731–740 of 968 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But it literally is a strain of flu Eh? No, it is not. Who told you this? Whoever it was, stop listening to them. Bloody hell.
I was using the word "flu" in the broader sense. People commonly refer to virus-caused colds as simply flu. So what I was trying to say was that this is yet another virus that causes "flu".
Yes, I’ve got a touch of the bubonic plague today. Oh, I’m using ‘bubonic plague’ in the broader sense; I stubbed my toe.
At times I've believed that this virus was an absolutely terrible virus, and at other times I've believed that things were overblown.
I've read and seen interviews of more calm and rational experts and think that perhaps the original claims were more correct, or at least the response by governments are more damaging than the virus itself.
In the end this virus' run may end up not being worse or not much worse than a flu season of a certain level of severity as initially thought, but the future consequences on our rights and liberties by media induced panic and state authoritarian measures might be long lasting.
I really don't want to see certain people calling others fascists, nazis and communists in the future after seeing what they've supported during our current times.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pcQFTzck_c&feature=emb_logo
> They didn't realize there was any danger in making false predictions. Is there any danger for them? PG seems to have very idealistic view of politics. As far as I know, any amount of fact checking in politics don't change political views. Will Fox News lose any viewers over this? Politicians may lose jobs because bad economy, but will they lose votes because they were wrong and ignorant? H. L. Mencken wrote: > No o…
"Is there any danger for them?" Fox news dumped Laura Ingraham and Trish Regan. Both were at the forefront of claiming it was all a hoax. Dr. Drew has gone on a reputation rehabilitation tour apologizing for his prior claims. But those dismissals are a canary in a coal mine. They demonstrate that even Fox News has limits. It is outrageous that anyone -- outside of scam prosperity preachers -- advertise on Fox News.
So, I am thinking his rehabilitation tour is perhaps not as forthright as it could be.
1: https://reclaimthenet.org/dr-drew-apologizes-coronavirus-dmc...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> In the background global warming is a much greater threat to human life and has the exact same dynamic with the exact same players. No, global warming has a very different dynamic. With a virus, if you do the right thing and protect yourself, you’re more likely to survive. With global warming, if you get a lot of people to emit less CO2, you might just end up making CO2 emissions cheaper for everyone else.
So what should we do?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When you are not in charge you can say whatever you want, it won't kill people. So that's why it matters. It's not about who you support. "The Buck Stops Here".
People will die of this in every country on earth. Are all in charge responsible for every death in the country over which they preside?
In the background global warming is a much greater threat to human life and has the exact same dynamic with the exact same players . There is also zero introspection - the people who were wrong about covid-19 are simply denying they said what they said. The truly scary part is they are getting away with it in real time, and changing a large populations' memory of contemporary events. I realize it's hard to remember f…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Who cares what journalists say? IPCC and nasa reports are publicly available and use plain language anyone can read. Investigating geological or ecological truth is one thing, investigating causes and consequences for widespread ignorance and bad policy decisions is another. You and I are approaching this from different angles. Unfortunately, journalists have power to shape our society. I would argue that as a grou…
Sadly journalists seem even more in the pocket of big biz than scientists.
I think you may be suggesting that there have been journalists who push climate denialism at the behest of the oil industry? My apologies if I misunderstood, but I would agree emphatically.
There are also other jouranlists who push climate alarmism because alarmism sells.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The United States military could best be used to fight this by destroying (with warning) global fossil fuel infrastructure that wasn't voluntarily closed, bit by bit with a decade long schedule. The announcement alone would prompt a massive shift in energy production, use, investment etc. Our own legacy infrastructure would also have to be on the list. Call it a Paris accord with teeth. It will never happen, because…
That sounds like a good way to start World War III. The top oil producing countries after the US are: Saudi Arabia, Russia, Canada, China, Iraq, United Arab Emirates, Brazil, Iran, Kuwait https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=709&t=6
I commented on this earlier, and my karma is sinking due to all the crazy people downvoting each one of my comments in that thread. To all of these people and anyone sincerely interested in the topic I'd like to post an interview with Dr John P.A. Ioannidis, a professor of medicine and professor of epidemiology and population health, as well as professor by courtesy of biomedical data science at Stanford University S…
And it's not just him - his colleagues Eran Bendavid and Jay Bhattacharya, who are presently conducting the first large-scale antibody test have also had a more sober tone. And David Katz. And Frank Ulrich Montgomery. And Albert Ko.
I mean, I understand that somebody disagree with the matter of how to interpret a situation in which available data is thin, but throughout this thread, I'm seeing a lot of people denigrate anybody who is taking a more cautious approach instead of fanning the flames of panic.
Let's try to stay science-based here, if we can do that.
