CR: COVID-19 --Political Talk

[Pig Bellmont 8737]

 

[ChiTownDoc 21154]

9 hours ago, Anastasis said:

But does that reflect a systematic attempt to suppress the death counts by the state, or just under-attribution for a variety of reasoning including testing practices. There is a difference. Death certificate coding does not require a confirmation by testing, but nobody is really ready to assess those data due to the lag.  I agree with Hugo that some comparisons to historical data would help, but with greater focus on deaths related to respiratory conditions as you suggest.  

Oh - definitely don’t see a rigged system to push numbers one way or another.  Agree with you.

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13587]

18 minutes ago, Okie State said:

33 minutes ago, Aqua Buddha said:

Read more  

This is what blows my mind about conspiracy theorists. All of your sources are always wrong and all of theirs are right.

I've got one friend who in a matter of weeks went from posting the narrative that the reaction to the incoming pandemic was overblown and deliberately designed to hurt Trump politically to posting a Plandemic video yesterday.

[Pancho 44986]

I don’t want to give it any google searches, so what do those radial Republicans believe “plandemic” means as if seen this word a few times. 

[Brisketexan 105319]

10 hours ago, Pig Bellmont said:

Remember when republicans pretended to care about shit like this? What was the line about Solyndra? “The White House shouldn’t get to pick winners and losers”? 

How fucking adorably quaint.

And now, running the entire federal government based on one question -- is this person/entity loyal to the regime? -- well, that's how you MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!

Fucking amazing.

[Anastasis 23484]

6 minutes ago, Pancho said:

I don’t want to give it any google searches, so what do those radial Republicans believe “plandemic” means as if seen this word a few times. 

I watched portions of the video, and I am not 100% sure but it seems like the gist of it was that Fauci is a really bad guy and he also is suppressing the miracle drug hydrochloroquine. 

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13587]

Other claims-

- it's not possible for the virus to be naturally occurring and could only have been created in a lab.

- masks and gloves actually make you more sick.

- there are healing microbes in the water so closing beaches is "insanity".

Edited May 8, 2020 by Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand

[Aqua Buddha 14608]

28 minutes ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

I've got one friend who in a matter of weeks went from posting the narrative that the reaction to the incoming pandemic was overblown and deliberately designed to hurt Trump politically to posting a Plandemic video yesterday.

It’s like on one hand, there’s a vast conspiracy but on the other hand, Trump has nothing to do with it.

[Steamboat1874 4086]

CHINA’S EFFORT to avoid accountability for the novel coronavirus pandemic through a global propaganda campaign seems to be doing as much harm as good for Beijing. Attempts by government officials and state media to cast blame on the United States or other Western countries for the origin and spread of the virus have triggered a backlash; deliveries of humanitarian supplies have led to reports about their poor quality.

 

Rather than retreat, President Xi Jinping’s regime has turned to a familiar tactic: bullying. Its diplomats are demanding that governments offer praise for China’s handling of the epidemic or censor reports on its failings, and they are threatening consequences if their requirements are not met. Disturbingly, this tactic appears to be working with the European Union.

 

Wait is this about Xi or Trump?

Cannot tell any difference.

[InkaUtexas 26094]

Taiwan coming out and saying what a lot of people already think about the initial outbreak in Wuhan. 

 

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13587]

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/what-are-we-doing-doctors-are-fed-conspiracies-ravaging-ers-n1201446

 

"Hadi tried to engage and explain his firsthand experience with the virus. In reply, another user insinuated that he wasn't a real doctor, saying pictures from his profile showing him at concerts and music festivals proved it.

"I told them: 'I am a real doctor. There are 200 people in my hospital's ICU,'" said Halazun, a cardiologist in New York. "And they said, 'Give me your credentials.' I engaged with them, and they kicked me off their wall.""

[InkaUtexas 26094]

 

[wildcat09 29379]

3 minutes ago, InkaUtexas said:

 

Maybe we shouldn't do everything in our power to make the WHO wholly dependent on China for funding.

[4th&Five 41587]

No shit. Trump gave away our influence just like he has all over the world. China is more than happy to step in. America first though. What could go wrong?

[Queen Bitch 1692]

This is literally VEEP.

[HenryJames 66170]

Hahahahahhaha

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

‪“While we haven’t won a single game this season, remember when we used to win games?  It’s not like my leadership has been completely worthless and therefore I deserve a contract extension.”‬

[Aqua Buddha 14608]

"I have a long history of late season collapses but I deserve a contract extension."

[Pancho 44986]

CNN breaking a member of the VP's staff has tested positive for corona. 

[InkaUtexas 26094]

Saw a few tweets earlier today staff were removed from Air Force 2. Plane then took off vs. being sanitized. 

 

Edited May 8, 2020 by InkaUtexas

[Guest Lobo]

(Looking at plane full of Covid-19 carriers plus an asshole like Mike Pence), "Is this Hell?"
 

Mike Pence:  "No, it's Iowa"  

[burntorangebongos 10752]

Did everybody see this yet? Delivering nothing is such a metaphor for this admin.

[TwiceHorn 31534]

11 hours ago, GRHorn said:

I appreciate that you are at least honest in your response, even if we disagree. These other people just avoid the point. I’ll be following. If you see a correction or something that addresses it that I miss, tag me. Thanks. 

I've said on several occasions that I do believe a number of media outlets have gone a bit overboard in critiquing Trump so that it created a "boy that cried wolf" effect.**  I should say, rather than critique, I guess, countering Trump's unverifiable assertions with unverifiable assertions of their own and sometimes ones that strained credibility as much or more than Trump.  It was unnecessary, in my opinion, and helped fuel the base with ideas of Trump Derangement Syndrome and Biaasssss!!!111!!!

**rather than cried wolf, maybe a better analogy is "don't get in the mud and wrestle with a pig, you'll both get dirty and the pig will like it."

[Bruh Man 3160]

 

[bolverk 29717]

5 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I've said on several occasions that I do believe a number of media outlets have gone a bit overboard in critiquing Trump so that it created a "boy that cried wolf" effect.**  I should say, rather than critique, I guess, countering Trump's unverifiable assertions with unverifiable assertions of their own and sometimes ones that strained credibility as much or more than Trump.  It was unnecessary, in my opinion, and helped fuel the base with ideas of Trump Derangement Syndrome and Biaasssss!!!111!!!

**rather than cried wolf, maybe a better analogy is "don't get in the mud and wrestle with a pig, you'll both get dirty and the pig will like it."

Can you provide examples of the bolded? And I don't mean one or two, but enough that would fuel 40% of our population to think that every criticism of Trump is TDS?

[Grade of D as in David 13253]

For a salon owner she has shitty hair.

[NameAlreadyInUse 5114]

13 hours ago, GRHorn said:

And WaPo should assist them because why, again?

I don't think they should.  I also don't think Fox News should be assisting Russia either.  But I'm not getting my way there either.  The way that I deal with both situations is I don't consume either product. 

[Hefeweizen 5332]

On 5/6/2020 at 9:45 PM, Aqua Buddha said:

Help me out here.  There's some video from an anti-vaxxer that every fucking loon on my FB feed has posted.  Something about how the virus is a plot from the government or something.  It's like they all took marching orders at once.  I'd post it here but I don't want my computer getting AIDS.

Can someone tell me what's going on here?  Why are the loons all coming out at once?

It went out in my office.  The idiots have gotten their playbook.

[TwiceHorn 31534]

4 hours ago, GW Hayduke said:

It is obvious you don’t have much experience reading newspapers and instead are in a right-wing information bubble.

Consider closing twitter and Facebook and breitbart and limiting your time on Fox News. Check out PBS News Hour. It’s free and online. Only an hour a day. Fold in some NPR. Buy the local paper. The Statesman if you live in Austin. Finally, mix in some WSJ and Post.   

What you will notice is that there are factual news based reporting and separate from that are opinion editorials. That separation is key. Once you are able to see the separation in reputable journalism outlets, you will then be able to notice that Fox News blurs that seperation to the point that a Fox News consumer (such as yourself) didn’t even know News/opinion separation was a thing.

Solid post.

I don't subscribe to print media anymore, but I have self-curated newsfeeds (feedly) and "auto-curated" newsfeeds (Google News) that give me news.  I listen to NPR in the car and at home.  And, I get a smattering of stuff through here via twitter and other posted links.  If you are gullible or credulous, the autocurated stuff is absolute poison.  It gives you what you want to read.  It does give you stuff from a smattering of sources, though.  I get Fox, WaPo, NYT, and WSJ among others in my feed. I get nervous when it starts giving me lots of stuff from Fox.

It takes some effort, but I tend to kind of fact-check everything I read and discern whether what I'm reading is more reportage or editorializing.  For example, I have enjoyed The Atlantic Monthly for 25 years (used to have a print subscription).  It's in my feedly feed.  They are borderline nutso on Trump, but also mostly on-point and 100% editorial/opinion.  I still fact check them using Reuters, which is still pretty much "just the facts, maam."

I'll end the self-congratulatory screed, but saw some value in pointing out my methods, and especially pointing out that "autocurated" or affinity-based "news" via social media or other means can be really poisonous.

[DDD Dad 14348]

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

Solid post.

I don't subscribe to print media anymore, but I have self-curated newsfeeds (feedly) and "auto-curated" newsfeeds (Google News) that give me news.  I listen to NPR in the car and at home.  And, I get a smattering of stuff through here via twitter and other posted links.  If you are gullible or credulous, the autocurated stuff is absolute poison.  It gives you what you want to read.  It does give you stuff from a smattering of sources, though.  I get Fox, WaPo, NYT, and WSJ among others in my feed. I get nervous when it starts giving me lots of stuff from Fox.

It takes some effort, but I tend to kind of fact-check everything I read and discern whether what I'm reading is more reportage or editorializing.  For example, I have enjoyed The Atlantic Monthly for 25 years (used to have a print subscription).  It's in my feedly feed.  They are borderline nutso on Trump, but also mostly on-point and 100% editorial/opinion.  I still fact check them using Reuters, which is still pretty much "just the facts, maam."

I'll end the self-congratulatory screed, but saw some value in pointing out my methods, and especially pointing out that "autocurated" or affinity-based "news" via social media or other means can be really poisonous.

My guilty pleasure is listening to Michael Barbaro on the NYT's The Daily podcast.  While there clearly is an editorial slant overall to what is delivered (and of course the choice of subject matter), the factual information and deep dives into subject really provide insight from which to fact-check and reach one's own conclusions.

[Brisketexan 105319]

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

Solid post.

I don't subscribe to print media anymore, but I have self-curated newsfeeds (feedly) and "auto-curated" newsfeeds (Google News) that give me news.  I listen to NPR in the car and at home.  And, I get a smattering of stuff through here via twitter and other posted links.  If you are gullible or credulous, the autocurated stuff is absolute poison.  It gives you what you want to read.  It does give you stuff from a smattering of sources, though.  I get Fox, WaPo, NYT, and WSJ among others in my feed. I get nervous when it starts giving me lots of stuff from Fox.

It takes some effort, but I tend to kind of fact-check everything I read and discern whether what I'm reading is more reportage or editorializing.  For example, I have enjoyed The Atlantic Monthly for 25 years (used to have a print subscription).  It's in my feedly feed.  They are borderline nutso on Trump, but also mostly on-point and 100% editorial/opinion.  I still fact check them using Reuters, which is still pretty much "just the facts, maam."

I'll end the self-congratulatory screed, but saw some value in pointing out my methods, and especially pointing out that "autocurated" or affinity-based "news" via social media or other means can be really poisonous.

This.  Fact-checking isn't hard.  And most importantly, you should endeavor to do so with respect to the facts that tend to SUPPORT your inclination.

Maybe that's a habit learned by a trial lawyer who's been burned a time or two.  When a client gives you the "magic bullet" piece of evidence or testimony....you damned well look behind it, because it very often turns out that the bullet isn't quite as magical as the client indicated ("well, that contract where they were gonna agree to pay the full amount....I mean, I don't have a SIGNED copy, but they told me they were GONNA sign it").  Some sources are better than others at vetting the facts (nobody is perfect, by the way) -- but the Economist, Reuters, etc (notably, international outfits are good at this) are good choices.

That doesn't mean that you shouldn't consume opinion/news that has an obvious lean -- somebody with a hard-on to bring down corruption at city hall is probably going to do the best job of ferreting out corruption at city hall...but that doesn't mean that every transaction they squeal about is bad.  Use your filter, judgment, and healthy skepticism.

And, as long as editorializing is presented as just that, I don't mind a slant, even a nutty one.  I WANT to know what the extremes are saying.  I WANT to know what the Chinese embassy is saying -- so long as it's on the editorial page, I'm fine with it.  Same as I am when I read some crazed MAGA-heavy crap on the editorial page (and there's plenty of that) -- I WANT to know how those folks think.  I just don't mistake any of it for factual reporting.  Because it isn't.  And I have an IQ above room-temperature.

[TwiceHorn 31534]

32 minutes ago, bolverk said:

Can you provide examples of the bolded? And I don't mean one or two, but enough that would fuel 40% of our population to think that every criticism of Trump is TDS?

Most of it was during the Mueller investigation, so some years past now.  Breathless reporting/speculation of who was going to be indicted for what and Prague!! and the dossier!!! and blah blah blah, all while Trump was calling things a witch hunt.  Also, legal reporting is notoriously poor across the board and some of it, reported without solid understanding of the legal process, feeds into the Trump talking points.

I don't mean that that type of reporting created "the base."  But I think it obviously gave the base talking points and may have converted or tilted a few skeptics toward buying Trump's fake news mantra.

The point being that Trump delivers plenty of ammo for criticism.  On more than one occasion, mainstream media "picked fights" that it didn't need to, to its detriment.  Fights that couldn't be won because there were no neutral principles for evaluation.  Kind of like a Fire X thread on surly.

Edited May 8, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[Guest Lobo]

9 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Solid post.

I don't subscribe to print media anymore, but I have self-curated newsfeeds (feedly) and "auto-curated" newsfeeds (Google News) that give me news.  I listen to NPR in the car and at home.  And, I get a smattering of stuff through here via twitter and other posted links.  If you are gullible or credulous, the autocurated stuff is absolute poison.  It gives you what you want to read.  It does give you stuff from a smattering of sources, though.  I get Fox, WaPo, NYT, and WSJ among others in my feed. I get nervous when it starts giving me lots of stuff from Fox.

It takes some effort, but I tend to kind of fact-check everything I read and discern whether what I'm reading is more reportage or editorializing.  For example, I have enjoyed The Atlantic Monthly for 25 years (used to have a print subscription).  It's in my feedly feed.  They are borderline nutso on Trump, but also mostly on-point and 100% editorial/opinion.  I still fact check them using Reuters, which is still pretty much "just the facts, maam."

I'll end the self-congratulatory screed, but saw some value in pointing out my methods, and especially pointing out that "autocurated" or affinity-based "news" via social media or other means can be really poisonous.

Well put.  Granted, a lot of it is for market news which is still relatively apolitical (but getting worse every year), but if you include general news...I probably intake about an hour to two hours of self-sought news in a given day.  Probably 20% print (wsj, abj) and 80% digital. 

the number one comment I get back from folks if I tell them that is, "1-2 hours per day?  I'm too busy to go out and find news like that.  I have my job and my family to deal with, I can't spend that much time seeking out and reading the news."

So then I say, "Well, if you take out some other unnecessary distractions throughout the day, you'll find you have more than enough time to quietly immerse yourself in quality news and information.  For instance you could just not go on facebook or twitter.  Average American spends an hour on those two platforms combined, nevermind other screen time distractions."

And then of course, they say, "Get off facebook?  But that's where I get my news!" 

And here, we all are...

Edited May 8, 2020 by Lobo

[TwiceHorn 31534]

13 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

My guilty pleasure is listening to Michael Barbaro on the NYT's The Daily podcast.  While there clearly is an editorial slant overall to what is delivered (and of course the choice of subject matter), the factual information and deep dives into subject really provide insight from which to fact-check and reach one's own conclusions.

For some reason, other than the radio, I have a hard time paying attention to podcasts and the like.  Part of the reason NPR can be effective for me is that it's repetitive as hell.  If you have it on for an hour, you'll hear the same thing at least twice.

I hate that many local news stories that pop up in my feeds turn out to be videos rather than articles.  I almost never watch/listen to them.  That's a shortcoming of mine.

Edited May 8, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[DDD Dad 14348]

3 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

For some reason, other than the radio, I have a hard time paying attention to podcasts and the like.  Part of the reason NPR can be effective for me is that it's repetitive as hell.  If you have it on for an hour, you'll hear the same thing at least twice.

I hate that many local news stories that pop up in my feeds turn out to be videos rather than articles.  I almost never watch/listen to them.  That's a shortcoming of mine.

It's usually about 15-20 minutes long, which works well for me driving into the office or on the way home.  Plus the local NPR station actually broadcasts it each evening at 7 (when I'm typically on my way home back when things were normal).

That and NPR's Up First daily podcast are typically the only podcasts I listen to with any frequency anymore.

[TwiceHorn 31534]

I used to be a pretty religious reader of the Dallas Morning News, a habit I picked up from my Dad.  But I dumped my print subscription about 10 years ago for a couple of reasons.  One was that the local/personal interest stuff had become downright gossipy or vapid. The second was that its editorial page had become monolithic.  It was always conservative, but used to give somewhat equal time to more liberal writers.  Some of them retired or otherwise went away and they weren't replaced, and the ones that were left weren't given equal time on big issues, particularly as pertained to city government (Trinity project and similar).  Plus, setting aside conservative/liberal, it was way too in the bag for the citizens council types (always identified as conservative, but like Trump and the GOP, frequently not conservative at all).

I don't know if anyone has a similar experience.

[Patrick Bateman 3929]

2 hours ago, Queen Bitch said:

This is literally VEEP.

Fake PPE!

[RomaVicta 30013]

14 hours ago, GRHorn said:

1) so we’re lifting the veil on WaPo being some kind of neutral news? It’s Fox News level?

2) who is more hostile to our country’s interests? Someone like Mike Huckabee or a CCP mouthpiece like the Ambassador?

You're pretty comfortable with the notion of blocking certain opinions under the guise that other opinions take precedence. That's dangerous for public discourse, but that's not really a popular issue in the Era of Falsehoods in which we find ourselves.

An opinion piece can be rebutted. It can be ignored. It can be, by a minimally educated electorate, put into perspective and differentiated from reportage.

Or it can become a bit of fluff for some low level sophistry about the credibility of a newspaper. 

[conVINCEd 21469]

23 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

For some reason, other than the radio, I have a hard time paying attention to podcasts and the like.  Part of the reason NPR can be effective for me is that it's repetitive as hell.  If you have it on for an hour, you'll hear the same thing at least twice.

I hate that many local news stories that pop up in my feeds turn out to be videos rather than articles.  I almost never watch/listen to them.  That's a shortcoming of mine.

I despise podcasts.  I am a very fast reader.  If these podcasters posted a transcript of their 30 minute show, I could digest the info in a couple of minutes.  I prefer a couple of minutes to 30 minutes.

[Pig Bellmont 8737]

The number of “acceptable deaths” sure seems to change a lot

[DDD Dad 14348]

11 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

The number of “acceptable deaths” sure seems to change a lot

Give it another few months and we'll be declaring Mission Accomplished if we stay below 2 million.

[4th&Five 41587]

They already have. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

9 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

The number of “acceptable deaths” sure seems to change a lot

I bet none of the models accounted for Trump/Fox News spreading disinformation and telling everyone to go back to work. 

With this administration, we will be lucky to keep it under a million by 2021 and it brings me no joy to forecast that.  I wish someone competent would take the wheel on a national level.  Cuomo is giving the best performance but I don’t think what he’s doing is sustainable because he’s just working on NY. 

[Jive Turkey 12642]

 

[Mole 4333]

1 hour ago, burntorangebongos said:

Did everybody see this yet? Delivering nothing is such a metaphor for this admin.

If you follow the thread you’ll find the longer clip on CSPAN. The short clip is entirely dishonest just to set up the joke about empty boxes.

In the longer clip, they:

1. Finish the boxes

2. Pence is told that the other boxes in the truck are empty

3. He makes the “for the cameras” comment

4. Someone else comments about them being easier to carry

5. They all laugh and Pence closes the doors to the van

He didn’t get caught on a hot mic. This time it actually was a joke, unlike Trump’s “sarcasm.”

[bolverk 29717]

9 minutes ago, Mole said:

If you follow the thread you’ll find the longer clip on CSPAN. The short clip is entirely dishonest just to set up the joke about empty boxes.

In the longer clip, they:

1. Finish the boxes

2. Pence is told that the other boxes in the truck are empty

3. He makes the “for the cameras” comment

4. Someone else comments about them being easier to carry

5. They all laugh and Pence closes the doors to the van

He didn’t get caught on a hot mic. This time it actually was a joke, unlike Trump’s “sarcasm.”

See, now this is good work. Thanks for that.

[Pig Bellmont 8737]

8 minutes ago, Mole said:

If you follow the thread you’ll find the longer clip on CSPAN. The short clip is entirely dishonest just to set up the joke about empty boxes.

In the longer clip, they:

1. Finish the boxes

2. Pence is told that the other boxes in the truck are empty

3. He makes the “for the cameras” comment

4. Someone else comments about them being easier to carry

5. They all laugh and Pence closes the doors to the van

He didn’t get caught on a hot mic. This time it actually was a joke, unlike Trump’s “sarcasm.”

Two points: First the apology from Kimmel

But here’s the real take away:

 

[WhatTheBuck 28798]

Heckuva job, Pencey. 

[Irwin F Fletcher 3550]

44 minutes ago, Jive Turkey said:

 

Sounds like Pence has been handing out fake PPE to his staff.

[UpperWestside 6188]

2 hours ago, burntorangebongos said:

Did everybody see this yet? Delivering nothing is such a metaphor for this admin.