Back to Today's Deal

Coronavirus

#148

That sounds beyond retarded. Different nations are differently affected by the spread and have to figure out how to best handle their own situation, even different regions within each country are having different situations. Having EU officials make unilateral decisions for everyone is unfathomably stupid, these decisions must be made by local regional governments.

EU’s only role in this should be to help those regions that are hardest hit and have a hard time providing enough care and economically survive the quarantine.

#149

well, would you look at that

#150

I know you had good intentions, but there are fact checking sites out there - they may not be flashy or fancy, but behind the scenes you have a lot of journalists, independent fact checkers, databases full of historical logs and changes, and a more honest approach.

One useful way to check out a source like GR is to cross-reference their overall track record with reporting the truth…and boy is it abysmal – https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/global-research/ so, while sometimes they do have valid, accurate reporting (less than 10% of the time…) the entire site is littered with inaccuracies, false reporting, or twisting of the truth, and is VERY often agenda-based or agenda-driven articles with little focus placed on the facts (if it even bothers to accurately source the facts). The fact checking sites provide exact instances, articles, sources, and are willing to sign their names and stake their reputation on it, and they consistently uncover similar patterns regardless of which fact checking site you use. So, while those fact checking sites like MediaBiasFactCheck or FactCheck or Politifact or Snopes or LeadStories or ScienceFeedback or APFactCheck or ReutersFactCheck or FullFact or CheckYourFact may not be perfect 100% of the time, they try incredibly hard to deep dive sources and uncover the truth for us with every resource they can bring to bear, and they link pattern abuse of certain unsavory websites, journals, and authors better than we (as one article consumers) ever could. They are amazing resources! Please use.

So, while I did not watch the video you linked, just based on the source alone it has an astronomically high probability of being laced with mistruths, inaccuracies, or outright lies. And even if they are calling on experts within the relevant fields, that’s not to say there aren’t 1) tin foil hat conspiracy theorists within every field or occupation, or 2) their interviews are being spliced, edited, or cut out of context, BOTH of which this site has been caught doing repeatedly.

This GR isn’t a case of “oh, 1 of our bloggers or opinion writers is a bit out there…” they are blatant, aggressive, site-wide astroturfing and conspiracy pushing. At least some sources try to provide both sides while entertaining extreme views, this is not one of them.

Again, zero offense to you. Sites like this are designed to draw in clicks, views, have great reach on social media, and many people end up sharing their posts. But we are better than that. All of us can help protect each other, because this misinformation campaign online is not new – it’s as old as language itself, just wearing a new coat these days. So please, lets help each other out and lift each other up! :poop:

#151

yeah, like i said, i don’t know these sites and have never even heard or seen them before. What happened was that someone sent me a similar article in French, and I found it enlightening and thought-provoking, although ofc i don’t personally agree with everything being said in it, but i did feel it was worth sharing, and since ofc i’m not gonna post a French article here (and to be fair, the source is probably as untrustworthy as these; i didn’t even check and wouldnt even know where it was from now), i just googled the title in English and grabbed 2 of the presented results there

ofc if those sites spread a lot of lies and BS that’s not going to help anything either

i would argue though that ofc there’s no doubt that 99.9% of conspiracy theories are just nutty craziness, but occasionally governments do lie to their ppl or try to cover up shady shit, and then whoever mentions that will also be accused of spreading conspiracy theories by those same governments and their propaganda

but that’s a different subject ofc, and i’m not saying that’s the case here either

#152
#153

If there is anything i can do to help you or anyone for that matter feel free to reach out

#154

Ok. After doing some research in figuring out what the press briefing was about. I was pointed to this article.

https://news.columbia.edu/ultraviolet-technology-virus-covid-19-UV-light

The technology, developed by Columbia University’s Center for Radiological Research, uses lamps that emit continuous, low doses of a particular wavelength of ultraviolent light, known as far-UVC, which can kill viruses and bacteria without harming human skin, eyes and other tissues, as is the problem with conventional UV light.

That’s basically the important paragraph. Seems interesting as I had not heard about it. They are in production and awaiting FDA approval and cost $500 - $1,000. I couldn’t find a picture of it but I hope it doesn’t look ugly.

Please don’t swallow UV lightbulbs to cure coronavirus.

#155

People saying that in public will only get said thing to come true.

#156

Thanks for looking that up, that’s pretty cool. But not sure cheeto was aware of the specifics. Or at all really.

It’s too bad that the media and people over simplify and leave out key facts. (I bet it drives scientists nuts)

Another key point is here:
"…large-scale production, as well as approval by the Food and Drug Administration and Environmental Protection Agency, will take several months."

#157

Oh my goodness. Well this turned out interesting. Apparently the link I found was not the exact thing Trump mentioned. It was this product.

My last post was of a product meant to sterilize areas. This link was to use a specific UV light to help people.

Here’s the funny problem. Youtube removed the video on that biotech company’s youtube channel.

Of course my link has the same video on their webpage using their own embedded media player. So if you want to see what youtube censored, you can watch it there.

Then I found that their twitter was suspended…

Then there was backlash, then it was reinstated.

https://twitter.com/BioscienceAytu

AYTU is a publicly traded biotech company with FDA approved products. It’s a real company. This is Chinese levels of censorship here. LOL. They tried to hide an entire company! The funny part, it’s not in production and seems to be in development. There was no reason to hide it since it’s not around.

All this just by talking about how to save people from the coronavirus. What a mess.

#158

Well, just the way YouTube works is a very laissez-faire approach, mostly automated but also very reliant on viewers to flag videos for their attention. So, my guess is, either the automation saw multiple keywords linking their novel concept to COVID-19 conspiracy theories and made the gross generalization that it was misinformation, -or- it was flagged by multiple viewers that assumed they’ve never heard of viruses being treated with this approach before, therefore it must be a crackpot idea, therefore it must be removed. And YouTube faithfully complied. And people rightfully got angry. And YouTube fixed their mistake. shrug You try curating 300 hours of video/minute and come up with a better solution that never gets it wrong!

It’s a giant NothingBurger if you ask me. The drama, and the idea, both. Regarding the tech/idea: doubt it works but if it does, great. :poop:

#159

TB kills 1.5 million ppl a year, and they expect an extra 1.4 million to die BECAUSE of the lockdown.

When the dust settles, it will become clear that millions and millions and millions will die because of the lockdowns (poverty and hunger caused by it in addition to health issues as a result of increased poverty).

#160

TL;DW: this is the President of Tanzania; they took samples of fruits, trees, animals and sent them to laboratories as if those were swabs taken from humans; a lot came back positive

his conclusion: either the laboratories are falsifying the results, or the (imported) test kits have been designed in such a way that many come up positive regardless of what you test with them

#161

Can you even get covid if you’ve already had covfefe?

#162

…or COVID-19 has spread everywhere, and/or the labs themselves aren’t sterile enough and it’s cross-contaminating results. Could be accurate results, no conspiracy.

#163

could also be he lying, which wouldn’t surprise me either

could also be it’s rly as he says

everything’s possible these days

even if covid has spread everywhere, there’s no way it would be inside fruit and trees though

in any case the video appears to be real, there’s plenty of news channels (in Africa) which have reported on it

it’s quite interesting not one major news network speaks about this in any case; it’s not like this would not be newsworthy

#164

Probably cause talking about Trump and America in general gets more views. Hell I think they get more clicks on news relating to Europe than Africa. I should probably find an African news source some day just to see how the situation is there.

#165

I do not see in the Tanzania video if it is Diagnostic or antibody. It sounds like diagnostic. That being said, I don’t think Tanzania is a “rich” country, and thus may have lesser access to tests which means it is more likely they got the equivalent of buying off Wish. There is a lot of background information that is missing that could be relevant.

But yes, there are some garbage tests out there.

#166

I wonder how accurately he describes events happening in USA in general ?

He’s my main source of information about what’s happening in USA but at the same time i get that he’s clearly a liberal/democrat ( even though definition of ‘democrat’ in USA is broad and encompass so many different political views ) so in a way it’s always just one side of the story.

#167

that’s with all sources of news media nowadays mostly, and quite often though both sides offer a different side of the story, the end goal is the same, but the means are different cuz the addressees are different