Can you be more specific and/or provide some references? The "demonstrating curiosity about controversial topics" part is sounding like vaccine skepticism, though I don't recall ever hearing that being referred to as any kind of "psychosis".

The mass psychosis was that early on in the COVID response, we were hearing so much early advice from people that were ahead of CDC/FDA, things like:

- Masks work (CDC/FDA discouraged, then flip-flopped and took credit for these things) despite it originating from Scott Alexander and skeptic communities like his, I also heard it from Tim Ferriss

- Ivermectin, Mega dosing Vitamins like Vitamin D and C, Povidone Iodine (known disinfectant people use: claimed to be "bleach" by misinformation media) - we know they still have Little to no downside and the psychosis was to label any critical thinking about ideas like nutrition and personal health to help with "COVID" as anti-COVID and anti-vaccine. Psychosis like attack, straw mans, Ad Hominems shutting down critical thinking and curiosity as psychosis

- Asking about "Hey if I got COVID before, that immunity is as robust if not more than vaccine, what evidence supports I need the vaccine?" was shut down despite it being robust and sound questioning to ask. Curiosity was shut down, psychosis was to jump on all questioners as anti-vaccine and vaccine skeptics, calling them murderers often by sensationalist papers.

Does that answer your question, and feel referential for you. Let me know what you are expecting and I can deliver better references. I think you've heard about or are probably familiar with all the examples I used though.(Another psychosis I just thought of: To this day the hostile, discriminatory, lock-step vocal cancel-culture class of opinion that was blindly sent to anyone who questioned mainstream covid policy during that time was so much like the biggest example of psychosis I've ever seen. That wa when I first heard of the term "mass psychosis")

There is a documentary called "Everything under control". In it they explained why this happened.

Basically they were scared that the public were going to buy out the masks that were needed by medical staff.

> Ivermectin

Same documentary, this was started by Musk. It does nothing and is dangerous.

One question, have you ever considered the opposite of what you're saying to be true, or looked for the evidence for that? Saying because I've heard of and looked at both opinions you've expressed in your comment and heard and seen evidence for them to be true. I also did the opposite. And looking at the opposite seemed more true objectively and with the emotions and popular biases like authority bias and other harmful ones removed.

"If you can't see anything wrong with the side you agree with, and you can't see anything right with the side you disagree with, you've been manipulated." Very wise quote.

Yea sorry I was recalling from memory.

> One question, have you ever considered the opposite of what you're saying to be true, or looked for the evidence for that?

I look at what the scientists who have spent years in that field are saying and is peer reviewed.

You go searching on the internet for the answer you expect, you will find it.

> authority bias

Authority bias is where an expert in field X claims to have knowledge in field Y when they don't.

| Authority Bias: The cognitive tendency to overvalue the opinion of an authority figure or expert

lets not make up definitions for your own convenience.

Authority bias is the cognitive bias where we give disproportionate weight to the opinion of someone perceived as an authority figure, even outside their domain of expertise.

What a lot of people outside the scientific field fail to realise that when a claim is made by an expert in their field, it is peer reviewed and challenged or accepted.

The whole point of science is that you can challenge wrong ideas and change your perspective.

Like I said though. If you are just going to the internet to find something that aligns with what you believe, that isn't peer review.

Did you not share this above? This contradicts to me your definition here, which is just copying what I shared and stating it as thought its now your opinion. Comes off like gaslighting by the way.

frequent touter of other right-wing ideas surround the pandemic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinay_Prasad#COVID_response

>but an imperfectly used non-n95 mask is basically worthless.

also not true. Even surgical or cloth masks on bearded individuals provide 30-40% aerosol filtration https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8130778/

The myth that laypeople couldn't effectively use masks was just turning the topic into an all-or-nothing binary, knowing people would be discouraged.

If surgical masks are insufficient because people are getting Covid sitting in rooms with others re-breathing the same air for hours, then valid solutions are to remove the people from the environment, remove the hazard from the environment, or provide better means to protect people from the environment, not increase people's exposure to the hazard.

So-called lockdowns and isolation were very limited outside of perhaps China and are vastly overblown rhetorically in how strict they were in practice.

The effect of repeated COVID infections on children is something measurable and demonstrably serious, and we'll continue to find out more and more of these issues overtime.

Discouraging them early on was meant to avoid supply runs on quality masks. I agree it was a misstep on their part to promote the falsehood that masks do not prevent the wearer from being infected, and they never sufficiently walked this back, only perpetuating further myths like masks only protect others and not the wearer.

>Asking about "Hey if I got COVID before, that immunity is as robust if not more than vaccine, what evidence supports I need the vaccine?"

I also agree that over-reliance and perhaps overselling of vaccine effectiveness was a misstep, largely designed to get societal buy-in for ignoring COVID and "getting back to normal" as quickly as possible. The point that makes suspect those who were in favor of things like vitamins and exercise and so adamantly against measures like vaccines is that they did not go on to support other mitigations to promote health, like mask mandates and improvements in indoor air filtration and ventilation, which would have been more effective at reducing disease and promoting health. On the contrary, such activists were only interested in removing all measures and promoting increased disease.

Oh by the way, I have a funny personal experience with the theory that it was meant to avoid supply runs on quality masks.

Early on I discovered any cloth layers would work good enough, and found and shared many quick 2 minute guides in my network. I heard a lot of the similar bullshit nonsense that was sounding like mass psychosis then too that "building your own mask risks supply runs on quality masks". I'm like how does that make any logical sense though it feels like a hypnotic sort of lockstep programming of not being able to feel the dissonance to ask certain questions.

Check out the Alice in Wonderland persuasive technique? Basically it works off of inducing confusion intentionally and then offering a suggestion that is anchored to as "safe" in the human psychology. Supposedly operating off programming that extends on the falling instinct where we anchor onto anything close by that feels safe (has our early weird monkey brain origins there!).

I think you'll see a lot of the public authoritarian CDC, Govt, mainstream authoritarian response was anchored in this. And it supports the psychosis theory I originally responded off of.

I don't think you know what a straw man is [0]

> Does that answer your question, and feel referential for you.

No, lol? I was asking for you to cite a reference to a reputable source, not go on a whole Covid misinformation rant. To add, you still haven't demonstrated where/how the word "psychosis" supposedly came into popular use for any of the cases you mentioned.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

When I brought up the position(s) that people who asked questions or were curious about certain topics got shut down and labeled as having psychosis you responded with bringing is a representation of my position as vaccine skepticism.

I remember hearing about psychosis in popular mainstream media. Look I can see you have a strong opinion and belief system around what "reputable" means, and won't actually ever communicate it to me since you are the arbiter of truth and justice - You can look it up what the psychosis is yourself. You seem to like Wikipedia so start there.

I said "is sounding like", not "is", obviously signaling I was making an assumption, which you were free to correct. Given your diatribe that followed, I don't think I was far off the mark though.

> people who asked questions or were curious about certain topics got shut down

This is a very common phrasing from those in conspiracy-theory land - I've seen the same with flat-earthers and the like, everyone is "just asking questions". But they're not, they're pushing an agenda, whether that's misinformation or policy change (or both).

> Look I can see you have a strong opinion and belief system around what "reputable" means

Can you share a link to a site - any site - that isn't 4chan or some nutty, obviously conspiratorial source? Otherwise what are we doing here, just saying whatever we want without any evidence? Does this seem like the kind of behaviour expected of discourse on HN to you?

No thanks. I can get that ignorance on Fox News or Cable television mainstream media. I've heard it all. It does nothing for me.