OT: Everything COVID19 - PART 6

[Pierre from Orleans]

We're pretty good in things like technology. Regarding emotional intelligence, not as much it seems. And look at history, how could you even sacrifice human beings to make it rain? How could you bury women and children alive? Or gas them in chambers? Or could you allow genocides and the holocaust? How can you abuse little children? Rape a woman? Or even be cruel towards animals? Destroy nature? Etc. Humanity has been sick for a long time, the earth sees us as a true parasite.

The problem has always been human nature. Greed, pride, envy, anger, sloth, gluttony, lust are stuff that leads people into selfishness.

Don't worry, most people totally understand how bad the pandemic has been and how much worse it could have been if nothing was done to prevent the spread. There's literally just one person in my whole circle that still "don't get it". if there's more, they surely haven't told me. Some people still think this pandemic is some sort of "gaslighting" event



Actually, if everyone who cares about life is protected with a 100% working vaccine, then anti-vaxxers and conspirationists can do whatever they want, no? If they want to hurt themselves because they don't trust neutral sources that have nothing to gain but want to help people, it's their choice, no?

Personally, if I ruled the world, I would just send everybody like that on their own island so they'd be together in their "free world" to have their own society without law and order. On our side, we could actually move things the right way father and faster. Everyone is happy!

Perfect example in the bold

 

[Pierre from Orleans]

You see, here's the thing though...having the freedom to express our views is kind of code for "this is what I believe and that's that". If you are not a person who is educated about the subject at hand, and I would wager that 99%+ of the population don't know the first thing about modern medicine or infectious diseases, then you shouldn't "express your view" because your view is dogshit compared to the view of real professionals.

Every time someone says "free speech" or "freedom of expression" I cringe a little bit because those terms have been co-opted to mean "my opinion is important too". It's almost certainly not.

I get where you're coming from but what happens when professionals have conflicting views? Which view is dogshit and why? Its not always so black and white.

 

[Xspyrit]

Perfect example in the bold

Well, I never said I wasn't human lol and you realize that the thing at the end is totally idealistic, right? In reality, I wouldn't even want to rule the world even if it was offered on a platter. I wouldn't even want to be extremely rich even if it was offered on a platter. Everyone is different but I think if 2 type of people that just can't get along could each live on their side, life could be quite more peaceful. It doesn't say if I have any of the 7 capital sins but good try I guess?

 

[Rand0m]

I get where you're coming from but what happens when professionals have conflicting views? Which view is dogshit and why? Its not always so black and white.

Like with anything "science-y" you look for the overall peer reviewed consensus. The fact that 95 scientists agree and 5 disagree on a certain topic doesn't automatically "prove" anything with any certainty but it does make it a lot more likely to be accurate (what the 95 are claiming) until further reviewed evidence disproves this claim.

Also, just because a scientist/doctor (or the scientific/medical community as a whole) had opinion X on a specific date, it doesn't mean that that opinion can't and won't change when further evidence is discovered or more data is generated.

 

[Pierre from Orleans]

Like with anything "science-y" you look for the overall peer reviewed consensus. The fact that 95 scientists agree and 5 disagree on a certain topic doesn't automatically "prove" anything with any certainty but it does make it a lot more likely to be accurate (what the 95 are claiming) until further reviewed evidence disproves this claim.

Also, just because a scientist/doctor (or the scientific/medical community as a whole) had opinion X on a specific date, it doesn't mean that that opinion can't and won't change when further evidence is discovered or more data is generated.

Sure but if someone takes the 5 scientists findings and bases their views on that does it make their view dog shit? Like you said science is not always 100% concrete and its always changing as more data trickles.

I guess this stems back to what Micklebot said about fake news and I've seen it quite a bit where if a person sides with a view point that is not shared by the majority its automatically labelled as fake news and immediately dismissed as being credible. This is not exclusive to science related matters either which is really unfortunate because there will always be level headed people on BOTH sides of a particular view.

 

[YouGotAStuGoing]

there will always be level headed people on BOTH sides of a particular view.

I'd love to see a level-headed flat earther or a level-headed anti-vaxxer.

 

[FunkySeeFunkyDoo]

Sure but if someone takes the 5 scientists findings and bases their views on that does it make their view dog shit?

....

To a large extent, it depends on HOW that someone chose to agree with those 5 scientists.

If they read the research and the literature and the peer reviews, AND they have the educational background and intellectual capacity to actually evaluate that research -- then no, their view is not dog shit. They aren't aligning with the consensus ... but that doesn't mean they're wrong. At least not in this moment.

But you and I know that's not what happens.

More often than not the person DOESN'T have the ability to evaluate the research for themselves, and they simply take the position of the scientists that align closely to their existing world view.

IE, if you thought COVID was a hoax back in January, and 5% of scientists today are saying things that *sort of* align with the risks of COVID being overblown, then it's pretty easy to just say "Yeah, those guys are right! See, I told you COVID-19 is just a hoax!!"

(And, the above is intellectually lazy on two fronts ... the person has not done any real evaluation of the science presented, AND they've misconstrued it to be something different than what it is.)

 

[Pierre from Orleans]

To a large extent, it depends on HOW that someone chose to agree with those 5 scientists.

If they read the research and the literature and the peer reviews, AND they have the educational background and intellectual capacity to actually evaluate that research -- then no, their view is not dog shit. They aren't aligning with the consensus ... but that doesn't mean they're wrong. At least not in this moment.

But you and I know that's not what happens.

More often than not the person DOESN'T have the ability to evaluate the research for themselves, and they simply take the position of the scientists that align closely to their existing world view.

IE, if you thought COVID was a hoax back in January, and 5% of scientists today are saying things that *sort of* align with the risks of COVID being overblown, then it's pretty easy to just say "Yeah, those guys are right! See, I told you COVID-19 is just a hoax!!"

(And, the above is intellectually lazy on two fronts ... the person has not done any real evaluation of the science presented, AND they've misconstrued it to be something different than what it is.)

This applies to BOTH stances.

 

[Beech]

I believe part of it is catching up from delays in reporting on and around the holiday.

okay for cases, but deaths!!!

3:30 pm... deaths in the USA already at 2011...with 6-9 hours to go. I see a possible 3000 death day....The fear may be justified. Ouch, those poor bastards.

130,000 plus cases already. I see 170,000-180,000 cases as well. And that may be a minimum.

 

[Micklebot]

okay for cases, but deaths!!!

3:30 pm... deaths in the USA already at 2011...with 6-9 hours to go. I see a possible 3000 death day....The fear may be justified. Ouch, those poor bastards.

130,000 plus cases already. I see 170,000-180,000 cases as well. And that may be a minimum.

Its all provisionary data so its added i believe based on the report date not the date of death. I could be wrong on that though.

Either way pretty grim numbers looking at the rolling averages.

 

[Beech]

To say young people do nothing about it is patently false. When they do act, they are still laughed at because it's the old that are pulling the economic strings, the only thing that really matters at the end of the day, especially for politicians. And now when the internet and social media start to have some power, and thus the young, oh how the old people whine about it

not as much as you may think. 1) what elderly does not participate in mass media. My Mother is 83 and has her smart phone, texts and uses facetime, etc. As do many of my even older relatives.

An 80 year old, was born in 1940, grew up in the 1960's, would have been a Rolling Stones fan. Wears jeans. And, is as up to date as you can imagine. This image that 80 year olds are some pre-historic creatures listening to classical music, wearing suits and ties is not accurate, nor reflective of society. It is media driven. We have been presenting this image for 100 years and don't know how to move off of it. So imagine a person in his seventies and how up to date he is. Or in their sixties...A person in his sixties is a Michael Jackson fan.. or possibly an M&M fan if he tuned into him a tad later. Most people in their 60's and 70's are way more computer literate and "gadget" conscious than you can imagine.

The young and I will add to my troubles, many women, generally preoccupy themselves with their immediate circle. Politics is not on the radar, nor are many issues. A dollar in their pocket is for a good time, Tuesday at 6 in the evening is not for Wolf Blitzer, but for video games. It is why 51.25% of society is female and only a small percentage of all lawmakers are female. It is why 74 year old Trump, lost to 78 year old Biden..while ~ 25% of the voting public is younger than 40 and another 12% is between 40 and 50. While a mere 16% is above 65. Both candidates should have been younger than 50.

Power is with the Grey Hairs..until the young mobilize (and I say near zero chance) it will remain. And it will grow, People are living longer and above 65 will only increase.

 

[FunkySeeFunkyDoo]

This applies to BOTH stances.

It is true that most people will suffer from confirmation bias to some degree.

BUT -- if the ratio of scientists is 95 to 5, and you truly aren't able to evaluate the research yourself, then it is fairly rational to believe the 95.

Although, I think some healthy skepticism and an attempt to understand the research as best you can is always a good thing.

 

[Beech]

Its all provisionary data so its added I believe based on the report date not the date of death. I could be wrong on that though.

Either way pretty grim numbers looking at the rolling averages.

what do you make of the Dekota's? South Dekota bounces up and down like a yo-yo. The government there (specifically the governor) have taken flack. They/she is a Trump hardliner.

Do you think they are manipulating numbers to hide truths? some days, zero problems only 400-500 cases and 1-5 deaths. Other days 1300 plus cases and 45 plus deaths.

their population is ~ 0.89 million. At 2% death rate and in 365 days, you get around 48 deaths a day in a max scenario. They have been close too or exceeded that number 4 times now (Including today).

every other state or nation (less the crazy events of late October in Argentina) tend to be more consistent. Less herky-jerky and more smooth moving. I find myself fascinated by SD and ND..at times it looked like they would pop and start getting 50 plus death a day regularly, but no, up and down.

by the way, very few nations have ever hit the 2% divided by 365 number. Only them.

REVISE: Germany is just as crazy....okay so accounting..insane how you can document death not when it happens, but when the paperwork is done.

 

[Sens]

Like with anything "science-y" you look for the overall peer reviewed consensus. The fact that 95 scientists agree and 5 disagree on a certain topic doesn't automatically "prove" anything with any certainty but it does make it a lot more likely to be accurate (what the 95 are claiming) until further reviewed evidence disproves this claim.

Also, just because a scientist/doctor (or the scientific/medical community as a whole) had opinion X on a specific date, it doesn't mean that that opinion can't and won't change when further evidence is discovered or more data is generated.

The majority in science has been routinely wrong for hundreds of years while outliners are proven right in time again and again

 

[Stylizer1]

Sure but if someone takes the 5 scientists findings and bases their views on that does it make their view dog shit? Like you said science is not always 100% concrete and its always changing as more data trickles.

I guess this stems back to what Micklebot said about fake news and I've seen it quite a bit where if a person sides with a view point that is not shared by the majority its automatically labelled as fake news and immediately dismissed as being credible. This is not exclusive to science related matters either which is really unfortunate because there will always be level headed people on BOTH sides of a particular view.

Yeah, Bobby Ryan sucks.

 

[JD1]

The whole "Fake News" term and anyone using it can go, it is pervasive across all ideologies and makes me take the person saying it a little less seriously every single time i hear it.

I just relate it to Trump myself....mister fake himself

 

[JD1]

What if it's used to describe actual "fake news"? It drives me crazy when people use the term to describe legitimate news sources. When it's used to describe wacky websites, it's a pretty accurate term.

Lol that's just a matter of one's viewpoint. If you happen to dawn a tinfoil hat on a daily basis, the globe and mail is fake news

 

[Micklebot]

I just relate it to Trump myself....mister fake himself

He is certainly among the more common perpetrators,

 

[Knave]

Lol that's just a matter of one's viewpoint. If you happen to dawn a tinfoil hat on a daily basis, the globe and mail is fake news

There's news and then there's stuff like Russia Today which is owned by the modern version of the KGB and is a propaganda mouthpiece.

 

[Beech]

I just relate it to Trump myself....mister fake himself

He is certainly among the more common perpetrators,

you guys have heard Eric Macramella's show and Trump's "We won with the highly educated, we won with the poorly educated, I love the poorly educated".

 

[Micklebot]

What if it's used to describe actual "fake news"? It drives me crazy when people use the term to describe legitimate news sources. When it's used to describe wacky websites, it's a pretty accurate term.

Sure there are legitimately fake publications, but the term fake news has been corrupted, better to just use a different term like misinformation.

 

[Pierre from Orleans]

It is true that most people will suffer from confirmation bias to some degree.

BUT -- if the ratio of scientists is 95 to 5, and you truly aren't able to evaluate the research yourself, then it is fairly rational to believe the 95.

Although, I think some healthy skepticism and an attempt to understand the research as best you can is always a good thing.

Absolutely agree.

 

[thinkwild]

Its as if the National Enquirer and WWE put their minds together and created a new reality they could form a political tribe around. And sadly it was large. I keep thinking about how they were saying Fox news was losing viewers to more right wing networks. And Im thinking – more right wing? Really? That’s the best way to describe that? We have become pretty loose in our terms lately.

The majority in science has been routinely wrong for hundreds of years while outliners are proven right in time again and again

Proven right by whom?

 

[Micklebot]

Proven right by whom?

The Illuminati?

 

[Xspyrit]

I'd love to see a level-headed flat earther or a level-headed anti-vaxxer.

If the vaccine makes you 100% immune (which remains to be seen), I have absolutely no problem with anti vaxxers. If they want to spread diseases between each others, die or have long lasting effects, I mean it's in their right. Not everybody cares about life ad health equally. So as long as they can't hurt people who care, then no problem.

I heard today in a survey that 39% of respondants in France were against getting the covid vaccine lol. It was 16% in Canada, which is much more reasonable. Not surprising for France, always revolting against everything