Tucker: Are coronavirus lockdowns working?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cathoholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
“After carefully looking at the data, these two researchers conclude …”
They are no researchers. The flaws in their analysis have been detailed in other threads.
The evidence of the effectiveness of shelter-in-place is not ambiguous.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
It seems more and more like the media is taking Nietzsche at his word. “There is no truth, only interpretation.”
 
I think there is a strong anti-science and anti-information sentiment that has been growing for reasons unknown to me.
 
StudentMI said:
Heck that seems to have been the case since I was a kid!
Click to expand...
I think the power of the Internet has allowed such sentiments to be presented to more people and thus pull them into the culture.
 
Those that view Tucker Carlson as a wealth of information on immunology, epidemiology and virology are also the kinds of people also looking to inject themselves with bleach.

Frankly, I think it’s the height of irresponsibility for any major news source to be publishing this kind of nonsense. Tucker Carlson is not a doctor, he’s not a disease expert. He’s an entertainer.
 
sloancaprice said:
40.png
niceatheist:
Frankly, I think it’s the height of irresponsibility for any major news source to be publishing this kind of nonsense. Tucker Carlson is not a doctor, he’s not a disease expert. He’s an entertainer.
Click to expand...
If he’s an entertainer, then why are video clips of him allowed to be the ‘news’ article to start a thread here?
Click to expand...
That’s my question as well. Opinion pieces aren’t news, and frankly I don’t think they belong in a news section.
 
sloancaprice said:
It seems like the vast majority of threads started in the news section have opinion pieces as their primary source.
Click to expand...
There are some standards. If I posted just a podcast or video by just some guy it would probably be closed or moved. But people see the word news attached to these shows and allow it.
 
niceatheist said:
That’s my question as well. Opinion pieces aren’t news, and frankly I don’t think they belong in a news section.
Click to expand...
Without opinion pieces there would be no news. What would new sources have to chat about for 24 hours a day.

Should we go back to the good old days when news was only on for 30 minutes daily and you took what they said as gospel.
 
Last edited:
You can always email Catholic Answers and provide a better list of quality controls.
 
sloancaprice said:
I’m not sure that having access to more information has made people make better decisions.
Click to expand...
Can you recommend an alternative? Should we limit access? I think that was discuss over and over at one time with the Fairness doctrine and as recently as 2005 and 2008.
The fairness doctrine of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, was a policy that required the holders of broadcast licenses to both present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was—in the FCC’s view—honest, equitable, and balanced.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Nobody knows if lockdowns are working because there isn’t nearly enough testing being done. Two months into this thing and there is still nothing even approaching adequate testing.

Tucker is just trying to get an audience just like all the talking heads try to do. Does that really surprise anyone. People here are acting like they don’t know how TV works.
 
Last edited:
1Lord1Faith said:
Nobody knows if lockdowns are working because there isn’t nearly enough testing being done. Two months into this thing and there is still nothing even approaching adequate testing.
Click to expand...
We have considerable information form throughout the world about the rate of transmission with development of symptoms without mitigation vs the rate under various mitigation scenarios. That information shows that “lock-downs” has flattened the curve.
 
sloancaprice said:
Since the primary form of getting information is the Internet, I don’t think a fairness doctrine would work anymore. I think that there should be more emphasis on debate, rhetoric and understand what is and is not a fact placed in K-12 education.
Click to expand...
That would be very difficult to do. You could have a basis class but I think they already do that with marketing, teaching kids not look at advertising as fact.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top