What's regular (perhaps unsuspecting) fella' to do? — jorndoe

Stick to reading reputable journals and expert opinion. What's so difficult about that?

Newspapers are meant to be biased, it's their modus operandi, why anyone would expect unbiased opinion from them is beyond me.

What's regular (perhaps unsuspecting) fella' to do? — jorndoe

And I think a big difference between now and the 1918 epidemic is that most people don't see how bad the disease can be. We don't have corpses laying in the streets like they did. People hear about it from news sources they already don't trust.

So the guy I mentioned may have lost loved ones to covid, but he didn't see them die. When he gets sick, he does the best he can with the info he has. Plus covid causes brain fog. That doesn't help.

the guy I mentioned may have lost loved ones to covid, but he didn't see them die. — frank

Unlikely. The death rate is about one in one thousand of the population. Most people's social groups are a little under 100 people, so 90% of the population will likely not know anyone who's died from it. If a person's social group is mainly young and healthy, or if they live rurally, the chances of them knowing anyone who died from it are potentially orders of magnitude smaller. Even if the bodies were on the street I doubt I'd have seen one where I live.

When the newspapers report people dying from malaria do people in the West doubt it's true because they don't see it? No. The doubt has nothing to do with a lack of visual confirmation, it's a lack of trust in media, government and academic institutions whose appalling behaviour unfortunately utterly deserves such rejection.

Stick to reading reputable journals and expert opinion. — Isaac

The more of them the better, giving more weight, and history, context, ability to spot apparent anomalies/outliers, overview. I just don't think everyone has time (or knowledge/skills/inclination) to do that, not if we're talking technical papers anyway (many wouldn't know where to look).

It's on a scale. — jorndoe

Reuters and Associated Press, for example, seem good. Or just good enough perhaps?

People hear about it from news sources they already don't trust. — frank

There sure are plenty of sources around. Distrust can also be fed by questionable sources. :meh:

(Wasn't there a song called "'round and 'round we go" (kid's song)...? 1980s maybe?) :)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/interactive/2021/1-in-500-covid-deaths/

The more of them the better, giving more weight, and history, context, ability to spot apparent anomalies/outliers, overview — jorndoe

Well, yes. We've been through this before, so I'll just refer you to my previous argument. Once you stratify a population by some variable (expertise here) that variable ceases to exert the same influence within that cohort. So yes to context, and overview, no to spotting anomalies/outliers that status is largely irrelevant.

I just don't think everyone has time (or knowledge/skills/inclination) to do that, not if we're talking technical papers anyway (many wouldn't know where to look). — jorndoe

Yeah, that's true, but then one can always withhold judgement when one is without good sources. It's not necessary to have a violently strong opinion on everything. I think most medical journals are making their covid coverage available for free online (much to my wife's annoyance who pays for the subscriptions!)

Reuters and Associated Press, for example, seem good. Or just good enough perhaps? — jorndoe

I think they work differently to actual newspapers don't they? Such that they're systematically less likely to exhibit bias. Good sources, I certainly trust Reuters more than other news sources, whether that's justified or not, I'm not sure.

Honestly if you can't even bring yourself to treat the people you speak to with the bare minimum of respect you can fuck off.
2h — Isaac

Okay so it's fine to doubt big pharma and the government but not you, for some reason.

Hannah Arendt - Disinformation and Democracy (Aug 6, 2020)

• 12 prominent people opposed to vaccines are responsible for two-thirds of anti-vaccine content online: report | The Disinformation Dozen (Mar 24, 2021)

• Joe Mercola: An antivaccine quack tycoon pivots effortlessly to profit from spreading COVID-19 misinformation (Jul 26, 2021)

• CNN tracked down a super-spreader of Covid-19 misinformation. See how he reacted (Aug 5, 2021)

• This Woman Secretly Runs One of the World's Biggest Anti-Vax Websites From Her House (Aug 12, 2021)

• Anti-vaccine chiropractors rising force of misinformation (Oct 8, 2021)

Don't think they've done anything illegal, but "we know where you live". ;)

Okay so it's fine to doubt big pharma and the government but not you, some reason. — Olivier5

Yes, that's right. The clue being...

for some reason. — Olivier5

You do realise you just followed a post about the questionable trustworthiness of mass media by citing six articles from mass media outlets as evidence of some relevant phenomena? Are you playing some complex psychological game?

Are you now saying that spreading unfounded doubts is problematic?

Are you now saying that spreading unfounded doubts is problematic? — Olivier5

'Now saying'? Either quote me ever saying that spreading unfounded doubts was not problematic, or argue like a grown up. If you can't support your arguments without slandering your opponents then you should seriously question the quality of your argument.

Have you now stopped beating your wife?

Either quote me ever saying that spreading unfounded doubts was not problematic, or argue like a grown up. — Isaac

The whole body of pro-vaccine responses on this thread (and the other) has been predicated entirely on that premise. You've said almost exactly that yourself only a few posts ago, about...

not spreading artificial doubt and confusion in the midst of a crisis.
— Olivier5 — Isaac

Except, , not all "mainstream media" reports are bullshit and pseudo-information.
Inflated or blanket distrust can be wacky just the same. Perhaps even paranoid? Not everything and everyone's McDoucheCanoe, and not all reports are technical journal papers.
You're free to check up on the creepy dozen, Mercola, and Willner yourself of course.
In fact, I say expose them. (As was done, to an extent.) Why not?

In what way is that exchange interpretable as my condoning the spread of unfounded doubt?

Just explain the thinking. I'm suggesting that the pro-vaccine arguments have been that we should not criticise the pharmaceutical industry, I cited your claim that I should not be "spreading artificial doubt and confusion in the midst of a crisis."...where next? How exactly do you get from that point in the discussion to a claim that I support the spread of unfounded doubt?

not all "mainstream media" reports are bullshit and pseudo-information.
Inflated or blanket distrust can be wacky just the same. Perhaps even paranoid? — jorndoe

Well yes, but demonstrating the existence of a scale doesn't act as evidence of the position on it of any given piece. Just because not all mainstream media reports are bullshit, doesn't mean you should expect people to simply believe the ones you pick are examples of such 'non-bullshit' reports, does it?

So...unless your post was a throwaway piece of virtuous flag-waiving, let's assume it had a point. That point was presumably that misinformation is being spread by a few key players. OK. Where does that take the discussion? Have the BMJ been duped by these key players? Has Reuters? Has the medRxiv? Because at the moment I'm the only voice opposing the unwavering march of total vaccination here and those are my sources.

So explain, so as we can follow the line of argument, how the mainstream media's view of a few Facebook whackos has anything at all to do with what we're discussing here. Because without explanation it sounds a lot like you're just trying to besmirch any opposition by pointing to some looneys and with some copious hand-waiving hoping that a "they're all like that" taint will stick. As opposed to, you know, actually mounting a serious counter-argument using your own words.

You have in my view spread wholesale condamnations of governments, the medical establishment, the media and the likes, that were totally unfounded. These doubts of yours in your own doctors, ministers and journalists are coming from somewhere alright, but this 'somewhere' is not reality.

Sorry if I appear to trust doctors and my government(s) more than I trust you. I have what I believe are good reasons to trust doctors. For one, my sister is a medical doctor and I don't see that she is controlled by Satan. For two, them doctors saved my life twice.

But I have no reason whatsoever to trust you. Some of the things you write seem to come directly from Trump, so in fact I have reasons to mistrust you, as somebody who's thinking has been potentially tainted or parazited by post-truth BS.

Call it snide all you want. It's only snide when others do it to you, right?

You have in my view spread wholesale condamnations of governments, the medical establishment, the media and the likes — Olivier5

Quote me doing so then. That way we can discuss actual comments rather than your strawman version of them - "wholesale condemnations" is the claim here, so I expect quotes to that effect.

...that were totally unfounded. These doubts of yours in your own doctors, ministers and journalists are coming from somewhere alright, but this 'somewhere' is not reality — Olivier5

So you think the stuff I posted about GlaxoSmithKline is not real? Are the reports of contamination, false representation, hiding safety data and bribery all lies? Again, if you want to argue with some made-up version of what I'm saying do so in private, otherwise quote the claim of mine you think is unfounded and we can discuss it.

Sorry if I appear to trust doctors and my government(s) more than I trust you. — Olivier5

Where has there been a conflict between what your doctor says and what I've said? Once more, the quote function is your friend here. Quote the claim I've made which your doctor disputes and we can discuss it, otherwise please leave me out of this fantasy discussion you're having.

I have what I believe are good reasons to trust doctors. — Olivier5

Good. Do you trust them to fix your car? No. So when we're discussing issues of risk, trust, and corporate influence, what has the opinion of your doctor got to do with it?

I have no reason whatsoever to trust you. — Olivier5

We're having an internet discussion, I'm not doing brain surgery on you. Normal charitable conversation requires that you have a reason not to trust me, rather than that you don't trust me unless given some reason to. You must live a pretty impoverished life if your default position is not to trust anyone who isn't related to you or hasn't saved your life at least twice.

Some of the things you write seem to come directly from Trump — Olivier5

Quote them then.

It's only snide when others do it to you, right? — Olivier5

No. It's snide when you impute my position to right-wing tabloid sources despite clearly being able to see that I've cited no such source but have almost exclusively referred to medical journals, technical papers and reputable news sources. It's snide when you refuse to actually quote anything but rather respond to some fabricated grotesquery of what you'd like me to have said because it makes your counter argument easier. Constant deflection into impugning false assumptions and unrelated truisms is snide, calling them out is not.

The argument here (at this point). Is that the pharmaceutical industry has behaved reprehensibly and that this gives good cause to not trust them. If you have any counter argument to that, I'll hear it. Otherwise maybe you could keep your little role-playing session private and reserve this space for discussing the things that real interlocutors have actually said.

Quote them then. — Isaac

I have neither the time nor the appetite to dig through the whole stack but this is the kind of heavily paranoid stuff I am talking about:

So were faced with an awful situation. There's this crisis where millions are dying and one crucial part of the solution is a vaccine. But the only people who can make vaccines are these awful, criminal profiteers (I'm exaggerating only a bit). What do we do? If we say we can't trust the awful, criminal profiteers and tell them where they can stick their vaccine, a lot of people will die whilst we all become immune naturally. But does rejecting that option mean we have to march it in on a litter to fanfare, ticker-tape parades and cheering crowds, one for everyone...have one for the baby... No, I don't think so. I think we can, as I said, begrudgingly accept that we have little choice for those who really need it, but that's as far as we'll go and as soon as this thing's over... — Isaac

And where does this reference to natural immunity supposed to ultimately grace us all come from? Did you read this in a medical journal? I seriously doubt it.

this is the kind of heavily paranoid stuff I am talking about: — Olivier5

So that's saying that the pharmaceutical companies have behaved reprehensibly and so solutions developed by them should be used sparingly and begrudgingly, not freely and with fanfare.

Now find me the quote from Trump saying the same thing with which you support your claim that my statements come "directly from Trump" and we can discuss any overlap.

where does this reference to natural immunity supposed to ultimately grace us all come from? — Olivier5

Here

https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/lasting-immunity-found-after-recovery-covid-19

Or here

https://www.bmj.com/content/374/bmj.n2101

Or is having the NIH and BMJ in my 'feed' too much right wing brainwashing for you?

that's saying that the pharmaceutical companies have behaved reprehensibly — Isaac

The way I read it, you painted a whole lot of people as criminals.

here

https://www.bmj.com/content/374/bmj.n2101 — Isaac

Nothing in this article says anything about "all of us becoming immune naturally", which is a trope from Trump, Bolsenaro and co.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/12/08/trump-cant-kick-his-coronavirus-herd-immunity-kick/

The way I read it, you painted a whole lot of people as criminals. — Olivier5

They are criminals, they've been convicted of criminal offences, it's literally the definition of a criminal. Regardless, you're changing the subject. The accusation was that this position came "directly from Trump". Where's the Trump quote to that effect?

Nothing in this article says anything about "all of us becoming immune naturally", — Olivier5

The immune systems of more than 95% of people who recovered from COVID-19 had durable memories of the virus up to eight months after infection. — literally the first sentence in the actual fucking article

The immune systems of more than 95% of people who recovered from COVID-19 had durable memories of the virus up to eight months after infection. — literally the first sentence in the actual fucking article

"Durable memories up to 8 month" <> everybody becoming immune.

The Trump trope is precisely in this 'herd immunity' bs.

They are criminals — Isaac

Who is 'they' in that sentence?

I have all the facts and therefore your rights now belong to me!

"Durable memories up to 8 month" <> everybody becoming immune. — Olivier5

In what way does a durable memory in the immune system not mean 'becoming immune'. What would 'becoming immune' mean if not a durable memory in the immune system and can you provide an example of it being used that way in the medical literature? That way we're discussing actual facts, not your imagination, yes?

Who is 'they' in that sentence? — Olivier5

The pharmaceutical corporations in question.

In what way does a durable memory in the immune system not mean 'becoming immune'. — Isaac

In many ways, one of which is the constant emergence of new variants, another the finding is limited to period of 8 months after infection. Yet another the difficulty to extrapolate from in vitro findings to in vivo response.

The pharmaceutical corporations in question. — Isaac

So how many people are we talking about?

Del

In many ways, one of which is the constant emergence of new variants, another the finding is limited to period of 8 months after infection. Yet another the difficulty to extrapolate from in vitro findings to in vivo response. — Olivier5

And from the medical literature...? We're looking for the term 'becoming immune' being restricted to uses where immunity has been proven ex vitro to last beyond 8 months without chance of variants.

So the vaccines don't provide immunity either. They suffer from precisely the same issues "the constant emergence of new variants, ... the finding ... limited to period of 8 months after infection. ...the difficulty to extrapolate from in vitro findings to in vivo response." What name should we give to that which they provide?

So how many people are we talking about? — Olivier5

Corporations are legal entities. Individuals are rarely prosecuted, although I did provide an example where one was. What has the number of people got to do with the argument?

We're looking for the term 'becoming immune' being restricted to uses where immunity has been proven ex vitro to last beyond 8 months without chance of variants. — Isaac

'We all becoming immune' means what it means: that at some point in the future we will all be immune to covid. Aka herd immunity. But your article makes a much weaker claim.

What has the number of people got to do with the argument? — Isaac

It has to do with my dislike of sweeping criminal accusations addressed at untold numbers of semi-mysterious folks.

your article makes a much weaker claim. — Olivier5

How so? The articles I cited both refer to 'lasting immunity' arising from naturally acquired infection. If you think that's inappropriate then it's on you to provide some citation to that effect. I'm not going to just take your word for it.