The left has a problem with science denialism, and the pandemic has brought out the worst in some people leading to what is effectively a left-wing corona truther / conspiracy theory school of thought. I'm coming out of hibernation to address this article.
https://www.autistici.org/tridnivalka/contra-la-contra-4-pandemic-is-domestication/

There are times when concretely measurable facts are ignored, twisted, and denied because they conflict with some a priori assumption about capital or the State. This is not unique to any left tendency. It can be seen from SocDem to anarchist to tankie.

The article starts with an assumption that there is (at large) unity of goals between the press and the State. This may be true in some regions, but not long after the start of the pandemic the press (at least elements of it) has tended to not blindly support government policy.

The article uses scare quotes to talk about the experts who (ignoring the press and ruling parties) have generally preached reasonable measures in response to the pandemic. Failing to differentiate between State mouthpieces and actual virologists is an unacceptable simplification

> All this with a clear objective to disturb us so that we accept to be kept in lock down.

I am not aware of this being true anywhere in the world. Most States have done the opposite of denying the issue and suppressing it to save the economy.

The author seems to assume that the State's only tool is top-down crushing force, but the pandemic has made it fairly clear that denial and a total lack of control is also a tactic. This is observable, but it conflicts with their analysis, so it is ignored.

The author calls science a faith akin to religion and that it is wielded to control as States and societies have used religion.

Again, this is an absurd argument to make because the hugest marker of what has made this pandemic a clusterfuck is the State ignoring virologists and epidemiologists in an attempt to prevent economic damage or socialist policy changes.

There is a grain of truth about science adhering to its own vogue theories or that science is transitory (in as much as theories change over time), but the article makes it seem like all scientific conclusions are as baseless or ephemeral as as one's favorite ice cream flavor.

To assume that because an organization is biased or has a history of supporting capital and colonization that none of conclusions are correct is itself fallacious. If a biased org makes an scientific argument, the counter is not ad hominem but to pick apart their argument.

A corrupt and horrifically authoritarian government could for example proclaim that bacteria in drinking water causes illness. Maybe so, maybe not. The solution is not to say "fuck the government, I'm drinking that water and so should you."

But we're talking about measurable things. If the WHO said "lock everyone in their flats to stop the spread" they may be wrong with their solution but right in their analysis of disease spread (person to person spread via proximity/contact).

The article hits at a grain of truth in this passage. It is easy to blame individuals for spread when it seems to be fairly clear that significant spread is due to commuting, offices, and still open schools.

But that does not absolve us of individual responsibility as well.

Militaries and mega-corporations may be responsible for a significant majority of pollution and ecological destruction. But we should avoid littering and consuming products that are ecologically damaging. Both can be true at the same time.

> the neighbor who leaves his house or organizes parties, at the person who does not wear a rag over his mouth

These are completely legitimate things to be mad about. Consider your ideal anarchist society, free of control and authority. Should people not mask up / limit contact?

Clearly they still should. The virus spreads regardless of the politics we have. People who do such things should be shamed and pushed in to adopting eusocial behaviors that protect their community.

Saying that someone shouldn't mask up or even be pushed to do so reeks of the right saying "my body, my choice" w.r.t. masks.

Individual rights do not trump community well-being. You don't want to wear a mask on the commune? You don't have to, but you also can't stay here.

> despite the idealization of the confinement and the idiotic belief that health measures are the magic formulas that will save our lives

This is again science denialism masquerading as political analysis. Health measures demonstrably save lives. This is truly undeniable.

The author calls quarantines, face masks, and disinfectant "glorified measures of social control." Again. If a global pandemic broke out in an anarchist utopia, all three of those measures would be appropriate and should be socialized as "the correct response"

> if desperate... measures like a vaccine are believed to be the solution to this problem

The vaccine is a solution to many diseases. I am appalled that the article trends anti-vaxx.

> or will it do nothing at all to improve the already fucked-up conditions of existence of the majority of the world’s population

People not dying of a preventable disease is good, full stop. A globally available vaccine will prevent hundreds of thousands of deaths.

Yes, a vaccine will allow us to "return to normal" so we can return to commodity production, but the unvaccinated alternative is a strictly worse one. If anything is to be focused on, it's why the State accepts vaccination as a solution: because it saves the economy

This paragraph epitomizes the knee-jerk contriarianism that often is the core of left science denialism: if the State/capital/Big-XYZ says to do it, you should oppose it.

The State asking people to stay home is fucking correct. Any virologist and epidemiologist who isn't a complete hack would say the same thing.

The correct anarchist position on such a restriction of social contact is this.

We are incidentally in agreement with the State about the specific measures of disease control, though we differ on the reasons and methods of enforcement.

There are some places where this article is accurate about State control, proletarian struggle, our need to work to survive and such, but I beg of you all to consider scientific observations and conclusions along side your political analysis.

If you take a line of reasoning and run to the end with it, and the end result is that no one has any requirement to prevent the spread of disease in their community, your theory will not survive contact with the real world. I'm sorry. No amount of theory can override biology.

This isn't to say science isn't fallible or that there aren't biases with in (I have written to this effect), but we might want to throw out the good with the bad.

Observation, measurement, and analysis are critical to our survival. Not just thethe left, but humanity at large.

*might not

...sigh