So in all seriousness, is something else going on here? I’m not into the conspiracy theories, but even the most reasonable person would start to have some suspicions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Masterofreality
Printable View
So in all seriousness, is something else going on here? I’m not into the conspiracy theories, but even the most reasonable person would start to have some suspicions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Masterofreality
It isn't about the models, it about how the media reports on the models. The way for them to get the most clicks is to take the model that came to the most dire conclusion and make that the headline. I agree with all of your points that none of the scientists are doing these things for political reasons. However, media platforms want clicks, so every day for the past week they've been given the choice of two headlines: "Texas and Georgia see new high in daily reported cases" OR "Texas and Georgia see new high in testing capacity". It has been the first one 100% of the time. You could really fit both of those into the same headline if you wanted it to be unbiased. But nearly every headline has an agenda.Quote:
Originally Posted by paulxu
MOR posted a link to what is essentially the inverse of that. A list of links to 25 scientific studies that present the most pro-opening, this isn't as bad as we feared, shutdowns are actually making things worse side of the argument. Only looking at that side isn't right either, but those studies are almost never published because it doesn't feed into the fear.
As I said before, even leftist data scientists are saying the reporting has been irresponsible.
This is from a Conservative site, but it sites a lot of data.
https://www.theblaze.com/op-ed/horow...reaking%20News
I'm a little older than you, but the "former classmate" noted in my post below passed away yesterday in Brazil.(His country of origin)Quote:
Originally Posted by JTG
Curiously in the 1960's he foreshadowed the rise of soccer style place kickers. It was new to our high school for sure.
Quote:
Originally Posted by paulxu
Some of those arguments are pretty weak. "2) States with longer lockdowns had worse results" is a terrible statement. States with larger outbreaks are OF COURSE going to stay locked down longer. Is anybody arguing that New York and New Jersey shouldn't have had the most strict and longest lockdowns? I guess that guy is. You could even argue that everybody locked down for too long, but I still think that logic would include that NY and NJ needed more than Montana.Quote:
Originally Posted by XU 87
The argument is- states like Florida, who had less stringent policies and a high elderly population, why didn't they have higher outbreaks? The author's answer would be that Florida was simply smarter in how they dealt with the Corona issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by XU '11
NY was excluded from the analysis. I agree in principle with your point, but these data are compelling.Quote:
Originally Posted by XU '11
That was my impression as well. I sort of think of The Blaze as one giant highly conservative Op-Ed. It was founded by Glenn Beck who isn't exactly known for his objectivity. You also get a Pop-up when you try to read the linked article about "Stopping Tech Censorship" because "Conservative voices are being suppressed". Your response options are either "I want to be informed" or "No, I'll stick with Fake News".Quote:
Originally Posted by XU '11
Moving past that, it actually gets even funnier. The article opens by talking about how 'we have been lied to' and then cites a variety of sources. Some (cdc.gov) are credible, while others (an excel chart posted to twitter by a guy named 'Gummibear737') seem less so.
The article essentially ends with this statement which give you an idea how people who read 'The Blaze' really think.
I probably agree with about 30% - 40% of the theories outlined in the 'article' however the way it's written just sounds like fear porn for conservatives.Quote:
How have we allowed such an illogical approach to crush our liberties, economy, hospitals, education, and criminal justice? How have we lost our freedoms?
The answer is that the public is not getting the right information. This is why the political class is doing everything in its power to censor anyone who dares question the idolatry of this lockdown cult. YouTube has censored the videos of Knut Wittkowski, who was a top epidemiologist in Germany and then served as the head of biostatistics, epidemiology, and research design at Rockefeller University. One would think we'd want to hear his opinion, but there is only one view that is allowed to gain traction. Why is it that only one side is scared of the information of the other side?
Aren't you the same guy who wrote this a few weeks ago on another thread:Quote:
Originally Posted by boozehound
"Which does bring me to this point that Trump supporters and defenders (even the pretend supporters) love: Essentially invalidating any criticism of Trump unless it comes from one of the conservative-sanctioned media sources, which rarely (if ever) criticize Trump. It's a phenomenal way to create your own echo chamber. You simply dismiss anything that doesn't come from an 'approved' media source without giving it a second thought."
“Cuomo issued his infamous March 25 order that said, “No resident shall be *denied readmission or admission to NH solely based on a confirmed or suspected diagnosis of COVID-19.”Quote:
Originally Posted by XU 87
New York has had over 5,500 Covid related deaths in Nursing Homes.
Florida, which immediately used the data on elderly from South Korea-data that was fully available to Cuomo, went the other way. They locked down their homes from accepting patients from hospitals, sent any suspected victims TO hospitals and have had about 750 Covid related deaths in this population segment- even though Florida is full of Nursing Homes with one of the highest numbers of any state. Meanwhile DeSantis gets roasted while Cuomo gets toasted. Wow.
In the left wing media, emotion and bias will always win over actually reporting the facts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Masterofreality
Yeah. I did. This was definitely from the echo chamber that I was referencing. That article was clearly, wildly biased. It was apparent from the title.Quote:
Originally Posted by XU 87
Having said that, I read the entire article and followed many of the links. Enough so that I formed an opinion around the majority of the points. Would you have done the same with a Huffpost article?
There's no standard like a double standard.Quote:
Originally Posted by boozehound
Are you serious with this? You just posted a link to an 'article' that was as full of emotion as anything I have read in a week. It's just a different emotion: Anger. THE TITLE OF THE ARTICLE IS "WE HAVE BEEN LIED TO" and it contains totally unbiased and completely unemotional quotes like the following:Quote:
Originally Posted by XU 87
This was in the first paragraph. Just in case you were wondering where the author came down on the issue.Quote:
Every day we learn new information demonstrating the lies driving lockdown. Here are some of the most important ones from over the weekend.
Quote:
Remember, Spain was one of the hardest-hit countries, but even there, 57% of all deaths and the overwhelming majority of deaths of those above age 80 were in senior care facilities. When you take them out of the equation, the death rates are shockingly low. Yet the same politicians who focused on locking up an entire country failed to care for those in nursing homes.
I agree with you by the way that the left wing media uses emotion and bias to market to their audience. I just think you are kidding yourself if you think that the right wing media isn't running the same play.Quote:
How have we allowed such an illogical approach to crush our liberties, economy, hospitals, education, and criminal justice? How have we lost our freedoms?
The answer is that the public is not getting the right information. This is why the political class is doing everything in its power to censor anyone who dares question the idolatry of this lockdown cult. YouTube has censored the videos of Knut Wittkowski, who was a top epidemiologist in Germany and then served as the head of biostatistics, epidemiology, and research design at Rockefeller University. One would think we'd want to hear his opinion, but there is only one view that is allowed to gain traction. Why is it that only one side is scared of the information of the other side?
One liners are fun, but how about taking the time to actually craft a thought out response?Quote:
Originally Posted by XU 87
Do you disagree that the article was biased? It didn't seem to me like the author was making any bones about that. How is my challenging the source and logic of an article your posted a 'double standard' when you summarily reject the entire 'left wing MSM' and then seem to get upset when I challenge the objectivity of the blaze?
If you had posted an article from FoxNews I would understand your position better, but the Blaze? Come on, man.
A better example of a double standard would be if I had posted Articles from Huff Po but then called the blaze biased. Which actually seems similar to what you just did...
I agree with all of this. Sadly, it seems that to fully grasp situations these days you have to read a left wing outlet and a right wing outlet and do some figuring on your own as to what the real story is. While he wouldn't use that tone or assign the nefarious reasons that Blaze writer outlined, Nate Silver has been pretty strong in his criticisms of the media's sensationalist headlines that are all doom and gloom. And he's certainly on the left.Quote:
Originally Posted by boozehound
Ok, I’m totally off this DeWActon Train now.
-These Daily Press Conferences have become “Look At Me” moments.
-The solicitous tone and sincere looks of Amy Acton have just worn thin.
-Now he has guitar entertainers on these conferences trying to make them less ponderous.
-He’s now going to use the Ohio GBI to investigate and nail restaurants that aren’t enforcing the State’s orders.
Great. Let’s infringe upon our freedoms more. DeWActon will start using Jack Booted thugs to thumb down operators when clearly Ohio residents want this Big Brother Overlord control to be over. Enough already.
Everybody needs to read the below from Switzerland that cites Stanford Professors, Epidimiologists, and other Scientists that have credentials behind them. Far more credentials that Amy Acton has, a Doctor who is not Board Certified in any area. I had linked this article in Post 1860 but people really need to READ THIS!!
Enough is Enough.
https://swprs.org/a-swiss-doctor-on-covid-19/
Agreed. And I think he is totally right, as are many of the points in the story from the Blaze. This has not been reported on in a fair or unbiased manner. I tend not to think it's part of a nefarious plot of some kind, but rather a lazy and irresponsible media that only cares about engagement (clicks). I see it as less about left and right and more about the media run amok and the 'internetization' of our society. Like most things we have neatly divided on party lines on this issue, but I don't really see what it has to be (or should be) that way.Quote:
Originally Posted by XU '11
If you read my post, I started by saying "This article comes from a conservative site......." I also didn't claim that the article is accurate. I just posted it because I thought it had some interesting data. If the data is accurate, then it would be considered factual. You have chosen to disregard the article because it comes from a conservative site, despite not knowing if the data (factual information) is accurate.Quote:
Originally Posted by boozehound
Studies have shown that the greatest potential for a large transmission events are in enclosed, crowed spaces with prolonged contact. The findings play out in reality by looking at where it spread the most. Evidence: New Orleans bars at Mardi Gras, N. Italy textile factories, midwest meat processing plants, and New York... most everything. So you are correct that it is certainly possible spread outdoors, but open air (not enclosed) makes mass infection highly unlikely. Evidence: It's hard to prove a negative, but how many mass infections came from the Florida beaches during spring break...Quote:
Originally Posted by D-West & PO-Z
Also, back to the bars, who decides how many is too many? Is there a standard set by the reopening guidelines? Then what happens if a bar is allowed to have, say 50 people, they let 50 in, but all of them go congregate together? Should the bar be accountable? Should they hire "social distance bouncers"? How does the State enforce this? Can they hold the bar accountable based on photos taken some vigilante narcs? This is getting into a slippery slope...
I read the article MOR posted from Switzerland. I was fascinated by a couple things there:
If it's NOT spread by particles in the air, or surfaces, I wonder how people actually become infected? I couldn't find the answer in the article, although maybe it was there and I missed it.Quote:
Contrary to original assumptions, various studies have shown that there is no evidence of the virus spreading through aerosols (i.e. particles floating in the air) or through smear infections (e.g. on door handles, smartphones or at the hairdresser).
That one is really a head scratcher. Every time I go to the dentist/doctor, I'm assuming all the nurses, hygienists and doctors are healthy. But they're all wearing masks when they're working on me, in operating rooms, etc. Puzzling.Quote:
There is also no scientific evidence for the effectiveness of face masks in healthy or asymptomatic individuals. On the contrary, experts warn that such masks interfere with normal breathing and may become “germ carriers”. Leading doctors called them a “media hype” and “ridiculous”.
Lots of "mobility" data here from Google.
You guys in Ohio are really using the park system.(+69%)
Not so much people here in South Carolina (+29%)
https://www.google.com/covid19/mobility/
You can even dive down to the county level.
Are all you Beck conspiracy theorists and Trump supporters going to start a hydroxychloroquine regimen? If so, good knowing 'ya.
It actually does make sense:Quote:
Originally Posted by paulxu
1) It is spread in body fluid “droplets” (larger particles than aerosols)
2) This refers to effectiveness of the wearer. It is widely recognized that masks do not help the wearer, but so lend some effectiveness protecting others. This is because they block some droplets notes above. If COVID-19 spread by aerosols the masks would be totally useless. Medical professionals wear them to protect the patient. Wearing masks too long would seem make them moist and become traps for viruses. I’ve read this is especially true for medical, non N-95 masks.
They won’t need to if they try the disinfectant injections first. ��Quote:
Originally Posted by bobbiemcgee
"In Healthy or asymptomatic individuals". They are wearing masks because some people may not be symptomatic yet, but may become that during the incubation period of 7-10 days. They are taking extra precautions. [\QUOTE]Quote:
Originally Posted by paulxu
The Ohio standard is fairly creative to address these questions. It is not based on a set number, but instead the number of seats at tables that you can safely socially distance (either 6 feet apart or a physical barrier between them). So the main part of the rule is you can only eat and drink while sitting, and a party cannot be larger than 10 people. This will keep people from congregating in one corner of the bar. And if there isn't an open seat, then the bar is at capacity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Muskie in dayton
As far as enforcement, it is no different than any other rule put on bars and restaurants. The bar has a duty to ensure no one under 21 is in the bar after certain hours, hence why you will see a bouncer checking ids. If someone doesn't want to follow the rules the bar has the right to throw them out. If the bar doesn't want to enforce the rules then the State can hold them responsible by issuing fines or possible suspending their liquor license. You would assume there is some basic due process that requires more than a picture from a 'vigilante narc.'
You mean a drug that has helped countless people for decades when prescribed by a doctor?Quote:
Originally Posted by bobbiemcgee
Why does everyone want this drug to fail in its usefulness treating corona ? Bc Trump believes in it?
What happened to the “if it can save one life” mantra from the left ?
Makes sense with the droplets vs aerosol particles, although I think they are investigating the latter as a possibility.Quote:
Originally Posted by Muskie in dayton
If masks help the other party more than the wearer, it would seem like they are a good idea for at least one party.
What if both wore them? Wouldn't that help the spread of a disease?
Absolutely. I don’t get those who refuse. I realize the effect is limited but it’s a small sacrifice for any effect at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by paulxu
The problem is that some studies show it results in a worse outcome, with and without the Zpack. Other studies show it’s a good thing, with the Zpack and especially given with zinc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Juice
Bottom line, they just don’t know. It could help, it could hurt, and nobody knows who to believe. I certainly don’t.
For this reason, I’m glad for every day they get to learn more. I’m also glad that we are opening again before we have a complete economic collapse. I think the answer, as usual, is probably in the middle somewhere.
Right. It depends on the person and with a doctor's approval/prescription it could be helpful. My problem is with the disdain and immediate dismissal of the drug like it's some weird alternative medicine just because Trump talks about it. Hopefully they find many different drugs and vaccines so they can attack this from several angles because obviously no one drug is going to be a one size fits all.Quote:
Originally Posted by xu82
For malaria and lupus. Anyway, I doubt the lying SOB is taking it anyway. He just said that bcuz Rick Bright was on 60 minutes and said it was unsafe. Afterall, he's lied 18k times. The morons that follow him boosted prescriptions by 46x, even tho it has terrible side effects:Quote:
Originally Posted by Juice
headache, dizziness, ringing in your ears; paranoia,
nausea, vomiting, stomach pain; hallucinations,
loss of appetite, weight loss; pychosis, spinning sensation
mood changes, feeling nervous or irritable;
skin rash or itching; confusion, seizures, blurred vision
hair loss, and my favorite "unusual thoughts and behavior".
For me, my issue with this is not that he’s taking it, but that we have to know he’s taking it. He broadcasts he’s taking it which comes off as extremely out of touch and careless. The number of prescriptions for this has gone way up since he first mentioned it and created shortages in many areas and left people that take this regularly scrambling for pills. It’s just one of the many “think before you speak” moments to which we have become accustomed. If there was strong evidence it was beneficial in a prophylactic manner I would not have any issue with the President taking this and even broadcasting it with perhaps a bit of tact, but neither of those are the case. It’s not really a big deal or outrageous at all by itself, but there continue to be small things that accumulate over time to create eye rolls. He picks and chooses which medical records we have available, then fudges those records to make himself look healthier, and then apparently has a prescription for this medication that very few people can obtain for a virus that isn’t much worse than a “bad flu season”. Something doesn’t add up here. I think it’s wise that he gets tested daily and have zero issue with that if he is going to continue to be mask-free. We can’t complain about the media overhyping this and inducing panic, yet be OK with the POTUS announcing he is taking HCQ daily.Quote:
Originally Posted by Juice
The 2nd half of your post is very reasonable, as treatments have varied considerably all options for those very ill should be considered.
Tons of medications have side effects. Why do you act like this one is any different?Quote:
Originally Posted by bobbiemcgee
https://news.yahoo.com/zinc-hydroxyc...215732283.html
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...ARUomR9Ww/edit
There are numerous (and very early) studies and stories of it working for people. Again, why do you dismiss that just because Trump advocated for the drug?
Orange man bad isn't a good policy on deciding which drugs work or don't work.
EDIT: OR should we all take what Chris Cuomo took?
https://thepuristonline.com/2020/04/...ocol-week-two/Quote:
On top of this is homeopathy, which works according to the symptom picture. Potentized quinine (OXO); it’s derived from the nontoxic bark of Peruvian-grown quinine plants. It is a natural antibiotic (it’s being used in India with very good results). This is not on the market here; Dr. Lancaster has made this in her lab for 40 years, and I took this for my Lyme. (The medicine Plaquinol, which many doctors are using for COVID-19 is similar to quinine, but it has negative side effects.)
Unless what I want is no more and no less than the truth with as little spin as possible. Then those two things are exactly congruous.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lloyd Braun
Seems like our fearless leader is already experiencing some of these side effects.Quote:
Originally Posted by bobbiemcgee
The number of people I see wearing a mask in the car without passengers is baffling.
Yeah. I see two possible scenarios for why that would happen:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lloyd Braun
1. We are way dumber and more literal than I would have thought - This is a real possibility.
2. Perhaps they just left the store where they touched a bunch of stuff and haven't yet washed their hands and don't want to touch their mask to take it off with potentially contaminated hands.
Otherwise, why?
If they have a mask I would hope they have hand sanitizer as well. The other possible scenario is a ride share driver between riders... but I feel they are easy to spot. I think option 1 is the correct answer.Quote:
Originally Posted by boozehound