Coronavirus

[Z Buck McFate]

A major part of my frustration is it's be touted by the Trump administration, co-opted by people who don't understand medicine and are looking to make a profit, and is being disseminated through the public as part of the massive ongoing disinformation campaign. Almost every time it is brought up it is pounced on by Trump supporters who have no idea what they are talking about.

Of course it was worth looking at initially, I was extremely skeptical but my first thought was "that doesn't make any sense at all... but, well, alright it can't hurt if there are potential leads" and yes I am aware of a theoretical mechanism on how it could work (it's a stretch). Still, worth a look, as we need to try any and all leads, and follow the ones that pass the marks as we go as needs to be done in drug discovery and reappropriation of orphan drugs. It was pretty unlikely going in, and it is looking increasingly unlikely the further we go.

The core of my frustration is all of these "well, maybe's" gets uses as vaidation and twisted into disinformation by trump supporters, and by bad operators seeing to sow discord the world over. It's being overhyped and painted in far more of a positive light than it should be. It's becoming a game of telephone in the worst way. It's being passed upwards to doctors and nurses in treatment rooms and they're taking what seems like trustworthy valid advice on the medicine, when it hasn't been nearly as vetted and validated as it needs to be. What ideally should be happening is it is worked on quietly in labs, and as we gain meaningful results, it gets sent up the clinical chain. Because of the media it's being dragged through the mud and causing harm. It's a major reason why I want people to stfu about this stuff and I get so upset when people say "well, there's potential" because it often comes with no sense of scale for the lay person to understand.

The problem with getting forceful about making others shut up about it, though, is that it comes across as forcing a truth (trying to establish 'truth' via willpower vs. letting 'truth' surface through valid gradual discernment) in the other direction. While I can understand not feeling the patience with gradual discernment (because that can feel like playing Whack-a-mole with it for months, when the nuclear option of initial forcefulness can feel - to the person doing it - like getting it all over with at once so that everyone can move on), it's a necessary part of sharing reality with other people. It's self-sabotaging to get forceful. Even though *you* are confident that your forcefullness is about facts (and not about simply wanting to make sure everyone knows Trump is/was wrong), your forcefulness in itself won't *prove* it's wrong. Especially to Trump supporters. Only gradual discernment will (and the actual scientific process repeatedly proving it's wrong).

And sure, there will be some Trump supporters who will always believe it regardless of how the science plays out - but getting forceful about it is still self-sabotaging because that's the kind of thing that makes them dig their heels in In the first place.

 

[á´…eparted]

The problem with getting forceful about making others shut up about it, though, is that it comes across as forcing a truth (trying to establish 'truth' via willpower vs. letting 'truth' surface through valid gradual discernment) in the other direction. While I can understand not feeling the patience with gradual discernment (because that can feel like playing Whack-a-mole with it for months, when the nuclear option of initial forcefulness can feel - to the person doing it - like getting it all over with at once so that everyone can move on), it's a necessary part of sharing reality with other people. It's self-sabotaging to get forceful. Even though *you* are confident that your forcefullness is about facts (and not about simply wanting to make sure everyone knows Trump is/was wrong), your forcefulness in itself won't *prove* it's wrong. Especially to Trump supporters. Only gradual discernment will (and the actual scientific process repeatedly proving it's wrong).

And sure, there will be some Trump supporters who will always believe it regardless of how the science plays out - but getting forceful about it is still self-sabotaging because that's the kind of thing that makes them dig their heels in In the first place.

It's rather known here that excess forcefulness is one of my core flaws, and it emerges when confronted with a problem that appears to lack a solution. As far as I am concerned though, it's only truly a problem when it's directed at ideas or people where it wouldn't really serve a purpose (in this case it was the latter). I firmly stand by the notion that simply letting the facts slowly work themselves out to reveal truth is not enough when facing people who won't listen or regard them. It's still needed as the scientific reigns supreme - I am a scientist afterall - but the ethics and the way in which we communicate it matters too. When there appears to be a lack of understanding in that arena I can get just as frustrated than I would with someone who is brainwashed. Using the same aggressiveness to the former isn't a good thing, but for the latter I simply do not agree. There needs to be force against sources that completely deny reality. It's only a part of the equation, but it's needed.

 

[ceecee]

The problem with getting forceful about making others shut up about it, though, is that it comes across as forcing a truth (trying to establish 'truth' via willpower vs. letting 'truth' surface through valid gradual discernment) in the other direction. While I can understand not feeling the patience with gradual discernment (because that can feel like playing Whack-a-mole with it for months, when the nuclear option of initial forcefulness can feel - to the person doing it - like getting it all over with at once so that everyone can move on), it's a necessary part of sharing reality with other people. It's self-sabotaging to get forceful. Even though *you* are confident that your forcefullness is about facts (and not about simply wanting to make sure everyone knows Trump is/was wrong), your forcefulness in itself won't *prove* it's wrong. Especially to Trump supporters. Only gradual discernment will (and the actual scientific process repeatedly proving it's wrong).

And sure, there will be some Trump supporters who will always believe it regardless of how the science plays out - but getting forceful about it is still self-sabotaging because that's the kind of thing that makes them dig their heels in In the first place.

Right. A lib can be "forceful" but Trump supporters will be like - go ya one better - and be unhinged. That's when, in saner times, most would just walk away.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

It's rather known here that excess forcefulness is one of my core flaws, and it emerges when confronted with a problem that appears to lack a solution. As far as I am concerned though, it's only truly a problem when it's directed at ideas or people where it wouldn't really serve a purpose (in this case it was the latter). I firmly stand by the notion that simply letting the facts slowly work themselves out to reveal truth is not enough when facing people who won't listen or regard them. It's still needed as the scientific reigns supreme - I am a scientist afterall - but the ethics and the way in which we communicate it matters too. When there appears to be a lack of understanding in that arena I can get just as frustrated than I would with someone who is brainwashed. Using the same aggressiveness to the former isn't a good thing, but for the latter I simply do not agree. There needs to be force against sources that completely deny reality. It's only a part of the equation, but it's needed.

Well, do what you gotta do. Take or leave all of this, obviously. But I'd be really surprised if you can show me studies (i.e. science ) that prove forcefulness actually ever helps deprogram brainwashing/cult beliefs. I've always read the best way to appeal to reason (even in the case of brainwashing - maybe ESPECIALLY in the case of brainwashing) is to establish a respectful connection, and forcefulness sabatoges that.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

Right. A lib can be "forceful" but Trump supporters will be like - go ya one better - and be unhinged. That's when, in saner times, most would just walk away.

Yeah it's ...truly stunning. It's such a part of the whole group mentality that it's damn near impossible to explain how being forceful doesn't actually prove anything. I mean, I've tried. Repeatedly. There's a line from a Don Henley song that always comes to mind: "She looked at me uncomprehendingly / like cows at a passing train." (I know it's a condescending thing to say, but that's just really how it feels).

 

[á´…eparted]

Well, do what you gotta do. Take or leave all of this, obviously. But I'd be really surprised if you can show me studies (i.e. science ) that prove forcefulness actually ever helps deprogram brainwashing/cult beliefs. I've always read the best way to appeal to reason (even in the case of brainwashing - maybe ESPECIALLY in the case of brainwashing) is to establish a respectful connection, and forcefulness sabatoges that.

If this were saner times, and so much wasn't on the line, I would agree with you significantly more. The issue is we are facing a dangerously indignant population that are responding with increasing hostility to even the most tepid and gentle responses.

Indeed, the best way to deprogram a cult member is to get to know them personally, win them over, and gently talk them down. The problem is... there are too many cult members now. That method is impractical, and being gentle and level headed is not going to work alone (if at all). Like a toddler throwing a temper tantrum, there comes a point where you have to literally make them behave. If you don't it effects EVERYONE and the problem remains unhandled.

I know people don't like forcefulness, but... it's becoming increasingly necessary. At least on a personal level I'll admit if I go too far or direct it at the wrong person/thing. It's a tool, and we can use it well.

 

[Jaguar]

Can't remember if it was on this site or another but I recalled a convo with people about South Korean C19 recovered patients testing positive where people didn't believe the possibility of reinfection or reactivation and claimed they were testing errors. Well...apparently, this has been occurring in South Korea, China, Italy and Japan. Some are even testing positive up to 70 days after being cleared so they're definitely not testing errors.

Recovered coronavirus patients in China are testing positive weeks later: new report | TheHill

• Doctors in Wuhan said the patients tested negative at some point during their recovery, but then began testing positive again without symptoms.
• Some were testing positive again as much as 70 days after being cleared.
• South Korea, Japan and Italy have reported similar instances.

Catching COVID-19 once may not protect you from getting it again, according to the World Health Organization, a finding that could jeopardize efforts to allow people to return to work after recovering from the virus.

“There is currently no evidence that people who have recovered from COVID-19 and have antibodies are protected from a second infection,” the United Nations agency said in an April 24 statement.

The WHO guidance came after some governments suggested that people who have antibodies to the coronavirus could be issued an “immunity passport” or “risk-free certificate” that would allow them to travel or return to work, based on the assumption that they were safe from re-infection, according to the statement. People issued such a certificate could ignore public-health guidance, increasing the risk of the disease spreading further.

WHO: 'No Evidence' COVID-19 Antibodies Stop Re-infection | Time


Now, think about that. Who gains, who loses? This morning Dr.Birx was on CNN. Jake Tapper asked her about the WHO's comment regarding lack of protection after infection and all she did was dance around it and referred to the WHO as "conservative," which means nothing when it comes to what is actually true. Listening to her entire interview with Jake, it became increasingly obvious to me that she's not only for sale, she already sold out. Clearly her responses were designed as if there were an audience of only one. And fuck the public's welfare. (Even when discussing injecting disinfectants into the human body.)

 

[Jaguar]

.

 

[Jaguar]

Below are the stories around COVID-19 that NewsWhip predicts will garner the most engagement today. Divided by country, these are stories that have been published in the last 24 hours, and the data is refreshed every hour.

COVID-19 Live Story Tracker - Newswhip

 

[Red Herring]

Interview with Prof. Christian Drosten, chief adviser to the German government in all things Covid-19:
Germany's Covid-19 expert: 'For many, I'm the evil guy crippling the economy' | World news | The Guardian

I've got to admit I've developed a bit of a crush.

 

[rav3n]

Catching COVID-19 once may not protect you from getting it again, according to the World Health Organization, a finding that could jeopardize efforts to allow people to return to work after recovering from the virus.

“There is currently no evidence that people who have recovered from COVID-19 and have antibodies are protected from a second infection,” the United Nations agency said in an April 24 statement.

The WHO guidance came after some governments suggested that people who have antibodies to the coronavirus could be issued an “immunity passport” or “risk-free certificate” that would allow them to travel or return to work, based on the assumption that they were safe from re-infection, according to the statement. People issued such a certificate could ignore public-health guidance, increasing the risk of the disease spreading further.

WHO: 'No Evidence' COVID-19 Antibodies Stop Re-infection | Time


Now, think about that. Who gains, who loses? This morning Dr.Birx was on CNN. Jake Tapper asked her about the WHO's comment regarding lack of protection after infection and all she did was dance around it and referred to the WHO as "conservative," which means nothing when it comes to what is actually true. Listening to her entire interview with Jake, it became increasingly obvious to me that she's not only for sale, she already sold out. Clearly her responses were designed as if there were an audience of only one. And fuck the public's welfare. (Even when discussing injecting disinfectants into the human body.)

All I'm going to say is that Trump and his merry band of grifters are and have been smash and grabbing from everyone. It's sickening.

 

[rav3n]

There are no words to describe the stupidity.

GOP Maryland Governor Says State Received 'Hundreds of Calls' Asking If It's OK to Ingest Clorox After Trump's Disinfectant Remarks

 

[Virtual ghost]

Worldometer


3 million cases at the door.

 

[rav3n]

It's not only Maryland that's been receiving an upswing of calls to their poison centers, over whether or not it's safe to ingest cleaning products. It's happening in Illinois, Michigan and NY too.

Calls to poison control centers spike after Trump disinfectant comments | TheHill

 

[Maou]

Increased Risk of Noninfluenza Respiratory Virus Infections Associated With Receipt of Inactivated Influenza Vaccine

Getting the flu shot does NOT increase your chances of Corona virus.

 

[Maou]

 

[Maou]

Metalocalypse was a prophesy.

 

[Jaguar]

Gov. Pritzker decries viral house party video amid COVID-19 pandemic

Reckless morons.

 

[rav3n]

For anyone who wants to observe a genuine psychopath, check out the mentality of one of the reopen founders. Her purportedly first amendment rights matter more to her than being a typhoid mary. Whether or not she attended the protest and infected many, time will tell since with protests, many pics have and will have surfaced.

Coronavirus in NC - April 27 updates :: WRAL.com

12:30 p.m.: One of three mothers who said they started the ReOpenNC protest has tested positive for COVID-19. She said she was in a two week quarantine that ended Sunday and was asymptomatic.

It's unclear if she attended the protest last week, which drew hundreds downtown, since she was under quarantine.

"As an asymptomatic COVID19 positive patient (quarantine ends 4/26) another concern I have is the treatment of COVID patients as it relates to other communicable diseases. I have been forced to quarantine in my home for 2 weeks," she wrote on her social media page.

"I have been told not to participate in public or private accommodations as requested by the government, and therefore denied my 1st amendment right of freedom of religion," she wrote.

"It has been insinuated by others that if I go out, I could be arrested for denying a quarantine order," she wrote.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Worldometer