Corona Virus Thread Part 3 of ? (MOD NOTE IN OP)

[ERYX]

Not to disrupt this discussion too much, but we're thinking about a playoff hockey pool with social distancing. Anyone have recommendations for free online video meeting software?

Zoom is free and you can have a lot of people on it.

Well, it's free for meetings of 40 minutes or less, anyway.

 

[tbcwpg]

Wasn't that what the lockdown was predicated on?



I've heard of what's going on in Brazil.

Time will tell. Absolutely, short term, numbers will likely be higher without a lockdown, and of course the people will be upset because the media worldwide has been telling everyone over and over that lockdowns are what MUST be done. Right or wrong, the President of Brazil took a position that was always going to be unpopular and he is taking the heat for it.

Keep in mind that Brazil's population is 211 million people. They've had 23,400 deaths so far which is about the same as the state of New York which had draconian lockdowns and a population of 19 million (less than 1/10th the population of Brazil).

Can you explain to me why Bolsonaro is condemned as a "killer" while Gov. Cuomo is praised as a savour by the media, when Brazil has had less than 1/10th of the deaths per capita of New York? I say it's because of how the media portrays things. People should be in the streets calling Cuomo a killer for putting infected people back into care homes. But it's Bolsonaro who is getting that flak. Because that is how the media has chosen to portray things, IMO.

But the proof will be long-term. Brazil I suspect will experience more pain now, but in the long run will fair better because their economy won't be as utterly destroyed as other places. Although they cannot escape the impact of neighbours locking down.

To the bolded, no. It was predicated on "flattening the curve", or avoiding a large strain on the health system which was ill prepared for something like this en masse. Somewhere like Italy, for example, had doctors having to choose who received ventilators and who didn't. It was to avoid those situations.

As far as Brazil, their president has been vociferous in saying that the virus isn't a big deal. We don't know if the numbers are accurate there, but assuming they are at face value, they were not as hit by the virus early on as the US.

The difference in opinion between him and Cuomo is that Cuomo has been attempting to mitigate what is happening and Molisaro has done nothing.

 

[Jetfaninflorida]

Wasn't that what the lockdown was predicated on?



I've heard of what's going on in Brazil.

Time will tell. Absolutely, short term, numbers will likely be higher without a lockdown, and of course the people will be upset because the media worldwide has been telling everyone over and over that lockdowns are what MUST be done. Right or wrong, the President of Brazil took a position that was always going to be unpopular and he is taking the heat for it.

Keep in mind that Brazil's population is 211 million people. They've had 23,400 deaths so far which is about the same as the state of New York which had draconian lockdowns and a population of 19 million (less than 1/10th the population of Brazil).

Can you explain to me why Bolsonaro is condemned as a "killer" while Gov. Cuomo is praised as a savour by the media, when Brazil has had less than 1/10th of the deaths per capita of New York? I say it's because of how the media portrays things. People should be in the streets calling Cuomo a killer for putting infected people back into care homes. But it's Bolsonaro who is getting that flak. Because that is how the media has chosen to portray things, IMO.

But the proof will be long-term. Brazil I suspect will experience more pain now, but in the long run will fair better because their economy won't be as utterly destroyed as other places. Although they cannot escape the impact of neighbours locking down.

I have spent a lot of time in Brazil, including government interactions. If you believe that the Coronavirus numbers that are being reported are comprehensive and accurate, I have some nice swamp land in Florida for sale for you.

 

[Ducky10]

Well, I would make the obvious point that the fringe media and politically extreme echo chambers are much worse than the "mainstream media". Think about how persistent the support for chloroquine has been from Fox and even moreso in the right wing fringe media. Of course, this is all in political servitude to Trump, but it's much less fact-based than most "mainstream" media.

France has recently stopped using chloroquine and halted enrollment in trials due to safety concerns. WHO has also halted trials and is awaiting further analyses.

Im not really comparing mainstream or alt media, nor was the article I posted. It’s more a commentary on how much media has changed over the years, both from a consumption and output perspective. Media outlets have adapted to how people access information and what they want from it.

While mainstream media may present things from a simple factual standpoint, they rarely provide relevant context or meaning to much. As I’ve said before, Alt media stories are largely exercised in circular reasoning, which perfectly fits its audience.

 

[Buffdog]

Well, I would make the obvious point that the fringe media and politically extreme echo chambers are much worse than the "mainstream media". Think about how persistent the support for chloroquine has been from Fox and even moreso in the right wing fringe media. Of course, this is all in political servitude to Trump, but it's much less fact-based than most "mainstream" media.

France has recently stopped using chloroquine and halted enrollment in trials due to safety concerns. WHO has also halted trials and is awaiting further analyses.

CBS has been caught three times during this ar the very least being "less than truthful":

The using of footage from an Italian hospital to represent the situation in NYC:

CBS News airs footage of overrun Italian hospital during report on New York City

Misrepresented a nurse's crying rant about not being given PPE and her working conditions forced her to quit her job:

CBS Issues Clarification in Response to Backlash over Viral Sobbing Nurse Story | National Review

And they faked a lineup for testing in Michigan to make it look mike more people wanted to be tested than actually showed up:



This is why I dont watch the mainstream media very much at all. They have transitioned from telling you what happened to telling you what to think about what happened. I'll read the data from as close to the source as possible and decide for myself, thanks.

Also, I understand there are wonderful and hard working reporters doing vital and dangerous work. But at the end of the day, the more fear they can instill in the 24 hour news cycle, the more people tune in and the more revenue they generate. After all, even news media is a business.

 

[Exiled Jets Fan]

I have spent a lot of time in Brazil, including government interactions. If you believe that the Coronavirus numbers that are being reported are comprehensive and accurate, I have some nice swamp land in Florida for sale for you.

Unfortunately there seems to be a lot of magical thinking going on, not only here but throughout society. Starting with an assumption and looking for facts, no matter how dubious those facts, is a recipe for disaster. Dismissing epidemiologists and the media as a whole as conspiracies is about privileging an uninformed argument in the face of facts.

You can wander around Portage and Main in January in shorts and claim its summer but you are still going to get frostbite.

By the way, for the minimizers, the US is about to pass the total number of deaths in the First World War. That qualifies as a catastrophe. We also have no idea what the virus would do of we let it run wild,despite some of the cherry picked stats. Finally, how robust will the economy be if people can't trust they won't get sick when they go out? The greatest threat to the economy is the idiots crowding into bars.

 

[Positive]

For sure it would have killed > 1 million in the US alone without social distancing. Their toll is already ~ 100, 000 in <3 months--will be twice their Vietnam deaths and > all their WW1 deaths in a couple of weeks.
The UN Secretary General has warned that COVID is the greatest threat to the world since WW2....maybe he is part of the media conspiracy

The other analogy to war is that the economic impact is very severe but recovery happens faster than people imagine, often prompted by necessary technological breakthroughs and scientific advances.

I do almost agree with your last sentence though--our comfortable lives have made some of us complacent and unable to appreciate a potential catastrophe when it's in front of us.

I have to work now so will sign off. This has been a very civil discussion even if we disagree--thanks!

I also think we will bounce back economically much quicker. That is, not decades or generations, but say 2 years. We were enjoying a generationally-low unemployment rate before this of around 5.6%. I'm not sure if we will to get back there, but to get to around 7-8% may be quicker than some think.

On the positive side, I think we'll see businesses operate in newer (arguably better) ways. This could mean the decline of the commercial office - more people working from home, less commuting, less stress. I actually think I'll try to work 2 days a week from home now. Potentially improved family bonds. Better cooks and bakers. Better community hygiene practices.

Of course you can look at the downsides like increased reports of spousal abuse and depression. But on a macro-view, those are issues that weren't caused by covid rather they were brushed out from under the rugs.

 

[Whileee]

CBS has been caught three times during this ar the very least being "less than truthful":

The using of footage from an Italian hospital to represent the situation in NYC:

CBS News airs footage of overrun Italian hospital during report on New York City

Misrepresented a nurse's crying rant about not being given PPE and her working conditions forced her to quit her job:

CBS Issues Clarification in Response to Backlash over Viral Sobbing Nurse Story | National Review

And they faked a lineup for testing in Michigan to make it look mike more people wanted to be tested than actually showed up:



This is why I dont watch the mainstream media very much at all. They have transitioned from telling you what happened to telling you what to think about what happened. I'll read the data from as close to the source as possible and decide for myself, thanks.

Also, I understand there are wonderful and hard working reporters doing vital and dangerous work. But at the end of the day, the more fear they can instill in the 24 hour news cycle, the more people tune in and the more revenue they generate. After all, even news media is a business.

Do you feel that you get more unbiased and fact-based information from sources outside of the "mainstream"?

I tend to follow in the professional / public health circles for most information vis-a-vis COVID. The dialogue and debates tend to be enlightening, rather than rancorous.

 

[Jetfaninflorida]

Unfortunately there seems to be a lot of magical thinking going on, not only here but throughout society. Starting with an assumption and looking for facts, no matter how dubious those facts, is a recipe for disaster. Dismissing epidemiologists and the media as a whole as conspiracies is about privileging an uninformed argument in the face of facts.

You can wander around Portage and Main in January in shorts and claim its summer but you are still going to get frostbite.

By the way, for the minimizers, the US is about to pass the total number of deaths in the First World War. That qualifies as a catastrophe. We also have no idea what the virus would do of we let it run wild,despite some of the cherry picked stats. Finally, how robust will the economy be if people can't trust they won't get sick when they go out? The greatest threat to the economy is the idiots crowding into bars.

Agreed. There are a lot of lunatical posts in this thread. Using Brazil's Coronavirus response and published stats to call Andrew Cuomo a killer ("People should be in the streets calling Cuomo a killer ") ranks up there near the top.

 

[Buffdog]

Do you feel that you get more unbiased and fact-based information from sources outside of the "mainstream"?

I tend to follow in the professional / public health circles for most information vis-a-vis COVID. The dialogue and debates tend to be enlightening, rather than rancorous.

I tend to try to follow the people who stay away from mud slinging on all sides. I respect those who respect others, even if their opinions don't match.

I've been following the diet/nutrition/health circles for a long time and one curious thing I've found is that there are a couple of engineers that have gotten involved and their insight has been valuable because their minds work differently than say a dietician, MD or anyone else. Looking at the link between diet and disease as a problem to solve and letting data lead instead of biases provides a different perspective. In engineering it doesnt matter what you believe - its what works and what doesn't.

I'll freely admit that I have a bit of an issue with authority (thats my big bias). Therefore, anyone telling me I should just believe what the experts say gets my hackles up a bit. I try to teach my kids to take everything they hear with a grain of salt and a certain amount of skepticism (but not cynicism) is healthy.

 

[Howard Chuck]

Unfortunately there seems to be a lot of magical thinking going on, not only here but throughout society. Starting with an assumption and looking for facts, no matter how dubious those facts, is a recipe for disaster. Dismissing epidemiologists and the media as a whole as conspiracies is about privileging an uninformed argument in the face of facts.

You can wander around Portage and Main in January in shorts and claim its summer but you are still going to get frostbite.

By the way, for the minimizers, the US is about to pass the total number of deaths in the First World War. That qualifies as a catastrophe. We also have no idea what the virus would do of we let it run wild,despite some of the cherry picked stats. Finally, how robust will the economy be if people can't trust they won't get sick when they go out? The greatest threat to the economy is the idiots crowding into bars.

I think the sensible answer is to have rules based on how an area is doing regarding the pandemic. Using the largest numbers or the most densely populated areas or the most rule breakers as a way to adjust for every other area on earth, isn’t sensible imo.

We all hear the horror stories and quote the Numbers from the US (which is mostly NYC and area) or Italy and now Brazil.

Manitoba should not even be in the same conversation. We have had very few cases reported in the past few weeks and our hospitals and ICU units are empty of any covid patients.

To say that we should be following the same path as the worst hit areas that have obvious attributes that make them the hardest hit, doesn’t make sense.

We knew we were going to have infections and deaths but didn’t want to overwhelm our medical system. I think we have done a fine job with this, so I don’t know how much sense it makes to hold us to the same standards as places that we don’t resemble at all.

 

[Howard Chuck]

Do you feel that you get more unbiased and fact-based information from sources outside of the "mainstream"?

I tend to follow in the professional / public health circles for most information vis-a-vis COVID. The dialogue and debates tend to be enlightening, rather than rancorous.

Im even more cynical than that with the ‘news’. I tend to not believe anything From media or social media unless I check it myself. Even then often I can’t come to an absolute conclusion and have to admit that I simply don’t know for sure.

 

[Jetfaninflorida]

Im even more cynical than that with the ‘news’. I tend to not believe anything From media or social media unless I check it myself. Even then often I can’t come to an absolute conclusion and have to admit that I simply don’t know for sure.

Agreed. And this is how democracies die. If there are no facts, no truth, then whoever controls the message, controls.

This is one of the most significant consequences of social media and unregulated internet. Enemies of the western democracies know it. They are using us against us. It is so easy, cheap and effective for them. All they have to do is flood the zone with shit, the right shit, the shit that creates division and dissolutionment with the government and the system. They create us vs them, whoever us and them is. Many uses (us-es like a multiple of us) vs many thems. Then just sit back, fan the flames once in a while, and watch the house burn down. Its genius and effective.

I think Western democracies will look very different in my children's lifetimes. They may not in fact survive. And if they dont, they will likely have been deconstructed from the inside, with just a little outside disinformation that is easily shown to be just that.

 

[Buffdog]

Some more good news: head of public health at WHO says that a second wave is "being increasingly ruled out" in their models in a Spanish interview (needed google translate):

La OMS ve ahora menos factible un rebrote importante del virus

 

[buggs]

Do you feel that you get more unbiased and fact-based information from sources outside of the "mainstream"?

I tend to follow in the professional / public health circles for most information vis-a-vis COVID. The dialogue and debates tend to be enlightening, rather than rancorous.

Isn't that a bit of a strawman to suggest that he is suggesting the non-mainstream media is more unbiased?

I read his post as illustrating that the MSM isn't foolproof so we should all be wary about consuming what is given to us as truthful news when many times it isn't. Surely based on your knowledge you've come across multiple stories on CBC, ABC, etc. (stations that would be categorized as non-fringe) that you know have missed the mark by a wide margin (either Covid related or prior)? I think that's sort of the point there rather than Fox or Rebel are great! (they aren't)

My experience is that the media wants to make stories more exciting than they really are when I've been interviewed and often times in the past I've had to ask the editor of publications (this is Ag print media so I'm guessing none of you are reading it) to print corrections because they presented information out of context. On radio I've had to re-clarify things for the host because they're trying to go in a different direction that's more 'scary'. I've also had to contact those radio stations when they present my words out of context by snipping my commentary and using it to fit a narrative they want to create to make things more 'exciting'. Never mind how many times I've heard myself referred to in a radio story as though they interviewed me even though the interview was on a competing station.

The point being that everyone should take media stories with a very substantial grain of salt and verify as close to the source as possible. Everyone should be aware that media isn't a service, it's a business and as such they need to generate income, via clicks, views or what have you. More often than it should be, the simple, un-embellished truth doesn't get that done.

 

[Whileee]

Isn't that a bit of a strawman to suggest that he is suggesting the non-mainstream media is more unbiased?

I read his post as illustrating that the MSM isn't foolproof so we should all be wary about consuming what is given to us as truthful news when many times it isn't. Surely based on your knowledge you've come across multiple stories on CBC, ABC, etc. (stations that would be categorized as non-fringe) that you know have missed the mark by a wide margin (either Covid related or prior)? I think that's sort of the point there rather than Fox or Rebel are great! (they aren't)

My experience is that the media wants to make stories more exciting than they really are when I've been interviewed and often times in the past I've had to ask the editor of publications (this is Ag print media so I'm guessing none of you are reading it) to print corrections because they presented information out of context. On radio I've had to re-clarify things for the host because they're trying to go in a different direction that's more 'scary'. I've also had to contact those radio stations when they present my words out of context by snipping my commentary and using it to fit a narrative they want to create to make things more 'exciting'. Never mind how many times I've heard myself referred to in a radio story as though they interviewed me even though the interview was on a competing station.

The point being that everyone should take media stories with a very substantial grain of salt and verify as close to the source as possible. Everyone should be aware that media isn't a service, it's a business and as such they need to generate income, via clicks, views or what have you. More often than it should be, the simple, un-embellished truth doesn't get that done.

I guess my point is that there's a difference between a slant in coverage and getting things wrong, and deliberately pushing a false narrative for political reasons. I would put the chloroquine story into that realm. Early on it was reasonable to report on the potential, with caveats. However, doubling down as more and more evidence emerges regarding its lack of effectiveness, and disparaging those who caution against its use becomes not much more than dangerous propaganda.

 

[buggs]

I guess my point is that there's a difference between a slant in coverage and getting things wrong, and deliberately pushing a false narrative for political reasons. I would put the chloroquine story into that realm. Early on it was reasonable to report on the potential, with caveats. However, doubling down as more and more evidence emerges regarding its lack of effectiveness, and disparaging those who caution against its use becomes not much more than dangerous propaganda.

No disagreement from me on that.

 

[Jetfaninflorida]

Some more good news: head of public health at WHO says that a second wave is "being increasingly ruled out" in their models in a Spanish interview (needed google translate):

La OMS ve ahora menos factible un rebrote importante del virus

You have not translated the message of this report accurately. The key word MAJOR is left out your post above. Plus, the google translation lacks context in the use of certain words.

What they say is:
"There are many models that show many possibilities. They show a prompt regrowth to a major wave,
but this last possibility is increasingly being ruled out. We are much better prepared in all areas"

So they are saying that the expectation of a second major wave is looking less likely in the model.
Of note, the model shows a range of 'prompt regrowth to a major wave/major outbreak'. The range is not 'virus going away to major wave' . They also refer to the need for the public to exercise caution and be vigilant about the virus - it is indirect but is pretty reasonable to deduce that they are referring to whatever public health recommendations they are making to the public in Spain.

I am fluent in Spanish. Admittedly Latin American spanish which is slightly distinct from spanish used in Spain.

But in case you want to question my motives or quibble, try google translate again. You will see that even google translate did correctly identify from the article that what is increasingly being ruled out is a second MAJOR wave, it does not rule out a second wave. There is no qualification in the story as to what they mean by MAJOR or what they mean by regrowth. I guess you need to analyse the study for that.

 

[Buffdog]

You have not translated the message of this report accurately. The key word MAJOR is left out your post above. Plus, the google translation lacks context in the use of certain words.

What they say is:
"There are many models that show many possibilities. They show a prompt regrowth to a major wave,
but this last possibility is increasingly being ruled out. We are much better prepared in all areas"

So they are saying that the expectation of a second major wave is looking less likely in the model.
Of note, the model shows a range of 'prompt regrowth to a major wave/major outbreak'. The range is not 'virus going away to major wave' . They also refer to the need for the public to exercise caution and be vigilant about the virus - it is indirect but is pretty reasonable to deduce that they are referring to whatever public health recommendations they are making to the public in Spain.

I am fluent in Spanish. Admittedly Latin American spanish which is slightly distinct from spanish used in Spain.

But in case you want to question my motives or quibble, try google translate again. You will see that even google translate did correctly identify from the article that what is increasingly being ruled out is a second MAJOR wave, it does not rule out a second wave. There is no qualification in the story as to what they mean by MAJOR or what they mean by regrowth. I guess you need to analyse the study for that.

I thought it would go without saying that we're all talking about a major wave. Why would anyone be worried about a minor wave?

 

[Buffdog]

Re: mainstream media sources...

I like to go through this site

Allsides.com

They rank (not sure their methodology but based on their ranking, it seems bout right) different sources on the political spectrum so that you know the slant that you're getting from the source and can apply a grain of salt accordingly. I'd look just as dubiously at a story from a far-right leaning outlet as I would from a far-left leaning one.

Edit: saw a headline today saying that the head of CBS News (I believe) say that its time to stop pretending the media isn't biased and just accept it for what it is. Behind a pay wall so I didn't read the whole story, but it's refreshing to see someone in the media admit it and embrace it. Id trust them a lot more if they weren't so dishonest.

 

[Jetfaninflorida]

I thought it would go without saying that we're all talking about a major wave. Why would anyone be worried about a minor wave?

Nice try. And no where does it say the wave will be minor.

I thought you might have just been mistaken, but it is pretty clear to me now that your post is disinformation and spin.

 

[Whileee]

Re: mainstream media sources...

I like to go through this site

Allsides.com

They rank (not sure their methodology but based on their ranking, it seems bout right) different sources on the political spectrum so that you know the slant that you're getting from the source and can apply a grain of salt accordingly. I'd look just as dubiously at a story from a far-right leaning outlet as I would from a far-left leaning one.

Edit: saw a headline today saying that the head of CBS News (I believe) say that its time to stop pretending the media isn't biased and just accept it for what it is. Behind a pay wall so I didn't read the whole story, but it's refreshing to see someone in the media admit it and embrace it. Id trust them a lot more if they weren't so dishonest.

There's a scale...

Slant - bias - misinformation - propaganda

It's important not to conflate these, pretending that outlets that have a slant or a bias are the same as those that outright publish misinformation, or go so far as to engage in propaganda.

 

[Buffdog]

There's a scale...

Slant - bias - misinformation - propaganda

It's important not to conflate these, pretending that outlets that have a slant or a bias are the same as those that outright publish misinformation, or go so far as to engage in propaganda.

So honest question:

Where does CBS faking a testing line to make it busier than it is fit on that scale? Or using a picture from an Italian hospital to make the situation in NYC more dire than it was? Are people as outraged that they did that as they would be if, say, Brietbart did it?

 

[Buffdog]

Nice try. And no where does it say the wave will be minor.

I thought you might have just been mistaken, but it is pretty clear to me now that your post is disinformation and spin.

WTF? Post some good news around here and nobody wants to hear it, and line up to attack.

I'm not spinning anything. Something encouraging came from the WHO and I thought I'd share.

I'm fully expecting minor peaks in cases as restrictions are lifted and people become more complacent.

I sense that some people here are only gonna be happy if the bodies start piling up again. Sheesh.

 

[ps241]

Agreed. And this is how democracies die. If there are no facts, no truth, then whoever controls the message, controls.

This is one of the most significant consequences of social media and unregulated internet. Enemies of the western democracies know it. They are using us against us. It is so easy, cheap and effective for them. All they have to do is flood the zone with shit, the right shit, the shit that creates division and disillusionment with the government and the system. They create us vs them, whoever us and them is. Many uses (us-es like a multiple of us) vs many thems. Then just sit back, fan the flames once in a while, and watch the house burn down. Its genius and effective.

I think Western democracies will look very different in my children's lifetimes. They may not in fact survive. And if they dont, they will likely have been deconstructed from the inside, with just a little outside disinformation that is easily shown to be just that.

Its interesting I am far from a tinfoil hat type but I do think that social media and other information sources have created allot of pressure on the mainstream media business model. I am very skeptical now of using mainstream media as a reliable news source.

Makes me think there might be a business model for reporting facts only on a platform with zero political slant to it or as buggs warns manufactured drama bending content to make it interesting or fit a predetermined narrative. No agenda whatsoever you can be counted on as "the" trusted news source. Your currency "trust". You can keep your integrity by a crowd accountability model. Whatever monetizing methods you have are fully transparent and doesn't run at odds to your brand promise...... but I digress.

Your points are interesting about a threat to our democracy and I bolded the point I would like to exchange thoughts on above. I am not sure it will be a threat to our democracy as such but I do think it is already causing a transformation of the model from top down trusted institution to bottom up validation process. Block Chain is the beginning of this where there is a form of crowd accountability that happens. We are also seeing this sprout up in the conscious consumer brands which are going to be a major player as the younger consumer base grows.

I saw a facilitating session with Gunnar Lovelace who was the founder of Thrive Market and now is the the founder and Co-CEO of Good Money which is an online banking platform. Lovelace recently co-founded Alliance for Good as a community of influencers working together to create a thriving future for humanity and the planet. This takes the form of communities taking control of the power through organizing, purchasing power, and transparency of where their money is being placed and with whom. Companies moving forward will be looking to align with influencers and the agenda of literally their billions of followers focused on social impact at scale (people, planet + profit). If businesses are taking their eye off this movement they are missing a massing Sea change and opportunity.

To summarize traditional formerly trusted institutions like Presidents, politicians, Big Media, Top leaders, financial institutions, are quickly being disrupted by a new wave of bottom up collective communities that are more transparent, with accountability built around an agenda aligned with new set of values. I see this filling the void as your children age into it.