OT: Corona virus

[RangerJoe]

I believe that the correct side is the truth. To bad most people don't want the absolute truth, they just want the truth that supports what they believe.

Anyway, the local newspaper this morning said that there were 81 cases of Covid-19 in this county. It also gave the town closest to where I live that has a case - it is at least 20 miles away driving, 30 miles away by the best route. However, it was at a store so that store had some serious cleaning to do and who knows how many people were exposed to it.

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: Cap Mandrake

ORIGINAL: mind_messing



On top of that, you've also got stuff like this - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-50374630

That seems pretty harmless. Were there even words spoken? [:)]

I guess his hair looked better.

Well, there was a few raised eyebrows, given that:

1. It was a month before a general election
2. There was a bit of mud-slinging towards Corbyn for not showing sufficient sincerity
3. PM Johnstone made a bit of a fluffin putting the wreath upside down. I may be recollecting wrongly, but there was a political figure in the past that took a LOT of flak for doing the same.

Given these three things, some viewed it as exceptionally convenient that, by complete accident, footage from years previously where Johnstone (before he was even PM) makes no fluff ups.

Cue rumour mill that it was a deliberate editing decision and so on. Occam's razor that it was a honest mistake, but it does make one wonder...

ORIGINAL: Sammy5IsAlive

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: Sammy5IsAlive




One of the things I find interesting in this thread are the similarities between some of the commentary on the media seen here and that which I've seen over the last years from Corbyn/Labour supporters in the UK. The latter are convinced that the 'MSM' (television/radio/print journalism) is institutionally right-wing and that it has been (now was) conspiring to frustrate and prevent any sort of success from Corbyn's Labour. The BBC is seen by them as one of the worst offenders - a wolf in sheep's clothing.

At the same time for the last few years the Conservative party has been convinced that the BBC has been pushing a 'soft left' anti-Brexit agenda.

For me if they are managing to upset both sides of the argument they must be doing something right!

As a news organisation at least I'd suggest the BBC is pretty much as down the middle as you are going to get. That side of things is separate from it's role as a 'content creator' in which it has no explicit obligation to be 'impartial'. That separation is not just an airy-fairy ideal - it is a fundamentally expressed in the Royal Charter under which it operates.

There is evidence in support of a BBC bias in favour of the Conservative party

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.117 ... 3117695736
www.cresse.info/uploadfiles/2019_ps15_pa4.pdf

On top of that, you've also got stuff like this - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-50374630

Regarding that journal article. I'd argue that it certainly doesn't say that there was a BBC bias in favour of the Conservative Party. For a start at that time of the campaign, the Conservative PM and Chancellor were both explicitly in favour of remaining in the EU. The Home Secretary was 'submarining' but as far as anyone could pin her down was softly pro-remain. The Health Secretary was pro-remain at the time. The only high profile 'pro-Brexit' member of the cabinet I can think of was Gove. Boris was just an MP at that point (and even he at the time was equivocal on the issue until quite late on when he decided which way he thought the wind was blowing).

Obviously missed some of the nuance in the article:

If we examine the party affiliation of politicians appearing across all television news bulletins, a significant imbalance emerges: an overwhelming majority – 71.2% – was from the ruling UK Conservative party, compared to Labour’s (the Official Party of opposition) 18.4%. UK Independence Party (UKIP) – a right-wing Euro-sceptic party – represented 7.6% of sources, with just 2.8% left for other parties to contribute (particularly notable here is the absence of the Scottish National Party (SNP), whose pro-EU stance combined with a suggestion that a Leave vote might trigger another independence referendum).

71.2% compared to 18.4%. Not a small difference.

I'm not even sure that the article says that there was a pro-Brexit bias - more that the coverage was impartial but that it did not do enough to mitigate against the fact that the Brexit campaign was far more effective in driving the narrative. I think i

t is debatable whether it is the responsibility of the media to correct the inadequacies of the Remain campaign.

I think it was less a case about driving the narrative as muddying the waters. That article does a very good job of highlighting the extent to which dubious claims were thrown around left, right and center.

When less than a third of the electorate felt sufficiently informed about the vote days prior to the vote, it doesn't reflect well on either campaign...

All I'll say about the second article is that once you have a 'conspiracy narrative' it is easy to find examples to fit the narrative if you look hard enough.

To be frank, I somehow doubt that two professors from the Univ. of Zurich are indulging themselves by writing articles on conspiracy narrative. However, if we write that off as two nutcase academics, here's another paper:

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10. ... 17.1389295

This is well off-topic - happy to continue by PM.

What is it with this trend to take discussions to PM? If you want to discuss, let it be for everyone.

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

I believe that the correct side is the truth. To bad most people don't want the absolute truth, they just want the truth that supports what they believe.

Scientific testing of hypotheses is the closest we can come to finding what is true. Human observation of a situation is always coloured by incomplete information and our own experiences and judgements. The most common disconnect is where we see someone's actions and ascribe a motive to them when they may in fact have been thinking something else entirely. For example, if you saw someone walking on the sidewalk suddenly stop, step into a niche, pull out a needle and inject themselves, would you think drug addict or diabetic? Either one is possible and there are other possibilities beyond that.

So I can't understand Hans' absolutism because I try to see the truth but have to admit that there are usually things I can't quite figure out in most stories without making a judgement about the character of the actors.

[Lowpe]

I noticed that CBS removed their story about testing at the Cherry Health Facility where it was alleged they staged the set so to speak.

I am sure copies of it are still to be found though.

[Canoerebel]

A forumite who has vigorously asserted there is no liberal bias in US media is concerned about media bias in UK because a BBC photo showed a politician when he had a better haircut?

[:D]

[Lowpe]

I am not sure if this is the same small sample, but it seems working is the best chance to not catch the virus. I would assume more than 17% of people are working...

Coronavirus Update: Most NY patients are retired or unemployed, survey finds

https://abc7ny.com/health/most-ny-coron ... s/5989875/

Hospitals in New York state say only 17 percent of recently admitted patients were working, Governor Cuomo announced on Wednesday


...in other New York City news the Mayor said New York City is too bankrupt to re-open.

[jeffk3510]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

ORIGINAL: jeffk3510

ORIGINAL: HansBolter





Correction: The important point is the see the correct side.

You have to understand both sides to see where they're coming from. Right or wrong side, understanding both sides is more important than the correct side. Sometimes there isn't a correct side... you ever have kids...?

You misunderstood my point.

Once you have SEEN both sides what is IMPORTANT is discerning which one is CORRECT, ie....seeing the correct side.

There is ALWAYS a correct side (yes, I am one of those crazies who believes in an absolute reality).

Often we just can't see through the grey fog to discern it.

I am sorry, but that isn't always true.

[Lowpe]

Evidence mounts that outside is safer when it comes to COVID-19

https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/4 ... o-covid-19

[Sammy5IsAlive]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

All I'll say about the second article is that once you have a 'conspiracy narrative' it is easy to find examples to fit the narrative if you look hard enough.

To be frank, I somehow doubt that two professors from the Univ. of Zurich are indulging themselves by writing articles on conspiracy narrative. However, if we write that off as two nutcase academics, here's another paper:

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10. ... 17.1389295

This is well off-topic - happy to continue by PM.

What is it with this trend to take discussions to PM? If you want to discuss, let it be for everyone.

The point about conspiracy narratives was about the Boris Johnson story not the first article about Brexit.

Re. taking things to PM - my own view is that this is a Coronavirus thread. From my end I am trying to respect that. I don't think discussing the ins and outs of the potential bias of the BBC is relevant. I probably should never have gone there in the first place but felt the initial characterisation of the BBC as being a 'left-wing' institution/news organisation was inaccurate and was worth challenging. If you want to discuss Brexit/the BBC 'in public' I'm happy to do so in a separate thread.

[Lowpe]

ORIGINAL: Sammy5IsAlive

I probably should never have gone there in the first place but felt the initial characterisation of the BBC as being a 'left-wing' institution/news organisation was inaccurate and was worth challenging.

I enjoyed reading your perspective. Local reporting is great.[:)]

[Sammy5IsAlive]

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

I am not sure if this is the same small sample, but it seems working is the best chance to not catch the virus. I would assume more than 17% of people are working...

Coronavirus Update: Most NY patients are retired or unemployed, survey finds

https://abc7ny.com/health/most-ny-coron ... s/5989875/

Hospitals in New York state say only 17 percent of recently admitted patients were working, Governor Cuomo announced on Wednesday


...in other New York City news the Mayor said New York City is too bankrupt to re-open.

I think that one of the few bits of common ground is that the demographics that are seeing the worst outcomes are the elderly and people with chronic pre-existing medical conditions. Both of whom are likely to be out of work. If anything 17% seems a little higher than I would expect.

IIRC the thing that really put the frighteners on the UK government and prompted their u-turn in policy was not the 'baseline' mortality statistics coming out of Northern Italy but the numbers of hospitalisations of working age/healthy individuals which seemed to have overwhelmed their healthcare systems.

[obvert]

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

Evidence mounts that outside is safer when it comes to COVID-19

https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/4 ... o-covid-19

I like the emphasis on creative solutions to opening up and getting businesses running. It's not just business as usual, but what can we do to respond to the best science and make up some new ways to tackle these problems.

[Lowpe]

This is the kind of stupid nonsensical questions from the elite Press that I simply abhor.

The woman is a spokesman, a Press Secretary. Man I can think of a thousand and one better questions if given the opportunity to ask the spokesman of the office of the White House than this crap.

The guy asking the question is from Reuters and supposedly a journalist.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nc7xhIUIL3o (less than 2 minutes)

Reuters asking the Press Secretary a question. I assume he can only ask a couple of questions a month.

[Lowpe]

ORIGINAL: Sammy5IsAlive

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

I am not sure if this is the same small sample, but it seems working is the best chance to not catch the virus. I would assume more than 17% of people are working...

Coronavirus Update: Most NY patients are retired or unemployed, survey finds

https://abc7ny.com/health/most-ny-coron ... s/5989875/

Hospitals in New York state say only 17 percent of recently admitted patients were working, Governor Cuomo announced on Wednesday


...in other New York City news the Mayor said New York City is too bankrupt to re-open.

I think that one of the few bits of common ground is that the demographics that are seeing the worst outcomes are the elderly and people with chronic pre-existing medical conditions. Both of whom are likely to be out of work. If anything 17% seems a little higher than I would expect.

IIRC the thing that really put the frighteners on the UK government and prompted their u-turn in policy was not the 'baseline' mortality statistics coming out of Northern Italy but the numbers of hospitalisations of working age/healthy individuals which seemed to have overwhelmed their healthcare systems.

A large percentage of Americans are too broke to retire or enjoy working and keep at it well into their 70's.

Found some data quickly:

About 19% of Americans aged 65 and older are now in the workforce, up from about 12% in 1996. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics projects that by 2026, nearly 22% of people 65 and older will be working, with those 75 and older experiencing the fastest growth rate.May 1, 2019

[Sammy5IsAlive]

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

This is the kind of stupid nonsensical questions from the elite Press that I simply abhor.

The woman is a spokesman, a Press Secretary. Man I can think of a thousand and one better questions if given the opportunity to ask the spokesman of the office of the White House than this crap.

The guy asking the question is from Reuters and supposedly a journalist.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nc7xhIUIL3o (less than 2 minutes)

Reuters asking the Press Secretary a question. I assume he can only ask a couple of questions a month.

Ouch. Can't see Reuters putting him up for questions again.

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

I believe that the correct side is the truth. To bad most people don't want the absolute truth, they just want the truth that supports what they believe.

Scientific testing of hypotheses is the closest we can come to finding what is true. Human observation of a situation is always coloured by incomplete information and our own experiences and judgements. The most common disconnect is where we see someone's actions and ascribe a motive to them when they may in fact have been thinking something else entirely. For example, if you saw someone walking on the sidewalk suddenly stop, step into a niche, pull out a needle and inject themselves, would you think drug addict or diabetic? Either one is possible and there are other possibilities beyond that.

So I can't understand Hans' absolutism because I try to see the truth but have to admit that there are usually things I can't quite figure out in most stories without making a judgement about the character of the actors.

I would say that person is most probably injecting something other than insulin for diabetes. It could be something for an allergic reaction but most probably would be some other drug, most likely an illegal one. If a diabetic felt the need for insulin they would most likely test their blood first, then inject a certain amount of insulin based on their blood sugar. If their blood sugar was getting too low, they would not need a blood test. They would either eat sugar or most likely suddenly end up shaking on the ground.

[Sammy5IsAlive]

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

ORIGINAL: Sammy5IsAlive

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

I am not sure if this is the same small sample, but it seems working is the best chance to not catch the virus. I would assume more than 17% of people are working...

Coronavirus Update: Most NY patients are retired or unemployed, survey finds

https://abc7ny.com/health/most-ny-coron ... s/5989875/

Hospitals in New York state say only 17 percent of recently admitted patients were working, Governor Cuomo announced on Wednesday


...in other New York City news the Mayor said New York City is too bankrupt to re-open.

I think that one of the few bits of common ground is that the demographics that are seeing the worst outcomes are the elderly and people with chronic pre-existing medical conditions. Both of whom are likely to be out of work. If anything 17% seems a little higher than I would expect.

IIRC the thing that really put the frighteners on the UK government and prompted their u-turn in policy was not the 'baseline' mortality statistics coming out of Northern Italy but the numbers of hospitalisations of working age/healthy individuals which seemed to have overwhelmed their healthcare systems.

A large percentage of Americans are too broke to retire or enjoy working and keep at it well into their 70's.

Found some data quickly:

About 19% of Americans aged 65 and older are now in the workforce, up from about 12% in 1996. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics projects that by 2026, nearly 22% of people 65 and older will be working, with those 75 and older experiencing the fastest growth rate.May 1, 2019

Yeah that seems much higher than where we are in the UK - in 2018 we had 1.2M over 65s employed and 10.6M inactive. So roughly a 10% employment rate for over 65s.

[obvert]

Well, actually you were replying to my re-reading of the article you'd posted. This is the statement I was responding to in the most recent post.

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

The only issue I have is with how his opponent characterized the governor. You didn't denounce that, but I'm pretty sure you don't find it acceptable.

Here you quite clearly say you have issue with what the "opponent" said (The democratic official). You also assume for some reason that I wouldn't "find it acceptable," and implied I should be denouncing it.

Then ...

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

I assume you're kidding here. If not, we operate on such different planes that we can't have fruitful conversations about this. If you think an allegation that a governor is willing to trade lives for profit....really?

... you go back to the insistence that we should be talking about the democratic official's statement instead of the article explaining Abbot's different positions in public and private about reopening, which prompted the democratic officials comments.

Sorry Dan, you're obviously over the line in focusing on the politics. We get it. This is a big divide all over the nation, not just in the South, and it's not just about party lines, as much as most here would like us to believe.

I'll still keep pointing these things out, but you're right on one thing; there will not be fruit.

[Nomad]

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

This is the kind of stupid nonsensical questions from the elite Press that I simply abhor.

The woman is a spokesman, a Press Secretary. Man I can think of a thousand and one better questions if given the opportunity to ask the spokesman of the office of the White House than this crap.

The guy asking the question is from Reuters and supposedly a journalist.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nc7xhIUIL3o (less than 2 minutes)

Reuters asking the Press Secretary a question. I assume he can only ask a couple of questions a month.

I am impressed with the speed and accuracy she responded with.

[Sammy5IsAlive]

ORIGINAL: Nomad

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

This is the kind of stupid nonsensical questions from the elite Press that I simply abhor.

The woman is a spokesman, a Press Secretary. Man I can think of a thousand and one better questions if given the opportunity to ask the spokesman of the office of the White House than this crap.

The guy asking the question is from Reuters and supposedly a journalist.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nc7xhIUIL3o (less than 2 minutes)

Reuters asking the Press Secretary a question. I assume he can only ask a couple of questions a month.

I am impressed with the speed and accuracy she responded with.

I'm sure she was well aware that the question was likely to come up at some point. She'd done her research and was ready for it. Mr Reuters hadn't put his yards in and was shown up.