GeorgeBMac said: Not only is it not gone*, but in many states the infection rate is climbing. People forget that this whole thing was kicked off by a handful of infected people. And, now we have tens of thousands of them.
The only thing that is over (hopefully) is the threat of our healthcare systems being overrun.
Very slight up-tick in a few states, that might not even be distinguishable from the variance we've been seeing anyway. We'll have to wait a few days to know. The healthcare system was never really in any kind of threat to begin with, aside from maybe a couple spots in a couple major cities. Most of the healthcare system in the USA is in danger from the opposite problem.
GeorgeBMac said: ... at least they are providing (hopefully) unbiased, evidence based advice. (Admittedly, even that failed here in the U.S. as politicians threatened and intimidated scientists from already badly weakened agencies running without sufficient data or resources.)
The worst of the problems seem to have come from the UK, not the USA. If the world hadn't overreacted to that idiot's models (with a long track record of them), we'd probably have halved the deaths.
Look, I'm happy for good scientists, but not when it all becomes political and/or greedy. That was clearly the case with Covid.
GeorgeBMac said: ... The truth is: both the WHO and China did far more, far more effectively than the U.S. did -- which is why the smear campaign was initiated: to cover up the negligence, corruption and incompetence of U.S. officials. ...
Like encouraging people to hug Chinese people and hold parades in Chinatown? The whole thing was a political shit-show. I'm not sure if Canada ever did actually shut-down flight from China, and Trump doing so was labeled as racism, while the Democrats tried to virtue-signal.
I'm sure there are some great people working with/at WHO, but the leadership is a joke. I'm not sure they will be taken seriously again until they fix that.
GeorgeBMac said: So, we see two opposing approaches to this pandemic:
U.S.: Denial. Opening up for business without protecting the means of production, the people who conduct that business.
China: Control (even eliminate) the virus andprotect its workers, students and general population -- and then let businesses conduct their business in a safe environment.
Then there's British Columbia where I live (you know, where Vancouver is located w/ about 1/5 the population of NYC) where we're down to 12 new cases and no deaths for several days... less closed down (and later) than a lot of places in the USA.
The big difference? I'm certainly no expert, but if I had to guess, I'd say we did a better job of protecting the vulnerable. We quickly put into place protections on elderly homes, etc. (which I think are generally pretty good to start), instead of housing our Covid-patients there. And, the government put some programs in place to allow people who needed to to stay home (they could have been a LOT better, but it was a fairly good response).
"CA FL AZ NC had the largest body of cases today (37% of all US cases) - Nonetheless, this was a second week with no mid-week hump.
%-Pos fell to 4.2% despite a 1000 result from a prison in Riverside, CA.
Seven states in rise at the mid-week hump."
"Below is a raw graph straight from our hospital census data column (TCTP)
We had an influx in CA AZ FL and TX - composing that little bump you see at the end of the decline. Then we resumed drop today.
If media panics over this, then we are fragile as a communications culture."
GeorgeBMac said: Ah! The old thing that verified reporting from reputable sources is actually "FakeNews". Didn't somebody (over)use that one already?
Not really. It probably can't be emphasized enough. But, maybe better terms would be things like ad-biased and propaganda. A lot of it isn't fake, it's actually worse and much more dangerous. Twisted truth, partial truth, and out of context are a lot more deceptive than outright fake stuff.
GeorgeBMac said: Ah! The old thing that verified reporting from reputable sources is actually "FakeNews". Didn't somebody (over)use that one already?
Not really. It probably can't be emphasized enough. But, maybe better terms would be things like ad-biased and propaganda. A lot of it isn't fake, it's actually worse and much more dangerous. Twisted truth, partial truth, and out of context are a lot more deceptive than outright fake stuff.
You're thinking of FauxNews and their progeny.... They perfected it. And over the past 4 years have even taken to propagating and legitimizing Russian conspiracy theories.
The real media is their enemy because they report only verified stories based on truth and on the rare occasion they get it wrong they issue a correction.
Everybody seems to know that. But some still live in the never-never land of FauxNews and Rush Limbaugh....
GeorgeBMac said: Ah! The old thing that verified reporting from reputable sources is actually "FakeNews". Didn't somebody (over)use that one already?
Not really. It probably can't be emphasized enough. But, maybe better terms would be things like ad-biased and propaganda. A lot of it isn't fake, it's actually worse and much more dangerous. Twisted truth, partial truth, and out of context are a lot more deceptive than outright fake stuff.
You're thinking of FauxNews and their progeny.... They perfected it. And over the past 4 years have even taken to propagating and legitimizing Russian conspiracy theories.
The real media is their enemy because they report only verified stories based on truth and on the rare occasion they get it wrong they issue a correction.
Everybody seems to know that. But some still live in the never-never land of FauxNews and Rush Limbaugh....
What media sources do you consider "real media"? If you could share them with the rest of us at least a few here might find them to be more reliable that the ones we read now. Which ones do you read? If you're not willing or able to answer maybe limiting it to just a few would be easier. We know which ones you avoid, for instance Fox News is a 100% bad source based on your previous comments but what about:
GeorgeBMac said: Ah! The old thing that verified reporting from reputable sources is actually "FakeNews". Didn't somebody (over)use that one already?
Not really. It probably can't be emphasized enough. But, maybe better terms would be things like ad-biased and propaganda. A lot of it isn't fake, it's actually worse and much more dangerous. Twisted truth, partial truth, and out of context are a lot more deceptive than outright fake stuff.
You're thinking of FauxNews and their progeny.... They perfected it. And over the past 4 years have even taken to propagating and legitimizing Russian conspiracy theories.
The real media is their enemy because they report only verified stories based on truth and on the rare occasion they get it wrong they issue a correction.
Everybody seems to know that. But some still live in the never-never land of FauxNews and Rush Limbaugh....
What media sources do you consider "real media"? If you could share them with the rest of us at least a few here might find them to be more reliable that the ones we read now. Which ones do you read? If you're not willing or able to answer maybe limiting it to just a few would be easier. We know which ones you avoid, for instance Fox News is a 100% bad source based on your previous comments but what about:
GeorgeBMac said: Ah! The old thing that verified reporting from reputable sources is actually "FakeNews". Didn't somebody (over)use that one already?
Not really. It probably can't be emphasized enough. But, maybe better terms would be things like ad-biased and propaganda. A lot of it isn't fake, it's actually worse and much more dangerous. Twisted truth, partial truth, and out of context are a lot more deceptive than outright fake stuff.
You're thinking of FauxNews and their progeny.... They perfected it. And over the past 4 years have even taken to propagating and legitimizing Russian conspiracy theories.
The real media is their enemy because they report only verified stories based on truth and on the rare occasion they get it wrong they issue a correction.
Everybody seems to know that. But some still live in the never-never land of FauxNews and Rush Limbaugh....
What media sources do you consider "real media"? If you could share them with the rest of us at least a few here might find them to be more reliable that the ones we read now. Which ones do you read? If you're not willing or able to answer maybe limiting it to just a few would be easier. We know which ones you avoid, for instance Fox News is a 100% bad source based on your previous comments but what about:
Yes or no to each, "real media" or not in YOUR opinion.
I think Hannity might be on -- you know -- Trump's boss. You better run. You might miss some valuable propaganda
Since you're avoiding a direct answer is it you don't think any of the news sources I asked your opinions on are examples of your "real media"? Is so just say it, they're all faux news. If not then which ones of those does George consider real media?
GeorgeBMac said: Ah! The old thing that verified reporting from reputable sources is actually "FakeNews". Didn't somebody (over)use that one already?
Not really. It probably can't be emphasized enough. But, maybe better terms would be things like ad-biased and propaganda. A lot of it isn't fake, it's actually worse and much more dangerous. Twisted truth, partial truth, and out of context are a lot more deceptive than outright fake stuff.
You're thinking of FauxNews and their progeny.... They perfected it. And over the past 4 years have even taken to propagating and legitimizing Russian conspiracy theories.
The real media is their enemy because they report only verified stories based on truth and on the rare occasion they get it wrong they issue a correction.
Everybody seems to know that. But some still live in the never-never land of FauxNews and Rush Limbaugh....
What media sources do you consider "real media"? If you could share them with the rest of us at least a few here might find them to be more reliable that the ones we read now. Which ones do you read? If you're not willing or able to answer maybe limiting it to just a few would be easier. We know which ones you avoid, for instance Fox News is a 100% bad source based on your previous comments but what about:
Yes or no to each, "real media" or not in YOUR opinion.
I think Hannity might be on -- you know -- Trump's boss. You better run. You might miss some valuable propaganda
Since you're avoiding a direct answer is it you don't think any of the news sources I asked your opinions on are examples of your "real media"? Is so just say it, they're all faux news. If not then which ones of those does George consider real media?
So just how fake is the "news" on FauxNews? Is it 100% fake or maybe only 90%?
GeorgeBMac said: Ah! The old thing that verified reporting from reputable sources is actually "FakeNews". Didn't somebody (over)use that one already?
Not really. It probably can't be emphasized enough. But, maybe better terms would be things like ad-biased and propaganda. A lot of it isn't fake, it's actually worse and much more dangerous. Twisted truth, partial truth, and out of context are a lot more deceptive than outright fake stuff.
You're thinking of FauxNews and their progeny.... They perfected it. And over the past 4 years have even taken to propagating and legitimizing Russian conspiracy theories.
The real media is their enemy because they report only verified stories based on truth and on the rare occasion they get it wrong they issue a correction.
Everybody seems to know that. But some still live in the never-never land of FauxNews and Rush Limbaugh....
What media sources do you consider "real media"? If you could share them with the rest of us at least a few here might find them to be more reliable that the ones we read now. Which ones do you read? If you're not willing or able to answer maybe limiting it to just a few would be easier. We know which ones you avoid, for instance Fox News is a 100% bad source based on your previous comments but what about:
Yes or no to each, "real media" or not in YOUR opinion.
I think Hannity might be on -- you know -- Trump's boss. You better run. You might miss some valuable propaganda
Since you're avoiding a direct answer is it you don't think any of the news sources I asked your opinions on are examples of your "real media"? Is so just say it, they're all faux news. If not then which ones of those does George consider real media?
So just how fake is the "news" on FauxNews? Is it 100% fake or maybe only 90%?
You answer a question by trying to change to a different question. It's your terms, and you want me to define them for you? I don't know what your measuring stick uses as a percentage to qualify as faux news, you haven't said. You raised the issue of faux news as opposed to real media without defining which sources the "real media" and "faux news" encompassed.
If you will answer the questions posed to you first I'll be happy to tell you my opinion about it too. In case you forgot: "is it you don't think any of the news sources I asked your opinions on are examples of your "real media"? Is so just say it, they're all faux news(as opposed to real media). If not then which ones of those does George consider real media?"
GeorgeBMac said: You're thinking of FauxNews and their progeny.... They perfected it. And over the past 4 years have even taken to propagating and legitimizing Russian conspiracy theories.
The real media is their enemy because they report only verified stories based on truth and on the rare occasion they get it wrong they issue a correction.
Everybody seems to know that. But some still live in the never-never land of FauxNews and Rush Limbaugh....
Don't know... don't follow Fox or Limbaugh. Russian conspiracy? You mean the narrative the 'left' invented? Seriously?
Only verified stories and corrections... LOL. Where do I find this mythical news source?
GeorgeBMac said: You're thinking of FauxNews and their progeny.... They perfected it. And over the past 4 years have even taken to propagating and legitimizing Russian conspiracy theories.
The real media is their enemy because they report only verified stories based on truth and on the rare occasion they get it wrong they issue a correction.
Everybody seems to know that. But some still live in the never-never land of FauxNews and Rush Limbaugh....
Don't know... don't follow Fox or Limbaugh. Russian conspiracy? You mean the narrative the 'left' invented? Seriously?
Only verified stories and corrections... LOL. Where do I find this mythical news source?
It's pretty simple: stay away from either left wing or right wing propaganda sites (any site pushing an agenda) and stick to reputable news sources who report verified stories and issue corrections when they are wrong. It's not rocket science. But then the simple minded believe the (right wing) propaganda sites who call that "FakeNews". But, they have to call it that because: Those propaganda sites build up and support an alternative reality (usually founded on cynicism, fear and hatred) that can pop like a balloon when pierced with the pin of truth and reality.
GeorgeBMac said: It's pretty simple: stay away from either left wing or right wing propaganda sites (any site pushing an agenda) and stick to reputable news sources who report verified stories and issue corrections when they are wrong. It's not rocket science. But then the simple minded believe the (right wing) propaganda sites who call that "FakeNews". But, they have to call it that because: Those propaganda sites build up and support an alternative reality (usually founded on cynicism, fear and hatred) that can pop like a balloon when pierced with the pin of truth and reality.
Ok, since it is so simple, who are these reputable news sources who only report verified stories and issue corrections when wrong?
GeorgeBMac said: It's pretty simple: stay away from either left wing or right wing propaganda sites (any site pushing an agenda) and stick to reputable news sources who report verified stories and issue corrections when they are wrong. It's not rocket science. But then the simple minded believe the (right wing) propaganda sites who call that "FakeNews". But, they have to call it that because: Those propaganda sites build up and support an alternative reality (usually founded on cynicism, fear and hatred) that can pop like a balloon when pierced with the pin of truth and reality.
Ok, since it is so simple, who are these reputable news sources who only report verified stories and issue corrections when wrong?
"Hey George, how does this attach to that, there's no directions?" George answers: "Well it's not rocket science. All you have to do is put it together the right way. Simple minded Trumpers will never get it"
Comments
Nice spin!
I guess we'll just have to let other readers do some investigating to see which is which.
https://twitter.com/EthicalSkeptic/status/1271203994745163776
"Below is a raw graph straight from our hospital census data column (TCTP) We had an influx in CA AZ FL and TX - composing that little bump you see at the end of the decline. Then we resumed drop today. If media panics over this, then we are fragile as a communications culture."
https://twitter.com/EthicalSkeptic/status/1271205459765211136
Ah! The old thing that verified reporting from reputable sources is actually "FakeNews". Didn't somebody (over)use that one already?
1. MSN?
2. Global Times?
3. HuffingtonPost?
4. CNN?
5. BBC?
Yes or no to each, "real media" or not in YOUR opinion.
I think Hannity might be on -- you know -- Trump's boss. You better run. You might miss some valuable propaganda
So just how fake is the "news" on FauxNews? Is it 100% fake or maybe only 90%?
If you will answer the questions posed to you first I'll be happy to tell you my opinion about it too.
In case you forgot:
"is it you don't think any of the news sources I asked your opinions on are examples of your "real media"? Is so just say it, they're all faux news (as opposed to real media). If not then which ones of those does George consider real media?"
Russian conspiracy? You mean the narrative the 'left' invented? Seriously?
Only verified stories and corrections... LOL. Where do I find this mythical news source?
It's pretty simple: stay away from either left wing or right wing propaganda sites (any site pushing an agenda) and stick to reputable news sources who report verified stories and issue corrections when they are wrong. It's not rocket science. But then the simple minded believe the (right wing) propaganda sites who call that "FakeNews". But, they have to call it that because: Those propaganda sites build up and support an alternative reality (usually founded on cynicism, fear and hatred) that can pop like a balloon when pierced with the pin of truth and reality.
George answers: "Well it's not rocket science. All you have to do is put it together the right way. Simple minded Trumpers will never get it"