|
Any and all updates regarding the COVID-19 will need a source provided. Please do your part in helping us to keep this thread maintainable and under control.
It is YOUR responsibility to fully read through the sources that you link, and you MUST provide a brief summary explaining what the source is about. Do not expect other people to do the work for you.
Conspiracy theories and fear mongering will absolutely not be tolerated in this thread. Expect harsh mod actions if you try to incite fear needlessly.
This is not a politics thread! You are allowed to post information regarding politics if it's related to the coronavirus, but do NOT discuss politics in here.
Added a disclaimer on page 662. Many need to post better. |
On February 09 2022 02:55 Razyda wrote:https://www.bmj.com/content/376/bmj.o95 Edit: Oh sorry. Just to put it in context - Facebook fact checking BMJ, is about as logical as blind person checking if colours are matching. Edit2: In short article is about Facebook, pretty much censoring BMJ article (btw peer reviewed) using independent fact checker as a reason. How much sense it does have for Facebook (or independent fact checker) fact checking BMJ I already mentioned in first edit. Considering that article in question is about "poor practices at a contract research company helping to carry out Pfizer’s pivotal covid-19 vaccine trial" it seems fitting in this topic. User was warned for this post
Yikes. This would be funny if it were on an episode of South Park. The fact it's happening in real life is quite sad. Even sadder, there are a lot of people that see this and think "Yes, more of this, please." And by "a lot" I mean A LOT. 76% of Democrats and 37% of Republicans according to a poll from last year. So essentially the majority of Americans approve. Source
|
|
|
Seems as though even the dems are now willing to ease restrictions based mainly on public opinion rather than public health guidance. I'm going to guess that the science has not truly changed very recently. Case rates are on a decline, but they're still higher than times when all the restrictions were deemed necessary.
The easing of New York’s pandemic restrictions on businesses comes as Democratic-led states from New Jersey to California have announced similar moves this week, in a loosely coordinated effort that is the result of months of public-health planning, back-channel discussions and political focus groups that began in the weeks after the November election.
It was Gov. Philip D. Murphy of New Jersey who began the effort last fall, weeks after he was stunned by the energy of right-wing voters in his blue state, who nearly ousted him from office in what was widely expected to be an easy re-election campaign. Arranging a series of focus groups across the state to see what they had missed, Mr. Murphy’s advisers were struck by the findings: Across the board, voters shared frustrations over public health measures, a sense of pessimism about the future and a deep desire to return to some sense of normalcy.
...
Even Democratic voters...were wearying of the toughest restrictions, growing increasingly impatient with mandates and feeling ready to live with the risk that remained. As cases plummeted, the public health dynamics were shifting, too, giving the governors the opportunity to figure out how to arrive at a new sense of normal.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/08/us/politics/new-york-mask-mandate.html
|
|
|
On February 10 2022 02:53 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2022 02:21 Doc.Rivers wrote:Seems as though even the dems are now willing to ease restrictions based mainly on public opinion rather than public health guidance. I'm going to guess that the science has not truly changed very recently. Case rates are on a decline, but they're still higher than times when all the restrictions were deemed necessary. The easing of New York’s pandemic restrictions on businesses comes as Democratic-led states from New Jersey to California have announced similar moves this week, in a loosely coordinated effort that is the result of months of public-health planning, back-channel discussions and political focus groups that began in the weeks after the November election.
It was Gov. Philip D. Murphy of New Jersey who began the effort last fall, weeks after he was stunned by the energy of right-wing voters in his blue state, who nearly ousted him from office in what was widely expected to be an easy re-election campaign. Arranging a series of focus groups across the state to see what they had missed, Mr. Murphy’s advisers were struck by the findings: Across the board, voters shared frustrations over public health measures, a sense of pessimism about the future and a deep desire to return to some sense of normalcy.
...
Even Democratic voters...were wearying of the toughest restrictions, growing increasingly impatient with mandates and feeling ready to live with the risk that remained. As cases plummeted, the public health dynamics were shifting, too, giving the governors the opportunity to figure out how to arrive at a new sense of normal. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/08/us/politics/new-york-mask-mandate.html Infection numbers do not matter like they used too because Omicron is different. Masks are also less effective. As the virus and situation changes so will the rules. The question is when they do will so many cling to the fantasy that "they" were trying to take power or will they come to realization thay doctors and public health officials were just following the science and doing what they believed to best given the information they have. I know the idea of changing ones mind as information changes is foriegn to many so my prediction is the former.
Sadly, a large group of the population seems to be of the opinion that changing what you are saying implies that you are insecure or were lying before, and that changing what you are doing implies that what you did before was wrong.
I think a lot of this is based on the dogmatic way religion works.
People should be able to realize that changing situations and additional information should change actions, but when your reality is based on the idea that the most important information has been revealed 2000 years ago and has not changed since, this way of thinking is hard to deal with.
|
I'm not sure these political focus groups, and the NJ governor's election experience, occurring right before the restrictions being eased, should be treated as a mere coincidence. Certainly the NYT isn't treating it as a mere coincidence.
|
A lot of countries are easing/dropping restrictions, sure there is probably some political timing involved, everything does to some extend but its not just 'they are doing something dangerous to earn election favor'.
|
Northern Ireland27268 Posts
On February 09 2022 16:31 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2022 02:55 Razyda wrote:https://www.bmj.com/content/376/bmj.o95Edit: Oh sorry. Just to put it in context - Facebook fact checking BMJ, is about as logical as blind person checking if colours are matching. Edit2: In short article is about Facebook, pretty much censoring BMJ article (btw peer reviewed) using independent fact checker as a reason. How much sense it does have for Facebook (or independent fact checker) fact checking BMJ I already mentioned in first edit. Considering that article in question is about "poor practices at a contract research company helping to carry out Pfizer’s pivotal covid-19 vaccine trial" it seems fitting in this topic. User was warned for this post Yikes. This would be funny if it were on an episode of South Park. The fact it's happening in real life is quite sad. Even sadder, there are a lot of people that see this and think "Yes, more of this, please." And by "a lot" I mean A LOT. 76% of Democrats and 37% of Republicans according to a poll from last year. So essentially the majority of Americans approve. Source
People also grossly underestimate how difficult it is to do something like that properly. I’d be more tech-savvy than most and it’s like head butting a brick wall trying to convince people that this isn’t a trivial thing to do, at all, what they’re advocating for.
I’m absolutely in favour myself, in some form. Certainly not in favour of having these platforms do it themselves. There’s many pitfalls there.
I do also draw a strict line between opinion, however unpalatable and matters of purported fact. Which I imagine is absolutely not a line everyone is drawing in such matters.
@Razydq and Jimmy cheers for the summation. A concerning scenario, even if, I largely do have faith in the overall rigour of the process.
It illustrates the problem of a Facebook being the arbiter if even a prestigious journal like the BMJ can’t cut through and have a proper evaluation of content being flagged. Not much fucking hope for x average individual if they ever fall foul of their processes.
|
On February 10 2022 03:45 Gorsameth wrote:
A lot of countries are easing/dropping restrictions, sure there is probably some political timing involved, everything does to some extend but its not just 'they are doing something dangerous to earn election favor'.
It's a great time to ease/drop restrictions. Omicron wave is basically over and it's already a less dangerous variant than Delta. I wonder if Canada will drop their restrictions or carry them on just so that it doesn't seem like the truckers have won lol
|
On February 10 2022 03:53 WombaT wrote:
@Razydq and Jimmy cheers for the summation. A concerning scenario, even if, I largely do have faith in the overall rigour of the process.
Do you? Quite frankly I dont.
1- "IFCN sets quality standards for fact checking organisations and creates a verified list of companies that meet these standards, including Lead Stories"
2- "Lead Stories had highlighted the same tweets in its original fact check, saying that “on Twitter, Jackson does not express unreserved support for covid vaccines.” "
Now please replace "covid vaccines" with anything really, as this is bigger issue.
Now question arise what are this "quality standards"? Giving the fact that after statement like in quote 2, Lead Stories weren't immediately taken of this verified list, unbiased/objective and similar apparently aren't among those "standards". Now if they arent then there is no reason for "fact checkers" to exist. (maybe beside announcing that whatever they want is "false")
|
Northern Ireland27268 Posts
On February 10 2022 07:53 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2022 03:53 WombaT wrote:
@Razydq and Jimmy cheers for the summation. A concerning scenario, even if, I largely do have faith in the overall rigour of the process.
Do you? Quite frankly I dont. 1- "IFCN sets quality standards for fact checking organisations and creates a verified list of companies that meet these standards, including Lead Stories" 2- "Lead Stories had highlighted the same tweets in its original fact check, saying that “on Twitter, Jackson does not express unreserved support for covid vaccines.” " Now please replace "covid vaccines" with anything really, as this is bigger issue. Now question arise what are this "quality standards"? Giving the fact that after statement like in quote 2, Lead Stories weren't immediately taken of this verified list, unbiased/objective and similar apparently aren't among those "standards". Now if they arent then there is no reason for "fact checkers" to exist. (maybe beside announcing that whatever they want is "false")
By and large, yes, with reservations.
You seem to have your own positions and just cling rigidly to the odd bit of information that suits your position.
Which is entirely your own prerogative, I’m just not particularly interested in discussing this one thing that might support your position vs the innumerable things against your position that you’ve continually dismissed and not addressed properly in this thread.
|
On February 10 2022 08:08 WombaT wrote:
By and large, yes, with reservations.
You seem to have your own positions and just cling rigidly to the odd bit of information that suits your position.
Which is entirely your own prerogative, I’m just not particularly interested in discussing this one thing that might support your position vs the innumerable things against your position that you’ve continually dismissed and not addressed properly in this thread.
As mentioned - please consider content of the post you quoted as unrelated to vaccines or covid and then explain what your reservations are.
Bolded - can you please specify those ones?
I believe I addressed all arguments made against my statements (admittedly I may have missed some as I am not exactly sit on this thread constantly and just checking it every now and again). I also have habit of ignoring responses which dont relate in any way to the what I posted (or are just plain nonsense). While I am not ominous and may be mistaken I did refrained from using any articles which credibility may be in question. If you actually read what I posted you may be able to notice that I never actually stated anything false. More so while accused of lying for quoting parts of the articles (which btw is quite common) without changing their context - I quoted posts separated by day (days?) where person accusing me of lying directly contradict themselves. While I understand that someone disagree with me, I am not a fan of being called a liar for no reason.
Italic - that seems to be quite common in this thread. Can you please honestly tell me how many of this "one thing that might support your position" you will need before acknowledging that I am not Mad Hatter? Because like I said in the beginning - I dont care if people get vaccinated, what I care about is not being forced to vaccinate myself.
|
On February 10 2022 12:40 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2022 08:08 WombaT wrote:
By and large, yes, with reservations.
You seem to have your own positions and just cling rigidly to the odd bit of information that suits your position.
Which is entirely your own prerogative, I’m just not particularly interested in discussing this one thing that might support your position vs the innumerable things against your position that you’ve continually dismissed and not addressed properly in this thread.
As mentioned - please consider content of the post you quoted as unrelated to vaccines or covid and then explain what your reservations are. Bolded - can you please specify those ones? I believe I addressed all arguments made against my statements (admittedly I may have missed some as I am not exactly sit on this thread constantly and just checking it every now and again). I also have habit of ignoring responses which dont relate in any way to the what I posted (or are just plain nonsense). While I am not ominous and may be mistaken I did refrained from using any articles which credibility may be in question. If you actually read what I posted you may be able to notice that I never actually stated anything false. More so while accused of lying for quoting parts of the articles (which btw is quite common) without changing their context - I quoted posts separated by day (days?) where person accusing me of lying directly contradict themselves. While I understand that someone disagree with me, I am not a fan of being called a liar for no reason. Italic - that seems to be quite common in this thread. Can you please honestly tell me how many of this "one thing that might support your position" you will need before acknowledging that I am not Mad Hatter? Because like I said in the beginning - I dont care if people get vaccinated, what I care about is not being forced to vaccinate myself.
Why don't you care if people get vaccinated? Unless you think vaccines are useless, surely you'd agree that it would be preferable for people to be vaccinated rather than unvaccinated? You can still care about people being vaccinated, independent of whether you think it should remain a choice vs. become a mandate.
|
On February 10 2022 13:10 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Why don't you care if people get vaccinated? Unless you think vaccines are useless, surely you'd agree that it would be preferable for people to be vaccinated rather than unvaccinated? You can still care about people being vaccinated, independent of whether you think it should remain a choice vs. become a mandate.
Because it is their choice. If they are in the risk group or for any other reasons believe they need vaccine ( I believe that half of the success in fighting with sickness is your own mindset) then go ahead - get vaccine. However if not - then they shouldn't be pressured into taking it.
|
On February 10 2022 13:46 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2022 13:10 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Why don't you care if people get vaccinated? Unless you think vaccines are useless, surely you'd agree that it would be preferable for people to be vaccinated rather than unvaccinated? You can still care about people being vaccinated, independent of whether you think it should remain a choice vs. become a mandate. Because it is their choice. If they are in the risk group or for any other reasons believe they need vaccine ( I believe that half of the success in fighting with sickness is your own mindset) then go ahead - get vaccine. However if not - then they shouldn't be pressured into taking it.
Yeah, people have had close to a year to get it by now, if they haven't got it's their choice and on them. I can't be responsible for other people's actions and choices if they don't want to be for themselves.
|
On February 10 2022 02:53 JimmiC wrote:
As the virus and situation changes so will the rules. The question is when they do will so many cling to the fantasy that "they" were trying to take power or will they come to realization thay doctors and public health officials were just following the science and doing what they believed to best given the information they have.
I know the idea of changing ones mind as information changes is foriegn to many so my prediction is the former.
Well, the problem with that is, that most countries basically shut down "alternative ideas".
Like:
A: "It is like that!"
B: "But it could be something else!"
A: "No, you stupid rightwing antivaxxers! It isn't!"
*thing B said happens*
A: "Oh, we have new information, so we follow the science and change it!"
B: "See, we were right!"
A: "... oh, look those clouds! ... also you are still stupud rightwing antivaxxers!"
----------
Here in Germany back in Dec 2019/Jan 2020 there was an actual rightwing political party, that was
"Oh god! Covid! Close the borders! Let nobody in!!!"
And the Mainstream was like
"Haha, those rightwing people that are against immigration want to close the border for a little flu virus! Here are the facts!..."
... You probably know who was right? (and "funnily" enough, both sides changed their theme: rightwing - open all up, mainstream - get vaxxed, stay at home)
Maybe we should stop this "absolute" knowledge ... that gets "more absolut" with "new" information!
|
Northern Ireland27268 Posts
Did they want to close the borders anyway regardless of Covid?
Probably why people dismissed it, correctly or incorrectly, I’d assume. Similarly to Trump’s talk of travel bans to China, which in retrospect were probably correct, but also attributed to his general shtick on all things China, which is a reasonable assessment also.
The right wing want to keep out foreigners and also want to open everything up regardless of the societal cost of doing so isn’t particularly contradictory in my head anyway.
|
Jan 2020 it was all new and unknown, that was around the time those videos came out of China of officials welding people into their apartments and the other one of people dropping dead in the street.Nothing wrong with being cautious at that time until more was known.
Nowdays even the mainstream media here is arguing for relaxation of borders and they should open within the next couple of months.The vaccine regulatory body here just now stated three doses is needed for fully vaxxed (up to date) status (Watch states mandate this third jab for people to keep their job, but there is more refusers this time).International arrivals will still only need two jabs for some reason.The terminology has also changed from ‘fully vaccinated’ to ‘up to date’.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-02-10/fully-covid-vaccinated-two-doses-atagi-advice/100821406
|
On February 10 2022 13:46 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2022 13:10 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Why don't you care if people get vaccinated? Unless you think vaccines are useless, surely you'd agree that it would be preferable for people to be vaccinated rather than unvaccinated? You can still care about people being vaccinated, independent of whether you think it should remain a choice vs. become a mandate. Because it is their choice. If they are in the risk group or for any other reasons believe they need vaccine ( I believe that half of the success in fighting with sickness is your own mindset) then go ahead - get vaccine. However if not - then they shouldn't be pressured into taking it.
I preemptively addressed the fact that someone having a choice doesn't mean you can't care about the decision they make. Why don't you care about the choices that someone makes, especially when those choices can harm themselves or others? I'm not saying you need to force your ideal decision on anyone else; I'm asking you why you're completely apathetic towards others.
|
On February 10 2022 20:27 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2022 13:46 Razyda wrote:On February 10 2022 13:10 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Why don't you care if people get vaccinated? Unless you think vaccines are useless, surely you'd agree that it would be preferable for people to be vaccinated rather than unvaccinated? You can still care about people being vaccinated, independent of whether you think it should remain a choice vs. become a mandate. Because it is their choice. If they are in the risk group or for any other reasons believe they need vaccine ( I believe that half of the success in fighting with sickness is your own mindset) then go ahead - get vaccine. However if not - then they shouldn't be pressured into taking it. I preemptively addressed the fact that someone having a choice doesn't mean you can't care about the decision they make. Why don't you care about the choices that someone makes, especially when those choices can harm themselves or others? I'm not saying you need to force your ideal decision on anyone else; I'm asking you why you're completely apathetic towards others.
It is not unehard of to be concious about not passing the virus to others while not wanting to be vaccinated themselves.
I still have not caught COVID as I know of, but the main reason has been others cancelling events when they expected they had it, one of them was unvaccinated by choice. I am starting to believe some common sense is all we need for future waves, no need for exaggerated mandates based on incomplete information made by control-hungry politicians.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
