2 2
gowlerk

covid-19

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, kallend said:

Well, generally skydivers and BASE jumpers don't kill or injure others, the risk they assume is overwhelming to themselves.  Guns, OTOH. . . . .

Generally you are right. But it is worth remembering that skydiving, and to a certain lesser extent base fatalities, aren't final events except for the deceased. When they happen co-participants in base often simply run for it. At the DZ most people pack up and go home for the day or go chill until operations resume. Some people, on the other hand, need to deal with it nasty or not. And trust me, none are thinking: "Oh, well, it's all about personal responsibility and he signed the waiver." There are no bastions of personal freedom anymore, skydiving in particular, and there are always down stream effects.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Smartest move by media that I've seen in a while.  Washington State Radio announced this today:

"We will not be airing the [White Houe} briefings live due to a pattern of false or misleading information provided that cannot be fact checked in real time."

If other stations follow suit, the amount of misinformation out there could go down quite a bit.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, billvon said:

Smartest move by media that I've seen in a while.  Washington State Radio announced this today:

"We will not be airing the [White Houe} briefings live due to a pattern of false or misleading information provided that cannot be fact checked in real time."

If other stations follow suit, the amount of misinformation out there could go down quite a bit.

Censorship

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, bigbearfng said:

Censorship

So if a reporter researching a story gets information from a source that proves to be false, he should still report it, because to do otherwise would be censorship, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, bigbearfng said:

Censorship

You are still free to get instant misinformation from any other news channel out there, or wait for more accurate information from this one.  Your choice.  That's the opposite of censorship - choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, billvon said:

You are still free to get instant misinformation from any other news channel out there, or wait for more accurate information from this one.  Your choice.  That's the opposite of censorship - choice.

I don't know of anything that can be "fact checked in real time". So with that logic there should be no live coverage of anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, bigbearfng said:

I don't know of anything that can be "fact checked in real time". So with that logic there should be no live coverage of anything.

Well, some administrations have been mostly factual and have not required such intensive fact checking.  But when a president tells, on average, 14 untruths a day, you have to be more careful.

But yes, often they don't do live coverage of speeches and conferences, and instead report on it later after they have been able to check some facts.  So nothing is really changing - just less live coverage of one politician with a history of extreme dishonesty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
10 hours ago, billvon said:

often they don't do live coverage of speeches and conferences, and instead report on it later after they have been able to check some facts.

We remember a time when the President gave a speech from the oval office, let his press secretary handle the press and his communications director do their job - so he could do his.   

EDIT: Or a time when the media had no bias left or right. I blame Woodward & Bernstein for creating Rivera. :)   

Edited by BIGUN
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)

I've been monitoring this site for a little over a week now and when I zoom in; It would appear that roads and major highways cause coronavirus (just thought you might find it interesting how you can track it along the roads and then a large circle at the next large city). BTW, Dr. Gardner's team did re-write the code to add the missing states in the second tab on the bottom left. I don't know that I agree their removing the downward slope of China's recovery - I understand from a political perspective, but also think her team could have included every continent's down slope so world leaders would know when to give the "all clear." 

EDIT: And, so when we would know if they're yanking our chain. 

 

image.png.a17f022c763b076dae343c2be44a54f5.png

Edited by BIGUN

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, for at least one study, chloroquine was NOT game-changing at all: http://subject.med.wanfangdata.com.cn/UpLoad/Files/202003/43f8625d4dc74e42bbcf24795de1c77c.pdf

TL;DR: 1 group was given 400mg chloroquine per day, control group no chloroquine. Of the chloroquine group, 13.3% proceeded to test positive for covid-19, one case developing into a serious case.

Of the control group, 6.7% of the group went on to test positive for covid-19. No cases were serious.

More studies are probably needed, but this seems to be a bit of a setback.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, wmw999 said:

And helmets, in most states. In both cases, the protection is for everyone else’s sake. At least in Texas, at one time you could bypass it with a $10,000 bond, to cover ER expenses. But the , of course Obamacare happened, and so Texas removed the minimum, to make it clear that any insurance (not just 1990-adequate) was just fine. 

Wendy P. 

I got stopped for speeding a few years ago on one of my bikes, while not wearing a helmet.

Cop asks for license, registration, insurance card. Here's my license and registration, and insurance is not required on motorcycles in FL. "SINCE WHEN???" Officer Friendly asks. Since forever. Although since you stopped me while riding without a helmet, here is my medical insurance card.

He stared blankly at me for a few seconds, then handed me back my papers and told me to have a nice day.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, aonsquared said:

Well, for at least one study, chloroquine was NOT game-changing at all: http://subject.med.wanfangdata.com.cn/UpLoad/Files/202003/43f8625d4dc74e42bbcf24795de1c77c.pdf

TL;DR: 1 group was given 400mg chloroquine per day, control group no chloroquine. Of the chloroquine group, 13.3% proceeded to test positive for covid-19, one case developing into a serious case.

Of the control group, 6.7% of the group went on to test positive for covid-19. No cases were serious.

More studies are probably needed, but this seems to be a bit of a setback.

A setback? I was under the impression most docs and scientists expected it. It was repeatedly stated they felt the drugs were safe, just not effective for covid-19.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, normiss said:

A setback? I was under the impression most docs and scientists expected it. It was repeatedly stated they felt the drugs were safe, just not effective for covid-19.

If the Liar-in-Chief starts a run on finite supplies with his unproven claim, then people who really need it are screwed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
2 hours ago, aonsquared said:

Well, for at least one study, chloroquine was NOT game-changing at all

Except that most of the Doctors & Scientists who reviewed that 30 person study found it to be unreliable and not definitive. 

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/therapeutic-options.html

Edited by BIGUN

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

Seriously? You didn't Google it and immediately post it unread? You some kind of closet Liberal?

There are times I have liberal leaning tendencies, but I take a deep breath and it goes away. ; )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
1 hour ago, kallend said:

If the Liar-in-Chief starts a run on finite supplies with his unproven claim, then people who really need it are screwed.

If it's a lie and "unproven" - why would those who "really need it" even take it?

Edited by BIGUN

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

If it's a lie and "unproven" - why would those who "really need it" even take it?

Because it is a proven treatment for other things.

If the dipshits who believe the Mango Mussolini go out and buy it all up to treat a condition that it doesn't help (or at least isn't proven to help), then those who suffer from those other conditions will be hurt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

2 2