Only 31 deaths of children under age 15 involving COVID-19. Common flu-related child deaths from 37 to 187 during regular flu season. Should Governors

[LeafByNiggle]

So why would you conclude that Google and Twitter and FaceBook should be the experts…

I said nothing about Google, Twitter, or Facebook in the post you responded to. But good job trying to bait me into a totally different discussion!

The source of the information is moot as long as the information is correct. If a raving lunatic made the statement “The sun sets in the West”, would you dismiss it?

Yes, I would dismiss his confirmation of a fact I already know. I have no need of his confirmation of a fact I already know from other sources.

If the science was completely settled on this…

On what? The question I was addressing was whether to believe the charge from the Conservative Christian News that Flu patients are being misdiagnosed as covid patients. On that particular question, the science is settled. No, we are not to any significant extent.

why is there so much different information out there and why do so many respected and esteemed doctors, nurses, journalists, hospitals, universities,

I have not seen “so much different information” on flu being misdiagnosed as covid. That is a made-up problem by CCN.

 

[JoeFreedom]

You totally missed every point I made. Thanks for playing.

 

[HarryStotle]

JoeFreedom:

So why would you conclude that Google and Twitter and FaceBook should be the experts…

I said nothing about Google, Twitter, or Facebook in the post you responded to. But good job trying to bait me into a totally different discussion!

The source of the information is moot as long as the information is correct. If a raving lunatic made the statement “The sun sets in the West”, would you dismiss it?

Yes, I would dismiss his confirmation of a fact I already know. I have no need of his confirmation of a fact I already know from other sources.

If the science was completely settled on this…

On what? The question I was addressing was whether to believe the charge from the Conservative Christian News that Flu patients are being misdiagnosed as covid patients. On that particular question, the science is settled. No, we are not to any significant extent.

why is there so much different information out there and why do so many respected and esteemed doctors, nurses, journalists, hospitals, universities,

I have not seen “so much different information” on flu being misdiagnosed as covid. That is a made-up problem by CCN.

I wouldn’t suppose that if the only sources of news that you do subscribe to are the ones that tell you what you want to hear that there wouldn’t be much chance of a fact that you already know to be disconfirmed by those “other” sources that are quite consistent in their narrative.

Isn’t that merely confirmation bias that relies on confirmation from sources that you personally have already vetted to support your bias?

Possible?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I wouldn’t suppose that if the only sources of news that you do subscribe to are the ones that tell you what you want to hear that there wouldn’t be much chance of a fact that you already know to be disconfirmed by those “other” sources that are quite consistent in their narrative.

I subscribe to all the news sources that have established a trusted record - including conservative ones. What I do not subscribe to are “pop-up” sources with no track record.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

I wouldn’t suppose that if the only sources of news that you do subscribe to are the ones that tell you what you want to hear that there wouldn’t be much chance of a fact that you already know to be disconfirmed by those “other” sources that are quite consistent in their narrative.

I subscribe to all the news sources that have established a trusted record - including conservative ones. What I do not subscribe to are “pop-up” sources with no track record.

And a track record is determined how? And how is it maintained?

Does CNN still have a track record? MSNBC?

Does the track record determine the facts or do the facts determine the track record?

 

[1cthlctrth]

The CDC estimated that about 177,000 Americans died during the 2017-2018 flu season, from either the flu itself or by complications of pneumonia. (The CDC never made a public announcement about this number, but you can count it yourself from data on its site.

The CDC itself caused a stir at the end of August by estimating that the virus directly caused only 6 percent, or now just over 11,000 of the 187,000 attributed deaths. Most of these deaths were in the elderly.

The remaining 94 percent died with and not exclusively of the coronavirus. These people also were on average elderly and had 2.6 other health problems. This implies a good fraction who succumbed had three or more comorbidities. In other words, most deaths attributed to the coronavirus were in very sick people.

That’s the real lead in this story: Fewer people are dying and more people are recovering with few or no problems. So why does the press keep burying it?

(How the media is misreporting COVID-19's death toll in America)

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

HarryStotle:

I wouldn’t suppose that if the only sources of news that you do subscribe to are the ones that tell you what you want to hear that there wouldn’t be much chance of a fact that you already know to be disconfirmed by those “other” sources that are quite consistent in their narrative.

I subscribe to all the news sources that have established a trusted record - including conservative ones. What I do not subscribe to are “pop-up” sources with no track record.

And a track record is determined how? And how is it maintained?

Length of time the people consider it trusted. For example, the New York Times has been a trusted source for over a century and a half. The characterization of the NYT as “fake news” is a modern Trump phenomenon. Same with the Washington Post. Even during the Watergate era when the Washington Post broke the story, even conservatives recognized it as valid news. It is only in modern Trump times that these sources have been deprecated. And there are others too.

By contrast, consider the Washington Times, which was founded in 1982 by Sun Myung Moon and the Unification Movement. From the very beginning it was known for conspiracy theories, rejecting the science of ozone depletion, second-hand smoke, and known for racist content. It never did have any public recognition as anything more than a tabloid.

As for the newcomers, CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News, they all have a much shorter track record, and as such ought to be treated with skepticism. Any story reported by only one of these sources really needs to be confirmed independently from other sources. That is responsible consumption of journalism.

The CDC itself caused a stir at the end of August by estimating that the virus directly caused only 6 percent,

No, it didn’t “cause a stir”, except among right-wing fanatics who want to discredit our excellent public health institutions. If someone with a weakened immune system dies of covid-19, it is just as much a covid-19 death as an olympic athlete in perfect health who dies of it.

The remaining 94 percent died with and not exclusively of the coronavirus. These people also were on average elderly and had 2.6 other health problems. This implies a good fraction who succumbed had three or more comorbidities. In other words, most deaths attributed to the coronavirus were in very sick people.

This is exactly the kind of thinking that leads to euthanasia. It devalues the lives of the sick in favor of the young and healthy. A Christian should have no part in that thinking.

Meanwhile:

Wisconsin population 5.6 million, 2,000 Covid deaths.
Taiwan population 23.78 million, 7 Covid deaths.

 

[LilyM]

The CDC estimated that about 177,000 Americans died during the 2017-2018 flu season, from either the flu itself or by complications of pneumonia. (The CDC never made a public announcement about this number, but you can count it yourself from data on its site.

The CDC itself caused a stir at the end of August by estimating that the virus directly caused only 6 percent, or now just over 11,000 of the 187,000 attributed deaths. Most of these deaths were in the elderly.

The remaining 94 percent died with and not exclusively of the coronavirus. These people also were on average elderly and had 2.6 other health problems. This implies a good fraction who succumbed had three or more comorbidities. In other words, most deaths attributed to the coronavirus were in very sick people.

That’s the real lead in this story: Fewer people are dying and more people are recovering with few or no problems. So why does the press keep burying it?

(How the media is misreporting COVID-19's death toll in America)

I think the problem with COVID seems to be that it is infectious for longer than your average flu, and plenty of spreaders are asymptomatic or almost so. So much easier to spread.

And I would say it is a little early to be certain what ongoing or.future complications sufferers may have.

Moreover, these are the rates WITH the extraordinary precautions being taken that most people and places don’t contemplate.during your average flu season.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

LeafByNiggle:

HarryStotle:

I wouldn’t suppose that if the only sources of news that you do subscribe to are the ones that tell you what you want to hear that there wouldn’t be much chance of a fact that you already know to be disconfirmed by those “other” sources that are quite consistent in their narrative.

I subscribe to all the news sources that have established a trusted record - including conservative ones. What I do not subscribe to are “pop-up” sources with no track record.

And a track record is determined how? And how is it maintained?

Length of time the people consider it trusted.

So the New York Post is trustworthy in your eyes?

Founded November 16, 1801.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

HarryStotle:

LeafByNiggle:

HarryStotle:

I wouldn’t suppose that if the only sources of news that you do subscribe to are the ones that tell you what you want to hear that there wouldn’t be much chance of a fact that you already know to be disconfirmed by those “other” sources that are quite consistent in their narrative.

I subscribe to all the news sources that have established a trusted record - including conservative ones. What I do not subscribe to are “pop-up” sources with no track record.

And a track record is determined how? And how is it maintained?

Length of time the people consider it trusted.

So the New York Post is trustworthy in your eyes?

For 34 years the Post has been known for being more of a tabloid, focusing on salacious stories, which do not win Pulitzer prizes. But even if I were to consider the Post as something more than a tabloid, I would still look to see if their reporting is confirmed by any other reputable sources, as I would for any newspaper.

 

[toddy]

Erikaspirit16

Aug 2

I just posted this on another thread, and some of you are on that one as well. But for those who are not, this is relevant to the issue of schools opening or staying closed:

New information from the CDC–Here is the report–July 31 (last Friday). SARS-CoV-2 Transmission and Infection Among Attendees of an Overnight Camp — Georgia, June 2020 | MMWR

bottom line: 363 campers, median age 12, actual ages ranged from 6-19 in Georgia at the end of June.
Of those 6-10 years old, 51% tested positive. This contradicts earlier studies that said 6-10 year olds got the virus and transmitted the virus less than older people. 36 of of all those (not just the children, everyone) who tested positive had no symptoms.

There was an article in the Wash. Post about it today. https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/07/31/georgia-children-covid-outbreak/

Here are the highlights:

June 17-20–orientation for 138 trainees & 120 staff members

June 21-27–120 staff members joined by 363 campers and 3 more senior staff

All of them had to provide proof of a negative covid-19 test taken less than 12 days before arriving. Only staff wore masks. They did not open windows and doors. There was daily singing and cheering.

June 23 (two days after opening the camp) a staffer left with chills. The next day another staffer tested positive.

June 24–campers sent home

June 27–camp closed

Georgia Dept. of Health followed up.

Total of 597 Georgia residents were at the camp (they didn't track non-Ga. residents)

Camper age:   6-19, median age = 12

staff/trainee ages:   14-59, median age =17

344 were tested; 260 of them (76%) tested positive; 42% of the total number at the camp were positive

51% of those 6-10 tested positive

36 who tested positive showed no symptoms

not clear if some were infected before attending the camp

since not all the campers/staff were tested, the positives were probably an underestimate

And of course we still have no way to tell who infected whom–just circumstantial evidence that person A got symptoms before person B, but since symptoms appear at different rates in different people, that’s just a rough gue

Learn from Vietnamese. 30 deaths among 92 millions population. Perhaps mostly from the tourists, travellers.

Schools closed at the end Jan before the border closed then schools reopened at least a month and half after no more cases around end of May or early June. Students could study online. No students got infected. It is so easy.

 

[JoeFreedom]

So I’m confused here…

I though the CDC was the almighty deity to SCIENCE! people. Nothing foul or false could be uttered or written or documented. All was 1,000% trusted and truthful.

But when the CDC reports information that scare-mongers don’t want to hear, all of a sudden, they find ad hominen attacks and other logical fallacies to cover the gaps.

If the CDC is so trusted and it continues to post numbers and information quietly and privately that do not match what the most main stream news outlets, then who are we to believe?

SCIENCE!

 

[JoeFreedom]

Or it could be that Vietnam is not necessarily going to freely provide information that makes their leaders (communists I might have you)… look bad.

Just like China (cough cough), stopped the virus dead cold in its tracks in March. Uh huh. Sure they did.

 

[toddy]

No no, this information was confirmed by Havard and Western European doctors that it was true.

VN was very lucky closed the country strictly in time, nothing magic. They followed Russia’s policy to close the border. Then New Zealand followed their steps. US also planed to close the border, but China protested strongly.

However, they experienced in many other outbreaks when to close and reopen the schools.

 

[JoeFreedom]

There are also thousands of doctors at major universities who disagree with nearly all of scaremongering disinformation being repeated ad infinitum until it’s “true”… so you pick yours. I’ll pick mine.

 

[toddy]

Please post reliable links. I like to reject them as much as you do, but I could not find a glue.

I knew Kiwi followed their steps, and also very successful. Kiwi could not fake, and PM Arden was just reelected.

 

[JoeFreedom]

Why? It’s been done here on CAF multiple times.

 

[toddy]

Here is the link from BBC news and Harvard doctor about VN virus prevention:

Coronavirus: How 'overreaction' made Vietnam a virus success

I think the virtues of awareness, rectitude and harmony of the divine goodness in VN, 1 St Peter 1:5, has brought VN safe from virus.

They understood God!

PBS broadcast

How Vietnam’s authoritarian government succeeded at containing COVID-19 | PBS NewsHour

The diplomat: people co-op

Vietnam’s War Against COVID-19 – The Diplomat

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

LeafByNiggle:

HarryStotle:

LeafByNiggle:

HarryStotle:

I wouldn’t suppose that if the only sources of news that you do subscribe to are the ones that tell you what you want to hear that there wouldn’t be much chance of a fact that you already know to be disconfirmed by those “other” sources that are quite consistent in their narrative.

I subscribe to all the news sources that have established a trusted record - including conservative ones. What I do not subscribe to are “pop-up” sources with no track record.

And a track record is determined how? And how is it maintained?

Length of time the people consider it trusted.

So the New York Post is trustworthy in your eyes?

For 34 years the Post has been known for being more of a tabloid, focusing on salacious stories, which do not win Pulitzer prizes. But even if I were to consider the Post as something more than a tabloid, I would still look to see if their reporting is confirmed by any other reputable sources, as I would for any newspaper.

And perhaps we’ll look back 34 years from now at the NYT and WaPo, and understand that both of those became purveyors of misinformation a few short years before today. It happens.

CNN certainly circled the drain rather quickly.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

And perhaps we’ll look back 34 years from now at the NYT and WaPo, and understand that both of those became purveyors of misinformation a few short years before today. It happens.

Be my guest. I am awaiting your list of NYT and WaPo misinformation going back 34 years.