Jump to content

OT: Information on Coronavirus from the Far East


Scottysabres

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, SwampD said:

I have worked in TV news for 30 years. I have seen our country get played before. It just has that feel to it for me.

Having worked in the news business myself, I would say that working in TV news generally (as in broadly speaking) makes one less qualified to identify discrepancies, and even less inclined to act on those discrepancies if identified, depending on the nature of the discrepancies and the players involved in the narrative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, SwampD said:

I have worked in TV news for 30 years. I have seen our country get played before. It just has that feel to it for me.

Do you think the number of cases and/or the number of deaths has been intentionally distorted?  By a bunch of different sources?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, ... said:

Having worked in the news business myself, I would say that working in TV news generally (as in broadly speaking) makes one less qualified to identify discrepancies, and even less inclined to act on those discrepancies if identified, depending on the nature of the discrepancies and the players involved in the narrative.

As I am in no way responsible for the narrative, I am able to see it from just as much of an outside view as anyone else.

12 minutes ago, nfreeman said:

Do you think the number of cases and/or the number of deaths has been intentionally distorted?  By a bunch of different sources?  

The numbers are probably true. What they mean is absolutely distorted. I’ve already stated that we’ve lost 14000 people in a population of 330 million. With a population of 1.4 billion, the numbers so far are incredibly small.

Fear sells.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, SwampD said:

As I am in no way responsible for the narrative, I am able to see it from just as much of an outside view as anyone else.

The numbers are probably true. What they mean is absolutely distorted. I’ve already stated that we’ve lost 14000 people in a population of 330 million. With a population of 1.4 billion, the numbers so far are incredibly small.

Fear sells.

And wins elections 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, nfreeman said:

OK, but this post was specifically about coronavirus.  Let's try not to sling unrelated mud around so the thread doesn't get derailed please.

You're the moderator.  You are welcome to censor content that has nothing to do with science and everything to do with politics.  You can cut that crappy link to an alt-right anti-science blog, and the comments that follow, anytime you'd like to.

Also, the last time 5th line Wingnut or whatever it is posted about hockey was last year April.

Be real.

Edited by Eleven
Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Eleven said:

You're the moderator.  You are welcome to censor content that has nothing to do with science and everything to do with politics.  You can cut that crappy link to an alt-right anti-science blog, and the comments that follow, anytime you'd like to.

Also, the last time 5th line Wingnut or whatever it is posted about hockey was last year April.

Be real.

The linked article was about coronavirus and nothing else.  Do you think it was political?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Weave said:

Real science requires peer review, which does entail consensus.

But isn't this article a form of participation in peer review?  Kind of like a crowd-sourced analysis of what is currently known? 

I know nothing about the author (or that website, for that matter) -- only that the linked article seemed to be written in a pretty dispassionate and objective manner. 

If you knew, say, that the author was a contagious disease specialist at a prestigious hospital, would you be inclined to consider his views in formulating your opinion about the gravity of the coronavirus situation?  Or are the author and the article disqualified due to it being posted on that site?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Eleven said:

You're the moderator.  You are welcome to censor content that has nothing to do with science and everything to do with politics.  You can cut that crappy link to an alt-right anti-science blog, and the comments that follow, anytime you'd like to.

Also, the last time 5th line Wingnut or whatever it is posted about hockey was last year April.

Be real.

These are pejoratives, not arguments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, nfreeman said:

But isn't this article a form of participation in peer review?  Kind of like a crowd-sourced analysis of what is currently known? 

I know nothing about the author (or that website, for that matter) -- only that the linked article seemed to be written in a pretty dispassionate and objective manner. 

If you knew, say, that the author was a contagious disease specialist at a prestigious hospital, would you be inclined to consider his views in formulating your opinion about the gravity of the coronavirus situation?  Or are the author and the article disqualified due to it being posted on that site?

Yes, I’d consider his views if he were presenting him/herself as a scientific specialist, or presenting legit scientific data of someone else’s origin.  But I see nothing of the sort here and given the site it is more than reasonable to assume that none is forthcoming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, nfreeman said:

The linked article was about coronavirus and nothing else.  Do you think it was political?

 

1 hour ago, nfreeman said:

But isn't this article a form of participation in peer review? 

 

Are you kidding?

 

41 minutes ago, 5th line wingnutt said:

These are pejoratives, not arguments.

I prefer "descriptions," but whatever.  What are you doing here?  Your last post about hockey was ten months ago.  

Edited by Eleven
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...