All things Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV)

[Remius]

There’s biased news coverage made by people who don’t know they’re biased (does a fish know it’s wet when it lives its whole life in water?) and bullshit made out of whole cloth. Project Veritas has a history of making shit up.

It fits people’s confirmation bias.

 

[mariomike]

Project Veritas has a history of making shit up.

 

[Lumber]

You guys are 'discussing' who are the biggest propagandists this side of the third reich, then you cite Wikipedia as a source.😆

Wikipedia isn't propaganda. Send me a link to one Wikipedia article that contains blatant misinformation.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Wikipedia isn't propaganda. Send me a link to one Wikipedia article that contains blatant misinformation.

I know a Wikipedia editor.

They recognize that there are some pages that are not 'up to standard' and work on fixing that. Some might slip through the cracks in the meantime.

As always, Caveat Emptor!

 

[dapaterson]

Wikipedia references can be a start point for investigation.

 

[mariomike]

Wikipedia references can be a start point for investigation.

For Project Veritas, there are plenty of receipts in the References section.

Project Veritas - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Remius]

Wikipedia references can be a start point for investigation.

It’s good for a a summary of info as well. The issue is that Wikipedia should not be used as a source for academic study or research. Which is hardly what we do here.

Good Wikipedia pages have sources and quotes as well.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Wikipedia is fine for anything not politically or sociologically controversial.

 

[mariomike]

Wikipedia is fine for anything not politically or sociologically controversial.

Unfortunate that public health should be politically controversial.

 

[Lumber]

Wikipedia is fine for anything not politically or sociologically controversial.

Except that it is fine for those things too. Once a page dealing with a person or event or idea becomes controversial, it become prone to malicious editing, whereby malicious actors edit the page to include incorrect information, or downright just mess with the page and put random crap in there; this is exactly the kind of thing that is possible that makes people say that Wikipedia isn't trustworthy. HOWEVER, in these cases, the page ends up being locked, and only registered and well credentialed editors can make changes to the page. You can see the little lock symbol in the top right corner and it will say somehting like "restricted to prevent vandalism". A good example of this is Barack Obama's page. It's been "locked" since like, before 2008. But, if you don't trust the "verified/trusted" editors, then go ahead, go look through his page, and show me something on there that is factually incorrect.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Some of the "registered and well-credentialed editors" are the problem. The growing bias has been the subject of increasing discussion for the past few years. Simple asshattery isn't the issue. Just as you can't prove a negative, you can't show what isn't included.

 

[Spencer100]

Unfortunate that public health should be politically controversial.

Everything is now. From the grocery store to the movie theater to the hockey rink. There was at point that I thought no not everything is but know I see see it in almost everything we do. Its drives me crazy. If you look at you everyday life its just crazy.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Throwaway hypothesis: too many people have discarded religion, but people are wired to need higher causes, which they approach with religious fervor, which makes them impossibly intolerant.

 

[mariomike]

Well said.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Whoa... brace for impact

‘It was all for nothing’: Chinese count cost of Xi’s snap decision to let Covid rip​

After three years of lockdowns, the country was ill prepared for its abrupt ‘freedom’. Now, with some estimating 1m deaths, public anger is growing


Xi’s extraordinary backflip left analysts alarmed and confused. China was not the only country to choose a zero-Covid strategy, and certainly not the only one to “let it rip” once it dropped it. But it was the last, and global health experts say there were plenty of lessons it could have heeded – primarily, making sure vaccinations and health resources were high before the tsunami of cases hit.

“All governments had to decide to open up at some stage or risk the consequences of lockdowns far outweighing the problems of Covid,” says Professor Emma McBryde, an epidemiologist at James Cook University, Townsville, Queensland, Australia.

“Most models suggest that it would be better for the health system to open up slowly. Although there would be little change in how many people get infected, it could mean some lives are saved if the health system can function well.”


But Xi threw the gates open. Right up until the day of repeal, local governments were still developing and enforcing zero-Covid measures and infrastructure. The city of Chongqing was building a 21,000-bed quarantine centre.

Experts on health and Chinese politics have told the Observer they believe the local authorities were hamstrung. Any preparations for ending zero-Covid would be seen as a vote of no confidence in both the policy and Xi – an act of political suicide.

‘It was all for nothing’: Chinese count cost of Xi’s snap decision to let Covid rip

After three years of lockdowns, the country was ill prepared for its abrupt ‘freedom’. Now, with some estimating 1m deaths, public anger is growing

www.theguardian.com

 

[Quirky]

Now, with some estimating 1m deaths

In a population of 1.4b. Ok.

 

[QV]

Terence Corcoran: The left finally wakes to authoritarian nature of COVID lockdowns

The world is waking up to the mistake of lockdowns.

 

[IKnowNothing]

Terence Corcoran: The left finally wakes to authoritarian nature of COVID lockdowns

The world is waking up to the mistake of lockdowns.

It's a very well written and thought provoking paper. But it does not support either of Mr. Corcoran's title or your pronouncement, nor does it actually evaluate the effectiveness/necessity of lockdowns.

 

[QV]

It's a very well written and thought provoking paper. But it does not support either of Mr. Corcoran's title or your pronouncement, nor does it actually evaluate the effectiveness/necessity of lockdowns.

Prior to forming your statement, did you read all the linked publications within that article?

 

[IKnowNothing]

Prior to forming your statement, did you read all the linked publications within that article?

No I read the keystone article pointed to as proof that the "The left finally wakes to authoritarian nature of COVID lockdowns" (The Simandan, Rinner paper). It's a group of academics whose politics are not mentioned, but whose self citations of prior articles show that the opinions they express in the article are in no way an "awakening", but a consolidated restating of opinions that they held throughout the pandemic.

There's a lot of good stuff in there, particularly regarding the psychology of fear messaging, calls for academics of different disciplines to be free to comment and investigate world events from the lens of their own discipline, calls for free dialogue and open dissent etc. Like I said, well written and thought provoking when taken for what it is, which is the academic journal equivalent of a write in editorial- not a research paper.

But the point remains. A group of academics restating their opinions as a part of a call for academia to do better is not indicative of any of
-a shift in the "left's" opinion
-a shift in "academia's" opinion
-evidence that said groups opinions are correct