Covfefe-19 The 12th Part: The Only Thing Worse Than This New Board Is TrumpVirus2020

[French Rage]

Do you know what these words mean?

It's Drew, so the answer is no, regardless of context.

[dxmnkd316]

No no no. It was designed by the Chinese to kill Republican voters.

Goddam. It's like a feral hog or school aged child walking into the sights of an AR-15.

[Drew S.]

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/c...eory-sb09t3m6h

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

Betteridge's Law

[Kepler]

I'm sure this won't lead to conspriacy theories.

[leswp1]

People have no patience anymore. Everyone demands an answer, and they want it yesterday.

What the medical community should have said in February and March of 2020 is this. We don't know if it came from a lab. We have no current evidence it did. We also don't know if it sprung from nature because we don't have any evidence as to how that might have occurred.

Here is what we can tell you. We will figure it out. It's going to take a long time, but ultimately we think we'll figure it out. But to claim it was a lab leak or claim it sprung from a chicken market in Wuhan, right now, is wrong and uninformed.

Then, just keep repeating that until you figure it out.

Late to the party answering but this sent me into the stratosphere. The MEDICAL COMMUNITY handled this exactly as you suggested they should. In doing so they were vilified, chastised, accused of hiding information, lying and told they were less knowledgeable than those who went to the University of Bing, Google or [fill in a Faux host]*. Leading experts were denigrated, misquoted, physically threatened. The attempts of the CDC to present this message were met with the dismantling of the agency, scientists/personnel being muzzled, a mass exodus of experts from the agency, the website being sanitized of accurate information and the data flow being changed to route through a different agency to prevent analysis from occurring. Still, people persisted in trying to convey accurate information.

What you are criticizing is the message from the MEDIA who were unwilling or incapable of accurate reporting incuding nuance or uncertainty. They presented what the medical community was attempting to share with oversimplified analysis, passed judgement without expertise and ultimately managed to undermine any effort by creating confusion. (knucklehead people who were spreading and amplifying patently false information is for another day).

The general population doesn't do well with uncertainty. They were unwilling to listen to the message that there was no definitive answer. That you have no recollection of this message is a perfect illustration of how successful they were at delegitimizing what was being said. The medical community continues to attempt to convey this is a novel virus and we do not know exact answers. This is STILL the message and it is lost in the noise of the idiots.

At the start the message addressed nuances. Guidelines were developing being adjusted d/t increasing knowledge
Media translation- changes showed lack of knowledge, and they had caught experts 'lying' or changing their tune.

Complex messaging was abandoned in favor of black and white guidelines.
Media response- claimed variables (the ones that were previously dismissed) were being ignored, asked why guidelines weren't considering local situations.

Variables were acknowledged- release of decision tree guidelines based on local data.
Media response- too unclear and complicated for people to know what to do. No coverage about how to navigate thru (a 5 yr old could figure this out).

Add into this multiple Public figures who were messaging we should not have to deal with this while ignoring the reality (reality sux chickie- you don't get to be tired, take your ball and go home)

What this has shown is
-people like being told reality is optional. If they are told it enough, people will believe anything, even if it will kill them or their loved ones.
-there is no reward in encouraging problem solving or being logical. Outrage is much better for political campaigning.
-it is nearly impossible to correct faulty messaging

This article is an excellent

https://open.substack.com/pub/yourlo...m_medium=email

*I have an advanced degree and worked in medicine for close to 40 yrs. I don't know what I wasted my money, time and effort for. My message of it was too early to be sure, we didn't have enough data to make definitive statements was met with derision, insult and my being informed I was attempting to cover up real information

[psych]

Late to the party answering but this sent me into the stratosphere. The MEDICAL COMMUNITY handled this exactly as you suggested they should. In doing so they were vilified, chastised, accused of hiding information, lying and told they were less knowledgeable than those who went to the University of Bing, Google or [fill in a Faux host]*. Leading experts were denigrated, misquoted, physically threatened. The attempts of the CDC to present this message were met with the dismantling of the agency, scientists/personnel being muzzled, a mass exodus of experts from the agency, the website being sanitized of accurate information and the data flow being changed to route through a different agency to prevent analysis from occurring. Still, people persisted in trying to convey accurate information.

What you are criticizing is the message from the MEDIA who were unwilling or incapable of accurate reporting incuding nuance or uncertainty. They presented what the medical community was attempting to share with oversimplified analysis, passed judgement without expertise and ultimately managed to undermine any effort by creating confusion. (knucklehead people who were spreading and amplifying patently false information is for another day).

The general population doesn't do well with uncertainty. They were unwilling to listen to the message that there was no definitive answer. That you have no recollection of this message is a perfect illustration of how successful they were at delegitimizing what was being said. The medical community continues to attempt to convey this is a novel virus and we do not know exact answers. This is STILL the message and it is lost in the noise of the idiots.

At the start the message addressed nuances. Guidelines were developing being adjusted d/t increasing knowledge
Media translation- changes showed lack of knowledge, and they had caught experts 'lying' or changing their tune.

Complex messaging was abandoned in favor of black and white guidelines.
Media response- claimed variables (the ones that were previously dismissed) were being ignored, asked why guidelines weren't considering local situations.

Variables were acknowledged- release of decision tree guidelines based on local data.
Media response- too unclear and complicated for people to know what to do. No coverage about how to navigate thru (a 5 yr old could figure this out).

Add into this multiple Public figures who were messaging we should not have to deal with this while ignoring the reality (reality sux chickie- you don't get to be tired, take your ball and go home)

What this has shown is
-people like being told reality is optional. If they are told it enough, people will believe anything, even if it will kill them or their loved ones.
-there is no reward in encouraging problem solving or being logical. Outrage is much better for political campaigning.
-it is nearly impossible to correct faulty messaging

This article is an excellent

https://open.substack.com/pub/yourlo...m_medium=email

*I have an advanced degree and worked in medicine for close to 40 yrs. I don't know what I wasted my money, time and effort for. My message of it was too early to be sure, we didn't have enough data to make definitive statements was met with derision, insult and my being informed I was attempting to cover up real information

Yep.

[dxmnkd316]

Yep.

Uh huh

[Kepler]

She did her own research.

[Kepler]

Huh. A two-fer.

[MichVandal]

Kep- the first article was from Sept '21, so I'm sure we've all seen that one. At least the 2nd is recent. Either way, it's just like Beauty and the Beast- it's a tale as old as time.

[Kepler]

Kep- the first article was from Sept '21, so I'm sure we've all seen that one. At least the 2nd is recent. Either way, it's just like Beauty and the Beast- it's a tale as old as time.

Oops, sorry. I thought they were both this week. My bad.

[MichVandal]

Oops, sorry. I thought they were both this week. My bad.

Not a big deal- it's basically a narrative we've had since about April 2020. The deniers did *something* that they said was ok, and then died because it wasn't ok. And these are the majority of people who are keeping COVID numbers as high as they are- which is quite close to over 100k/year still. The antivaxxors are 4x more likely to die than just basic vaccinated, ~10x for those who are boosted. So even at 20% of the population, they still end up being the most deaths (a lot because 16% is fully boosted at the very low rate).

Eventually, they will die out enough to be the smaller group dying. But deniers will still die faster than everyone else, by a decent margin.

[Kepler]

Not a big deal- it's basically a narrative we've had since about April 2020. The deniers did *something* that they said was ok, and then died because it wasn't ok.

Oh, I know, there was an entire reddit sub just devoted to these stories. And there are a lot of them. Because science is real.

[leswp1]

Not a big deal- it's basically a narrative we've had since about April 2020. The deniers did *something* that they said was ok, and then died because it wasn't ok. And these are the majority of people who are keeping COVID numbers as high as they are- which is quite close to over 100k/year still. The antivaxxors are 4x more likely to die than just basic vaccinated, ~10x for those who are boosted. So even at 20% of the population, they still end up being the most deaths (a lot because 16% is fully boosted at the very low rate).

Eventually, they will die out enough to be the smaller group dying. But deniers will still die faster than everyone else, by a decent margin.

The culling of the stupid in the herd is not nearly efficient as it needs to be. The amount of wasted resources- medical and financial- wasted on those born with deficient reactivity to risk.... the excess amount of money spent treating, the loss of income of family and friends who have consequences of their stupidity, the disruption and economic impact of them (and those around them) missing work, the cost of long covid (exponentially higher in the unvaxxed)... We could fund a lot of things more useful than the nanny state propping up people who intentionally put themselves at risk while complaining about the nanny state and then utilizing all the resources they complain are funded.