was “fearmongering” before seeing any facts.
No one is going to logic you out of a position you didn’t use logic to get into in the first place.
That’s not how any of the COVID vaccines were reported to work. No such thing as total immunity.
The virus is deadly depending on what conditions are met (underlying risk factors, etc.). Not all of those conditions are obvious or well-studied, so it always seemed to me like a lottery who gets killed by the virus.
Furthermore, I don’t believe the article is fearmongering. As I said in a separate comment, it’s more like “hey, there might be a bit of an outbreak in some places this flu season, so keep some N95s on hand just in case numbers go up.” I HIGHLY doubt we would see another shutdown.
Because immunity varies by disease.
Chicken pox? Pretty much one and done. COVID? Falls off rapidly after 3 months, whether you catch it or get the vaccine
Plus, every mutation is a dice roll on how much existing immunity will apply. It could be exactly the same as the last strain, or the old immunity might not help at all
You could try reading the article instead of spouting nonsense.
It isn’t as bad as 2020, but it isn’t as harmless as the flu. There are still going to be public health concerns.
deleted by creator
You seem anti-capitalist. Yet hear you are repeating far-right talking points.
deleted by creator
To answer your question, while you didn’t say it outright, your response makes a likely inference to be that you believe COVID reporting was overblown to generate revenue.
That is the far-right taking point they are most likely referring to.
The number of hospitalizations and deaths is a statistic that was tracked and the far-right lead a campaign to discredit those statistics. Later, the far-right lead a campaign to say that vaccination should have resulted in full immunity, which it was never reported to do, in an effort to discredit scientists and make their followers feel validated in their decision to not vaccinate.
I don’t believe that reporting about the pandemic was overblown at the time that the pandemic was a public health crisis, actually I believe it was underreported, quite significantly.
However, I believe that the combination of the huge uncertainty, people desperately trying to keep up to date, people being off work or working from home, the huge amount of conversation around COVID news stories, etc. that the news websites got an unprecedented amount of traffic, clicks and revenue, and since that has tapered off, they’re basically like an addict desperate for a fix. They’ll present any minor COVID news, no matter how inconsequential, as a far bigger issue than it really is.
I don’t really believe that COVID will make a resurgence, but if it does, I’ll be there encouraging people to wear a mask. But I’m not gonna freak out and declare a state of emergency because a researcher tweeted some toilet thought.
The pushback against the perfectly sensible responses to the pandemic was orchestrated by far-right political entities as a way to rally their supporters against “the oppressive left-wing/liberal agenda to control and exploit you!”.
deleted by creator
Did you just wake up from a coma?
deleted by creator
Exactly. Old media died years ago. Welcome to new media where the news isn’t real and the only thing that matters is clicks