Congress taking on 1st Am by proxy - Page 4

Lithrael · 24th February 2021, 04:05 PM

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

ONE hundred thousand would be 20% of the total deaths in the US. HUNDREDS of thousands implies 40% or more of the deaths in the US could have been avoided by silencing Fox News etc.

Normalized by population, the US is not materially worse than the UK or most of the EU in terms of Deaths.

Total Deaths normalized by Population

And yet plenty of countries ARE doing that much better. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to hope that we could have gotten out of the top 20% worst hit countries (per capita) and performed as well as say, Austria or Germany. With their rates yes, we’d have around two hundred thousand fewer dead.

Cavemonster · 24th February 2021, 04:09 PM

Originally Posted by Distracted1

A wrong conclusion.
They both constitute pressure.

The difference was one was a "bully pulpit" type of pressure .Real- but different from pressure through official channels- as in the tone of the letter from the Congressmembers.

Take it up with EC.

smartcooky · 24th February 2021, 04:14 PM

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

Well that's just patently false right there.

Yes, hundreds of thousands have died. But you are implying that all of those who died did so explicitly because these specific news companies caused their deaths directly. Which is just not even a little bit true. I know several people who have gotten covid, some of whom have died. They all got it while wearing a mask any way. Most of them are liberals who don't watch those news channels anyway.

It's flat out false and misleading to try to lay all of the deaths from covid at the feet of a few news outlets - especially when it's abundantly clear that your animosity toward those outlets has a hell of a lot more to do with their political slant than anything else.

tyr13 did no such thing!

You constantly claim that we are saying all the Covid deaths would have been avoided if Trump had shown shown some leadership, or if the media didn't spread lies about Covid.

LITERALLY NO-ONE HERE IS CLAIMING THIS!!!

As I said earlier, the US has 4% of the population and 20% of the deaths. ask yourself why that is, and while you are at it, ask yourself why the US has 68 times the death rate per population that New Zealand, and 40 times that of Australia.

Ziggurat · 24th February 2021, 04:19 PM

Originally Posted by Lithrael

And yet plenty of countries ARE doing that much better. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to hope that we could have gotten out of the top 20% worst hit countries (per capita) and performed as well as say, Austria or Germany. With their rates yes, we’d have around two hundred thousand fewer dead.

Germany and Austria have something like only 60% of our obesity rate. Given the known connection between obesity and mortality due to COVID, that's a pretty damn big confounding variable. Unless you think you know how to rapidly drop our obesity rates (spoiler: you can't), then no, it's not realistic to think that we could have hit Austrian or Germany rates by doing anything even remotely similar.

Distracted1 · 24th February 2021, 04:20 PM

Originally Posted by smartcooky

tyr13 did no such thing!

You constantly claim that we are saying all the Covid deaths would have been avoided is Trump had shown shown some leadership, or if the media didn't spread lies about Covid.

LITERALLY NO-ONE HERE IS CLAIMING THIS!!!

As I said earlier, the US has 4% of the population and 20% of the deaths. ask yourself why that is, and while you are at it, ask yourself why the US has 68 times the death rate per population that New Zealand, and 40 times that os Australia.

Or why Australia has a rate 80 times that of Vietnam.
Another good question.

smartcooky · 24th February 2021, 04:28 PM

Originally Posted by Cavemonster

Do you guys actually keep forgetting all the things Trump demanded to be cancelled or are you lying?

It really has to be one of the two.

When you say "Oh, I didn't like Trump saying fake news, but that's different than applying pressure..." You either were paying zero attention or you're lying now.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/07/polit...ngs/index.html

Both of these things can be true, and in all likelihood, are!

wareyin · 24th February 2021, 04:29 PM

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

Well that's just patently false right there.

Yes, hundreds of thousands have died. But you are implying that all of those who died did so explicitly because these specific news companies caused their deaths directly. Which is just not even a little bit true. I know several people who have gotten covid, some of whom have died. They all got it while wearing a mask any way. Most of them are liberals who don't watch those news channels anyway.

It's flat out false and misleading to try to lay all of the deaths from covid at the feet of a few news outlets - especially when it's abundantly clear that your animosity toward those outlets has a hell of a lot more to do with their political slant than anything else.

You really can't math good, can you. Here in America, your country and mine, we've had over 500,000 Covid deaths. If not politicizing mask wearing and convincing the right that Covid was a hoax had prevented well under half of those deaths that still would have saved hundreds of thousands of lives.

Emily's Cat · 24th February 2021, 04:33 PM

Originally Posted by smartcooky

As I said earlier, the US has 4% of the population and 20% of the deaths. ask yourself why that is, and while you are at it, ask yourself why the US has 68 times the death rate per population that New Zealand, and 40 times that os Australia.

Part of that is because some countries just flat out aren't testing and recording everyone affected. In some cases, that's because there's a large rural and agrarian population that just isn't being addressed at all. In others it's because those "low caste" people just don't matter to the people in charge.

Part of it is also because China has pretty much just lied since last March.

There are a lot of things that contribute to viral spread. Urban density is a big one, with more developed nations that have larger more densely packed cities experiencing higher overall rates. Especially in areas where that density is paired with a high degree of individual mobility. Countries that don't share land borders with other countries did particularly well.

Yes, the anti-maskers helped make our rates higher, but what's the excuse for Belgium? Or for Italy or Portugal? Yes, several countries did better than we did, and several did worse. Either way, I think it's entirely implausible that we could have reduced our rates by more than 20% if we had just banned Trump and Fox News.

Emily's Cat · 24th February 2021, 04:35 PM

Originally Posted by wareyin

You really can't math good, can you.

I dunno. I mean, I do have a Masters in Applied Mathematics, and I've been a practicing Actuary for 20+ years, but sure, maybe I'm innumerate.

Originally Posted by wareyin

Here in America, your country and mine, we've had over 500,000 Covid deaths. If not politicizing mask wearing and convincing the right that Covid was a hoax had prevented well under half of those deaths that still would have saved hundreds of thousands of lives.

It's completely irrational to assume that we could have reduced our rate by half.

Ziggurat · 24th February 2021, 04:39 PM

Originally Posted by wareyin

You really can't math good, can you. Here in America, your country and mine, we've had over 500,000 Covid deaths. If not politicizing mask wearing and convincing the right that Covid was a hoax had prevented well under half of those deaths that still would have saved hundreds of thousands of lives.

If.

But there's no actual evidence that this "if" is true, that a different approach could have made anywhere near that much of a difference.

wareyin · 24th February 2021, 04:41 PM

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

In one case, we;ve got the president spouting off and saying that somebody or other ought to be fired(which I disagree with, by the way), but never actually taking action as the president to follow through on that... .

In the other case, we've got members of congress acting in their capacity as congresspeople to put pressure on carriers to limit the content provided by news organizations on their platforms.

Yeah, those are totally the same thing.

We've asked what pressure, and so far the absolute best you can come up with is a hearing. Which is obviously far less pressure than threats to remove licenses and have people fired.

Then again, when one thinks the right to spread known falsehoods that cost lives is more important than the right to be alive, as many on the right do, I can see how a threat from the right to remove a news organization's ability to exist is far less than a threat to...uh...explain one's policy?

Ziggurat · 24th February 2021, 04:42 PM

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

There are a lot of things that contribute to viral spread. Urban density is a big one, with more developed nations that have larger more densely packed cities experiencing higher overall rates. Especially in areas where that density is paired with a high degree of individual mobility. Countries that don't share land borders with other countries did particularly well.

Don't forget other factors like obesity rates.

I had expected Africa to be ravaged by Convid because their medical infrastructure is a lot weaker than ours. But it hasn't been (though they have been hard hit by the economic fallout). One of the reasons is people spend a lot more time outdoors, and in the sun. Even indoor locations tend to be extremely well ventilated (since a lot of them don't have AC). These things make a big difference.

wareyin · 24th February 2021, 04:43 PM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

If.

But there's no actual evidence that this "if" is true, that a different approach could have made anywhere near that much of a difference.

Other than the evidence of every country that took that tactic and had that result?

Wait, have we dropped your concern that laws against lies in certain situations would somehow prevent the truth from being told in those situations yet?

wareyin · 24th February 2021, 04:46 PM

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

I dunno. I mean, I do have a Masters in Applied Mathematics, and I've been a practicing Actuary for 20+ years, but sure, maybe I'm innumerate.

It's completely irrational to assume that we could have reduced our rate by half.

Are you absolutely certain that you're going to brag about a Masters Degree in Applied Mathematics and make the basic mistake of not seeing the difference between "half" and "well under half" in the same post? Because I rag on Zig for his own goals, but that's a doozy.

dudalb · 24th February 2021, 04:48 PM

Originally Posted by wareyin

You mean when we didn't have enough masks for doctors and nurses, and the "tribe" of medical experts was telling people not to panic buy them all like they did with toilet paper? Or did your narrative forget that?

Funny how the right wingers here forget that.
The American Right has declared war on science. End of story.
And the so called "respectable" conservatives refuse to call out,and even support the wackjobs.
That is why I have turned on Conservatism in America. It has totally gone over to the Dark Side.

Ziggurat · 24th February 2021, 04:49 PM

Originally Posted by wareyin

Other than the evidence of every country that took that tactic and had that result?

Now you're making **** up.

wareyin · 24th February 2021, 04:52 PM

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

Part of that is because some countries just flat out aren't testing and recording everyone affected. In some cases, that's because there's a large rural and agrarian population that just isn't being addressed at all. In others it's because those "low caste" people just don't matter to the people in charge.

Here in Georgia, USA they also flat out aren't testing and recording everyone affected. Florida has a situation where the governor fired a researcherand had police confiscate her personal computers because she criticized errors they were making with testing and reporting case numbers.

Quote:

Part of it is also because China has pretty much just lied since last March.

So have many places in the US. Georgia admits thousands more "probably" died from Covid than our official numbers report, for instance.

Quote:

There are a lot of things that contribute to viral spread. Urban density is a big one, with more developed nations that have larger more densely packed cities experiencing higher overall rates. Especially in areas where that density is paired with a high degree of individual mobility. Countries that don't share land borders with other countries did particularly well.

Yes, the anti-maskers helped make our rates higher, but what's the excuse for Belgium? Or for Italy or Portugal? Yes, several countries did better than we did, and several did worse. Either way, I think it's entirely implausible that we could have reduced our rates by more than 20% if we had just banned Trump and Fox News.

"Several"???? Are you....wait, how many countries do you think exist?

wareyin · 24th February 2021, 04:53 PM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Now you're making **** up.

Yeah, you go with claims that other countries don't exist. It's...smarter than your previous arguments anyway.

Minoosh · 24th February 2021, 05:12 PM

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

We've already seen congress putting pressure on social media platforms, resulting in companies like Facebook and Twitter intervening to curb speech that congress considered problematic. We've seen topics treated as "banned topics" for private individuals to discuss on those platforms (the Biden story in the NY Post that was forcible suppressed and removed from social media prior to the election).

Hogwash, Twitter chose not to link to a NY Post story, which the mainstream media also pretty much sat on because it reeked of BS. Innuendo couldn't keep that puppy alive; our current Congress didn't exist yet. Twitter drew its line at lies about election fraud and some platforms started removing Covid-19 misinformation. They didn't do so at the behest of "congress" (though perhaps you are only talking about the House of Representatives); they did it because they can't plausibly deny anymore that yes, they do have some responsibility for what gets amplified.

But Covid-19 and election fraud allegations that later sparked a mutiny and were found to be totally groundless? Those two both strike me as extreme outliers. I mean, fomenting revolution and spreading fake info in deadly pandemic ... perhaps those won't happen again in this administration (by a pure stroke of luck of course). Maybe 2020 was just a particularly bad year for some reason.

That's not on this Congress and it doesn't matter how scary a letter from the House of Representatives sounds if you get one in the mail.

Those earnest questions about responsibility ... government may play a role but I'd like to see the content producers and platforms evolve meaningful ways to moderate content to cut down on some misinformation, but they can't always stop it. Maybe a label is enough. The Economist said Twitter should not have banned Trump, but instead moderated individual messages; I can see why a straight ban is from Twitter's point of view. I'd love to see more organizations signing on to guidelines for truthiness. I don't think government's going to be a big driver of that though.

Emily's Cat · 24th February 2021, 05:16 PM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Don't forget other factors like obesity rates.

I had expected Africa to be ravaged by Convid because their medical infrastructure is a lot weaker than ours. But it hasn't been (though they have been hard hit by the economic fallout). One of the reasons is people spend a lot more time outdoors, and in the sun. Even indoor locations tend to be extremely well ventilated (since a lot of them don't have AC). These things make a big difference.

Yes, all of that contributes as well.

acbytesla · 24th February 2021, 05:18 PM

Originally Posted by Minoosh

Hogwash, Twitter chose not to link to a NY Post story, which the mainstream media also pretty much sat on because it reeked of BS. Innuendo couldn't keep that puppy alive; our current Congress didn't exist yet. Twitter drew its line at lies about election fraud and some platforms started removing Covid-19 misinformation. They didn't do so at the behest of "congress" (though perhaps you are only talking about the House of Representatives); they did it because they can't plausibly deny anymore that yes, they do have some responsibility for what gets amplified.

But Covid-19 and election fraud allegations that later sparked a mutiny and were found to be totally groundless? Those two both strike me as extreme outliers. I mean, fomenting revolution and spreading fake info in deadly pandemic ... perhaps those won't happen again in this administration (by a pure stroke of luck of course). Maybe 2020 was just a particularly bad year for some reason.

That's not on this Congress and it doesn't matter how scary a letter from the House of Representatives sounds if you get one in the mail.

Those earnest questions about responsibility ... government may play a role but I'd like to see the content producers and platforms evolve meaningful ways to moderate content to cut down on some misinformation, but they can't always stop it. Maybe a label is enough. The Economist said Twitter should not have banned Trump, but instead moderated individual messages; I can see why a straight ban is from Twitter's point of view. I'd love to see more organizations signing on to guidelines for truthiness. I don't think government's going to be a big driver of that though.

Excellent post.

In theory social media companies are nothing but publishers on a wide scale. They have a responsibility to their readers to publish truthful, accurate and responsible content.

Cavemonster · 24th February 2021, 05:29 PM

Originally Posted by acbytesla

Excellent post.

In theory social media companies are nothing but publishers on a wide scale. They have a responsibility to their readers to publish truthful, accurate and responsible content.

Be careful with that P word!
If they can be described as publishers then they're fully liable for everything that ever gets posted on their platforms

gnome · 24th February 2021, 05:31 PM

Originally Posted by Cavemonster

Be careful with that P word!
If they can be described as publishers then they're fully liable for everything that ever gets posted on their platforms

No, not really. One of the more pervasive myths is that there are legal stakes in "publisher vs platform". Barring certain exceptions, and they are the same exceptions no matter the nature of their organization, they are simply not liable for what third parties post.

wareyin · 24th February 2021, 05:36 PM

Originally Posted by gnome

No, not really. One of the more pervasive myths is that there are legal stakes in "publisher vs platform". Barring certain exceptions, and they are the same exceptions no matter the nature of their organization, they are simply not liable for what third parties post.

One of the 3 right wingers arguing in this thread has claimed that the government can/should go after publishers. I think that was the point of Cavemonster's tongue in cheek post.

acbytesla · 24th February 2021, 05:37 PM

Originally Posted by gnome

No, not really. One of the more pervasive myths is that there are legal stakes in "publisher vs platform". Barring certain exceptions, and they are the same exceptions no matter the nature of their organization, they are simply not liable for what third parties post.

No they're not liable. Maybe they should be. That would end social media as we know it.

But neither do they have a responsibility to publish your crap. The first Amendment doesn't require Facebook or Twitter to publish your shouts of fire in a crowded theater. Especially when the fire is a figment of your imagination.

gnome · 24th February 2021, 06:20 PM

You got that right.

Cavemonster · 24th February 2021, 06:22 PM

Originally Posted by wareyin

One of the 3 right wingers arguing in this thread has claimed that the government can/should go after publishers. I think that was the point of Cavemonster's tongue in cheek post.

I think I was an inadvertent Poe.

angrysoba · 24th February 2021, 06:47 PM

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

I'm actually a bit frightened by the illiberal, repressive, and downright authoritarian views being expressed here.

It’s a free country.

Ziggurat · 24th February 2021, 09:44 PM

Originally Posted by wareyin

Yeah, you go with claims that other countries don't exist. It's...smarter than your previous arguments anyway.

You seem to be claiming that we did worse than anyone else. But that’s not true. We did better than some, and worse than some. Given variations in circumstances and confounding factors, you need to do a lot to demonstrate that we actually underperformed by any significant margin. And you haven’t. You’ve just made up a claim with no evidence.

acbytesla · 24th February 2021, 10:26 PM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

You seem to be claiming that we did worse than anyone else. But that’s not true. We did better than some, and worse than some. Given variations in circumstances and confounding factors, you need to do a lot to demonstrate that we actually underperformed by any significant margin. And you haven’t. You’ve just made up a claim with no evidence.

You're wrong by a mile. I've been reading your posts pushing this narrative. But it is NONSENSE. What I see is a perfect example of what my father use to say.

"Figures don't lie,
but liars figure."

A half a million Americans are dead today because of COVID. And multiples of that will face long term health issues. Trump not only failed to respond to the problem, he dismissed it, he downplayed it and people died and will continue to die because of him.

And the MAGA MORONS marched along with his lunacy. He treated the scientists as if he knew better than they did. But Trump is a liar and a lunatic. And so is anyone who suggests that Trump managed this well.

dirtywick · 24th February 2021, 10:51 PM

Americans have a lot of confounding factors that make COVID deadly and we did a ****** job tackling the pandemic

The Great Zaganza · 24th February 2021, 11:04 PM

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

It's completely irrational to assume that we could have reduced our rate by half.

okay, what % would you attribute to Trump's handling and lack thereof?

Meadmaker · 24th February 2021, 11:08 PM

If I could conceivably pull this back to the thread topic, there is obviously a lot of dispute about a lot of things said in the media about Covid. Do we want to have the government step in and force media outlets to say only one thing? If legislation were passed making that possible, the actual performance of the task would almost certainly be an executive branch function.

I can't see how that would have made things better over the past year.

Somehow, we have to enable us, as a society, to withstand the barrage of misinformation. I think government could play a role in that, but I think that role should be somehow by providing more information than by shutting down media outlets who say things that the executive branch does not want you to hear.

Not that anyone did that last year, or is planning on doing it this year, but I, personally, don't even want to take a baby step in that direction.

The Great Zaganza · 24th February 2021, 11:13 PM

I see no problem with the government putting friction to the spread of made-up stories, simply because they are so much easier to manufacture and spread than actually investigated and edited ones.

It's just leveling a very uneven playing field.

Meadmaker · 24th February 2021, 11:15 PM

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

I see no problem with the government putting friction to the spread of made-up stories, simply because they are so much easier to manufacture and spread than actually investigated and edited ones.

It's just leveling a very uneven playing field.

But the President is the part of government that gets to apply the friction. I just can't see how things would have been better if only Donald Trump had had the power to slow the spread of Fake News.

dirtywick · 24th February 2021, 11:45 PM

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

But the President is the part of government that gets to apply the friction. I just can't see how things would have been better if only Donald Trump had had the power to slow the spread of Fake News.

It would be like all the other times he abused the power of his office to get something he wanted.

The Great Zaganza · 24th February 2021, 11:57 PM

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

But the President is the part of government that gets to apply the friction. I just can't see how things would have been better if only Donald Trump had had the power to slow the spread of Fake News.

you could solve the problem via barriers to litigation, as Trump was kinda hoping for:

a story based on proper investigation could be better shielded from frivolous lawsuits than a poorly researched one.
And opinion pieces as a rule could be marked as "not-news" and therefore lower priority.

smartcooky · 25th February 2021, 12:30 AM

Originally Posted by acbytesla

You're wrong by a mile. I've been reading your posts pushing this narrative. But it is NONSENSE. What I see is a perfect example of what my father use to say.

"Figures don't lie,
but liars figure."

A half a million Americans are dead today because of COVID. And multiples of that will face long term health issues. Trump not only failed to respond to the problem, he dismissed it, he downplayed it and people died and will continue to die because of him.

And the MAGA MORONS marched along with his lunacy. He treated the scientists as if he knew better than they did. But Trump is a liar and a lunatic. And so is anyone who suggests that Trump managed this well.

My reply would be off topic, so I have replied here in a more relevant thread

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=765

Ziggurat · 25th February 2021, 12:43 AM

Originally Posted by acbytesla

You're wrong by a mile. I've been reading your posts pushing this narrative. But it is NONSENSE. What I see is a perfect example of what my father use to say.

"Figures don't lie,
but liars figure."

A half a million Americans are dead today because of COVID. And multiples of that will face long term health issues. Trump not only failed to respond to the problem, he dismissed it, he downplayed it and people died and will continue to die because of him.

And the MAGA MORONS marched along with his lunacy. He treated the scientists as if he knew better than they did. But Trump is a liar and a lunatic. And so is anyone who suggests that Trump managed this well.

Given the way your post started, I thought you might actually have evidence.

Turns out, you don't.

smartcooky · 25th February 2021, 01:02 AM

Originally Posted by dirtywick

It would be like all the other times he abused the power of his office to get something he wanted.

Indeed.

Does claiming that CNN, NBC, NYT and WAPO are "fake news" outlets, and calling them the "enemy of the people" count as Emily's "taking on 1st Am by proxy"?

24th February 2021, 04:05 PM	#121
Lithrael Master Poster Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 2,049	Originally Posted by Emily's Cat ONE hundred thousand would be 20% of the total deaths in the US. HUNDREDS of thousands implies 40% or more of the deaths in the US could have been avoided by silencing Fox News etc. Normalized by population, the US is not materially worse than the UK or most of the EU in terms of Deaths. Total Deaths normalized by Population And yet plenty of countries ARE doing that much better. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to hope that we could have gotten out of the top 20% worst hit countries (per capita) and performed as well as say, Austria or Germany. With their rates yes, we’d have around two hundred thousand fewer dead.
Lithrael Master Poster Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 2,049

24th February 2021, 04:09 PM	#122
Cavemonster Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 6,659	Originally Posted by Distracted1 A wrong conclusion. They both constitute pressure. The difference was one was a "bully pulpit" type of pressure .Real- but different from pressure through official channels- as in the tone of the letter from the Congressmembers. Take it up with EC.
Cavemonster Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 6,659	__________________ The weakness of all Utopias is this, ... They first assume that no man will want more than his share, and then are very ingenious in explaining whether his share will be delivered by motorcar or balloon. -G.K. CHESTERTON

24th February 2021, 04:14 PM	#123
smartcooky Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: Nelson, New Zealand Posts: 17,175	Originally Posted by Emily's Cat Well that's just patently false right there. Yes, hundreds of thousands have died. But you are implying that all of those who died did so explicitly because these specific news companies caused their deaths directly. Which is just not even a little bit true. I know several people who have gotten covid, some of whom have died. They all got it while wearing a mask any way. Most of them are liberals who don't watch those news channels anyway. It's flat out false and misleading to try to lay all of the deaths from covid at the feet of a few news outlets - especially when it's abundantly clear that your animosity toward those outlets has a hell of a lot more to do with their political slant than anything else. tyr13 did no such thing! You constantly claim that we are saying all the Covid deaths would have been avoided if Trump had shown shown some leadership, or if the media didn't spread lies about Covid. LITERALLY NO-ONE HERE IS CLAIMING THIS!!! As I said earlier, the US has 4% of the population and 20% of the deaths. ask yourself why that is, and while you are at it, ask yourself why the US has 68 times the death rate per population that New Zealand, and 40 times that of Australia.
	__________________ I want to thank the 126 Republican Congress members for providing a convenient and well organized list for the mid-terms. - Fred Wellman (Senior VA Advisor to The Lincoln Project) If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list. This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! ! Last edited by smartcooky; 24th February 2021 at 04:25 PM.

24th February 2021, 04:19 PM	#124
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 48,628	Originally Posted by Lithrael And yet plenty of countries ARE doing that much better. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to hope that we could have gotten out of the top 20% worst hit countries (per capita) and performed as well as say, Austria or Germany. With their rates yes, we’d have around two hundred thousand fewer dead. Germany and Austria have something like only 60% of our obesity rate. Given the known connection between obesity and mortality due to COVID, that's a pretty damn big confounding variable. Unless you think you know how to rapidly drop our obesity rates (spoiler: you can't), then no, it's not realistic to think that we could have hit Austrian or Germany rates by doing anything even remotely similar.
	__________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

24th February 2021, 04:20 PM	#125
Distracted1 Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Philadelphia Posts: 5,612	Originally Posted by smartcooky tyr13 did no such thing! You constantly claim that we are saying all the Covid deaths would have been avoided is Trump had shown shown some leadership, or if the media didn't spread lies about Covid. LITERALLY NO-ONE HERE IS CLAIMING THIS!!! As I said earlier, the US has 4% of the population and 20% of the deaths. ask yourself why that is, and while you are at it, ask yourself why the US has 68 times the death rate per population that New Zealand, and 40 times that os Australia. Or why Australia has a rate 80 times that of Vietnam. Another good question.
	__________________ The man with one watch knows what time it is, the man with two watches is never sure.

24th February 2021, 04:28 PM	#126
smartcooky Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: Nelson, New Zealand Posts: 17,175	Originally Posted by Cavemonster Do you guys actually keep forgetting all the things Trump demanded to be cancelled or are you lying? It really has to be one of the two. When you say "Oh, I didn't like Trump saying fake news, but that's different than applying pressure..." You either were paying zero attention or you're lying now. https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/07/polit...ngs/index.html Both of these things can be true, and in all likelihood, are!
	__________________ I want to thank the 126 Republican Congress members for providing a convenient and well organized list for the mid-terms. - Fred Wellman (Senior VA Advisor to The Lincoln Project) If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list. This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !

24th February 2021, 04:29 PM	#127
wareyin Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2013 Location: Georgia, USA Posts: 8,561	Originally Posted by Emily's Cat Well that's just patently false right there. Yes, hundreds of thousands have died. But you are implying that all of those who died did so explicitly because these specific news companies caused their deaths directly. Which is just not even a little bit true. I know several people who have gotten covid, some of whom have died. They all got it while wearing a mask any way. Most of them are liberals who don't watch those news channels anyway. It's flat out false and misleading to try to lay all of the deaths from covid at the feet of a few news outlets - especially when it's abundantly clear that your animosity toward those outlets has a hell of a lot more to do with their political slant than anything else. You really can't math good, can you. Here in America, your country and mine, we've had over 500,000 Covid deaths. If not politicizing mask wearing and convincing the right that Covid was a hoax had prevented well under half of those deaths that still would have saved hundreds of thousands of lives.

24th February 2021, 04:33 PM	#128
Emily's Cat Rarely prone to hissy-fits Join Date: Sep 2013 Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth Posts: 15,356	Originally Posted by smartcooky As I said earlier, the US has 4% of the population and 20% of the deaths. ask yourself why that is, and while you are at it, ask yourself why the US has 68 times the death rate per population that New Zealand, and 40 times that os Australia. Part of that is because some countries just flat out aren't testing and recording everyone affected. In some cases, that's because there's a large rural and agrarian population that just isn't being addressed at all. In others it's because those "low caste" people just don't matter to the people in charge. Part of it is also because China has pretty much just lied since last March. There are a lot of things that contribute to viral spread. Urban density is a big one, with more developed nations that have larger more densely packed cities experiencing higher overall rates. Especially in areas where that density is paired with a high degree of individual mobility. Countries that don't share land borders with other countries did particularly well. Yes, the anti-maskers helped make our rates higher, but what's the excuse for Belgium? Or for Italy or Portugal? Yes, several countries did better than we did, and several did worse. Either way, I think it's entirely implausible that we could have reduced our rates by more than 20% if we had just banned Trump and Fox News.
	__________________ I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.

24th February 2021, 04:35 PM	#129
Emily's Cat Rarely prone to hissy-fits Join Date: Sep 2013 Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth Posts: 15,356	Originally Posted by wareyin You really can't math good, can you. I dunno. I mean, I do have a Masters in Applied Mathematics, and I've been a practicing Actuary for 20+ years, but sure, maybe I'm innumerate. Originally Posted by wareyin Here in America, your country and mine, we've had over 500,000 Covid deaths. If not politicizing mask wearing and convincing the right that Covid was a hoax had prevented well under half of those deaths that still would have saved hundreds of thousands of lives. It's completely irrational to assume that we could have reduced our rate by half.
	__________________ I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.

24th February 2021, 04:39 PM	#130
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 48,628	Originally Posted by wareyin You really can't math good, can you. Here in America, your country and mine, we've had over 500,000 Covid deaths. If not politicizing mask wearing and convincing the right that Covid was a hoax had prevented well under half of those deaths that still would have saved hundreds of thousands of lives. If. But there's no actual evidence that this "if" is true, that a different approach could have made anywhere near that much of a difference.
	__________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

24th February 2021, 04:41 PM	#131
wareyin Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2013 Location: Georgia, USA Posts: 8,561	Originally Posted by Emily's Cat In one case, we;ve got the president spouting off and saying that somebody or other ought to be fired(which I disagree with, by the way), but never actually taking action as the president to follow through on that... . In the other case, we've got members of congress acting in their capacity as congresspeople to put pressure on carriers to limit the content provided by news organizations on their platforms. Yeah, those are totally the same thing. We've asked what pressure, and so far the absolute best you can come up with is a hearing. Which is obviously far less pressure than threats to remove licenses and have people fired. Then again, when one thinks the right to spread known falsehoods that cost lives is more important than the right to be alive, as many on the right do, I can see how a threat from the right to remove a news organization's ability to exist is far less than a threat to...uh...explain one's policy?

24th February 2021, 04:42 PM	#132
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 48,628	Originally Posted by Emily's Cat There are a lot of things that contribute to viral spread. Urban density is a big one, with more developed nations that have larger more densely packed cities experiencing higher overall rates. Especially in areas where that density is paired with a high degree of individual mobility. Countries that don't share land borders with other countries did particularly well. Don't forget other factors like obesity rates. I had expected Africa to be ravaged by Convid because their medical infrastructure is a lot weaker than ours. But it hasn't been (though they have been hard hit by the economic fallout). One of the reasons is people spend a lot more time outdoors, and in the sun. Even indoor locations tend to be extremely well ventilated (since a lot of them don't have AC). These things make a big difference.
	__________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

24th February 2021, 04:43 PM	#133
wareyin Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2013 Location: Georgia, USA Posts: 8,561	Originally Posted by Ziggurat If. But there's no actual evidence that this "if" is true, that a different approach could have made anywhere near that much of a difference. Other than the evidence of every country that took that tactic and had that result? Wait, have we dropped your concern that laws against lies in certain situations would somehow prevent the truth from being told in those situations yet?

24th February 2021, 04:46 PM	#134
wareyin Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2013 Location: Georgia, USA Posts: 8,561	Originally Posted by Emily's Cat I dunno. I mean, I do have a Masters in Applied Mathematics, and I've been a practicing Actuary for 20+ years, but sure, maybe I'm innumerate. It's completely irrational to assume that we could have reduced our rate by half. Are you absolutely certain that you're going to brag about a Masters Degree in Applied Mathematics and make the basic mistake of not seeing the difference between "half" and "well under half" in the same post? Because I rag on Zig for his own goals, but that's a doozy.

24th February 2021, 04:48 PM	#135
dudalb Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Sacramento Posts: 50,527	Originally Posted by wareyin You mean when we didn't have enough masks for doctors and nurses, and the "tribe" of medical experts was telling people not to panic buy them all like they did with toilet paper? Or did your narrative forget that? Funny how the right wingers here forget that. The American Right has declared war on science. End of story. And the so called "respectable" conservatives refuse to call out,and even support the wackjobs. That is why I have turned on Conservatism in America. It has totally gone over to the Dark Side.
	__________________ Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty. Robert Heinlein.

24th February 2021, 04:49 PM	#136
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 48,628	Originally Posted by wareyin Other than the evidence of every country that took that tactic and had that result? Now you're making **** up.
	__________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

24th February 2021, 04:52 PM	#137
wareyin Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2013 Location: Georgia, USA Posts: 8,561	Originally Posted by Emily's Cat Part of that is because some countries just flat out aren't testing and recording everyone affected. In some cases, that's because there's a large rural and agrarian population that just isn't being addressed at all. In others it's because those "low caste" people just don't matter to the people in charge. Here in Georgia, USA they also flat out aren't testing and recording everyone affected. Florida has a situation where the governor fired a researcherand had police confiscate her personal computers because she criticized errors they were making with testing and reporting case numbers. Quote: Part of it is also because China has pretty much just lied since last March. So have many places in the US. Georgia admits thousands more "probably" died from Covid than our official numbers report, for instance. Quote: There are a lot of things that contribute to viral spread. Urban density is a big one, with more developed nations that have larger more densely packed cities experiencing higher overall rates. Especially in areas where that density is paired with a high degree of individual mobility. Countries that don't share land borders with other countries did particularly well. Yes, the anti-maskers helped make our rates higher, but what's the excuse for Belgium? Or for Italy or Portugal? Yes, several countries did better than we did, and several did worse. Either way, I think it's entirely implausible that we could have reduced our rates by more than 20% if we had just banned Trump and Fox News. "Several"???? Are you....wait, how many countries do you think exist?

24th February 2021, 04:53 PM	#138
wareyin Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2013 Location: Georgia, USA Posts: 8,561	Originally Posted by Ziggurat Now you're making **** up. Yeah, you go with claims that other countries don't exist. It's...smarter than your previous arguments anyway.

24th February 2021, 05:12 PM	#139
Minoosh Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 12,330	Originally Posted by Emily's Cat We've already seen congress putting pressure on social media platforms, resulting in companies like Facebook and Twitter intervening to curb speech that congress considered problematic. We've seen topics treated as "banned topics" for private individuals to discuss on those platforms (the Biden story in the NY Post that was forcible suppressed and removed from social media prior to the election). Hogwash, Twitter chose not to link to a NY Post story, which the mainstream media also pretty much sat on because it reeked of BS. Innuendo couldn't keep that puppy alive; our current Congress didn't exist yet. Twitter drew its line at lies about election fraud and some platforms started removing Covid-19 misinformation. They didn't do so at the behest of "congress" (though perhaps you are only talking about the House of Representatives); they did it because they can't plausibly deny anymore that yes, they do have some responsibility for what gets amplified. But Covid-19 and election fraud allegations that later sparked a mutiny and were found to be totally groundless? Those two both strike me as extreme outliers. I mean, fomenting revolution and spreading fake info in deadly pandemic ... perhaps those won't happen again in this administration (by a pure stroke of luck of course). Maybe 2020 was just a particularly bad year for some reason. That's not on this Congress and it doesn't matter how scary a letter from the House of Representatives sounds if you get one in the mail. Those earnest questions about responsibility ... government may play a role but I'd like to see the content producers and platforms evolve meaningful ways to moderate content to cut down on some misinformation, but they can't always stop it. Maybe a label is enough. The Economist said Twitter should not have banned Trump, but instead moderated individual messages; I can see why a straight ban is from Twitter's point of view. I'd love to see more organizations signing on to guidelines for truthiness. I don't think government's going to be a big driver of that though.

24th February 2021, 05:16 PM	#140
Emily's Cat Rarely prone to hissy-fits Join Date: Sep 2013 Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth Posts: 15,356	Originally Posted by Ziggurat Don't forget other factors like obesity rates. I had expected Africa to be ravaged by Convid because their medical infrastructure is a lot weaker than ours. But it hasn't been (though they have been hard hit by the economic fallout). One of the reasons is people spend a lot more time outdoors, and in the sun. Even indoor locations tend to be extremely well ventilated (since a lot of them don't have AC). These things make a big difference. Yes, all of that contributes as well.
	__________________ I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.

24th February 2021, 05:18 PM	#141
acbytesla Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2012 Posts: 28,585	Originally Posted by Minoosh Hogwash, Twitter chose not to link to a NY Post story, which the mainstream media also pretty much sat on because it reeked of BS. Innuendo couldn't keep that puppy alive; our current Congress didn't exist yet. Twitter drew its line at lies about election fraud and some platforms started removing Covid-19 misinformation. They didn't do so at the behest of "congress" (though perhaps you are only talking about the House of Representatives); they did it because they can't plausibly deny anymore that yes, they do have some responsibility for what gets amplified. But Covid-19 and election fraud allegations that later sparked a mutiny and were found to be totally groundless? Those two both strike me as extreme outliers. I mean, fomenting revolution and spreading fake info in deadly pandemic ... perhaps those won't happen again in this administration (by a pure stroke of luck of course). Maybe 2020 was just a particularly bad year for some reason. That's not on this Congress and it doesn't matter how scary a letter from the House of Representatives sounds if you get one in the mail. Those earnest questions about responsibility ... government may play a role but I'd like to see the content producers and platforms evolve meaningful ways to moderate content to cut down on some misinformation, but they can't always stop it. Maybe a label is enough. The Economist said Twitter should not have banned Trump, but instead moderated individual messages; I can see why a straight ban is from Twitter's point of view. I'd love to see more organizations signing on to guidelines for truthiness. I don't think government's going to be a big driver of that though. Excellent post. In theory social media companies are nothing but publishers on a wide scale. They have a responsibility to their readers to publish truthful, accurate and responsible content.
	__________________ Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me. .

24th February 2021, 05:29 PM	#142
Cavemonster Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 6,659	Originally Posted by acbytesla Excellent post. In theory social media companies are nothing but publishers on a wide scale. They have a responsibility to their readers to publish truthful, accurate and responsible content. Be careful with that P word! If they can be described as publishers then they're fully liable for everything that ever gets posted on their platforms
Cavemonster Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 6,659	__________________ The weakness of all Utopias is this, ... They first assume that no man will want more than his share, and then are very ingenious in explaining whether his share will be delivered by motorcar or balloon. -G.K. CHESTERTON

24th February 2021, 05:31 PM	#143
gnome Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 11,258	Originally Posted by Cavemonster Be careful with that P word! If they can be described as publishers then they're fully liable for everything that ever gets posted on their platforms No, not really. One of the more pervasive myths is that there are legal stakes in "publisher vs platform". Barring certain exceptions, and they are the same exceptions no matter the nature of their organization, they are simply not liable for what third parties post.
	__________________

24th February 2021, 05:36 PM	#144
wareyin Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2013 Location: Georgia, USA Posts: 8,561	Originally Posted by gnome No, not really. One of the more pervasive myths is that there are legal stakes in "publisher vs platform". Barring certain exceptions, and they are the same exceptions no matter the nature of their organization, they are simply not liable for what third parties post. One of the 3 right wingers arguing in this thread has claimed that the government can/should go after publishers. I think that was the point of Cavemonster's tongue in cheek post.
	Last edited by wareyin; 24th February 2021 at 05:39 PM.

24th February 2021, 05:37 PM	#145
acbytesla Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2012 Posts: 28,585	Originally Posted by gnome No, not really. One of the more pervasive myths is that there are legal stakes in "publisher vs platform". Barring certain exceptions, and they are the same exceptions no matter the nature of their organization, they are simply not liable for what third parties post. No they're not liable. Maybe they should be. That would end social media as we know it. But neither do they have a responsibility to publish your crap. The first Amendment doesn't require Facebook or Twitter to publish your shouts of fire in a crowded theater. Especially when the fire is a figment of your imagination.
	__________________ Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me. .

24th February 2021, 06:20 PM	#146
gnome Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 11,258	You got that right.
	__________________

24th February 2021, 06:22 PM	#147
Cavemonster Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 6,659	Originally Posted by wareyin One of the 3 right wingers arguing in this thread has claimed that the government can/should go after publishers. I think that was the point of Cavemonster's tongue in cheek post. I think I was an inadvertent Poe.
Cavemonster Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 6,659	__________________ The weakness of all Utopias is this, ... They first assume that no man will want more than his share, and then are very ingenious in explaining whether his share will be delivered by motorcar or balloon. -G.K. CHESTERTON

24th February 2021, 06:47 PM	#148
angrysoba Philosophile Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Osaka, Japan Posts: 29,603	Originally Posted by Emily's Cat I'm actually a bit frightened by the illiberal, repressive, and downright authoritarian views being expressed here. It’s a free country.
	__________________ "The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before." "Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)

24th February 2021, 09:44 PM	#149
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 48,628	Originally Posted by wareyin Yeah, you go with claims that other countries don't exist. It's...smarter than your previous arguments anyway. You seem to be claiming that we did worse than anyone else. But that’s not true. We did better than some, and worse than some. Given variations in circumstances and confounding factors, you need to do a lot to demonstrate that we actually underperformed by any significant margin. And you haven’t. You’ve just made up a claim with no evidence.
	__________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

24th February 2021, 10:26 PM	#150
acbytesla Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2012 Posts: 28,585	Originally Posted by Ziggurat You seem to be claiming that we did worse than anyone else. But that’s not true. We did better than some, and worse than some. Given variations in circumstances and confounding factors, you need to do a lot to demonstrate that we actually underperformed by any significant margin. And you haven’t. You’ve just made up a claim with no evidence. You're wrong by a mile. I've been reading your posts pushing this narrative. But it is NONSENSE. What I see is a perfect example of what my father use to say. "Figures don't lie, but liars figure." A half a million Americans are dead today because of COVID. And multiples of that will face long term health issues. Trump not only failed to respond to the problem, he dismissed it, he downplayed it and people died and will continue to die because of him. And the MAGA MORONS marched along with his lunacy. He treated the scientists as if he knew better than they did. But Trump is a liar and a lunatic. And so is anyone who suggests that Trump managed this well.
	__________________ Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me. . Last edited by acbytesla; 24th February 2021 at 11:11 PM.

24th February 2021, 10:51 PM	#151
dirtywick Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 3,316	Americans have a lot of confounding factors that make COVID deadly and we did a ****** job tackling the pandemic
dirtywick Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 3,316

24th February 2021, 11:04 PM	#152
The Great Zaganza Maledictorian Join Date: Aug 2016 Posts: 14,861	Originally Posted by Emily's Cat It's completely irrational to assume that we could have reduced our rate by half. okay, what % would you attribute to Trump's handling and lack thereof?
	__________________ The things that you're liable To read in the Bible It ain't necessarily so

24th February 2021, 11:08 PM	#153
Meadmaker Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 25,497	If I could conceivably pull this back to the thread topic, there is obviously a lot of dispute about a lot of things said in the media about Covid. Do we want to have the government step in and force media outlets to say only one thing? If legislation were passed making that possible, the actual performance of the task would almost certainly be an executive branch function. I can't see how that would have made things better over the past year. Somehow, we have to enable us, as a society, to withstand the barrage of misinformation. I think government could play a role in that, but I think that role should be somehow by providing more information than by shutting down media outlets who say things that the executive branch does not want you to hear. Not that anyone did that last year, or is planning on doing it this year, but I, personally, don't even want to take a baby step in that direction.
	__________________ Yes, yes. I know you are right. But would it hurt you to provide some information? Last edited by Meadmaker; 24th February 2021 at 11:09 PM.

24th February 2021, 11:13 PM	#154
The Great Zaganza Maledictorian Join Date: Aug 2016 Posts: 14,861	I see no problem with the government putting friction to the spread of made-up stories, simply because they are so much easier to manufacture and spread than actually investigated and edited ones. It's just leveling a very uneven playing field.
	__________________ The things that you're liable To read in the Bible It ain't necessarily so

24th February 2021, 11:15 PM	#155
Meadmaker Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 25,497	Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza I see no problem with the government putting friction to the spread of made-up stories, simply because they are so much easier to manufacture and spread than actually investigated and edited ones. It's just leveling a very uneven playing field. But the President is the part of government that gets to apply the friction. I just can't see how things would have been better if only Donald Trump had had the power to slow the spread of Fake News.
	__________________ Yes, yes. I know you are right. But would it hurt you to provide some information?