I think it's important for people to remember:

Pandemics comes in waves...

... and the 2nd wave is often -- in the past -- worse than the 1st wave.

This was the case with the Spanish Flu in 1918. The 2nd wave was much deadlier than the 1st.

So what causes a 2nd wave?

Mutations can cause a 2nd wave, but more often it's simply...

... people who got sick during the 1st wave start feeling better and prematurely re-enter society -- becoming carriers and spreading the virus (again). And, often those people allow the virus to re-energize within their own systems as well.

Nowadays we can also add the resumption of international travel to the growth of a 2nd wave (as China is now starting to experience their 2nd wave alongside resumption of international travel).

Will the 2nd wave be devastating? Not particularly, but -- as history shows -- without proper precautions, it has the potential.

So what should you do?

If you get ill, stay home -- limiting your exposure to others -- until you are certain that you are well (obviously seek out medical attention if needed). Do not push yourself or others to return to a daily routine (what there is of it currently) early. Let your body have time to heal itself and create antibodies.

Well in South Korea for example they had a Religious Cult which had a massive group of people who pretty close to each other in which alot of people got infected with the virus which upset alot of people. Malaysia is another example where they had a gathering of 16K people which was mentioned in this thread.

I think he is criticising their attitude and how this situation could be misused. Other groups or laws are preventing people the ability to independently verify e.g Institutions getting supplies and state money versus other groups being prevented from that.
Hastily pushed laws in the UK with the excuse of acid attacks and terrorism have affected the publics right to scientific materials.

https://www.propublica.org/article/a-medical-worker-describes--terrifying-lung-failure-from-covid19-even-in-his-young-patients

Disturbing, one definitely should try not to get this thing, even when one's still in one's 30s or 40s.

Looks like the gog downloader got this got quarantineed and then just passed away :(

Science and peer review didn't fall out of the sky like a religion people are treating it as.

You were making a sarcastic comment about people researching their own medical issues but ask yourself why their research would be worse than a doctors and what causes or benefits from that.

Not sure what you meant by this, but there's a huge difference between critically accepting expert scientist's opinion, and believing in religion. I hear this all the time - 'you are a fanatic science believer, it's your religion!'. Well, that doesn't describe it at all. The whole premise of the scientific method is that you scrutinise every bit of theory to poke holes in it, even assume it's wrong, and if after other expert peers in the field couldn't poke holes in it, and after some time with no rebuttals or refutes, it might be right. Religion is the opposite - it assumes it's right from the get-go, allows no critical thinking, and people worship it as the absolute truth. The two aren't even remotely the same, and someone who believes in science doesn't act like a fanatic believer. There is such a thing as critical thinking, you know.

Why would a layman's google search results be worse than a doctor's expert and professional medical practice, in medical issues?

What?

wat did he mean by this

To drag this back on topic - it's clear people expect answers quickly and conveniently from experts, but what is baffling to I think many people, is how easily distorted 'facts' by politicans/people in power are taken as valid whereas scientists are looked down upon because 'buddy buddy peer review' and some other nonsense. Need I mention the recent example of a world leader basically repeating chloroquine is a cure, and some guy tragically and needlessly dying because of that misguided piece of info.

That fallacy annoys me on so many levels, it's probably bad for my blood pressure. It's the combination of a complete lack of understanding of what science really is and the assumption that every possible assumption about something is always equal.

Russel's teapot needs to get taught at school.

I'm here, don't worry.

Have my upvote and my manly giggle you beautiful bastard.

I've been practicing critical thinking for most of my life and this is what I do -- take it for whatever you think it's worth: I simply leave it that *I don't know*, and do my best to gather more information, and in the meantime, I err on the side of caution, which in this case means taking all precautions that can protect myself and those in proximity to me.

Really speaking, "knowing" is a fallacy, and is detrimental in that it inhibits learning. Learning is what is essential, because it allows us to adapt.

Cheers.

Pretty much this. The downside of this approach is that more you learn, the more you have to realize how much you don't know and much you judge and act out of convictions that are often not really grounded in something substantial.

For the current situation I can only say "not enough data". I've read scientific and well argued pieces towards all kinds of ends - from "it's all exaggerated, it's not worse than the flu" to "this will end badly, even if we try to contain it" and "shutdown is the only way" to "economic collapse will be far worse than a million deaths of already old and sick people".

What I see as a great danger in the current situation (which we can't change anyway) is a sharp increase of suicides and domestic violence. And this is something we can do something about - be nice to each other, watch out for each other. Offer help if needed and possible. Call the police when bad things happen.

Why aren't they looking at the same training manuals and research papers the professionals have. Isn't the health service and education system funded by the public?

It isn't a fallacy because that isn't what I typed.The Problem is putting faith behind the groups who are doing the science and muddling it with science as a concept.

Which is why I left you out from that quote, I didn't feel like it applied to what you wrote. It was more that line of thinking in general that bugged me.

The semantic waters concerning this issue are muddy indeed, I'm not even sure people are on the same page on what they're arguing.