Source?At any rate what this sourse says about the information that it delivers is that
Source?At any rate what this sourse says about the information that it delivers is that
“Why does TSwizzle use this source exclusively to contribute to discussions?“
“Outrage porn”? Behave yourself.An interesting context to this emotional outrage porn post of TSwizzle is that the source of the information that causes TSwizzle to think something is “very shifty,” is, in fact, Very Shifty.
Let’s dig into what this means for the discussion.
We can all see that TSwizzle uses the Daily Mail exclusively to report all of the context for his opinions. He relies on and exclusively uses as support a news site that is deemed shifty.
Source?At any rate what this sourse says about the information that it delivers is that
Seems accurate.“Outrage porn”? Behave yourself.An interesting context to this emotional outrage porn post of TSwizzle is that the source of the information that causes TSwizzle to think something is “very shifty,” is, in fact, Very Shifty.
Let’s dig into what this means for the discussion.
We can all see that TSwizzle uses the Daily Mail exclusively to report all of the context for his opinions. He relies on and exclusively uses as support a news site that is deemed shifty.
TheFactual said:headlines and text are generally heavily opinionated or sensationalized;
Is this like asking me why I haven’t read and commented on an article from the National Enquirer?Your odd treatise on the Daily Mail says nothing about the actual content of the article. You could try reading the Vanity Fair version.
TheFactual said:The site has failed numerous fact checks, generally linked to deliberate attempts to spread fake news, implying that the publication seeks to profit from hoaxes or disinformation.
Given that the Daily Mail was citing Vanity Fair, a much better way of assessing the matter would be to go to the source and check whether the Daily Mail was misrepresenting it - or just leave aside the Daily Mail and consider the source(s) only.Rhea said:An interesting context to this emotional outrage porn post of TSwizzle is that the source of the information that causes TSwizzle to think something is “very shifty,” is, in fact, Very Shifty.
Let’s dig into what this means for the discussion.
Given that the Daily Mail was citing Vanity Fair, a much better way of assessing the matter would be to go to the source and check whether the Daily Mail was misrepresenting it - or just leave aside the Daily Mail and consider the source(s) only.
Given that the Daily Mail was citing Vanity Fair, a much better way of assessing the matter would be to go to the source and check whether the Daily Mail was misrepresenting it - or just leave aside the Daily Mail and consider the source(s) only.
That is exactly my point.
About the paucity of TSwizzle's news sources.Given that the Daily Mail was citing Vanity Fair, a much better way of assessing the matter would be to go to the source and check whether the Daily Mail was misrepresenting it - or just leave aside the Daily Mail and consider the source(s) only.
That is exactly my point.
About what?
A hypothetical nothingburger cooked up by republitards to distract voters from their intent to destroy American democracy at the behest of their Orange Jabba the Hutt?
“Ooooohh Noooooes!! Fauci and Hunter cooked up the China virus to destroy Donald the Great!”
Seems like a total disaster.WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT SWEDEN
ICYMI, science journal Nature has published a scathing assessment of Sweden's pandemic response as the country declares COVID's endemicity. 1/16
The damning "Evaluation of science advice during the COVID-19 pandemic in Sweden" by Brusselaers et al paints a grim picture of a country seemingly culling its elderly & vulnerable populations while deliberately infecting children in an effort to reach "herd immunity". 2/16
More on herd immunity & COVID can be found in Nature here: Five reasons why COVID herd immunity is probably impossible (Even with vaccination efforts in full force, the theoretical threshold for vanquishing COVID-19 looks to be out of reach.)
"The Swedish response to this pandemic," the researchers report, "was unique and characterized by a morally, ethically, and scientifically questionable laissez-faire approach." 3/16
The Swedish government avoided mandates & instead relied on people taking "personal responsibility" for their safety (sound familiar, Australia?). The LA Times reported that Sweden shunned lockdowns & masks while keeping schools, restaurants & businesses largely open. 4/16
The researchers included this timeline of Sweden's health measures & key events in the early part of the pandemic correlated against COVID waves:
*It can also be found here: Fig. 1: Timeline. | Humanities and Social Sciences Communications 5/16
According to Brusselaers et al, in Stockholm, triage rules stated that patients with comorbidities were not to be admitted to intensive care units, on grounds that they were "unlikely to recover." 6/16
Many elderly people were administered morphine instead of oxygen despite available supplies, effectively ending their lives, the researchers reported. 7/16
"Potentially life-saving treatment was withheld without medical examination, and without informing the patient or his/her family or asking permission." 8/16
The Swedish government reportedly kept people "in ignorance of basic facts" such as COVID being airborne, that asymptomatic individuals can be contagious & that face masks protect both the carrier & others. 9/16
Many schools did not inform parents or even teachers about confirmed COVID-19 transmission on the premises, nor reported it to official agencies, and urged parents not to tell if their children were infected—since this would “spread fear.” 10/16
Sweden's Twitter account for COVID stats @COVIDSweden hasn't been updated for a while, so we turn to @OurWorldInData which shows Sweden's staggeringly high death rate per million here: 11/16
(most recently: Sweden: 1800, Denmark 960, Finland 520, Norway 440, Iceland 280 -- the US is at 3000)
Clearly, and as Brusselaers et al note, projected "natural herd-immunity" levels remain nowhere in sight.
The research by Brusselaers et al can be found in Nature here: Evaluation of science advice during the COVID-19 pandemic in Sweden | Humanities and Social Sciences Communications 12/16
One of the researchers, David Steadson, observed that while the research has been accessed 112 thousand times, Swedish media have yet to report on any aspect of it:
(link) 13/16
David Steadson on Twitter: "Our paper about the Swedish pandemic response has now been accessed an astounding 112 thousand times in less than 10 days. It's ranked by Altmetric as one of the top 10 papers of the past 8 weeks and currently #301 of the past 11 years!
(link)" / Twitter
(link) 14/16
David Steadson on Twitter: "And yet ... as far as I know, *not once* has the paper been mentioned in Swedish media.
Complete silence. (pic link)" / Twitter
Reuters wrote about Sweden's declaration that the pandemic was over here: Sweden declare pandemic over, despite warnings from scientists | Reuters
Nonetheless, the LA Times wrote about the Brusselaers et al research in Nature here: (link) 15/16
Los Angeles Times on Twitter: ""The details of Swedish policies as described [in a new study] are horrifying. The Swedish government...deliberately tried to use children to spread COVID-19 and denied care to seniors and those suffering from other conditions."
Column by @hiltzikm: (link)" / Twitter
Here's hoping Australia can learn from the mistakes outlined in this paper & that the Swedish Government is held accountable moving forward. 16/16
New cases: Latest worldwide 1.41m (daily - 2 Apr 2022) Peak worldwide 3.44m (daily - 24 Jan 2022) All time worldwide 3.44m (daily - 24 Jan 2022) Latest US 30k (daily - 2 Apr 2022) Peak US 807k (daily - 14 Jan 2022) All time US 807k (daily - 14 Jan 2022) Deaths: Latest worldwide 4,191 (daily - 2 Apr 2022) Peak worldwide 10,926 (daily - 10 Feb 2022) All time worldwide 14,706 (daily - 26 Jan 2021) Latest US 646 (daily - 2 Apr 2022) Peak US 2,670 (daily - 1 Feb 2022) All time US 3,347 (daily - 13 Jan 2021)
Does it even matter?As the World Around Us Moves On, We ID Docs Just ... Can't
Something quite remarkable happened as Omicron tore through the United States in December and January. Despite triggering a record number of cases — which should have made people more concerned about COVID-19 — Omicron paradoxically did the opposite. It made most of our country decide to move...blogs.jwatch.org
Deciding it's over doesn't make it so. ID docs are going to have a much better understanding than QOP "docs".
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is receiving mounting opposition to its approval of fourth COVID-19 vaccine doses for all Americans aged 50 and older. The agency broke standard practice when it made the decision last month, electing not to take advice from a panel of independent experts. Some of those who would have advised on the decision are now voicing their objections to the authorization, and the lack of transparency the FDA displayed in the lead up to it. Dr Marty Makary, a medical commentator and public policy expert from Johns Hopkins University, wrote an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) this week criticizing the FDA and its lack of transparency in the process of approving the additional shot. While federal regulators push for more Covid vaccines, cases in the U.S. have fallen below 30,000 per day once again and deaths from the virus remain low as well. 'Some of the FDA's own experts disagree with the decision, but the agency simply ignored them,' Makary wrote.
I doubt I will get a second booster anytime soon, I'm not convinced it is necessary. I will get an annual flu shot later in the year.
That fails for the same reason Pascal's wager fails. Being religious doesn't cost you nothing. In fact, it is often time-consuming and expensive and boring.
I doubt I will get a second booster anytime soon, I'm not convinced it is necessary. I will get an annual flu shot later in the year.
I got a second booster because I'm not convinced it is not necessary. Maybe we should adjust Pascal's wager to something meaningful: You should get it because if you needed it will prevent premature death or long Covid and if you didn't need it it cost nothing.
That fails for the same reason Pascal's wager fails. Being religious doesn't cost you nothing. In fact, it is often time-consuming and expensive and boring.
I doubt I will get a second booster anytime soon, I'm not convinced it is necessary. I will get an annual flu shot later in the year.
I got a second booster because I'm not convinced it is not necessary. Maybe we should adjust Pascal's wager to something meaningful: You should get it because if you needed it will prevent premature death or long Covid and if you didn't need it it cost nothing.
Got my second booster at a pharmacy around the corner. Could walk there in under 5 minutes, and pick up prescriptions at the same time.That fails for the same reason Pascal's wager fails. Being religious doesn't cost you nothing. In fact, it is often time-consuming and expensive and boring.
I doubt I will get a second booster anytime soon, I'm not convinced it is necessary. I will get an annual flu shot later in the year.
I got a second booster because I'm not convinced it is not necessary. Maybe we should adjust Pascal's wager to something meaningful: You should get it because if you needed it will prevent premature death or long Covid and if you didn't need it it cost nothing.
What exactly did the booster cost me? (Not time. My wife gave it to me when I picked her up for dinner.)