Scepticism barely existed and is nearly gone
A potted history of failure.
Initially, some didn't like lockdown and asked if it is the right approach. This is a rational point of view and a good question to ask. That would have been scepticism and might have resulted in a decent discussion.
The problem is that in 9 months of watching I haven't seem any credible consideration of the subject. That includes the editorial and forum elements. It is just unthinking campaigning against just about everything. lockdown, disease severity, infection rates, statistics & models, masks.........etc . There have been articles and posts in great detail, but never balanced and normally easily discredited and dismissed.
The site changed name as it moved away from lockdowns to an an anti-vaxx stance and seems to be dabbling in climate change denial now.
Obviously non of this has amounted to anything and it is fizzling out.
"Modest adjustments" eh. So many fucked up lives as a result of this shit show. Just a modest adjustment.
I don't think anyone is helping anyone by adopting the mindless measures. It doesn't surprise me that you think this because your posts show you have an extremely impoverished relationship to humanity, probably born of a character disorder. Why do you think the measures were adopted in the first place? Precisely because of the significance of public association to the kinds of creatures we are, something that has been privileged throughout the history of philosophy as a significant aspect of what the political sphere should ensure. This is precisely why the virus, a flu-level virus according to government classification, accepted as such by countries like Norway and Denmark, was used as trojan to attempt to manipulate the population to remove them from any civil sphere: precisely what a government should act to preserve. Given the centrality of the ontological status of this realm to human beings, any government response should have acted to preserve this sphere and any public health response should have been guided by these principles. If we lived in a decent, fair and just society, that acted to promote the well-being of its citizens, then the political leadership should have acted to ensure that public health professionals framed a response based on preserving communal and civil forms of life and early-treatment and protection of the pockets of the population that are vulnerable to the disease could have been used. Instead, and this tells you more about the nature of a political elite compromised by economic interests, we have been subject to a policy taken from incarceration facilities. That tells you a good deal about the alienation arising from the position of those spectating the world and responding from representations produced by professionals themselves framing data from extremely attenuated processes without direct contact with the phenomena of the virus or its human effects. Even the diagnostic tool used to generate cases is a highly theoretically and technologically abstracted and mediated process generating dubious artefacts, precisely what the elite needed to publicly signify the threat posed by the new pathogen.
The harm done by the pursuing of alienated policies that cut people off from the sources of their humanity are only too clear in increased violence, I saw this week that in the US the murder rate had increased thirty per cent, suicide and opiates use. All predicted by one of the epidemiologists from Stanford who advised Trump but he was ignored. The virus has been used as a trojan to lever wholesale changes to the nature of public existence and to our status as citizens, it is the only way you can make sense of how a political elite have acted so psychopathically to derive supply by creating a drama out of such a mundane virus, acting as if this has been a major pandemic, rather a historical event manufactured in a lab at the behest of powerful corporate interests who have compromised global political institutions.
in the US, 220 00 businesses closed, the wealth of the billionaires increased 1.2 trillion dollars. Elon Musk's wealth increased $144 billion; Jeff Bezos 86 billion; Larry Page $42 billion; Sergei Brin $41 billion; Daniel Gilbert $40 billion; Mark Zuckerberg $35 billion; Larry Ellison $34 billion, Mackenzie Scott $25 billion.
Seems those "modest adjustments" have economic consequences but the foundation of any new economic order has to address the interpersonal basis of the dispositions required for the functionality of the new order.