this post was submitted on 31 Jul 2026

1206 points (98.8% liked)

Political Memes

12267 readers

1972 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

1) Be civil

Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

2) No misinformation

Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

3) Posts should be memes

Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

4) No bots, spam or self-promotion

Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

5) No AI generated content.

Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images

founded 3 years ago

MODERATORS

Rooki@lemmy.world

automodbeta@lemmy.world

Tenthrow@lemmy.world

JonsJava@lemmy.world

Lasherz12@lemmy.world

FauxPseudo@lemmy.world

1206

Remember when not knowing science was considered a failing grade? (lemmy.zip)

submitted 1 day ago by godsammitdam@lemmy.zip to c/politicalmemes@lemmy.world

112 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] bravesilvernest@lemmy.ml 30 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Iirc the House is subpoenaing him again to try and blame him for all their failings

[+] Eristalis@reddthat.com -7 points 1 day ago (2 children)

As above. This was a global crisis. The issues were not caused by the Republican party, nor by the Democrats, nor by anyone even in America! I know... Imagine a thing happening that isn't directly to do with America!

A nasty virus spread throughout the world. Governments and scientists didn't know what to do. They rushed to make policies to deal with it, within the crappy, corrupt political systems that all countries have. Most came up with a mostly crappy response, mostly dictated by corporate lobbies and electioneering, like every other policy they've ever come up with. Lots of people died. Lots more than would have if everything had been done perfectly, but we don't live in such a world and we would no more have if the Democrats were in charge.

[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 9 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 23 hours ago)

Nobody is angry at the republicans for causing the pandemic.

Democrats are angry that republicans (specifically under Trump) fucked up the pandemic response and at least indirectly- but also frequently directly- killed hundreds of thousands of the millions of dead Americans.

Imagine not being angry at that.

For example, Trump resisted lockdowns because rich people didn’t want to lose money. This lead to greater spread, which lead to a larger surge which lead to overwhelmed ICUs and deciding who got ventilators and who didn’t.

While Trump was looting medical resources exactly like ventilators and sending them to his bestie, Putin.

Fuck you for spreading trump apologia.

[–] boonhet@sopuli.xyz 5 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

As above. This was a global crisis. The issues were not caused by the Republican party, nor by the Democrats, nor by anyone even in America! I know… Imagine a thing happening that isn’t directly to do with America!

Welll there were some people trying to prevent lockdowns from being enacted, some people suggesting Ivermectin and bleach as cures or prevention for COVID, etc...

Different countries had very different outcomes and while the US wasn't the worst, it could've been a lot better if a certain party hadn't hampered any effort at improving the situation.

[–] Eristalis@reddthat.com -3 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

Sure. But there are also some scientists who think the lockdown didn't work, or only work really fast and hard. Or only work in dense populations but are useless in sparse ones. The Democrats don't have a monopoly on truth, they're not omniscient. They just had a different idea of how they wanted to respond based (like every other politician) on what they thought would sell well to their electorate.

Who knows what they word have actually done in power. I hate to break it to you, but politicians lie - it's kind of their job.

[–] hr_@lemmy.world 1 points 20 hours ago (2 children)

A bit unfortunate you're getting down voted for a more nuanced take. The jury is still out on large scale lockdowns. China managed to control the spread by aggressive contact tracing and testing, resorting to lockdowns as last resort. And it worked fairly well for some time.

[–] Eristalis@reddthat.com 0 points 15 hours ago

The downvotes are par for the course, if I was interested in a popularity contest I wouldn't have commented on a thread about Fauci!

You're right on lockdowns. The jury is out, but most seem to think them a mistake, or mistakenly applied.

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0261759

According to our estimates, the policy intervention saved 866,350–1,711,150 lives (4,886,214–9,650,886 quality-adjusted life-years), while mortality attributable to the economic downturn was 57,922–245,055 lives (2,093,811–8,858,444 life-years). We conclude that the number of lives saved by the spring-summer lockdowns and other COVID-19-mitigation was greater than the number of lives potentially lost due to the economic downturn. However, the net impact on quality-adjusted life expectancy is ambiguous

https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/15/9295

The comparative analysis of different countries showed that the assumption of lockdowns’ effectiveness cannot be supported by evidence—neither regarding the present COVID-19 pandemic, nor regarding the 1918–1920 Spanish Flu and other less-severe pandemics in the past. The price tag of lockdowns in terms of public health is high: by using the known connection between health and wealth, we estimate that lockdowns may claim 20 times more life years than they save. It is suggested therefore that a thorough cost-benefit analysis should be performed before imposing any lockdown for either COVID-19 or any future pandemic.

https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/public-health/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2021.625778/full

a cost-benefit analysis of the response to COVID-19 finds that lockdowns are far more harmful to public health (at least 5–10 times so in terms of wellbeing years) than COVID-19 can be.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3782395

Biomedical evidence from the early months of the pandemic suggests that lockdowns were associated with a reduced viral reproductive rate, but that less restrictive measures also had a similar effect. Lockdowns are associated with reduced mortality in epidemiological modelling studies but not in studies based on empirical data from the Covid-19 pandemic. Psychological research supports the proposition that lengthy lockdowns may exacerbate stressors such as social isolation and unemployment that have been shown to be strong predictors of falling ill if exposed to a respiratory virus. Studies at the economic level of analysis points to the possibility that deaths associated with economic harms or underfunding of other health issues may outweigh the deaths that lockdowns save, and that the extremely high financial cost of lockdowns may have negative implications for overall population health in terms of diminished resources for treating other conditions.