Estimated 610,356 deaths from estimated 34,368,072 cases. That's about a 1.8% fatality rate. And that doesn't include people whose recovery comes with life-changing effects.
So no, it does not appear that 99.9% of people "recover" from it. Even with statistical variance, the numbers would have to be off by an order of magnitude for that to be the case.
That can be construed as spreading "misinformation".
The 35M cases are only confirmed cases, not how many people actual got the virus. Since many that got the virus and survive were not tested, the 35M cases is a very low number. Just because a person got Covid, survived but was not counted as a confirmed case, doesn't mean that it should not be counted when determining the mortality rate of the virus.
Of the course, the more than 600K deaths do not count deaths that were not reported as Covid deaths or it was unknown that Covid cause the death. But it also counts a Covid deaths as anyone that died while infected, even if the virus did not cause the death.
What made Covid much more deadlier than the common flu was not that it had a much higher mortality rate, but that it had a much higher infection rate. That's because very few had any immunity too it. Unlike the common flu.
From your own link:
Patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 more frequently developed acute respiratory failure, pulmonary embolism, septic shock, or haemorrhagic stroke than patients with influenza, but less frequently developed myocardial infarction or atrial fibrillation. In-hospital mortality was higher in patients with COVID-19 than in patients with influenza (15 104 [16·9%] of 89 530 vs 2640 [5·8%] of 45 819), with a relative risk of death of 2·9 (95% CI 2·8–3·0) and an age-standardised mortality ratio of 2·82. Of the patients hospitalised, the proportion of paediatric patients (<18 years) was smaller for COVID-19 than for influenza (1227 [1·4%] vs8942 [19·5%]), but a larger proportion of patients younger than 5 years needed intensive care support for COVID-19 than for influenza (14 [2·3%] of 613 vs 65 [0·9%] of 6973). In adolescents (11–17 years), the in-hospital mortality was ten-times higher for COVID-19 than for influenza (five [1·1% of 458 vs one [0·1%] of 804), and patients with COVID-19 were more frequently obese or overweight.
It sure sounds like a higher mortality rate made it a fair bit deadlier.
About time! It’s ridiculous what outrageously unscientific crap is disseminated about health related topics online. The anti-vaxxer crap is only a small part of it.
It’s ludicrous that companies like Apple must go through all sorts of regulatory hurdles just to be able to offer some health data monitoring on a watch, while companies like Facebook aid and abet to large profits the spread of deadly health disinformation.
Yeah, let’s have the government further police what’s shared online. Great idea.
It kind of is a great idea.
Currently we have both internal and foreign bad-actors hiding behind America's Free Speech laws to spread disinformation for free using social media. The only thing "free" about that speech is its cost.
The result is, among other things: conspiracy theories, overturned elections, radicalization and creation of domestic terrorists, loss of confidence in America, its democracy and its leadership and 600,000+ dead Americans.
Just as you are not allowed to yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater there needs to be oversight in how social media is used by bad actors to spread the disinformation that is taking our country down. While it is not only social media spreading disinformation, social media gives disinformation a megaphone. And, right now, its running out of control.
No it is **NOT** a great idea! The government having a say in what is "acceptable" or "true" speech... we've seen where that leads, and it is NOT GOOD - way worse than anything we're dealing with now. It's alluring in a "think of the children" kind of way, but that is not how it turns out, long term. Sometimes even short term. Think of it this way: would you want rules like that in effect when another Trump gets elected? It's bound to happen sooner or later. The primary goal of our representative democracy is to be resistant to individuals and even government institutions making power grabs. A rule like this is definitely going in the opposite direction. In any case, this is so obviously unconstitutional, it'll never go anywhere. Even if it passes, it'll get struck down instantly.
Mind you, that isn't to say that foreign bad actors aren't a HUGE problem. It's hard to say how much of the division in this country it's responsible for, but I'd wager it's a lot. They're hammering society's cracks as hard and as often as they can, and are demonizing BOTH sides against the other. The best way to resist that is to try to really understand why the other side believes the way they do. Obviously there are exceptions, but for the most part, it's not because they're hicks/morons/SJWs/racist/snowflakes/etc or what ever other stereotype is in your head about the "other side". Despite what foreign meddlers, and even many of our own politicians wanting to keep you in the fold, would have you believe, our deep-down core values as a nation aren't as disparate as one might think.
While I largely agree with your sentiments, be aware we live in a representative republic, not a representative democracy... you can also refer to our governmental system as a democracy in a republic. A true democracy is a scary, scary thing which we should never try to have.
Oh! So you're a Republican.
You do realize that it's the Republican Party that is preventing the Democratic Party, from turning the US into a one-party state and vice-versa ....... don't you?
Parties that came to power in the wake of independence from colonial rule. One-party systems often arise from decolonization because a single party gains an overwhelmingly dominant role in liberation or in independence struggles.
The US has had an effective one party system before. It was so terrible that it has the nickname of the Era Of Good Feelings.
As long as norms and institutions are preserved then there's no real problem with a one party system. And if norms and institutions start to get changed then that's a fast ticket to a new system. Seems to me that the party trying to subvert norms and institutions isn't the Democratic Party.
It's not all that uncommon for some medical, researcher, or situational claim deemed accurate and reliable TODAY to later become "misinformation" when research and discovery shows otherwise. What might be determined to be "misinformation" today can also become truth once more is known. What we see as truth seems to be ever changing. So who would be the arbiter, the intimate authority on what is accurate and what is not? Does mostly true count or only 100%? How about not entirely accurate but containing some degree of truth?
Governments very often do and say what their leaders think is for the "greater good" of their country and if obfuscating the truth or even outright lying in some cases is helpful to the cause so be it. China's leadership lies, Russia's leadership lies, the US and European countries lie too even if IMHO it is to a much lesser degree since a free media tends to prevent it (more often just hiding the truth rather than outright lying). Lying is more of an authoritarian thing where the media can be controlled to.
Well OK then, the ends justify the means according to a couple of members who admire countries with firm control of the message whether true or not. That's your freedom to offer opinion without punishment. We should cherish that.
So now in the US we're going to trust in a fair and non-discriminating "authority" deciding what is misinformation and what is not, and who is punished for it and who is not? We will appoint a person/office or government panel to make the nationwide rules on who is allowed to speak and who is not based on some self-serving criteria? Gotcha. At least we have the freedom as a collection of individuals to chose how we are led every few years. Not every country does.
I see this particular plan destined to become more a political tool instead of a helpful social one, with "misinformation" morphing as the people in charge change.
I think Trump made shambles of your opinion that politicians in democracies don't lie -- or don't lie as much. I stopped paying attentions when he passed 18,000 lies...
As for government deciding what is misinformation and what is not: All governments do that when crisis strikes (like war). And, in this case, we are at war -- but with a microscopic enemy that has killed more Americans than any war we have ever been in. Those spreading misinformation are aiding and abetting that enemy.
About time! It’s ridiculous what outrageously unscientific crap is disseminated about health related topics online. The anti-vaxxer crap is only a small part of it.
It’s ludicrous that companies like Apple must go through all sorts of regulatory hurdles just to be able to offer some health data monitoring on a watch, while companies like Facebook aid and abet to large profits the spread of deadly health disinformation.
Yeah, let’s have the government further police what’s shared online. Great idea.
It kind of is a great idea.
Currently we have both internal and foreign bad-actors hiding behind America's Free Speech laws to spread disinformation for free using social media. The only thing "free" about that speech is its cost.
The result is, among other things: conspiracy theories, overturned elections, radicalization and creation of domestic terrorists, loss of confidence in America, its democracy and its leadership and 600,000+ dead Americans.
Just as you are not allowed to yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater there needs to be oversight in how social media is used by bad actors to spread the disinformation that is taking our country down. While it is not only social media spreading disinformation, social media gives disinformation a megaphone. And, right now, its running out of control.
No it is **NOT** a great idea! The government having a say in what is "acceptable" or "true" speech... we've seen where that leads, and it is NOT GOOD - way worse than anything we're dealing with now. It's alluring in a "think of the children" kind of way, but that is not how it turns out, long term. Sometimes even short term. Think of it this way: would you want rules like that in effect when another Trump gets elected? It's bound to happen sooner or later. The primary goal of our representative democracy is to be resistant to individuals and even government institutions making power grabs. A rule like this is definitely going in the opposite direction. In any case, this is so obviously unconstitutional, it'll never go anywhere. Even if it passes, it'll get struck down instantly.
Mind you, that isn't to say that foreign bad actors aren't a HUGE problem. It's hard to say how much of the division in this country it's responsible for, but I'd wager it's a lot. They're hammering society's cracks as hard and as often as they can, and are demonizing BOTH sides against the other. The best way to resist that is to try to really understand why the other side believes the way they do. Obviously there are exceptions, but for the most part, it's not because they're hicks/morons/SJWs/racist/snowflakes/etc or what ever other stereotype is in your head about the "other side". Despite what foreign meddlers, and even many of our own politicians wanting to keep you in the fold, would have you believe, our deep-down core values as a nation aren't as disparate as one might think.
While I largely agree with your sentiments, be aware we live in a representative republic, not a representative democracy... you can also refer to our governmental system as a democracy in a republic. A true democracy is a scary, scary thing which we should never try to have.
Oh! So you're a Republican.
No, I am (and have been for decades) a registered independent, thank you!
About time! It’s ridiculous what outrageously unscientific crap is disseminated about health related topics online. The anti-vaxxer crap is only a small part of it.
It’s ludicrous that companies like Apple must go through all sorts of regulatory hurdles just to be able to offer some health data monitoring on a watch, while companies like Facebook aid and abet to large profits the spread of deadly health disinformation.
Yeah, let’s have the government further police what’s shared online. Great idea.
It kind of is a great idea.
Currently we have both internal and foreign bad-actors hiding behind America's Free Speech laws to spread disinformation for free using social media. The only thing "free" about that speech is its cost.
The result is, among other things: conspiracy theories, overturned elections, radicalization and creation of domestic terrorists, loss of confidence in America, its democracy and its leadership and 600,000+ dead Americans.
Just as you are not allowed to yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater there needs to be oversight in how social media is used by bad actors to spread the disinformation that is taking our country down. While it is not only social media spreading disinformation, social media gives disinformation a megaphone. And, right now, its running out of control.livwe
I find it ironic that you would paraphrase Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes most famous quote, that was made when the SCOTUS unanimously decided that the 1st Amendment did not protect the plaintiff right to distribute flyers opposing the draft (during WW1). A decision that was later partially overturned and is considered by some to be one the worse decision made by the SCOTUS.
Too often the quote is shorten from ".....falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic...." to just "yelling FIRE in a crowed theater" .... and "crowded" is added. While the most important part, "...and causing panic.", is not mentioned at all. As to make it appear that "lying" is not protected speech.
Justice Holmes used it as an example that the 1st Amendment protections are not absolute and that there are speech that is not protected under certain circumstances. Like when it's used to created a "panic" or "present a clear and present danger" that the government should protect the public against. But in the case that the SCOTUS unanimously ruled against, the "speech" did not cause a panic and was later ruled as "protected speech".
It appeared that the SCOTUS had overstepped their boundaries in many cases, when deciding what "clear and present danger" entails and using as a means to denied a person their 1st Amendment rights. The meer act of spreading "disinformation" is protected speech and "clear and present danger" can be too broadly defined by the government to deny ones 1st Amendment rights or worse .... suppress the truth.
Even the very liberal press "The Atlantic", seems to agree.
People and organizations spreading dysinformation about a deadly virus or to take down our democracy seems to me to qualify as "clear and present danger".
About time! It’s ridiculous what outrageously unscientific crap is disseminated about health related topics online. The anti-vaxxer crap is only a small part of it.
It’s ludicrous that companies like Apple must go through all sorts of regulatory hurdles just to be able to offer some health data monitoring on a watch, while companies like Facebook aid and abet to large profits the spread of deadly health disinformation.
Yeah, let’s have the government further police what’s shared online. Great idea.
It kind of is a great idea.
Currently we have both internal and foreign bad-actors hiding behind America's Free Speech laws to spread disinformation for free using social media. The only thing "free" about that speech is its cost.
The result is, among other things: conspiracy theories, overturned elections, radicalization and creation of domestic terrorists, loss of confidence in America, its democracy and its leadership and 600,000+ dead Americans.
Just as you are not allowed to yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater there needs to be oversight in how social media is used by bad actors to spread the disinformation that is taking our country down. While it is not only social media spreading disinformation, social media gives disinformation a megaphone. And, right now, its running out of control.
No it is **NOT** a great idea! The government having a say in what is "acceptable" or "true" speech... we've seen where that leads, and it is NOT GOOD - way worse than anything we're dealing with now. It's alluring in a "think of the children" kind of way, but that is not how it turns out, long term. Sometimes even short term. Think of it this way: would you want rules like that in effect when another Trump gets elected? It's bound to happen sooner or later. The primary goal of our representative democracy is to be resistant to individuals and even government institutions making power grabs. A rule like this is definitely going in the opposite direction. In any case, this is so obviously unconstitutional, it'll never go anywhere. Even if it passes, it'll get struck down instantly.
Mind you, that isn't to say that foreign bad actors aren't a HUGE problem. It's hard to say how much of the division in this country it's responsible for, but I'd wager it's a lot. They're hammering society's cracks as hard and as often as they can, and are demonizing BOTH sides against the other. The best way to resist that is to try to really understand why the other side believes the way they do. Obviously there are exceptions, but for the most part, it's not because they're hicks/morons/SJWs/racist/snowflakes/etc or what ever other stereotype is in your head about the "other side". Despite what foreign meddlers, and even many of our own politicians wanting to keep you in the fold, would have you believe, our deep-down core values as a nation aren't as disparate as one might think.
While I largely agree with your sentiments, be aware we live in a representative republic, not a representative democracy... you can also refer to our governmental system as a democracy in a republic. A true democracy is a scary, scary thing which we should never try to have.
Oh! So you're a Republican.
You do realize that it's the Republican Party that is preventing the Democratic Party, from turning the US into a one-party state and vice-versa ....... don't you?
Parties that came to power in the wake of independence from colonial rule. One-party systems often arise from decolonization because a single party gains an overwhelmingly dominant role in liberation or in independence struggles.
LOL...
It was the Democratic party that deposed the wanna-be dictator and Fuhrer....
It is the Democratic party wanting to investigate rather than white wash his attack on our Capitol.
It is the Democratic party who wants to save our democracy by blocking voter suppression, gerrymandering and political control of vote tallies.
About time! It’s ridiculous what outrageously unscientific crap is disseminated about health related topics online. The anti-vaxxer crap is only a small part of it.
It’s ludicrous that companies like Apple must go through all sorts of regulatory hurdles just to be able to offer some health data monitoring on a watch, while companies like Facebook aid and abet to large profits the spread of deadly health disinformation.
Yeah, let’s have the government further police what’s shared online. Great idea.
It kind of is a great idea.
Currently we have both internal and foreign bad-actors hiding behind America's Free Speech laws to spread disinformation for free using social media. The only thing "free" about that speech is its cost.
The result is, among other things: conspiracy theories, overturned elections, radicalization and creation of domestic terrorists, loss of confidence in America, its democracy and its leadership and 600,000+ dead Americans.
Just as you are not allowed to yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater there needs to be oversight in how social media is used by bad actors to spread the disinformation that is taking our country down. While it is not only social media spreading disinformation, social media gives disinformation a megaphone. And, right now, its running out of control.
No it is **NOT** a great idea! The government having a say in what is "acceptable" or "true" speech... we've seen where that leads, and it is NOT GOOD - way worse than anything we're dealing with now. It's alluring in a "think of the children" kind of way, but that is not how it turns out, long term. Sometimes even short term. Think of it this way: would you want rules like that in effect when another Trump gets elected? It's bound to happen sooner or later. The primary goal of our representative democracy is to be resistant to individuals and even government institutions making power grabs. A rule like this is definitely going in the opposite direction. In any case, this is so obviously unconstitutional, it'll never go anywhere. Even if it passes, it'll get struck down instantly.
Mind you, that isn't to say that foreign bad actors aren't a HUGE problem. It's hard to say how much of the division in this country it's responsible for, but I'd wager it's a lot. They're hammering society's cracks as hard and as often as they can, and are demonizing BOTH sides against the other. The best way to resist that is to try to really understand why the other side believes the way they do. Obviously there are exceptions, but for the most part, it's not because they're hicks/morons/SJWs/racist/snowflakes/etc or what ever other stereotype is in your head about the "other side". Despite what foreign meddlers, and even many of our own politicians wanting to keep you in the fold, would have you believe, our deep-down core values as a nation aren't as disparate as one might think.
While I largely agree with your sentiments, be aware we live in a representative republic, not a representative democracy... you can also refer to our governmental system as a democracy in a republic. A true democracy is a scary, scary thing which we should never try to have.
Oh! So you're a Republican.
No, I am (and have been for decades) a registered independent, thank you!
That's what they all say.
No, that is what I say. Being a registered independent is NOT a benefit in my state (Illinois). I am not allowed any voice in the primary process as I can only vote on referendum items. I registered as an independent a quarter of a century ago when I decided the Democratic and Republican parties were essentially working toward the same goal... a goal I want nothing to do with.
It is a good feeling knowing you did not elect the idiots and morons in government. That said, it is also bittersweet watching your country being torn apart by the stupidity which erupts from the vacant-eyed, slack-jawed, mind-numbed, kool-aid guzzling disciples of both the parties... one of which you clearly are.
About time! It’s ridiculous what outrageously unscientific crap is disseminated about health related topics online. The anti-vaxxer crap is only a small part of it.
It’s ludicrous that companies like Apple must go through all sorts of regulatory hurdles just to be able to offer some health data monitoring on a watch, while companies like Facebook aid and abet to large profits the spread of deadly health disinformation.
Yeah, let’s have the government further police what’s shared online. Great idea.
It kind of is a great idea.
Currently we have both internal and foreign bad-actors hiding behind America's Free Speech laws to spread disinformation for free using social media. The only thing "free" about that speech is its cost.
The result is, among other things: conspiracy theories, overturned elections, radicalization and creation of domestic terrorists, loss of confidence in America, its democracy and its leadership and 600,000+ dead Americans.
Just as you are not allowed to yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater there needs to be oversight in how social media is used by bad actors to spread the disinformation that is taking our country down. While it is not only social media spreading disinformation, social media gives disinformation a megaphone. And, right now, its running out of control.livwe
I find it ironic that you would paraphrase Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes most famous quote, that was made when the SCOTUS unanimously decided that the 1st Amendment did not protect the plaintiff right to distribute flyers opposing the draft (during WW1). A decision that was later partially overturned and is considered by some to be one the worse decision made by the SCOTUS.
Too often the quote is shorten from ".....falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic...." to just "yelling FIRE in a crowed theater" .... and "crowded" is added. While the most important part, "...and causing panic.", is not mentioned at all. As to make it appear that "lying" is not protected speech.
Justice Holmes used it as an example that the 1st Amendment protections are not absolute and that there are speech that is not protected under certain circumstances. Like when it's used to created a "panic" or "present a clear and present danger" that the government should protect the public against. But in the case that the SCOTUS unanimously ruled against, the "speech" did not cause a panic and was later ruled as "protected speech".
It appeared that the SCOTUS had overstepped their boundaries in many cases, when deciding what "clear and present danger" entails and using as a means to denied a person their 1st Amendment rights. The meer act of spreading "disinformation" is protected speech and "clear and present danger" can be too broadly defined by the government to deny ones 1st Amendment rights or worse .... suppress the truth.
Even the very liberal press "The Atlantic", seems to agree.
People and organizations spreading dysinformation about a deadly virus or to take down our democracy seems to me to qualify as "clear and present danger".
And that is OK for you to say. It's OK for Facebook, Twitter, Apple, Google and other social media to say and use it as a means to censure speech. But to let the government determine what is "clear and present danger", it's not OK. What would prevent the government from censoring the truth or protected speech, if it were allowed to broadly determine what constitutes "clear and present danger"? They have done it before.
About time! It’s ridiculous what outrageously unscientific crap is disseminated about health related topics online. The anti-vaxxer crap is only a small part of it.
It’s ludicrous that companies like Apple must go through all sorts of regulatory hurdles just to be able to offer some health data monitoring on a watch, while companies like Facebook aid and abet to large profits the spread of deadly health disinformation.
Yeah, let’s have the government further police what’s shared online. Great idea.
It kind of is a great idea.
Currently we have both internal and foreign bad-actors hiding behind America's Free Speech laws to spread disinformation for free using social media. The only thing "free" about that speech is its cost.
The result is, among other things: conspiracy theories, overturned elections, radicalization and creation of domestic terrorists, loss of confidence in America, its democracy and its leadership and 600,000+ dead Americans.
Just as you are not allowed to yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater there needs to be oversight in how social media is used by bad actors to spread the disinformation that is taking our country down. While it is not only social media spreading disinformation, social media gives disinformation a megaphone. And, right now, its running out of control.
No it is **NOT** a great idea! The government having a say in what is "acceptable" or "true" speech... we've seen where that leads, and it is NOT GOOD - way worse than anything we're dealing with now. It's alluring in a "think of the children" kind of way, but that is not how it turns out, long term. Sometimes even short term. Think of it this way: would you want rules like that in effect when another Trump gets elected? It's bound to happen sooner or later. The primary goal of our representative democracy is to be resistant to individuals and even government institutions making power grabs. A rule like this is definitely going in the opposite direction. In any case, this is so obviously unconstitutional, it'll never go anywhere. Even if it passes, it'll get struck down instantly.
Mind you, that isn't to say that foreign bad actors aren't a HUGE problem. It's hard to say how much of the division in this country it's responsible for, but I'd wager it's a lot. They're hammering society's cracks as hard and as often as they can, and are demonizing BOTH sides against the other. The best way to resist that is to try to really understand why the other side believes the way they do. Obviously there are exceptions, but for the most part, it's not because they're hicks/morons/SJWs/racist/snowflakes/etc or what ever other stereotype is in your head about the "other side". Despite what foreign meddlers, and even many of our own politicians wanting to keep you in the fold, would have you believe, our deep-down core values as a nation aren't as disparate as one might think.
While I largely agree with your sentiments, be aware we live in a representative republic, not a representative democracy... you can also refer to our governmental system as a democracy in a republic. A true democracy is a scary, scary thing which we should never try to have.
Oh! So you're a Republican.
You do realize that it's the Republican Party that is preventing the Democratic Party, from turning the US into a one-party state and vice-versa ....... don't you?
Parties that came to power in the wake of independence from colonial rule. One-party systems often arise from decolonization because a single party gains an overwhelmingly dominant role in liberation or in independence struggles.
LOL...
It was the Democratic party that deposed the wanna-be dictator and Fuhrer....
It is the Democratic party wanting to investigate rather than white wash his attack on our Capitol.
It is the Democratic party who wants to save our democracy by blocking voter suppression, gerrymandering and political control of vote tallies.
To be unconditionally loyal to one political party, you must first misunderstand what democracy is. ........ Neil T. Stacey
About time! It’s ridiculous what outrageously unscientific crap is disseminated about health related topics online. The anti-vaxxer crap is only a small part of it.
It’s ludicrous that companies like Apple must go through all sorts of regulatory hurdles just to be able to offer some health data monitoring on a watch, while companies like Facebook aid and abet to large profits the spread of deadly health disinformation.
Yeah, let’s have the government further police what’s shared online. Great idea.
It kind of is a great idea.
Currently we have both internal and foreign bad-actors hiding behind America's Free Speech laws to spread disinformation for free using social media. The only thing "free" about that speech is its cost.
The result is, among other things: conspiracy theories, overturned elections, radicalization and creation of domestic terrorists, loss of confidence in America, its democracy and its leadership and 600,000+ dead Americans.
Just as you are not allowed to yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater there needs to be oversight in how social media is used by bad actors to spread the disinformation that is taking our country down. While it is not only social media spreading disinformation, social media gives disinformation a megaphone. And, right now, its running out of control.
No it is **NOT** a great idea! The government having a say in what is "acceptable" or "true" speech... we've seen where that leads, and it is NOT GOOD - way worse than anything we're dealing with now. It's alluring in a "think of the children" kind of way, but that is not how it turns out, long term. Sometimes even short term. Think of it this way: would you want rules like that in effect when another Trump gets elected? It's bound to happen sooner or later. The primary goal of our representative democracy is to be resistant to individuals and even government institutions making power grabs. A rule like this is definitely going in the opposite direction. In any case, this is so obviously unconstitutional, it'll never go anywhere. Even if it passes, it'll get struck down instantly.
Mind you, that isn't to say that foreign bad actors aren't a HUGE problem. It's hard to say how much of the division in this country it's responsible for, but I'd wager it's a lot. They're hammering society's cracks as hard and as often as they can, and are demonizing BOTH sides against the other. The best way to resist that is to try to really understand why the other side believes the way they do. Obviously there are exceptions, but for the most part, it's not because they're hicks/morons/SJWs/racist/snowflakes/etc or what ever other stereotype is in your head about the "other side". Despite what foreign meddlers, and even many of our own politicians wanting to keep you in the fold, would have you believe, our deep-down core values as a nation aren't as disparate as one might think.
While I largely agree with your sentiments, be aware we live in a representative republic, not a representative democracy... you can also refer to our governmental system as a democracy in a republic. A true democracy is a scary, scary thing which we should never try to have.
Oh! So you're a Republican.
You do realize that it's the Republican Party that is preventing the Democratic Party, from turning the US into a one-party state and vice-versa ....... don't you?
Parties that came to power in the wake of independence from colonial rule. One-party systems often arise from decolonization because a single party gains an overwhelmingly dominant role in liberation or in independence struggles.
LOL...
It was the Democratic party that deposed the wanna-be dictator and Fuhrer....
It is the Democratic party wanting to investigate rather than white wash his attack on our Capitol.
It is the Democratic party who wants to save our democracy by blocking voter suppression, gerrymandering and political control of vote tallies.
To be unconditionally loyal to one political party, you must first misunderstand what democracy is. ........ Neil T. Stacey
About time! It’s ridiculous what outrageously unscientific crap is disseminated about health related topics online. The anti-vaxxer crap is only a small part of it.
It’s ludicrous that companies like Apple must go through all sorts of regulatory hurdles just to be able to offer some health data monitoring on a watch, while companies like Facebook aid and abet to large profits the spread of deadly health disinformation.
Yeah, let’s have the government further police what’s shared online. Great idea.
It kind of is a great idea.
Currently we have both internal and foreign bad-actors hiding behind America's Free Speech laws to spread disinformation for free using social media. The only thing "free" about that speech is its cost.
The result is, among other things: conspiracy theories, overturned elections, radicalization and creation of domestic terrorists, loss of confidence in America, its democracy and its leadership and 600,000+ dead Americans.
Just as you are not allowed to yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater there needs to be oversight in how social media is used by bad actors to spread the disinformation that is taking our country down. While it is not only social media spreading disinformation, social media gives disinformation a megaphone. And, right now, its running out of control.livwe
I find it ironic that you would paraphrase Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes most famous quote, that was made when the SCOTUS unanimously decided that the 1st Amendment did not protect the plaintiff right to distribute flyers opposing the draft (during WW1). A decision that was later partially overturned and is considered by some to be one the worse decision made by the SCOTUS.
Too often the quote is shorten from ".....falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic...." to just "yelling FIRE in a crowed theater" .... and "crowded" is added. While the most important part, "...and causing panic.", is not mentioned at all. As to make it appear that "lying" is not protected speech.
Justice Holmes used it as an example that the 1st Amendment protections are not absolute and that there are speech that is not protected under certain circumstances. Like when it's used to created a "panic" or "present a clear and present danger" that the government should protect the public against. But in the case that the SCOTUS unanimously ruled against, the "speech" did not cause a panic and was later ruled as "protected speech".
It appeared that the SCOTUS had overstepped their boundaries in many cases, when deciding what "clear and present danger" entails and using as a means to denied a person their 1st Amendment rights. The meer act of spreading "disinformation" is protected speech and "clear and present danger" can be too broadly defined by the government to deny ones 1st Amendment rights or worse .... suppress the truth.
Even the very liberal press "The Atlantic", seems to agree.
People and organizations spreading dysinformation about a deadly virus or to take down our democracy seems to me to qualify as "clear and present danger".
And that is OK for you to say. It's OK for Facebook, Twitter, Apple, Google and other social media to say and use it as a means to censure speech. But to let the government determine what is "clear and present danger", it's not OK. What would prevent the government from censoring the truth or protected speech, if it were allowed to broadly determine what constitutes "clear and present danger"? They have done it before.
Estimated 610,356 deaths from estimated 34,368,072 cases. That's about a 1.8% fatality rate. And that doesn't include people whose recovery comes with life-changing effects.
So no, it does not appear that 99.9% of people "recover" from it. Even with statistical variance, the numbers would have to be off by an order of magnitude for that to be the case.
That can be construed as spreading "misinformation".
The 35M cases are only confirmed cases, not how many people actual got the virus. Since many that got the virus and survive were not tested, the 35M cases is a very low number. Just because a person got Covid, survived but was not counted as a confirmed case, doesn't mean that it should not be counted when determining the mortality rate of the virus.
Of the course, the more than 600K deaths do not count deaths that were not reported as Covid deaths or it was unknown that Covid cause the death. But it also counts a Covid deaths as anyone that died while infected, even if the virus did not cause the death.
What made Covid much more deadlier than the common flu was not that it had a much higher mortality rate, but that it had a much higher infection rate. That's because very few had any immunity too it. Unlike the common flu.
From your own link:
Patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 more frequently developed acute respiratory failure, pulmonary embolism, septic shock, or haemorrhagic stroke than patients with influenza, but less frequently developed myocardial infarction or atrial fibrillation. In-hospital mortality was higher in patients with COVID-19 than in patients with influenza (15 104 [16·9%] of 89 530 vs 2640 [5·8%] of 45 819), with a relative risk of death of 2·9 (95% CI 2·8–3·0) and an age-standardised mortality ratio of 2·82. Of the patients hospitalised, the proportion of paediatric patients (<18 years) was smaller for COVID-19 than for influenza (1227 [1·4%] vs8942 [19·5%]), but a larger proportion of patients younger than 5 years needed intensive care support for COVID-19 than for influenza (14 [2·3%] of 613 vs 65 [0·9%] of 6973). In adolescents (11–17 years), the in-hospital mortality was ten-times higher for COVID-19 than for influenza (five [1·1% of 458 vs one [0·1%] of 804), and patients with COVID-19 were more frequently obese or overweight.
It sure sounds like a higher mortality rate made it a fair bit deadlier.
Over 65% of the people admitted to a hospital with Covid were over 65 years old or had a pre-existing condition. Even with the common flu, the mortality rate is much higher in older people and people with pre-existing conditions. Plus if symptoms require hospitalization, then your mortality rate increases considerably.
What I'm saying is that the high number of deaths with Covid is not just from it being more deadly, but that it had a lot to do with it having a very high infection rate. In other words, Covid is much much more contagious, than the common flu. Specially among seniors and people with pre-empting conditions. Just because over 600K people died of Covid related deaths and only about 30K die from the common flu every year, it doesn't mean that Covid is 20x more deadlier than the common flu, for the whole population. It's just that a lot more people got Covid, than the common flu every year.
It's estimated that from 30 to 40% of the people that got Covid, were asymptomatic. And it's one of the reason why Covid spread so easily among the population.
Estimated 610,356 deaths from estimated 34,368,072 cases. That's about a 1.8% fatality rate. And that doesn't include people whose recovery comes with life-changing effects.
So no, it does not appear that 99.9% of people "recover" from it. Even with statistical variance, the numbers would have to be off by an order of magnitude for that to be the case.
That can be construed as spreading "misinformation".
The 35M cases are only confirmed cases, not how many people actual got the virus. Since many that got the virus and survive were not tested, the 35M cases is a very low number. Just because a person got Covid, survived but was not counted as a confirmed case, doesn't mean that it should not be counted when determining the mortality rate of the virus.
Of the course, the more than 600K deaths do not count deaths that were not reported as Covid deaths or it was unknown that Covid cause the death. But it also counts a Covid deaths as anyone that died while infected, even if the virus did not cause the death.
What made Covid much more deadlier than the common flu was not that it had a much higher mortality rate, but that it had a much higher infection rate. That's because very few had any immunity too it. Unlike the common flu.
From your own link:
Patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 more frequently developed acute respiratory failure, pulmonary embolism, septic shock, or haemorrhagic stroke than patients with influenza, but less frequently developed myocardial infarction or atrial fibrillation. In-hospital mortality was higher in patients with COVID-19 than in patients with influenza (15 104 [16·9%] of 89 530 vs 2640 [5·8%] of 45 819), with a relative risk of death of 2·9 (95% CI 2·8–3·0) and an age-standardised mortality ratio of 2·82. Of the patients hospitalised, the proportion of paediatric patients (<18 years) was smaller for COVID-19 than for influenza (1227 [1·4%] vs8942 [19·5%]), but a larger proportion of patients younger than 5 years needed intensive care support for COVID-19 than for influenza (14 [2·3%] of 613 vs 65 [0·9%] of 6973). In adolescents (11–17 years), the in-hospital mortality was ten-times higher for COVID-19 than for influenza (five [1·1% of 458 vs one [0·1%] of 804), and patients with COVID-19 were more frequently obese or overweight.
It sure sounds like a higher mortality rate made it a fair bit deadlier.
Over 65% of the people admitted to a hospital with Covid were over 65 years old or had a pre-existing condition. Even with the common flu, the mortality rate is much higher in older people and people with pre-existing conditions. Plus if symptoms require hospitalization, then your mortality rate increases considerably.
What I'm saying is that the high number of deaths with Covid is not just from it being more deadly, but that it had a lot to do with it having a very high infection rate. In other words, Covid is much much more contagious, than the common flu. Specially among seniors and people with pre-empting conditions. Just because over 600K people died of Covid related deaths and only about 30K die from the common flu every year, it doesn't mean that Covid is 20x more deadlier than the common flu, for the whole population. It's just that a lot people people got Covid, than the common flu every year.
It's estimated that from 30 to 40% of the people that got Covid, were asymptomatic. And it's one of the reason why Covid spread so easily among the population.
People that are asymptomatic to Covid, rarely die from it. But these are mainly young healthy people.
I don't disagree with you about contagiousness. But contagiousness doesn't make it deadly. Being deadly makes it deadly. Contagiousness mean that more people get something that's deadly. And more of them get dead.
It's not all that uncommon for some medical, researcher, or situational claim deemed accurate and reliable TODAY to later become "misinformation" when research and discovery shows otherwise. What might be determined to be "misinformation" today can also become truth once more is known. What we see as truth seems to be ever changing. So who would be the arbiter, the intimate authority on what is accurate and what is not? Does mostly true count or only 100%? How about not entirely accurate but containing some degree of truth?
Governments very often do and say what their leaders think is for the "greater good" of their country and if obfuscating the truth or even outright lying in some cases is helpful to the cause so be it. China's leadership lies, Russia's leadership lies, the US and European countries lie too even if IMHO it is to a much lesser degree since a free media tends to prevent it (more often just hiding the truth rather than outright lying). Lying is more of an authoritarian thing where the media can be controlled to.
Well OK then, the ends justify the means according to a couple of members who admire countries with firm control of the message whether true or not. That's your freedom to offer opinion without punishment. We should cherish that.
So now in the US we're going to trust in a fair and non-discriminating "authority" deciding what is misinformation and what is not, and who is punished for it and who is not? We will appoint a person/office or government panel to make the nationwide rules on who is allowed to speak and who is not based on some self-serving criteria? Gotcha. At least we have the freedom as a collection of individuals to chose how we are led every few years. Not every country does.
I see this particular plan destined to become more a political tool instead of a helpful social one, with "misinformation" morphing as the people in charge change.
I think Trump made shambles of your opinion that politicians in democracies don't lie -- or don't lie as much. I stopped paying attentions when he passed 18,000 lies...
As for government deciding what is misinformation and what is not: All governments do that when crisis strikes (like war). And, in this case, we are at war -- but with a microscopic enemy that has killed more Americans than any war we have ever been in. Those spreading misinformation are aiding and abetting that enemy.
The United States people and American free media called out his mistruths and they were revealed for what they were. Are Chinese people and their media equally allowed to do the same when their leaders lie or are they muzzled and their voices unheard? Russian dissidents fare better? Unless you can answer in the affirmative and offer proof of it then my point is made while your opinion won't pass muster.
Estimated 610,356 deaths from estimated 34,368,072 cases. That's about a 1.8% fatality rate. And that doesn't include people whose recovery comes with life-changing effects.
So no, it does not appear that 99.9% of people "recover" from it. Even with statistical variance, the numbers would have to be off by an order of magnitude for that to be the case.
That can be construed as spreading "misinformation".
The 35M cases are only confirmed cases, not how many people actual got the virus. Since many that got the virus and survive were not tested, the 35M cases is a very low number. Just because a person got Covid, survived but was not counted as a confirmed case, doesn't mean that it should not be counted when determining the mortality rate of the virus.
Of the course, the more than 600K deaths do not count deaths that were not reported as Covid deaths or it was unknown that Covid cause the death. But it also counts a Covid deaths as anyone that died while infected, even if the virus did not cause the death.
What made Covid much more deadlier than the common flu was not that it had a much higher mortality rate, but that it had a much higher infection rate. That's because very few had any immunity too it. Unlike the common flu.
From your own link:
Patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 more frequently developed acute respiratory failure, pulmonary embolism, septic shock, or haemorrhagic stroke than patients with influenza, but less frequently developed myocardial infarction or atrial fibrillation. In-hospital mortality was higher in patients with COVID-19 than in patients with influenza (15 104 [16·9%] of 89 530 vs 2640 [5·8%] of 45 819), with a relative risk of death of 2·9 (95% CI 2·8–3·0) and an age-standardised mortality ratio of 2·82. Of the patients hospitalised, the proportion of paediatric patients (<18 years) was smaller for COVID-19 than for influenza (1227 [1·4%] vs8942 [19·5%]), but a larger proportion of patients younger than 5 years needed intensive care support for COVID-19 than for influenza (14 [2·3%] of 613 vs 65 [0·9%] of 6973). In adolescents (11–17 years), the in-hospital mortality was ten-times higher for COVID-19 than for influenza (five [1·1% of 458 vs one [0·1%] of 804), and patients with COVID-19 were more frequently obese or overweight.
It sure sounds like a higher mortality rate made it a fair bit deadlier.
Over 65% of the people admitted to a hospital with Covid were over 65 years old or had a pre-existing condition. Even with the common flu, the mortality rate is much higher in older people and people with pre-existing conditions. Plus if symptoms require hospitalization, then your mortality rate increases considerably.
What I'm saying is that the high number of deaths with Covid is not just from it being more deadly, but that it had a lot to do with it having a very high infection rate. In other words, Covid is much much more contagious, than the common flu. Specially among seniors and people with pre-empting conditions. Just because over 600K people died of Covid related deaths and only about 30K die from the common flu every year, it doesn't mean that Covid is 20x more deadlier than the common flu, for the whole population. It's just that a lot people people got Covid, than the common flu every year.
It's estimated that from 30 to 40% of the people that got Covid, were asymptomatic. And it's one of the reason why Covid spread so easily among the population.
People that are asymptomatic to Covid, rarely die from it. But these are mainly young healthy people.
I don't disagree with you about contagiousness. But contagiousness doesn't make it deadly. Being deadly makes it deadly. Contagiousness mean that more people get something that's deadly. And more of them get dead.
The mortality rate (in the US) for the common flu is about .1% to .15%. This takes into account that nearly everyone have some anti-bodies to fight the flu, from having caught the flu before and 50% of the US population gets a flu shot every year. (Though a flu shot is less than 40% effective in preventing the flu, its over 60% effective in preventing severe symptoms when one catches the flu. Which equates to less flu deaths.)
With Covid, we had none of that when it first appeared. The consensus is that the mortality rate will come in at about .4% to .6%, when accounting for all infected. About 3x to 3.5X more deadlier than the common flu. One would think that Covid must be much more deadlier than that, going just by the death count. But the death count gets a big boost by Covid much higher infection rate and the fact that there weren't many people (if any at all) with anti-bodies to fight it when it first appeared.
Look what's happening now, with the vaccination taking hold. The death rate has dropped dramatically due to the present of anti-bodies to fight the Covid virus. It's why the common flu is not as deadly as Covid. If the vaccination takes hold and can continue to fight Covid and its variants through the next flu season, the mortality rate will hopefully be much closer to that of the flu, in a bad flu season, like 2017. Plus we will have a better understanding on how to treat cases to save lives. Something we have decades of experience with, with the common flu.
Wouldn't you also agree that Covid can become less deadly over time, just by being able to fight it with anti-bodies created with a vaccine and with better treatment? How "deadly" a virus is, isn't determine solely by the nature of the virus itself.
About time! It’s ridiculous what outrageously unscientific crap is disseminated about health related topics online. The anti-vaxxer crap is only a small part of it.
It’s ludicrous that companies like Apple must go through all sorts of regulatory hurdles just to be able to offer some health data monitoring on a watch, while companies like Facebook aid and abet to large profits the spread of deadly health disinformation.
Yeah, let’s have the government further police what’s shared online. Great idea.
It kind of is a great idea.
Currently we have both internal and foreign bad-actors hiding behind America's Free Speech laws to spread disinformation for free using social media. The only thing "free" about that speech is its cost.
The result is, among other things: conspiracy theories, overturned elections, radicalization and creation of domestic terrorists, loss of confidence in America, its democracy and its leadership and 600,000+ dead Americans.
Just as you are not allowed to yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater there needs to be oversight in how social media is used by bad actors to spread the disinformation that is taking our country down. While it is not only social media spreading disinformation, social media gives disinformation a megaphone. And, right now, its running out of control.livwe
I find it ironic that you would paraphrase Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes most famous quote, that was made when the SCOTUS unanimously decided that the 1st Amendment did not protect the plaintiff right to distribute flyers opposing the draft (during WW1). A decision that was later partially overturned and is considered by some to be one the worse decision made by the SCOTUS.
Too often the quote is shorten from ".....falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic...." to just "yelling FIRE in a crowed theater" .... and "crowded" is added. While the most important part, "...and causing panic.", is not mentioned at all. As to make it appear that "lying" is not protected speech.
Justice Holmes used it as an example that the 1st Amendment protections are not absolute and that there are speech that is not protected under certain circumstances. Like when it's used to created a "panic" or "present a clear and present danger" that the government should protect the public against. But in the case that the SCOTUS unanimously ruled against, the "speech" did not cause a panic and was later ruled as "protected speech".
It appeared that the SCOTUS had overstepped their boundaries in many cases, when deciding what "clear and present danger" entails and using as a means to denied a person their 1st Amendment rights. The meer act of spreading "disinformation" is protected speech and "clear and present danger" can be too broadly defined by the government to deny ones 1st Amendment rights or worse .... suppress the truth.
Even the very liberal press "The Atlantic", seems to agree.
People and organizations spreading dysinformation about a deadly virus or to take down our democracy seems to me to qualify as "clear and present danger".
And that is OK for you to say. It's OK for Facebook, Twitter, Apple, Google and other social media to say and use it as a means to censure speech. But to let the government determine what is "clear and present danger", it's not OK. What would prevent the government from censoring the truth or protected speech, if it were allowed to broadly determine what constitutes "clear and present danger"? They have done it before.
It's not only OK for the government to constrain things that harm society, it is their job.
It is only in the past 2 decades that propaganda has convinced a significant portion of the population that in U.S. democracy one can do or say anything they want -- and government has no right to intervene. If the delusion continues and and spreads we will become an entire nation of spoiled brats where right and wrong, truth and lies have no meaning.
But I find it hilarious that you trust Mark Zuckerberg more than you do your own elected government -- and then probably call yourself a proud American (who is ashamed and fearful of his government).
About time! It’s ridiculous what outrageously unscientific crap is disseminated about health related topics online. The anti-vaxxer crap is only a small part of it.
It’s ludicrous that companies like Apple must go through all sorts of regulatory hurdles just to be able to offer some health data monitoring on a watch, while companies like Facebook aid and abet to large profits the spread of deadly health disinformation.
Yeah, let’s have the government further police what’s shared online. Great idea.
It kind of is a great idea.
Currently we have both internal and foreign bad-actors hiding behind America's Free Speech laws to spread disinformation for free using social media. The only thing "free" about that speech is its cost.
The result is, among other things: conspiracy theories, overturned elections, radicalization and creation of domestic terrorists, loss of confidence in America, its democracy and its leadership and 600,000+ dead Americans.
Just as you are not allowed to yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater there needs to be oversight in how social media is used by bad actors to spread the disinformation that is taking our country down. While it is not only social media spreading disinformation, social media gives disinformation a megaphone. And, right now, its running out of control.
No it is **NOT** a great idea! The government having a say in what is "acceptable" or "true" speech... we've seen where that leads, and it is NOT GOOD - way worse than anything we're dealing with now. It's alluring in a "think of the children" kind of way, but that is not how it turns out, long term. Sometimes even short term. Think of it this way: would you want rules like that in effect when another Trump gets elected? It's bound to happen sooner or later. The primary goal of our representative democracy is to be resistant to individuals and even government institutions making power grabs. A rule like this is definitely going in the opposite direction. In any case, this is so obviously unconstitutional, it'll never go anywhere. Even if it passes, it'll get struck down instantly.
Mind you, that isn't to say that foreign bad actors aren't a HUGE problem. It's hard to say how much of the division in this country it's responsible for, but I'd wager it's a lot. They're hammering society's cracks as hard and as often as they can, and are demonizing BOTH sides against the other. The best way to resist that is to try to really understand why the other side believes the way they do. Obviously there are exceptions, but for the most part, it's not because they're hicks/morons/SJWs/racist/snowflakes/etc or what ever other stereotype is in your head about the "other side". Despite what foreign meddlers, and even many of our own politicians wanting to keep you in the fold, would have you believe, our deep-down core values as a nation aren't as disparate as one might think.
While I largely agree with your sentiments, be aware we live in a representative republic, not a representative democracy... you can also refer to our governmental system as a democracy in a republic. A true democracy is a scary, scary thing which we should never try to have.
Oh! So you're a Republican.
You do realize that it's the Republican Party that is preventing the Democratic Party, from turning the US into a one-party state and vice-versa ....... don't you?
Parties that came to power in the wake of independence from colonial rule. One-party systems often arise from decolonization because a single party gains an overwhelmingly dominant role in liberation or in independence struggles.
LOL...
It was the Democratic party that deposed the wanna-be dictator and Fuhrer....
It is the Democratic party wanting to investigate rather than white wash his attack on our Capitol.
It is the Democratic party who wants to save our democracy by blocking voter suppression, gerrymandering and political control of vote tallies.
To be unconditionally loyal to one political party, you must first misunderstand what democracy is. ........ Neil T. Stacey
Except when one party is devoted to democracy and the other to autocracy.
It's not all that uncommon for some medical, researcher, or situational claim deemed accurate and reliable TODAY to later become "misinformation" when research and discovery shows otherwise. What might be determined to be "misinformation" today can also become truth once more is known. What we see as truth seems to be ever changing. So who would be the arbiter, the intimate authority on what is accurate and what is not? Does mostly true count or only 100%? How about not entirely accurate but containing some degree of truth?
Governments very often do and say what their leaders think is for the "greater good" of their country and if obfuscating the truth or even outright lying in some cases is helpful to the cause so be it. China's leadership lies, Russia's leadership lies, the US and European countries lie too even if IMHO it is to a much lesser degree since a free media tends to prevent it (more often just hiding the truth rather than outright lying). Lying is more of an authoritarian thing where the media can be controlled to.
Well OK then, the ends justify the means according to a couple of members who admire countries with firm control of the message whether true or not. That's your freedom to offer opinion without punishment. We should cherish that.
So now in the US we're going to trust in a fair and non-discriminating "authority" deciding what is misinformation and what is not, and who is punished for it and who is not? We will appoint a person/office or government panel to make the nationwide rules on who is allowed to speak and who is not based on some self-serving criteria? Gotcha. At least we have the freedom as a collection of individuals to chose how we are led every few years. Not every country does.
I see this particular plan destined to become more a political tool instead of a helpful social one, with "misinformation" morphing as the people in charge change.
I think Trump made shambles of your opinion that politicians in democracies don't lie -- or don't lie as much. I stopped paying attentions when he passed 18,000 lies...
As for government deciding what is misinformation and what is not: All governments do that when crisis strikes (like war). And, in this case, we are at war -- but with a microscopic enemy that has killed more Americans than any war we have ever been in. Those spreading misinformation are aiding and abetting that enemy.
The United States people and American free media called out his mistruths and they were revealed for what they were. Are Chinese people and their media equally allowed to do the same when their leaders lie or are they muzzled and their voices unheard? Russian dissidents fare better? Unless you can answer in the affirmative and offer proof of it then my point is made while your opinion won't pass muster.
'Nuff said.
I responded to your assertion that American politicians lie less than those in autocracies. Obviously that depends on the politician.
You say that Trump and his lies were "called out" by the media. They were. That's true. But it didn't (and doesn't) stop he and his lies from continuing unabated and unapologetic.
I liked Tom Brady's take on it: "Nobody thought we could win. In fact, 40% of Americans still don't think we won".
But, your point is a good one: The American free press acts as one of our checks and balances over politicians who make poor choices. It does not guarantee that we get good leadership. It merely means that we have checks and balances that, over the long haul, can constrain incompetent or corrupt politicians. Those checks and balances are what will keep our democracy afloat -- because bad leaders can be exposed and replaced. China and Russia do not have have that advantage: they have nothing to stop them if / when they head off into the wrong direction (nothing short of out right revolt).
But, organized, professionally managed propaganda and those spreading misinformation are misusing our free press to bring democracy and its stable society to its knees. It is, perhaps, the greatest threat to our democracy. And, social media is its megaphone. If Mark Zuckerberg had been around in the 30's & 40's Europe would be a German colony right now and Hawaii would be speaking Japanese.
Estimated 610,356 deaths from estimated 34,368,072 cases. That's about a 1.8% fatality rate. And that doesn't include people whose recovery comes with life-changing effects.
So no, it does not appear that 99.9% of people "recover" from it. Even with statistical variance, the numbers would have to be off by an order of magnitude for that to be the case.
That can be construed as spreading "misinformation".
The 35M cases are only confirmed cases, not how many people actual got the virus. Since many that got the virus and survive were not tested, the 35M cases is a very low number. Just because a person got Covid, survived but was not counted as a confirmed case, doesn't mean that it should not be counted when determining the mortality rate of the virus.
Of the course, the more than 600K deaths do not count deaths that were not reported as Covid deaths or it was unknown that Covid cause the death. But it also counts a Covid deaths as anyone that died while infected, even if the virus did not cause the death.
What made Covid much more deadlier than the common flu was not that it had a much higher mortality rate, but that it had a much higher infection rate. That's because very few had any immunity too it. Unlike the common flu.
From your own link:
Patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 more frequently developed acute respiratory failure, pulmonary embolism, septic shock, or haemorrhagic stroke than patients with influenza, but less frequently developed myocardial infarction or atrial fibrillation. In-hospital mortality was higher in patients with COVID-19 than in patients with influenza (15 104 [16·9%] of 89 530 vs 2640 [5·8%] of 45 819), with a relative risk of death of 2·9 (95% CI 2·8–3·0) and an age-standardised mortality ratio of 2·82. Of the patients hospitalised, the proportion of paediatric patients (<18 years) was smaller for COVID-19 than for influenza (1227 [1·4%] vs8942 [19·5%]), but a larger proportion of patients younger than 5 years needed intensive care support for COVID-19 than for influenza (14 [2·3%] of 613 vs 65 [0·9%] of 6973). In adolescents (11–17 years), the in-hospital mortality was ten-times higher for COVID-19 than for influenza (five [1·1% of 458 vs one [0·1%] of 804), and patients with COVID-19 were more frequently obese or overweight.
It sure sounds like a higher mortality rate made it a fair bit deadlier.
Over 65% of the people admitted to a hospital with Covid were over 65 years old or had a pre-existing condition. Even with the common flu, the mortality rate is much higher in older people and people with pre-existing conditions. Plus if symptoms require hospitalization, then your mortality rate increases considerably.
What I'm saying is that the high number of deaths with Covid is not just from it being more deadly, but that it had a lot to do with it having a very high infection rate. In other words, Covid is much much more contagious, than the common flu. Specially among seniors and people with pre-empting conditions. Just because over 600K people died of Covid related deaths and only about 30K die from the common flu every year, it doesn't mean that Covid is 20x more deadlier than the common flu, for the whole population. It's just that a lot people people got Covid, than the common flu every year.
It's estimated that from 30 to 40% of the people that got Covid, were asymptomatic. And it's one of the reason why Covid spread so easily among the population.
People that are asymptomatic to Covid, rarely die from it. But these are mainly young healthy people.
I don't disagree with you about contagiousness. But contagiousness doesn't make it deadly. Being deadly makes it deadly. Contagiousness mean that more people get something that's deadly. And more of them get dead.
The mortality rate (in the US) for the common flu is about .1% to .15%. This takes into account that nearly everyone have some anti-bodies to fight the flu, from having caught the flu before and 50% of the US population gets a flu shot every year. (Though a flu shot is less than 40% effective in preventing the flu, its over 60% effective in preventing severe symptoms when one catches the flu. Which equates to less flu deaths.)
With Covid, we had none of that when it first appeared. The consensus is that the mortality rate will come in at about .4% to .6%, when accounting for all infected. About 3x to 3.5X more deadlier than the common flu. One would think that Covid must be much more deadlier than that, going just by the death count. But the death count gets a big boost by Covid much higher infection rate and the fact that there weren't many people (if any at all) with anti-bodies to fight it when it first appeared.
Look what's happening now, with the vaccination taking hold. The death rate has dropped dramatically due to the present of anti-bodies to fight the Covid virus. It's why the common flu is not as deadly as Covid. If the vaccination takes hold and can continue to fight Covid and its variants through the next flu season, the mortality rate will hopefully be much closer to that of the flu, in a bad flu season, like 2017. Plus we will have a better understanding on how to treat cases to save lives. Something we have decades of experience with, with the common flu.
Wouldn't you also agree that Covid can become less deadly over time, just by being able to fight it with anti-bodies created with a vaccine and with better treatment? How "deadly" a virus is, isn't determine solely by the nature of the virus itself.
I broadly agree with you and don't think this is an especially useful conversation, so let's move on.
Comments
It sure sounds like a higher mortality rate made it a fair bit deadlier.
As long as norms and institutions are preserved then there's no real problem with a one party system. And if norms and institutions start to get changed then that's a fast ticket to a new system. Seems to me that the party trying to subvert norms and institutions isn't the Democratic Party.
People and organizations spreading dysinformation about a deadly virus or to take down our democracy seems to me to qualify as "clear and present danger".
If you believe the right wing propaganda machine....
It is a good feeling knowing you did not elect the idiots and morons in government. That said, it is also bittersweet watching your country being torn apart by the stupidity which erupts from the vacant-eyed, slack-jawed, mind-numbed, kool-aid guzzling disciples of both the parties... one of which you clearly are.
To be unconditionally loyal to one political party, you must first misunderstand what democracy is. ........ Neil T. Stacey
Over 65% of the people admitted to a hospital with Covid were over 65 years old or had a pre-existing condition. Even with the common flu, the mortality rate is much higher in older people and people with pre-existing conditions. Plus if symptoms require hospitalization, then your mortality rate increases considerably.
What I'm saying is that the high number of deaths with Covid is not just from it being more deadly, but that it had a lot to do with it having a very high infection rate. In other words, Covid is much much more contagious, than the common flu. Specially among seniors and people with pre-empting conditions. Just because over 600K people died of Covid related deaths and only about 30K die from the common flu every year, it doesn't mean that Covid is 20x more deadlier than the common flu, for the whole population. It's just that a lot more people got Covid, than the common flu every year.
It's estimated that from 30 to 40% of the people that got Covid, were asymptomatic. And it's one of the reason why Covid spread so easily among the population.
https://hartfordhealthcare.org/about-us/news-press/news-detail?articleId=29806&publicid=743
People that are asymptomatic to Covid, rarely die from it. But these are mainly young healthy people.
'Nuff said.
With Covid, we had none of that when it first appeared. The consensus is that the mortality rate will come in at about .4% to .6%, when accounting for all infected. About 3x to 3.5X more deadlier than the common flu. One would think that Covid must be much more deadlier than that, going just by the death count. But the death count gets a big boost by Covid much higher infection rate and the fact that there weren't many people (if any at all) with anti-bodies to fight it when it first appeared.
Look what's happening now, with the vaccination taking hold. The death rate has dropped dramatically due to the present of anti-bodies to fight the Covid virus. It's why the common flu is not as deadly as Covid. If the vaccination takes hold and can continue to fight Covid and its variants through the next flu season, the mortality rate will hopefully be much closer to that of the flu, in a bad flu season, like 2017. Plus we will have a better understanding on how to treat cases to save lives. Something we have decades of experience with, with the common flu.
Wouldn't you also agree that Covid can become less deadly over time, just by being able to fight it with anti-bodies created with a vaccine and with better treatment? How "deadly" a virus is, isn't determine solely by the nature of the virus itself.
"Nobody thought we could win. In fact, 40% of Americans still don't think we won".