@whatever: i'm trying to articulate this in good faith.
you proclaim that all the concern around the virus is based on lies being perpetrated by those in power (media, politics, etc), not on the actual risks and impacts of the virus and the reactions to it. which implies that the same lies are coordinated across the entire planet (surely possible, just not very likely in this situation, imo). it also implies, of course, that you have a monopoly on reliable information. which is a primary issue that i and others here have raised in response to your comments. you saying "i go by the science, i only follow the facts" is passive-aggressively condescending AND it implies that those who disagree with you are somehow ignorant of science and "facts". can you see how problematic that is? do the folks here seem that blatantly dumb? do you seriously think the mainstream media, politicians and the cdc are the trusted sources of information by critical thinkers here in the u.s.?
now that the volume of reported cases, hospitalizations and deaths have been rising substantially - as would be expected during cold weather and with so many people ignoring the scientific evidence of how to reduce transmission - is it your position that the liars have simply adjusted the false narrative to portray the situation as getting ever worse? in your mind, does the rise in reported cases/deaths in any way relate to the actual situation on the ground?
what do you say to the fact that someone with diabetes, lung/heart disease, high blood pressure, obesity, etc, can live with their condition for many years, and yet they die right after getting covid? do you believe that covid was actually not related to their death? is it mere coincidence that so many people die shortly after catching the virus, when they were going about their lives as "normal" prior to getting it? if i had a heart attack while driving, and i crashed and died, what would the cause of death be? maybe trauma from the crash. maybe heart failure from panic as the crash occurred. it is almost infinitely unlikely - though not impossible - that i would have died in that moment, had i not been driving. how does that factor into your logic?
finally, i'll point out michael osterholm from CIDRAP as the most unbiased, medical, science and fact based perspective i have come across on the covid situation in the u.s. which is of course not to say he is the ultimate authority (there is no such thing). he is simply a 40+ year infectious disease specialist who has seen many, many infectious disease situations here in the u.s. the fact that he does not sugar-coat his perspective is seen by some as "negative" or fear-inducing (given your perspective on the role of "fear", i wonder if you would say the same, even given his scientific approach). i see him as a realist, telling it how it is. i have heard him talk since the very beginning of this pandemic; he has accurately predicted (as many infectious disease specialists could and likely did) exactly how this would go, given the widespread opposition to steps for reducing transmission. he would probably be a good source for a critical scientific perspective on the conspiracy that you believe is in place all over the globe. if you dismiss him simply because he is in the u.s. and part of an institution, then you will lose all credibility (to me) as a critical thinker. on the other hand, if you can provide reasonable evidence that he is just another liar in service to your conspiracy, i will absolutely reconsider my view of him.
i care next to zero about governmental mandates or what have you - people will follow them or not, in often equal numbers. i am concerned with people's actual behavior. i act in ways that make sense for enhancing the well-being of myself and those i care about, regardless of what some authority "mandates". if i trust a source that explains why certain behavior is risky, i will likely include that in my risk assessment.
fear is a very useful emotion for living beings - it is a "natural" warning system. of course civilization is opportunistic, and using fear as a tool for control is as old as domestication itself.
you probably don't care much about reducing transmission, since you do not think the virus is dangerous. those that do want to reduce transmission need to understand that masks help some, but they are not a panacea. wearing a mask does not remove the risk of catching the virus, especially when you are close to others, and more especially when inside and close to others. the number of people who seem to think wearing a mask (often not even effectively) is all they need to do to go back to a "normal" life is staggering. i think there is only one reliable way to prevent transmission: stop swapping air. the closer you get to that goal, the less likely you will be get infected and/or spread it. when it comes to "lockdowns" (leaving aside the obvious anarchist critique), i suspect that where one falls on that coincides with how they prioritize economics and the over-the-top production/consumption way of modern human life. but even those that prioritize economy seem to be rather shortsighted. the herd immunity approach - aside from being akin to passive genocide (or mere imprisonment) against high risk individuals - would almost certainly cause economic damage far beyond the couple months of lockdown that infectious disease experts say would allow the virus' spread to be contained sufficiently. needless to say, a real lockdown would require governmental provision of necessities to those locked down. that removes the "basic survival" argument, but it does nothing for the social intercourse that (particularly urban) folks seem to require for their mental health. my sister, who lives rurally and can be outside safely anytime she wants, has started going into the nearby town every day (with her mask), just to be around others - her husband works long hours in health care (he has been vaccinated, whatever that is worth). i predict she will bring it home within a month.
i will say once again: i sincerely hope that anyone who refuses to take precautions against spreading the infection, is refused health care. not by state-sanctioned mandate, by individual will. the principle of the hippocratic oath ought to work both ways, imo.
