711–720 of 986 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They did the same in Spain. And it is very very hard not to fall for conspiracy theories when essentially all the west governments simultaneously lied about the face masks effectiveness.
Why fall into conspiracies when the pragmatic answer is the more logical one?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
“The” source? Assuming you were alive and paying any attention the past two years, the source would be your own eyes and ears, consuming the (US) CDC’s official communications. I wasn’t even in the US and encountered them! In fact, I once even repeated one of their false claims about masks very early last year during a recorded zoom call with a friend. Then after looking at the very different claims from my local CDC…
I think so much of the messaging would have been better if there were disclaimers about “we are still doing research” and “based on our knowledge at this time”… or even timeboxing the advice so it’s updated every 12-48 hours even if unchanged. This specific messaging has been a rallying point for people who don’t even believe covid exists. At least that was the case in the US
To be fair though, the VP was an epidemiologist, so there was an unfair advantage.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The biggest issue isn't the dick pics, but him smoking crack and potentially having sex with an underaged woman. He just happened to be naked while doing/potentially doing those things.
He also was not the candidate, did not have a chance of getting a government position like his predecessor’s children, and there was no public interest in seeing his acts. It would have been newsworthy if they’d tried to hide the story of Hunter’s addiction but it was public knowledge already along with Joe’s desire to help his son get treatment.
And? Does that mean we should suppress evidence of crimes that are posted on Twitter because of that? If I committed a crime, should Twitter delete the articles and pictures?
> It would have been newsworthy if they’d tried to hide the story of Hunter’s addiction but it was public knowledge already along
It is more than just addiction. He may have had child porn on his computer and may have had sex with an underage girl.
There is also the question of how he got such a cushy job with no experience and a drug addiction.
>with Joe’s desire to help his son get treatment.
Joe seems like he genuinely cares about his son and wanted him to get help. I don't think that is relevant though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The biggest issue isn't the dick pics, but him smoking crack and potentially having sex with an underaged woman. He just happened to be naked while doing/potentially doing those things.
> and potentially having sex with an underaged woman Malicious lies thrown about by RudyG and others far more corrupt than Joe Biden could ever be considered to be.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That's still lying. They gave you, the individual, false information, ... Yes it was lying. Yes it was false information. No, that's not outside the scope of their role at times. > ... and not for your own good. Quite the contrary, that misinformation would actually harm you if you believed it. No, it was for the individual good. Hoarding of masks by randos in the middle of nowhere leading to no supply for the firs…
> Again, a crap situation, but one that the CDC wasn't responsible for. They simply messed up. All they had to do was say nothing and reach out to the manufacturers making N95 masks and their retailers. Just going to Walmart and Amazon and getting them to pull their stock would have prevented the vast majority of people from getting their hands on them. A non-trivial number of Americans at the time had already been w…
If someone could produce even one document implying that this was discussed at all it would’ve been catastrophic.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
“the times the US president did things like suggest to the public, on live national tv, that consuming bleach could cure Covid.” This is a lie and you should not be propagating it in the current year. It’s honestly embarrassing you can’t do primary research at all and still talk with authority.
Immediately prior to Trump’s remarks, Bill Bryan said: “‘We tested bleach,’ he said at one point. ‘I can tell you that bleach will kill the virus in five minutes.’” Trump followed this with: “And then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in a minute. One minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning.” So to be completely fair, Trump suggested that injecti…
That's a question. A statement would begin with "there is".
It's embarrassing that people are mischaracterizing his remarks based on a bad transcription.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What do you mean by fair game? Is that true? Probably not. Should people be censored and prevented from talking about that? Absolutely fecking not. We have enough examples of medical misinformation coming from the most reputable sources to doubt their ability to impartially make decisions about what should and shouldn't be "fair game".
So we should not prevent people from talking about the fire in the crowded theater is what you’re saying?
Holmes envisioned the quote as a reasonable metaphor for why Mr. Schenck must be imprisoned for spreading such dangerous, provocative, and utterly unacceptable speech. That speech? Scheck was handing out fliers encouraging people to refuse to comply with the military draft.
So yes, I do think it's important we allow people to discuss this "fire in the crowded theater" because if the present somehow doesn't show you where the alternative leads, then merely look to the past - there are illustrations aplenty. Schenck lost and was convicted under the Espionage Act.
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think so much of the messaging would have been better if there were disclaimers about “we are still doing research” and “based on our knowledge at this time”… or even timeboxing the advice so it’s updated every 12-48 hours even if unchanged. This specific messaging has been a rallying point for people who don’t even believe covid exists. At least that was the case in the US
I was in Taiwan (and also was for the first SARS), and I think the messaging here was much more competent but also more humble and less aggressive than much of the rest of the world’s. To be fair though, the VP was an epidemiologist, so there was an unfair advantage.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Correct, they were telling people not to buy masks due to a shortage which is a different claim from “masks don’t work.” Could it possibly be the case that these statements are all true?: 1) We don’t know if masks donned by untrained people in normal public settings impacts transmission 2) We do know that masks donned by medical professionals in a medical context impacts transmission 3) We know there are not enough m…
Having a memory more than a goldfish means I know exactly what was said, and they did more then just say "masks may not work" I vividly remember Facui stating many times on multiple interviews that masks were not effective. >the public should not get masks until medical professionals are equipped with what they need? disagree. I think people should be free to acquire any product they want on the market, and I believe…
Regarding Fauci, are you pointing to his March 8 2020 communication that "there's no reason to be walking around with a mask?"
The full statement is here: "In America, right now, there's no reason to be walking around with a mask. When you're in the middle of an outbreak, wearing a mask might make people feel better and it might even block a droplet here or there. But it's not providing the perfect protection that people think that it is. And often, there are unintended consequences - people fiddling with their mask and touching their face."
This was both at the time, and currently, an open question as to how these things net out at the population level. This is a pretty nuanced and detailed communication that, unsurprisingly, the "I deserve nuance" crowd has completely eliminated.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What do you mean by fair game? Is that true? Probably not. Should people be censored and prevented from talking about that? Absolutely fecking not. We have enough examples of medical misinformation coming from the most reputable sources to doubt their ability to impartially make decisions about what should and shouldn't be "fair game".
So we should not prevent people from talking about the fire in the crowded theater is what you’re saying?
That doesn't mean they can jump out of their seat, scream "fire", and urge everyone to evacuate the theatre. I could see consequences for doing that, but calmly asking "does anyone smell smoke?" seems harmless.