Covid-19

[XU 87]

“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.”

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 less than 800 Covid related deaths in this population segment. 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.

[boozehound]

Aren't you the same guy who wrote this a few weeks ago on another thread:

"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."

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.

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?

[XU 87]

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.

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.

[boozehound]

In the left wing media, emotion and bias will always win over actually reporting the facts.

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:

Every day we learn new information demonstrating the lies driving lockdown. Here are some of the most important ones from over the weekend.

This was in the first paragraph. Just in case you were wondering where the author came down on the issue.

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.

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?

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.

[boozehound]

There's no standard like a double standard.

One liners are fun, but how about taking the time to actually craft a thought out response?

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...

[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".

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.

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.

[Masterofreality]

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/

[boozehound]

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.

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.

[XU 87]

One liners are fun, but how about taking the time to actually craft a thought out response?

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...

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.

[Muskie in dayton]

The don't go then crowd really seems to miss the point. The people who do go have lives that involve them interacting with people who would choose not to go. I am guessing some of these people are healthcare workers even. Or they have family they see who wouldn't go, or co-workers they work with who wouldn't go, or people they come in contact with a the store who wouldn't go.

I am not saying that the bars and restaurants shouldn't be open now, I think they should but they should be following the orders put in place. That is to protect the people there and then the people that they then go interact with. It's pretty dense to say well then just don't go. Well as long as those people who do go aren't going anywhere else then perfect I wont care.

And outside transmission is low when you are walking or biking or running etc or spread out enjoying a park. But if you are in a packed environment just because you are outside doesn't mean it is "basically impossible" to get.

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...

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...