How has the coronavirus affected your personal life?

[Ulu]

What is the most obvious to me is that politicians world wide, in discussing medicine, have raped and murdered the truth so often, that public trust is compromised from every angle. People who don’t believe their leaders will latch onto something else, right or wrong.

The placing of blame, and efforts to dodge blame, for various unfortunate happenings, has buried real effective discussion of the science involved.

Any idiot can see that masks will help prevent airborne infections. Who cares if they are more or less effective than with other infections? Yet we still have to endure endless commentary on who said what when, rather than real stats on efficacy.

I’m sure those stats are out there, but the public is not getting the truth, either pro or con. They are telling us what they want us to know.

 

[jjohnwm]

What is the most obvious to me is that politicians world wide, in discussing medicine, have raped and murdered the truth so often, that public trust is compromised from every angle. People who don’t believe their leaders will latch onto something else, right or wrong.

The placing of blame, and efforts to dodge blame, for various unfortunate happenings, has buried real effective discussion of the science involved.

Any idiot can see that masks will help prevent airborne infections. Who cares if they are more or less effective than with other infections? Yet we still have to endure endless commentary on who said what when, rather than real stats on efficacy.

I’m sure those stats are out there, but the public is not getting the truth, either pro or con. They are telling us what they want us to know.

This is so true, and it is becoming a bigger and bigger problem with the passage of time...not just as it relates to Covid, but to just about every important issue.

It is becoming more and more important to actually think about and weigh the information we are being given, while at the same time it is more and more difficult to sift through the BS and make sense of it. No wonder more and more people seem to have given up and just believe what they are told. After they do this for awhile, their brains turn to mush and they will buy anything.

I hasten to add that I am not referring to anyone involved in the discussion taking place here. The mere act of engaging in such a discussion is proof of being in the minority who are actually using their heads for something other than supporting a hat.

 

[Ulu]

Unfortunately, we don’t get real data from real doctors. We get spin from media/political spindoctors.

Scientific evidence/refutation in the general media is nonexistent. Outrageous actors get all the coverage, so people become engrossed in outrage. We are told certain data is “dangerous”, because of its origin, rather than its content.

People make random claims, and angrily vilify their detractors, while demanding evidence, when the public evidence is supremely unreliable. Our Hollywood groomed leaders wouldn’t know the difference. Science is their enemy.

Not one in 100 of our beautiful and famous talking heads could do elementary school mathematics without a calculator.

Post turtles, 99% of them.

 

[dogofwar]

You're making a false equivalency between political leaders who place science first and those who don't. They're not all the same. And it matters to differentiate.

The idea that the best approach to making sense of seemingly contradictory messages on things like masks and herd immunity and the like isn't for each of us to make up our own opinions. It is to listen to real science from the most credible sources like the cdc mmwr.

Unfortunately, we don’t get real data from real doctors. We get spin from media/political spindoctors.

Scientific evidence/refutation in the general media is nonexistent. Outrageous actors get all the coverage, so people become engrossed in outrage. We are told certain data is “dangerous”, because of its origin, rather than its content.

People make random claims, and angrily vilify their detractors, while demanding evidence, when the public evidence is supremely unreliable. Our Hollywood groomed leaders wouldn’t know the difference. Science is their enemy.

Not one in 100 of our beautiful and famous talking heads could do elementary school mathematics without a calculator.

Post turtles, 99% of them.

 

[dogofwar]

Those who have a vested interest in people (falsely) believing that, for example, that there is credible, scientific evidence that climate change isn't real (or human contributed) or covid is "just the flu" or hydroxychloroquine is a miracle cure or any other such nonsense, work in concert to give the impression to the public that there is legitimate scientific doubt on such issues. When there isn't.

Again, it's false equivalency to equate those who peddle misinformation with those who deliver science. And the very reason we have institutions like cdc, nasa, nih and the like is to bring together the world's best minds with relevant expertise. That each of us can figure out what the best science is... is fanciful

This is so true, and it is becoming a bigger and bigger problem with the passage of time...not just as it relates to Covid, but to just about every important issue.

It is becoming more and more important to actually think about and weigh the information we are being given, while at the same time it is more and more difficult to sift through the BS and make sense of it. No wonder more and more people seem to have given up and just believe what they are told. After they do this for awhile, their brains turn to mush and they will buy anything.

I hasten to add that I am not referring to anyone involved in the discussion taking place here. The mere act of engaging in such a discussion is proof of being in the minority who are actually using their heads for something other than supporting a hat.

 

[jjohnwm]

Those who have a vested interest in people (falsely) believing that, for example, that there is credible, scientific evidence that climate change isn't real (or human contributed) or covid is "just the flu" or hydroxychloroquine is a miracle cure or any other such nonsense, work in concert to give the impression to the public that there is legitimate scientific doubt on such issues. When there isn't.

Again, it's false equivalency to equate those who peddle misinformation with those who deliver science. And the very reason we have institutions like cdc, nasa, nih and the like is to bring together the world's best minds with relevant expertise. That each of us can figure out what the best science is... is fanciful

Totally correct, and I did not mean to imply otherwise. Although science isn't inviolate...what we "know" changes rapidly as we develop more and better ways to gain knowledge...it is obviously the only trustworthy source of info that helps us decide how each of us will behave and act and react to new developments in the world.

But that's the problem; we don't get most of our information directly from the source. Like everything else, information is a commodity in which many people and organizations have invested great sums of money. The information industry is not built upon a desire to accurately spread the latest and best scientific data. It's a gong show, a desperate attempt to get you to watch "us" rather than "them"...which in turn exposes you to the ads of sponsors who are interested in only one thing: to get you to buy the latest laser-guided can opener, digital tampon, "smart" toilet paper dispenser or whatever other ridiculous and useless gadget they are shilling.

If a news source actually reported the news in a factual, unbiased manner...they would be a quickly forgotten curiosity, while their competition turns everything into the best, the worst, the most dangerous...it has to be the ultimate exaggeration, it has to catch the public eye and draw them in. There are no more "reporters" any more, all we have is pundits, analysts, "specialists", "experts" and other people who are paid large sums of money...because they generate large amounts of revenue...and they don't do it by blandly telling you the facts. They turn it into drama. Sex sells.

Thinking for yourself doesn't imply that you should ignore the facts (science), but it has become more difficult to know which facts are facts, and which ones are fantasy. Simply hearing something repeated over and over doesn't make it true. Listening to a carefully edited verbal explanation of the "latest research" done by the most trustworthy sources, if that explanation is delivered by a huckster who is merely reciting a script created by writers anxious to keep their jobs...is not the same as listening to science.

 

[dogofwar]

Well stated!

Clearly differentiating news from opinion and analysis is critical. As is understanding the background and conflicts of interests of the sources.

Unfortunately, many people don't set out to find the truth - they could find it because it's out there in paces like the CDC MMWR or the National Academies of Science or the new (not opinion!) pages of the Washington Post - but they seek to validate the opinions of their tribe.

Here in the US, we have one tribe that lives in a fantasy land and the other that lives (primarily) in scientific reality. Sharing links from credible sources isn't going to convince the fantasy tribe to believe that masks work, to support actions to stem global warming or to give up on any of the rest of the nonsense.

It's going to take leaders in that fantasy tribe having the courage to voice reality. And that's in short supply right now.

Totally correct, and I did not mean to imply otherwise. Although science isn't inviolate...what we "know" changes rapidly as we develop more and better ways to gain knowledge...it is obviously the only trustworthy source of info that helps us decide how each of us will behave and act and react to new developments in the world.

But that's the problem; we don't get most of our information directly from the source. Like everything else, information is a commodity in which many people and organizations have invested great sums of money. The information industry is not built upon a desire to accurately spread the latest and best scientific data. It's a gong show, a desperate attempt to get you to watch "us" rather than "them"...which in turn exposes you to the ads of sponsors who are interested in only one thing: to get you to buy the latest laser-guided can opener, digital tampon, "smart" toilet paper dispenser or whatever other ridiculous and useless gadget they are shilling.

If a news source actually reported the news in a factual, unbiased manner...they would be a quickly forgotten curiosity, while their competition turns everything into the best, the worst, the most dangerous...it has to be the ultimate exaggeration, it has to catch the public eye and draw them in. There are no more "reporters" any more, all we have is pundits, analysts, "specialists", "experts" and other people who are paid large sums of money...because they generate large amounts of revenue...and they don't do it by blandly telling you the facts. They turn it into drama. Sex sells.

Thinking for yourself doesn't imply that you should ignore the facts (science), but it has become more difficult to know which facts are facts, and which ones are fantasy. Simply hearing something repeated over and over doesn't make it true. Listening to a carefully edited verbal explanation of the "latest research" done by the most trustworthy sources, if that explanation is delivered by a huckster who is merely reciting a script created by writers anxious to keep their jobs...is not the same as listening to science.

 

[Ulu]

You're making a false equivalency between political leaders who place science first and those who don't. They're not all the same. And it matters to differentiate….

If you think you can trust any of them you are a fool.

 

[dogofwar]

Such cynicism favors those peddling BS.

If you think you can trust any of them you are a fool.

 

[skjl47]

And the very reason we have institutions like cdc, nasa, nih and the like is to bring together the world's best minds with relevant expertise. That each of us can figure out what the best science is... is fanciful

Hello; Nice try. I get you are one of those who want us to do as we are told and do not question our betters. Thing is in the last few years the sort of institutions you name have peddled misleading information. I posted a link to such a thing just a short time ago. That link (Hilton) in my post seems to have spurred some discussion. So far you have not acknowledged the CDC was peddling cherry picked data to push the vaccine agenda. Again the link was not about the vaccine's working or not, but about the tactic being used.
The vaccines have been taken by most who want them in my country. Could it be those who do not want to take a vaccine have come to distrust the agencies that brought us ever changing mask mandates and illogical shutdown rules?

The top people in charge are supposed to filter out the BS before they make announcements. Their statements ought not be part of some political advantage agenda or some money making agenda, but such seem to have been the case with the virus itself.

The notion that even those with natural immunity need to have a vaccine shot is also going to prove to be part of some agenda is my take. More and more the evidence is natural immunity is robust and continues to last. What reason can their be for pushing a vaccine onto those with a natural immunity? I have some notions but do not have proof. Keep this statement of mine in mind and make me have to eat crow some day. There could have been a lot more people vaccinated if those who recovered from an infection had skipped the shots. I have talked to a few myself, they are doing what they are told.