OT: Everything COVID19 - PART IX

[Stylizer1]

Such an extremely simplistic way to look at it and probably the most common way to discredit information.

 

[Pierre from Orleans]

No it's not ironic to bash these people while promoting an open mind. Some "opinions" are so objectively false and disingenuous that it's dangerous to legitimize them by placing them into the space for consideration.

That video is pointing to a single source of evidence as fact, but fails to point out that the consensus opinion is that it's unlikely but not impossible that the virus originated in a lab.

It actively casts shade on the "mainstream media" to coerce viewers to ignore other sources of information. Just like trump did with the "fake news" CNN and the "failing" New York Times. That's a deliberated propaghanda tactic used in dictatorships.

These sources are the antithesis of open critical discussion and I think it's completely justified to call them out for the harm they cause.

And while you're suggesting the study has some merit, I'd suggest that I can find you a study with some merit that fails to find a link between smoking and lung cancer. And if my tobacco funded news program points out that study to viewers who like their smokes, while suggesting a more nefarious cover-up by the research community, they may be swayed by that evidence. But I've been a dishonest broker by steering people to a small sliver of evidence, while purposefully ignoring the mountain of evidence to the contrary.

If you want to objectively analyze a bunch of information from various sources to come to a conclusion, great. But most people don't put in that effort. And if your process for identifying information starts and ends with watching Tucker Carlson, then any argument that all evidence should be considered doesn't hold water.

But that's how it is for most people that watch this stuff. They seek out this kind of "evidence" that conforms with their opinions, and use that evidence to reinforce and legitimize their original opinion. They buy into grand conspiracies that allow them to disregard evidence that doesn't fit the mold. They seek out others with the same opinions and reinforce one another. Then they move on to the next hack video and repeat.

They're shaping reality the way they want it. It's a very dangerous trend.

Yes it is ironic to bash people while saying you have an open mind. You've already established a pre-conceived notion about them so anything that they have to say is immediately met with a biased mind.

Pretty much everything you've said can be applied to both sides of the argument here.

 

[SPF6ty9]

No it's not ironic to bash these people while promoting an open mind. Some "opinions" are so objectively false and disingenuous that it's dangerous to legitimize them by placing them into the space for consideration.

That video is pointing to a single source of evidence as fact, but fails to point out that the consensus opinion is that it's unlikely but not impossible that the virus originated in a lab.

It actively casts shade on the "mainstream media" to coerce viewers to ignore other sources of information. Just like trump did with the "fake news" CNN and the "failing" New York Times. That's a deliberated propaghanda tactic used in dictatorships.

These sources are the antithesis of open critical discussion and I think it's completely justified to call them out for the harm they cause.

And while you're suggesting the study has some merit, I'd suggest that I can find you a study with some merit that fails to find a link between smoking and lung cancer. And if my tobacco funded news program points out that study to viewers who like their smokes, while suggesting a more nefarious cover-up by the research community, they may be swayed by that evidence. But I've been a dishonest broker by steering people to a small sliver of evidence, while purposefully ignoring the mountain of evidence to the contrary.

If you want to objectively analyze a bunch of information from various sources to come to a conclusion, great. But most people don't put in that effort. And if your process for identifying information starts and ends with watching Tucker Carlson, then any argument that all evidence should be considered doesn't hold water.

But that's how it is for most people that watch this stuff. They seek out this kind of "evidence" that conforms with their opinions, and use that evidence to reinforce and legitimize their original opinion. They buy into grand conspiracies that allow them to disregard evidence that doesn't fit the mold. They seek out others with the same opinions and reinforce one another. Then they move on to the next hack video and repeat.

They're shaping reality the way they want it. It's a very dangerous trend.

But you're not even considering the opinion, you're just discrediting the source and moving on. And frankly the video and the poster aren't the real source, the author of the article is (who used to work for the "failing" New York Times).

I'm not here to talk about the video and that guy's opinion or Tucker Carlson. I'm here to state that these people can have opinions that are right and wrong and even if a lot of their opinions are wrong, doesn't mean they all are. Sometimes I feel like if Trump said the sky is blue people would argue with him about it just because he said it.

Haha cmon man, smoking? There's zillions of unbiased studies showing that. All the article is saying is that it's not an open and shut case with where the virus originated and there's certainly evidence saying it could have escaped a lab due to poor safety protocols, but for both opinions it's circumstantial at best. We'll never know the truth anyways because China has all the info under lock and key.

 

[Sens]

Alberta stops giving first doses of Oxford-AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine

 

[Stylizer1]

Man that video clip is some Tucker Carlson level rubbish.

There are so many legitimate sources, no need to spend time wading into this trash. Could covid have escaped from a lab? Sure. And you're exactly one google search away from dozens of legitimate sources exploring the issue in depth. Do yourself a favor and swing down those rabbit holes instead.

I have no problem keeping an open mind, but choosing to start and end your quest for knowledge in this sewer is how you get the trump supporters in the states. Selectively turning off their critical filtering of information so they can ingest only those facts and opinions that align with what they want to believe. Regardless of how questionable that source of information.

These sources will ignore overwhelming concensus and dig up the one quack or bad study that aligns with what their audience wants to cling onto. That's why climate change deniers believe there is overwhelming evidence against anthropologic climate change. It's the only evidence they've (disingenuously) allowed themselves to ingest.

They think they get to have an opinion on objective reality.

You are making an argument no one is trying to defend. I posted the article in question. That's what this was about. The video is a brief synopses of what was written. What in the article is rubbish?

 

[Stylizer1]

No it's not ironic to bash these people while promoting an open mind. Some "opinions" are so objectively false and disingenuous that it's dangerous to legitimize them by placing them into the space for consideration.

That video is pointing to a single source of evidence as fact, but fails to point out that the consensus opinion is that it's unlikely but not impossible that the virus originated in a lab.

It actively casts shade on the "mainstream media" to coerce viewers to ignore other sources of information. Just like trump did with the "fake news" CNN and the "failing" New York Times. That's a deliberated propaghanda tactic used in dictatorships.

These sources are the antithesis of open critical discussion and I think it's completely justified to call them out for the harm they cause.

And while you're suggesting the study has some merit, I'd suggest that I can find you a study with some merit that fails to find a link between smoking and lung cancer. And if my tobacco funded news program points out that study to viewers who like their smokes, while suggesting a more nefarious cover-up by the research community, they may be swayed by that evidence. But I've been a dishonest broker by steering people to a small sliver of evidence, while purposefully ignoring the mountain of evidence to the contrary.

If you want to objectively analyze a bunch of information from various sources to come to a conclusion, great. But most people don't put in that effort. And if your process for identifying information starts and ends with watching Tucker Carlson, then any argument that all evidence should be considered doesn't hold water.

But that's how it is for most people that watch this stuff. They seek out this kind of "evidence" that conforms with their opinions, and use that evidence to reinforce and legitimize their original opinion. They buy into grand conspiracies that allow them to disregard evidence that doesn't fit the mold. They seek out others with the same opinions and reinforce one another. Then they move on to the next hack video and repeat.

They're shaping reality the way they want it. It's a very dangerous trend.

They guy who wrote the article worked for the New York times for 30 years. You keeping grouping certain points of view with certain ideologies, why? Can you not differentiate the two?

If you want to objectively analyze a bunch of information from various sources to come to a conclusion, great. But most people don't put in that effort.

You proved my point.

 

[Stylizer1]

But you're not even considering the opinion, you're just discrediting the source and moving on. And frankly the video and the poster aren't the real source, the author of the article is (who used to work for the "failing" New York Times).

I'm not here to talk about the video and that guy's opinion or Tucker Carlson. I'm here to state that these people can have opinions that are right and wrong and even if a lot of their opinions are wrong, doesn't mean they all are. Sometimes I feel like if Trump said the sky is blue people would argue with him about it just because he said it.

Haha cmon man, smoking? There's zillions of unbiased studies showing that. All the article is saying is that it's not an open and shut case with where the virus originated and there's certainly evidence saying it could have escaped a lab due to poor safety protocols, but for both opinions it's circumstantial at best. We'll never know the truth anyways because China has all the info under lock and key.

This is why investigative journalism is dying. I have no idea if the author of the article has a hidden agenda and is a Trump supporter, lol. What got me to the article is that it was mentioned in the clip I posted. Does the author have no credibility to stand on? Is he fake news because he worked for the NY Times? Is that why no one should take his story seriously?

I have no idea who is arguing what.

 

[FunkySeeFunkyDoo]

You are making an argument no one is trying to defend. I posted the article in question. That's what this was about. The video is a brief synopses of what was written. What in the article is rubbish?

Actually you initially posted the video, and described it this way:

Saagar Enjeti details the "lab leak hypothesis" and demonstrates the way "the culture war in America corrupts basic facts

A good chunk of the video is not about details of the lab leak hypothesis, but actually about why the mainstream media hasn't covered it and some sort of implied coverup by Fauci and Daszak.

So I'd say the opinions in the video are fair game, as that's how you initiated the conversation.

 

[Knave]

This is why investigative journalism is dying. I have no idea if the author of the article has a hidden agenda and is a Trump supporter, lol. What got me to the article is that it was mentioned in the clip I posted. Does the author have no credibility to stand on? Is he fake news because he worked for the NY Times? Is that why no one should take his story seriously?

I have no idea who is arguing what.

Of course you don't. You're just here to post pseudo-libertarian garbage from discredited people. It fits with your narrow world view just like Joe Rogan.

There is a reason he's no longer employed at the New York Times. There is a reason dozens of scientists have openly criticized the man for misrepresenting the results of their papers.

You're suggesting we should be open minded to a completely unsourced article that basically says "both sides" from a guy with a history of not understanding the stuff he writes about (or worse, a history of deliberately misrepresenting things)?

I might have some basic trust if it was published in a major newspaper, magazine or by a respected publisher. But we're talking about 'the bulletin' which is best known for their doomsday clock spawned by the introduction of nuclear weapons. How many minutes to the end of the world has it been for how many decades? It's a gimmick 1-2 minute segment on cable news every couple of years at best. It's not known for well put together investigative journalism.

 

[Sensmileletsgo]

It's not

According to worldometers data, it's roughly 10%

NBC news last night said that number could be three times higher, so he may be right.

 

[JD1]

NBC news last night said that number could be three times higher, so he may be right.

So i just quoted the confirmed case count. Who knows what the totals of asymptomatic cases are. Definitely higher but by how much who knows

There's not a lot of positive media coverage. Ontario just reported a big drop in cases from yesterday. Good news right? But right away it was attributed potentially to a big drop in testing. Well no shit sherlock....you've got half the population jabbed...the only way testing numbers remain constant is if the unvaccinated were getting tested at twice the historical testing rate

 

[Do Make Say Think]

This is what happens when mods don't take down conspiracy garbage

 

[FunkySeeFunkyDoo]

So i just quoted the confirmed case count. Who knows what the totals of asymptomatic cases are. Definitely higher but by how much who knows

There's not a lot of positive media coverage. Ontario just reported a big drop in cases from yesterday. Good news right? But right away it was attributed potentially to a big drop in testing. Well no shit sherlock....you've got half the population jabbed...the only way testing numbers remain constant is if the unvaccinated were getting tested at twice the historical testing rate

I would agree that they seem to now just put a negative slant on most things. Esp in the headlines; if you read the actual body of the article then maybe the good news is put forth a little bit.

As a counterpoint though, here was a pretty positive piece in the G&M from about a week ago: Globe editorial: This is the month when Canada breaks the back of the pandemic

 

[Pierre from Orleans]

This is what happens when mods don't take down conspiracy garbage

Apply for a mod position. You can then clean up this place

 

[FunkySeeFunkyDoo]

roughly December 1 of 2020. The first vaccine approval kicked in. In 5 months and 2 weeks. 6.2 million doses in Ontario. 1 million does a month. Or 35,000 a day. Luckily we have since increased that number to ~ 65,000.

Go back and read in December and January when we were fighting over vaccination. Many argued 100,000 shots a day easy....UHHUHHH.

This is a perfect time for a political dig. But the Mods..

I think it's pretty misleading to calculate the daily averages the way you have.

I posted a few pages back this site: COVID-19 Tracker Canada - Provincial Vaccination Tracker which tracks vaccine distribution for Ontario.

The most recent 7-day rolling average is about 126,000 shots per day. And it's been over your 65k per day since March 28th.

If you really don't like rolling averages, then calculate the average since March 1st (we had only received 900k vaccines up to that date) .... in the 73 days from then to now we've done 5.7M vaccinations. Or an average of 78k per day.

(But keep in mind that the 7 day rolling average is really the best way to project when we'll get to 80% vaxx'd or whatever threshold you're looking to)..

 

[Do Make Say Think]

Apply for a mod position. You can then clean up this place

We all saw what happened to Bonk when he was a mod. No thanks.

I'm just asking for the mods to enforce their own rules, as stated in the sticky post at the top of each page of this thread.

 

[dumbdick]

They guy who wrote the article worked for the New York times for 30 years. You keeping grouping certain points of view with certain ideologies, why? Can you not differentiate the two?



You proved my point.

I'm not taking issue with the article (i didn't read it). I'm taking issue with the video. And suggested that if these biased sources are people's main entry point to getting facts about an issue, they're going to see a very limited and biased slice of that issue.

It's like climate change. There are no doubt legitimate studies that disprove or raise some questions about aspects of climate change. I think there was some uncertainty before about cloud cover caused by warming and the reflective cooling effect of the extra clouds generated. Legit science. But if you find this study from a link on my super biased blog about how this proves all of climate change is a hoax perpetuated by George Soros, and you got there by googling "climate change is fake", that's a problem.

So my problem is with the video and the selective curation of facts to meet an agenda or pre-established bias.

 

[Beech]

I think the number is 11 or 12 million as you include babies, toddlers and children under the age of 12. Ontario is closer, and if they continue at around 130K a day, by June 2, the province should be near 9 milllion, and they can start to reopen safely

Sorry., I made a mistake in date. June 24 is the mathematical; date for 80%.
The reality is, we will asymptotically approach it around the middle of June.

I fully expect by June 15, infections and deaths will become very low.

 

[Big Muddy]

33% of Americans have had covid? That doesn’t sound right.

A few notable figure heads in medical world have floated a more conservative estimate of 20%, but they admitted they were being conservative. Nobody really knows or has a precise number.

The other thing nobody really knows with certainty is how long natural (infection-induced) immunity lasts. There are studies from places like Israel that reveal that people who had Covid before became infected again.

Therefore, a large percentage of those that have natural (infection induced) immunity will need to be vaccinated ultimately to ensure a more enduring (lasting) immunity. I would imagine that concept is not lost in the medical/epidemiological (hence government) community.

 

[Beech]

I think it's pretty misleading to calculate the daily averages the way you have.

I posted a few pages back this site: COVID-19 Tracker Canada - Provincial Vaccination Tracker which tracks vaccine distribution for Ontario.

The most recent 7-day rolling average is about 126,000 shots per day. And it's been over your 65k per day since March 28th.

If you really don't like rolling averages, then calculate the average since March 1st (we had only received 900k vaccines up to that date) .... in the 73 days from then to now we've done 5.7M vaccinations. Or an average of 78k per day.

(But keep in mind that the 7 day rolling average is really the best way to project when we'll get to 80% vaxx'd or whatever threshold you're looking to)..

I get you. What is the point? No supply is still part of the picture. We approved AZ even though the Americans did not!!!

And we are still at 35,000 shots, global average. Yes the number is ramping up..this is of great consolation to those that have died, gotten infected and are awfully sick (my partner's GP..who is dying because of it, leaving her in a small town with no family doctor as she battles cancer) and the torched economy, which getting more and more destroyed.

Had we been at the 65,000 shots present day average (over the last 6 weeks). We would have hit our target in 139 days or 4.6 months. December through March 20th...a good 8 weeks ago.

Instead, we have ~ 40-45 more days. Bringing the whole cycle to: ~ 200 days. And heaven forbid had we hit the 100,000 shots a day from day one and had this nightmare end in ~ 3 months, or by March 1. What were we doing by March 1? dick.

2 months of people on here, talking about "can do"..How about "did not". Shame....The man was dealing with his own health issues and yet continued to work. His wife is grief stricken because she thinks she may have given it to him!!!!!!

 

[Beech]

It's not

According to worldometers data, it's roughly 10%

asymptomatic spread..~ 3.1-3.2 for the USA. Worldmeter only considers tested positives.

 

[Stylizer1]

I'm not taking issue with the article (i didn't read it). I'm taking issue with the video. And suggested that if these biased sources are people's main entry point to getting facts about an issue, they're going to see a very limited and biased slice of that issue.

It's like climate change. There are no doubt legitimate studies that disprove or raise some questions about aspects of climate change. I think there was some uncertainty before about cloud cover caused by warming and the reflective cooling effect of the extra clouds generated. Legit science. But if you find this study from a link on my super biased blog about how this proves all of climate change is a hoax perpetuated by George Soros, and you got there by googling "climate change is fake", that's a problem.

So my problem is with the video and the selective curation of facts to meet an agenda or pre-established bias.

Like I said, I don't know if what was said in the video is accurate so I actually read the article. It's interesting. You didn't read it but know how to form an opinion on it. There is nothing else to see here. Trying to establish links to conspiracies has to do with your own biases not mine.

 

[Stylizer1]

Of course you don't. You're just here to post pseudo-libertarian garbage from discredited people. It fits with your narrow world view just like Joe Rogan.

There is a reason he's no longer employed at the New York Times. There is a reason dozens of scientists have openly criticized the man for misrepresenting the results of their papers.

You're suggesting we should be open minded to a completely unsourced article that basically says "both sides" from a guy with a history of not understanding the stuff he writes about (or worse, a history of deliberately misrepresenting things)?

I might have some basic trust if it was published in a major newspaper, magazine or by a respected publisher. But we're talking about 'the bulletin' which is best known for their doomsday clock spawned by the introduction of nuclear weapons. How many minutes to the end of the world has it been for how many decades? It's a gimmick 1-2 minute segment on cable news every couple of years at best. It's not known for well put together investigative journalism.

The organization was established in 1947 after the atomic bombing of Japan. Two of its most famous contributors were J. Robert Oppenheimer and Albert Einstein. As of August 2018, the Bulletin's Board of Sponsors boasts 14 Nobel Laureates.

 

[Knave]

The organization was established in 1947 after the atomic bombing of Japan. Two of its most famous contributors were J. Robert Oppenheimer and Albert Einstein. As of August 2018, the Bulletin's Board of Sponsors boasts 14 Nobel Laureates.

The unabomber was also incredibly smart. I don't know what anything you wrote has to do with a writer repeatedly called out by published scientists for misinterpreting their works but I'm not surprised you dodged once again.

So let me repeat it again: The article you are citing is by a guy who has been repeatedly called out by published scientists for misinterpreting their work.

Now I guess 14 Nobel Laureates are fine with donating to an organization that produces shoddy work but being a Nobel Laureate doesn't make you infallible.

 

[FunkySeeFunkyDoo]

I get you. What is the point? No supply is still part of the picture. We approved AZ even though the Americans did not!!!

And we are still at 35,000 shots, global average. Yes the number is ramping up..this is of great consolation to those that have died, gotten infected and are awfully sick (my partner's GP..who is dying because of it, leaving her in a small town with no family doctor as she battles cancer) and the torched economy, which getting more and more destroyed.

Had we been at the 65,000 shots present day average (over the last 6 weeks). We would have hit our target in 139 days or 4.6 months. December through March 20th...a good 8 weeks ago.

Instead, we have ~ 40-45 more days. Bringing the whole cycle to: ~ 200 days. And heaven forbid had we hit the 100,000 shots a day from day one and had this nightmare end in ~ 3 months, or by March 1. What were we doing by March 1? dick.

2 months of people on here, talking about "can do"..How about "did not". Shame....The man was dealing with his own health issues and yet continued to work. His wife is grief stricken because she thinks she may have given it to him!!!!!!

It could be I misunderstood the point of your post that I responded to. It seemed to me to be within a discussion about how soon the current lockdown will be lifted. As such, my point is that any forward looking projections on vaccinations and reaching herd immunity or whatever should be based on our current rates.

Looking backwards in time there are many, many mistakes that can and should be called out.

I don't know if vaccine procurement is one of them... I've seen knowledgeable people state that given Canada's situation we really couldn't have done better than we did. But I am not close enough or knowledgeable enough on it to have a strong opinion.