Why Is All Covid-19 News Bad News?(nber.org) |
Why Is All Covid-19 News Bad News?(nber.org) |
I'm glad that other countries can have good news to share but unfortunately that is certainly not the case here.
https://covid19criticalcare.com/ivermectin-in-covid-19/epide...
You at least get to shop, study, entertain and transport yourself in public without limitations, which is something that most people from elsewhere in the world cannot say?
Lots of young people and kids getting very sick [1], lack of food [2], running out of oxygen w/ over 4k dying a day (reported who knows the real number..), vaccine they are using only 50% effective [3], asking women to delay getting pregnant [4] and more.
1 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/brazil-alarming-high-num... 2 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-56765150 3 https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/4/10/out-of-control-braz... 4 https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/17/americas/brazil-pregnancy-cov...
The most horrifying recent news is that hospitals around the country are running out of sedatives used for COVID intensive care. There have been reports of intubated patients waking up from sedation and having to be tied down to their beds to keep them from ripping out the air tube. It's inhumane.
(Link warning: shocking images) https://www1.folha.uol.com.br/equilibrioesaude/2021/04/nas-u...
https://www.projectveritas.com/news/part-2-cnn-director-char...
https://twitter.com/Coronavirusgoo1?s=09
It's uk based but a lot of the info it retweets is globally applicable
Perhaps a better metric would be the information content, but that's difficult to measure and most people probably don't care.
Celebrity gossip tabloids!
There actually is good news in the world, but it is seldom found in "the news."
See also Don Henley's Dirty Laundry.
Kick 'em when they're up. Kick 'em when they're down.
Pessimist: bad things always happen to me, my leg broke, I'm so unlucky.
Optimist: I'm so lucky I just broke my leg. I could have broken my neck!
Before you ask, I'm keen on vaccines (and have had AZ), but I'm an old git, it makes sense for me. Younger people could make a valid different choice, and others would be wise to respect that choice.
Edit: if you’re going to downvote this comment that’s fine but could you do me the courtesy of explaining why? I don’t understand what the flaw is in my reasoning and I am curious to understand it.
Do I really need to clarify that I am not the one asking this question?
- Visit indoors, without a mask, with people at increased risk for severe illness from COVID-19
- Attend medium or large gatherings
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/fully-vac...
The media has the effect of amplifying the bad news, and some of it is very appropriate when it emphasizes the bad behavior of those in positions of extreme power like the president, but the nature of a pandemic is to be inherently far more bad than good, and most of the good (vaccines, economic relief packages for the working class) are only relative to how bad the fundamental situation is.
Bad news is good news.
Good news in no news.
No news is bad news.
They do a little bit of comparison to past news, but it would be interesting to see a comparison to post-9/11 coverage of terrorism in particular, since 9/11 was the most recent event with emotional impact on the same level.
That policy makes it look superficially like fast progress is happening but in the end extra dead people makes sad news.
I suppose you don't want to also link to the defamation lawsuit Project Veritas recently won against The New York Times.
Concerning the actual content, I don't see how you can chalk this up to selective editing, the guy goes on for quite a while describing CNN's tactics.
What context do you think was left out?
[0] https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/11/20/facts-about...
[1] https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/16/voters-perc...
You have to wonder why did he said all of those specific things. Do you think he made them all up on the spot?
Those things he said line up with their programming (the death toll counters, etc.).
Currently Project Veritas is in multiple lawsuits disputing that claim.
Most recently, in Project Veritas vs New York Times, the NYT claimed their articles contain journalistic "opinions" without notifying readers. Meaning they made claims they can't back up:
https://assets.ctfassets.net/syq3snmxclc9/maEy58HDFCR7qdtFOb...
I don't think it's fair to dismiss the content of their videos out of hand. While I disagree with the tactics, this is essentially undercover journalism and you can hear longs stretches of the CNN technical director discussing the mood / methods on set.
No, that's ongoing. All they've "won" was that a judge denied a motion to dismiss the suit.
> What context do you think was left out?
I'm not going to waste time looking at the video in the first place, so don't bother asking.
Sorry, no. They've tainted the well too much to do that.
‘Project Veritas Bad’ is a becoming an increasingly myopic heuristic. Probably something better would be to think that PV is complicated, and institutions have the potential to be seriously predatory and anti-social in the broadest sense.
Reinfections right now are rare enough that we don't know much, but there have been second cases that seem more severe than the first. This is likely because of lung damage from the first case. But faded immunity from the vaccine won't have the same lung damage. So the faded immunity should be sufficient to eliminate the worst outcomes most times.
So the question of when we start boosters depends on how bad the condition will have to be that we are inoculating against.
Peru has had strict lockdowns, but their COVID deaths are about the same as Brazil, when adjusted by population size.
The same in Europe - Sweden actually has fewer deaths than strict lockdown countries.
Wouldn't it be simpler for Brazilian society to just properly fund and manage healthcare (which it sounds like is the primary problem) rather than ceasing most economic, public, and social activity as part of lockdown?
Sweden is also not a good example of against lockdowns. https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-prageru-sweden-...
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1104709/coronavirus-deat...
Brazil has fewer COVID deaths per capita than Czechia, Hungary, Belgium, Slovakia, Slovenia, Italy, UK.
These are all countries that have had strict lockdowns and have modern healthcare systems.
This would suggest that Brazil is doing well and that their current approach is justified.
Brazil is now entering the Winter of the Southern Hemisphere, whilst Europe and North America are entering Summer - which also adds a seasonal element to comparisons.
Aren't ICUs meant to be used to capacity? Why would hospital planners build ICUs that aren't going to be used?
What about looking at general public health improvements, such as improving air quality (by increasing the price of coal and oil products, and encouraging EVs) and reducing obesity (by taxing sugar) - which will have benefits beyond this current epidemic - given that obesity and cardiovascular health are major comorbidity factors for COVID severity.
The Wikipedia page has plenty of examples and sources. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Veritas#Content
Wikipedia itself is not a reputable source and frankly the examples don't actually show deception to the audience. I'll repeat what I asked someone else.
> Who edits wikipedia? There's some serious concerns there, by the co-founder of wikipedia. Basically, you can hire firms to edit wikipedia relatively easily and there's some extreme bias on anything even remotely political.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWQaVx5mGco
On the topic of deception...
The main "deception" I see is editing out sections of the video which had no bearing on the story. This is how all news is conducted.
One example labeled as a deception appears to be mentioning the thumbnail of a video:
> He framed the undercover recordings with a preface of him dressed in a "pimp" outfit, which he also wore in TV media interviews. This gave viewers, including the media, the impression that he had dressed that way when speaking to ACORN workers. However, he actually entered the ACORN offices in conservative street clothes (the sleeve of his dress shirt is visible on camera)
Does that change how the ACORN employees reacted? Is it better that they broke the law with him in different clothes (he also went to 6 different locations, dressed differently each time). This has no bearing on the story, because the ACORN employee(s) were still breaking the law - the point. The story was not about how they treated people differently based on attire.
Brazil does not.
The results in both countries are basically the same, when using COVID deaths per capita as the primary measure.
How can you conclude logically that Brazil's no-lockdown approach is a failure?
Its not realistic to compare to East-Asian countries which are in many cases wealthy islands with strong borders and homogenous populations.
Lockdown interrupts regular medical care and worsens the health of the existing population, from things like decreased activity and poorer diets [2]:
[1]https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-lockdown-may-have-ind... [2]https://time.com/5949263/pandemic-weight-gain/
Rather than compare countries that did horribly or slightly less horribly, I would give several counterpoints from Asian countries that took strict but short measures early on and have now been living free without dying for it. Waste of time in this thread though. I hope you be OK soon.