Coronavirus

[ceecee]

I feel compelled to point out that this still just another evasive non-answer. It doesn't make sense to say you simply trust "the opposite" of what the media is peddling, because a list of incorrect information doesn't consequently give you correct information. It just gives you a list of which information is incorrect.

If this were an effective approach to discern correct information, then scientists could bring difficult questions to preschoolers - who would reliably give them an incorrect answer - in order to derive the correct answer from it. Looking at a broken clock (trusting that the clock is broken, and that it probably isn't one of those two seconds each day when the clock is accidentally correct) will only tell you what time it isn't, not what time it is.

You wrote "the entire media, and most of the people on the left" want to "keep everything locked down forever until there is a vaccine."



There's two things going on here. One is that, almost immediately after pointing out how annoying incorrect generalizations about Republicans are (and pointing out how 'untrustworthy' the media is for probably giving that impression), you made incorrect generalizations of your own about "the entire media and most people on the left". I was trying to highlight that. If you're going to point out how annoying it is to be on the business end of that, consider not also doing it yourself.

Secondly - let's suppose you did somehow work out that the entire media and most people on the left want to keep everything locked down forever until there is a vaccine from some 'opposite' narrative that the media reported. I mean, I'd love to hear exactly what that specific narrative is - for that assertion to be the invariable conclusion as opposite. But more importantly: if that's the conclusion that you came to, then clearly "trusting the opposite" doesn't reliably "work itself out" to give accurate, correct information. Because it's an incorrect generalization. That's why I bounced your facetious "very trustworthy" qualifier about source back at you.

But I'm splitting hairs here. The main point is you're still just being evasive about what your typical source is because it isn't possible to consistently derive reliably correct information from a source of reliably incorrect information.

It's quite a, I don't know, word salad? lol

 

[anticlimatic]

I feel compelled to point out that this still just another evasive non-answer. It doesn't make sense to say you simply trust "the opposite" of what the media is peddling, because a list of incorrect information doesn't consequently give you correct information. It just gives you a list of which information is incorrect. If this were an effective approach to discern correct information, then scientists could bring difficult questions to preschoolers - who would reliably give them an incorrect answer - in order to derive the correct answer from it. Looking at a broken clock (trusting that the clock is broken, and that it probably isn't one of those two seconds each day when the clock is accidentally correct) will only tell you what time it isn't, not what time it is. You wrote "the entire media, and most of the people on the left" want to "keep everything locked down forever until there is a vaccine." There's two things going on here. One is that, almost immediately after pointing out how annoying incorrect generalizations about Republicans are (and pointing out how 'untrustworthy' the media is for probably giving that impression), you made incorrect generalizations of your own about "the entire media and most people on the left". I was trying to highlight that. If you're going to point out how annoying it is to be on the business end of that, consider not also doing it yourself. Secondly - let's suppose you did somehow work out that the entire media and most people on the left want to keep everything locked down forever until there is a vaccine from some 'opposite' narrative that the media reported. I mean, I'd love to hear exactly what that specific narrative is - for that assertion to be the invariable conclusion as opposite. But more importantly: if that's the conclusion that you came to, then clearly "trusting the opposite" doesn't reliably "work itself out" to give accurate, correct information. Because it's an incorrect generalization. That's why I bounced your facetious "very trustworthy" qualifier about source back at you. But I'm splitting hairs here. The main point is you're still just being evasive about what your typical source is because it isn't possible to consistently derive reliably correct information from a source of reliably incorrect information.

There is information in news, it's just wrapped in values based interpretation (bias). Unless the information is delivered completely out of context (which is often, requiring the pursuit of the actual context), it's easy to separate the two- dismiss the media interpretation (usually some variation of orange man bad), and instead draw our own conclusions based on our own values.

 

[Red Memories]

This is actually explained in the article. Did you simply read the headline and assume it was baseless name-calling?

I admit I read the headline and assumed this was more media peddling people to fight with each other. I feel like headlines need to stop gartering attention by using negative buzzwords at this rate. But hey if they actually cared to explain themselves good for them.

 

[ceecee]

I admit I read the headline and assumed this was more media peddling people to fight with each other. I feel like headlines need to stop gartering attention by using negative buzzwords at this rate. But hey if they actually cared to explain themselves good for them.

The issue in the story is that expert information is not being used in several states, the trolls and bots, which Trump himself thanked in a tweet this morning, are. Notice how right wingers are already gas lighting about it on this forum?

They're financed by the GOP and their donors and amplified online, not in media outlets. This situation is not the media and definitely not a both sides thing.

 

[Red Memories]

The issue in the story is that expert information is not being used in several states, the trolls and bots, which Trump himself thanked in a tweet this morning, are. Notice how right wingers are already gas lighting about it on this forum?

They're financed by the GOP and their donors and amplified online, not in media outlets. This situation is not the media and definitely not a both sides thing.

That is a relevant topic. I honestly am annoyed how Trump keeps talking out the side of his mouth (which I know he does a lot but here it just...hurts more.) He condemns Georgia at first for immediately reopening then now commends all the governors reopening. Listen pick a story man. I am very pissed he's bashing Fauci for telling people not to rush school's back open with this child Kawasaki-like illness coming around. If they reopen with this Trump should be sued and held liable for every fucking innocent child that dies.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

There is information in news, it's just wrapped in values based interpretation (bias). Unless the information is delivered completely out of context (which is often, requiring the pursuit of the actual context), it's easy to separate the two- dismiss the media interpretation (usually some variation of orange man bad), and instead draw our own conclusions based on our own values.

I really don't know how I'm supposed to read this except that your primary source is your own confirmation bias (mostly things you insert 'between the lines') of regular MSM, with a near magical thinking level of confidence that it "works itself out" to provide accurate information - which you then probably corroborate with people who share your values and beliefs for verification. You say you can effectively compensate for difference in values to extract correct information, but especially given that the single assertion that started this line of questioning - that the entire media and most of the left want to stay in lockdown forever until a vaccine is made - is not correct, until you can give specific examples that *are* correct (starting with the 'opposite' narrative you were provided, and including the supposed truth you extracted from it) it just sounds like grandiose magical thinking.

It's just really a stretch to say you add a lot of your own assumptions and that is how you extrapolate 'the truth', and it's surprising you don't see what a stretch it is.

 

[Jaguar]

most of the left want to stay in lockdown forever until a vaccine is made

Is the obsession with the left ever going to stop? FFS, get a psychiatric evaluation. Maybe an anxiety med can stop the repetition.

 

[Coriolis]

We have data on Covid19 pointing to an approximate 98% survivabilty rate. We have data on Covid19 that identifies high risk groups, like nursing homes. We have data on the effect of what a Great Depression does to a nation. You want to talk about cost/benefit analaysis between the two? Good. Let's do that. My only point of contention, which is not even necessarily with you even though I used one of your posts as a launching point, was that NOT doing that cost/benefit analysis in favor of just locking down indefinitely for political reasons disguised as "saving (short term) lives" is ridiculous.

Do we have data that link specific coping strategies with infection and survivability rates? That was the point of my posts. Any measures taken should be based on what has been shown to work, e.g. in other nations who experienced the impact of COVID-19 earlier, and upon our best medical knowledge of the nature of the virus and how it works. Yes, as our knowledge improves, it may point to different methods for addressing the pandemic. This is not the same as kneejerk responses of politicians wanting to look like they are taking things seriously by "just doing something".

 

[anticlimatic]

Do we have data that link specific coping strategies with infection and survivability rates? That was the point of my posts. Any measures taken should be based on what has been shown to work, e.g. in other nations who experienced the impact of COVID-19 earlier, and upon our best medical knowledge of the nature of the virus and how it works. Yes, as our knowledge improves, it may point to different methods for addressing the pandemic. This is not the same as kneejerk responses of politicians wanting to look like they are taking things seriously by "just doing something".

What do coping strategies have to do with a cost benefit analysis between a virus with a 98 percent survivabilty rate on its face and cratering the economy to Great Depression levels? Surely that is a conversation worth having in the meantime, especially since the timeline for treatments is unknown. The CDC just released a statement saying there may never be any effective treatments or vaccines. If that's the case, what are we even waiting for? Riots?

 

[anticlimatic]

I really don't know how I'm supposed to read this except that your primary source is your own confirmation bias (mostly things you insert 'between the lines') of regular MSM, with a near magical thinking level of confidence that it "works itself out" to provide accurate information - which you then probably corroborate with people who share your values and beliefs for verification. You say you can effectively compensate for difference in values to extract correct information, but especially given that the single assertion that started this line of questioning - that the entire media and most of the left want to stay in lockdown forever until a vaccine is made - is not correct, until you can give specific examples that *are* correct (starting with the 'opposite' narrative you were provided, and including the supposed truth you extracted from it) it just sounds like grandiose magical thinking. It's just really a stretch to say you add a lot of your own assumptions and that is how you extrapolate 'the truth', and it's surprising you don't see what a stretch it is.

I have no interest in talking to you anymore. Consider this a formal no contact request. Unlike you I actually enjoy conversation, I'm not out to win points or blood. I wish you the best.

 

[Jaguar]

Black light experiment video from Japan shows how quickly a virus like Covid-19 can spread at a restaurant - CNN

 

[Jaguar]

Coronavirus: How 'overreaction' made Vietnam a virus success - BBC News

 

[Jaguar]

McConnell admits he was wrong to say Obama administration failed to leave a pandemic playbook - CNNPolitics

 

[anticlimatic]

Telling you that you have an obsession with the left is merely my opinion, hardly a rant. But rock on with your hyperbole.

Just stating your opinion, eh? Not at all obsessed...?

you'll surely find one of my posts somewhere in the same thread making fun of your obsession with the left. And millennials.

Your rant on leftists is amusing.

I'm sure you're due for one of your rants about the left

I think anticlimatic would be a better person to discuss this so-called millennial laziness with, as he has made several posts on the topic.

Don't post comments like that when your rants about the left and millennials are all over this forum.

Is the obsession with the left ever going to stop?

I could keep going. "Hyperbole" indeed.

 

[Jaguar]

Just stating your opinion, eh?

That's right. Now, run along and hide from Z Buck. We can't have your widdle fweelings being hurt.

 

[rav3n]

COVID Is Spreading Deeper Into Areas With High Trump Support, Data Shows | Talking Points Memo

COVID-19 has been spreading heavily in areas of the country with high political support for President Trump, potentially increasing the disease’s visibility and death toll in areas loyal to the President.

According to data compiled by the Brookings Institution’s Bill Frey, COVID-19 is spreading faster in less populated areas, leaving big cities and entering rural America.

“A big part of the shift is the disease moving to the South, and into the Midwest, into a lot of rural counties,” Frey told TPM.

The trend revealed by his research follows on separate indications that cases have been increasing more rapidly in rural areas. Localized outbreaks in food processing plants and prisons have spurred the increase, along with what Frey described as spread in “rural areas where most of the population is kind of dispersed.”

Data that Frey published in a blog post at the Brookings Institution showed that the number of people residing in”high prevalence” COVID-19 counties — areas with a rate of 100 cases per 100,000 people or more — had tipped in late April from being a majority of counties that voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016 to a majority that voted for Trump.

Frey took county-level case counts compiled by the New York Times and combined it with population data from the Census Bureau, before overlaying it with data showing which counties voted for Clinton in 2016 and which voted for Trump.

As of May 10, the data suggests, Trump counties were leading Clinton counties in having highly prevalent COVID-19 outbreaks by a margin of roughly 6 percent.

“It’s not only that it’s Trump counties — its that a huge portion of the country is now living in high-prevalence counties,” Frey said.

The data reflects a larger trend in the spread of the disease around the country as a whole. For example, on March 29, Frey found that 8 percent of the U.S. population lived in so-called “high prevalence” COVID-19 counties — areas with a rate of 100 cases per 100,000 people or more.

As of May 10, that number had increased to 72 percent of the population. At the same time, only 22.9 percent of people living in high-prevalence areas were urban residents — the rest were either in suburban or rural areas.

 

[Jaguar]

Medical journal slams Trump for ‘incoherent’ COVID-19 response, calls on Americans to vote him out | FOX 5 DC

 

[Red Memories]

Coronavirus: Social distancing in US drops significantly, poll finds

ok gotta say an argument, at least here in Idaho, women have been the absolute WORST AT DISTANCING.

 

[anticlimatic]

That's right. Now, run along and hide from Z Buck. We can't have your widdle fweelings being hurt.

We need to get you a hobby.

Coronavirus: Social distancing in US drops significantly, poll finds

ok gotta say an argument, at least here in Idaho, women have been the absolute WORST AT DISTANCING.

Humans are bad at it in general, pack species and all. I never thought it would stick once summer arrived.

 

[Red Herring]

Can someone help me out? I tried to google the current R rate for the US and couldn't find it. Doesn't the CDC publish regular estimates? Over here it is recalculated on a daily or almost daily basis and most of the loosening of lockdown measures depends on the positive development of that number.

Am I using the wrong search terms or isn't it done that way in the USA?