33 upvotes, 2 direct replies (showing 2)
View submission: COVID denialism and policy clarifications
[deleted]
Comment by [deleted] at 01/09/2021 at 18:54 UTC
8 upvotes, 1 direct replies
Exactly. This part stood out to me in particular. “. However, in this case, we found very clear signals indicating that r/NoNewNormal was the source of around 80 brigades in the last 30 days (**largely directed at communities with more mainstream views on COVID** or location-based communities that have been discussing COVID restrictions).”
You mean reality and actual science? That’s still brushing off what they’re doing as “another side of an argument”. This is a good first step but more still needs to be done.
Comment by ribnag at 01/09/2021 at 21:16 UTC
-1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
My favorite part is "This includes falsified medical data and faked WHO/CDC advice."
Problem being, The WHO and CDC have repeatedly published self-contradicting information over the past 18 months. And *both* have blatantly ignored *actual* scientists who have been screaming that the existing criteria for considering something an aerosol vs a droplet are utter rubbish based on misreading a single 60-year old paper about TB[1].
1: https://www.wired.com/story/the-teeny-tiny-scientific-screwup-that-helped-covid-kill/
Reminds me of an old Doonesbury comic - "Will revisionism be covered on the test?" "No, the truth will suffice".