bluefrogguy

Coronavirus (COVID-19) Discussion

Recommended Posts

A few teachers where my parents work, passed.  Older ones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, urban2014 said:

It’s funny how nobody remotely famous died for this virus. One celebrity death and the search for the cure will be all day every day

What about Roy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He was 75, man

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More encouraging news from here in Pittsburgh: Doctors say covid-19 at UPMC is declining in virulence, infection levels

Quote

Covid-19 is declining in both virulence and infection levels among patients at the state’s largest health care system, UPMC officials said Thursday.

Dr. Donald Yealy, who heads emergency medicine at the system that has hospitals across the state, said both the ratio of patients testing positive for the virus and the viral load of those infected have been on the downturn since late April. Fewer patients are requiring ventilators to help them breathe.

He said UPMC has safely treated and discharged 500 covid-19 patients since the start of the pandemic in March.

“We’ve tested 30,000 and the positivity rate was less than 4%. We tested 8,000 with no symptoms and only 21 came back positive,” Yealy said.

Given those numbers, Yealy said that the risk of being involved in a car crash while traveling across the state on the Pennsylvania Turnpike is greater than the risk of contracting covid-19 here.

He said results of testing here seem to mirror reports from northern Italy, where doctors have seen less virulent cases among those who have been infected recently. He said that has not been the case universally and pointed to South America, where the virus is still raging strong.

Researchers can’t pinpoint exactly why they’re seeing lower viral loads and infection rates. Yealy said it could be a combination of several factors. He said viruses tend to mutate with time, can interact with the weather and may be less infectious when those carrying the virus have a lower viral load.

“And, finally, we are probably making better decisions about who needs what kind of care,” he said.

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/3/2020 at 4:46 PM, JE7HorseGod said:

I think Tony unequivocally proved in this thread a page or two ago that there are many reputable news sources that have written pieces concerned with the spread of the virus in the Floyd George related protests.

The contrast is quite obvious in terms of how much coverage there has been and the type of coverage there has been.

Not that it matters. The media is a full blown joke at this point and everyone should do their own research. The media is not in the market of integrity and truth but rather generating as much clicks (revenue) as possible and pushing their agenda. Whatever that may be. 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Gohawks said:

The contrast is quite obvious in terms of how much coverage there has been and the type of coverage there has been.

Not that it matters. The media is a full blown joke at this point and everyone should do their own research. The media is not in the market of integrity and truth but rather generating as much clicks (revenue) as possible and pushing their agenda. Whatever that may be. 

It's always a good idea to observe empirical data, gain a wide variety of differing analyses and draw your own conclusions.

I guess I just don't really care as much about how journalism sources are biased.  I know people are still getting sick.  I know there are protests.  How much air time CNN gives to people getting sick during the George Floyd protests in comparison to how much air time CNN gives to people getting sick during the reopening protests doesn't bother me, because I don't really watch CNN.  It's just not as interesting a topic to me as why people are protesting or what I can do to stay healthy, for instance.

The whole, "look I just discovered media bias is related to revenue generation" cynicism is kind of boring to me.  Surprise.  It's a business.  Always has been.  Some of the people that worked for the outlets have strived for journalistic integrity more frequently than some others, but this bias has and will always exist.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, JE7HorseGod said:

I guess I just don't really care as much about how journalism sources are biased.  I know people are still getting sick.  I know there are protests.  How much air time CNN gives to people getting sick during the George Floyd protests in comparison to how much air time CNN gives to people getting sick during the reopening protests doesn't bother me, because I don't really watch CNN.  It's just not as interesting a topic to me as why people are protesting or what I can do to stay healthy, for instance.

The whole, "look I just discovered media bias is related to revenue generation" cynicism is kind of boring to me.  Surprise.  It's a business.  Always has been.  Some of the people that worked for the outlets have strived for journalistic integrity more frequently than some others, but this bias has and will always exist.

Yeah in a post-ethical world this is all quite true. Believe it or not your post is quite cynical. The media was supposed to play an important role in the US.

You literally claim here that is not true - and I must agree with that.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, SuperJoint said:

Yeah in a post-ethical world this is all quite true. Believe it or not your post is quite cynical. The media was supposed to play an important role in the US.

You literally claim here that is not true - and I must agree with that.

It may be cynical but it's certainly not a new idea.

One of the most famous movies of all time, Citizen Kane, is an overt criticism of the world's most powerful newspaper magnate's (William Randolph Hearst) influencing journalism with his own bias - this film was made in 1941.

If you read anything about the election of 1800, between Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, you'll find the name James Callender.  Callender was a propagandist who wrote pamphlets that got published in newspapers that claimed, among other things, that Adams was a hermaphrodite.  They published his stuff because it made people buy newspapers.

I get a kick out of people who say things like "the media today sucks, it's all about the clicks.  It's not like the old days."  Yes, journalists have been capable of great acts of integrity and bravery in the face of professional and personal danger.  Woodruff and Bernstein exist.  The Pentagon Papers exist.

But the concept that some people make up stories for eyeballs, that's as old as the printing press.

You should be cognizant of bias, and look for facts.  You should also be cognizant of how your own bias will have you look at facts.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, JE7HorseGod said:

It's always a good idea to observe empirical data, gain a wide variety of differing analyses and draw your own conclusions.

I guess I just don't really care as much about how journalism sources are biased.  I know people are still getting sick.  I know there are protests.  How much air time CNN gives to people getting sick during the George Floyd protests in comparison to how much air time CNN gives to people getting sick during the reopening protests doesn't bother me, because I don't really watch CNN.  It's just not as interesting a topic to me as why people are protesting or what I can do to stay healthy, for instance.

The whole, "look I just discovered media bias is related to revenue generation" cynicism is kind of boring to me.  Surprise.  It's a business.  Always has been.  Some of the people that worked for the outlets have strived for journalistic integrity more frequently than some others, but this bias has and will always exist.

You should care because while the media may not form your opinion it does form the opinion of a lot of people.

Thats a problem when it’s funded by a select few and doesn’t care about truth. The media has a big influence on things that happen. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, JE7HorseGod said:

It may be cynical but it's certainly not a new idea.

One of the most famous movies of all time, Citizen Kane, is an overt criticism of the world's most powerful newspaper magnate's (William Randolph Hearst) influencing journalism with his own bias - this film was made in 1941.

If you read anything about the election of 1800, between Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, you'll find the name James Callender.  Callender was a propagandist who wrote pamphlets that got published in newspapers that claimed, among other things, that Adams was a hermaphrodite.  They published his stuff because it made people buy newspapers.

I get a kick out of people who say things like "the media today sucks, it's all about the clicks.  It's not like the old days."  Yes, journalists have been capable of great acts of integrity and bravery in the face of professional and personal danger.  Woodruff and Bernstein exist.  The Pentagon Papers exist.

But the concept that some people make up stories for eyeballs, that's as old as the printing press.

You should be cognizant of bias, and look for facts.  You should also be cognizant of how your own bias will have you look at facts.

Right. “Fake news” isn’t a new idea. “Yellow journalism” in the late 1800s basically did what news outlets do today. Focused on shock factor rather than facts.

The thing is, this form of journalism played a very big factor in the Spanish-American war. Which just shows the power the media can have. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Gohawks said:

You should care because while the media may not form your opinion it does form the opinion of a lot of people.

Thats a problem when it’s funded by a select few and doesn’t care about truth. The media has a big influence on things that happen. 

I have no control over what people do or don't believe.  If I did, I would tell them that attempting to try and find the hypocrisy in the speech patterns of people you see as having a rival political ideology is irrelevant in comparison to holding people you agree with to a higher ideological standard, because they might listen to you while the others have already tuned you out.

But "gotcha" #hottakes are very fashionable these days.  It is what it is.  I just try and listen to people reporting data and facts and hold my own opinion, and let others have their's.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, SuperJoint said:

The media was supposed to play an important role in the US.

 

We're getting pretty far afield from the COVID discussion here, but this is a very poor reading of history.  The press has had partisan bias since the founding of the republic.  As time went on, media outlets found revenue streams that allowed them to flourish without the influence of political interests, and they were able to succeed without pushing for one position or another, but that just means that the bias that used to come from the political interests who funded the publishing now comes from the ideology of the publisher, (usually) independent from the party apparatus.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Gohawks said:

Right. “Fake news” isn’t a new idea. “Yellow journalism” in the late 1800s basically did what news outlets do today. Focused on shock factor rather than facts.

The thing is, this form of journalism played a very big factor in the Spanish-American war. Which just shows the power the media can have. 

One of Teddy Roosevelt's strongest qualities as a leader was aligning people of many different ideologies to his point of view, and when he was wrong, adapting his ideology because he respected other views.  He was a smart dude.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, JE7HorseGod said:

One of Teddy Roosevelt's strongest qualities as a leader was aligning people of many different ideologies to his point of view, and when he was wrong, adapting his ideology because he respected other views.  He was a smart dude.

I think his strongest quality was his ability to get shot and still finish a speech.

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, JE7HorseGod said:

It's always a good idea to observe empirical data, gain a wide variety of differing analyses and draw your own conclusions.

I guess I just don't really care as much about how journalism sources are biased.  I know people are still getting sick.  I know there are protests.  How much air time CNN gives to people getting sick during the George Floyd protests in comparison to how much air time CNN gives to people getting sick during the reopening protests doesn't bother me, because I don't really watch CNN.  It's just not as interesting a topic to me as why people are protesting or what I can do to stay healthy, for instance.

The whole, "look I just discovered media bias is related to revenue generation" cynicism is kind of boring to me.  Surprise.  It's a business.  Always has been.  Some of the people that worked for the outlets have strived for journalistic integrity more frequently than some others, but this bias has and will always exist.

My understanding is because the internet and social media age required quickness. Dedication to fact checking took a major hit for awhile despite having the internet to fact check faster in theory. Now some are trying to make strides again in fact checking techniques since this their integrity took a shot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Slatykamora said:

My understanding is because the internet and social media age required quickness. Dedication to fact checking took a major hit for awhile despite having the internet to fact check faster in theory. Now some are trying to make strides again in fact checking techniques since this their integrity took a shot.

But now people just question the fact checkers if it doesn't jive with what they feel.

What I try to do, and it may not be for everyone, is that if I read something that makes me feel a certain way, be that anger or elation or whatever, is try and understand it from another prospective.  See if I'm missing context to the quote.  See if the data is in question, and what the source is.  And certainly don't spread it if it's questionable.  Stuff that makes you feel a certain way isn't necessarily news.

Just my .02.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, JE7HorseGod said:

But now people just question the fact checkers if it doesn't jive with what they feel.

People question fact checkers because they’re also often full of **** and driven by an agenda. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gohawks said:

People question fact checkers because they’re also often full of **** and driven by an agenda. 

There are such things as hard and fast facts.  Things that a person said and there is a recording to prove they said it for example.  Or the "fact" that since there are currently 50 US states there are therefore currently 100 senators.  Or that the Holocaust actually did happen despite conspiracy theorists in stupid denial of over the FACT that over 6 million people were brutally put to death by the nazis in concentration and work camps.  Facts exist.  Rational thought exists.  You can't deny things because you just want to for the hell of it.  Thus the NEED for fact checkers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Gohawks said:

People question fact checkers because they’re also often full of **** and driven by an agenda. 

Everyone has an agenda.  That's not as important as the content.  As in - does it provide appropriate context?  Not just to satisfy my own personal bias, but does this more accurately reflect what was said or done, or give me more objective analysis of data?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, The Big Bat Theory said:

There are such things as hard and fast facts.  Things that a person said and there is a recording to prove they said it for example.  Or the "fact" that since there are currently 50 US states there are therefore currently 100 senators.  Or that the Holocaust actually did happen despite conspiracy theorists in stupid denial of over the FACT that over 6 million people were brutally put to death by the nazis in concentration and work camps.  Facts exist.  Rational thought exists.  You can't deny things because you just want to for the hell of it.  Thus the NEED for fact checkers.

I don’t know if it was in this thread or the nfl Covid thread but someone brought Trump into the discussion for whatever reason and posted how he’s lied thousands of times via a fact checker.

So I went and fact checked the fact checker and a lot of their checks were utter BS.

The problem is these fact checkers start checking things they don’t agree with (opinions), things they just don’t understand, or at times they flat out mark facts as a lie. It’s happens way too often to trust these fact checkers. It’s not like a computer is checking. It’s just other people with their own opinions.

1 hour ago, JE7HorseGod said:

Everyone has an agenda.  That's not as important as the content.  As in - does it provide appropriate context?  Not just to satisfy my own personal bias, but does this more accurately reflect what was said or done, or give me more objective analysis of data?

Right and I’m saying you can’t rely on fact checkers to answer that for you. Only you can answer if by doing your own research. I mean, one of the biggest lies is “numbers don’t lie.” Nothing should be taken at face value. Even videos you see with your own eyes are twisted and manipulated by being shortened, zoomed in, or just lacking context. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Gohawks said:

Right and I’m saying you can’t rely on fact checkers to answer that for you. Only you can answer if by doing your own research. I mean, one of the biggest lies is “numbers don’t lie.” Nothing should be taken at face value. Even videos you see with your own eyes are twisted and manipulated by being shortened, zoomed in, or just lacking context. 

Sure, fact checking provides another prospective, and good ones are sourced for further context, but are of course not the sole arbiter of objective truth.

I just think some people (not saying you, but some) think (but may not actually say), "I like what the person who is speaking is saying.  Fact checkers X,Y,Z contradicted this.  I'm going to chose to discount the fact checking effort entirely and speak to their bias and solely believe the speaker and not speak to their's" or some shorthand version of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, JE7HorseGod said:

Sure, fact checking provides another prospective, and good ones are sourced for further context, but are of course not the sole arbiter of objective truth.

I just think some people (not saying you, but some) think (but may not actually say), "I like what the person who is speaking is saying.  Fact checkers X,Y,Z contradicted this.  I'm going to chose to discount the fact checking effort entirely and speak to their bias and solely believe the speaker and not speak to their's" or some shorthand version of that.

All I’m saying is a “fact checker” title doesn’t make someone the trump card and the content should be checked by the reader.

As for your post I’d say the majority of people believe what they want to hear. It’s a big reason why there’s so much issues. It’s easier to pretend the other side doesn’t exist and bathe in your own ignorance than to listen and try to find a compromise. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Gohawks said:

All I’m saying is a “fact checker” title doesn’t make someone the trump card and the content should be checked by the reader.

As for your post I’d say the majority of people believe what they want to hear. It’s a big reason why there’s so much issues. It’s easier to pretend the other side doesn’t exist and bathe in your own ignorance than to listen and try to find a compromise. 

Sure, I'd agree with that.

To take this more back on topic, earlier in this thread I questioned a poster on the "Worldometers" site and how the numbers were sourced.  I said that I trusted the Georgia Department of Public Health site's numbers more, because they were a reputable organization and their numbers were generated by local public health officials.  I was also biased because, living in Georgia, the GDOPH numbers were more positive, and it was nice to see that more people around me weren't getting sick.

Lo and behold, it was revealed that some of these numbers were erroneously recorded.  I was wrong.

I don't think any of us are immune to this sort of thing.  The best we can do is try to challenge our own biases, and accept that we will fail sometimes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's sad that the players and owners have been battling this thing to death. Greed on both sides. I think a lot of fans are fed up with it, and I think this will indeed hurt the future of MLB.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.