People have given up on the quarantine.

[JustFillIt]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Yeah, ok. So what's so biased about it?

I would prefer that you argue how it is not biased.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

I would prefer that you argue how it is not biased.

Ok. More reliable sources appear to be at the top of the chart. Less reliable ones at the bottom. Left leaning ones appear to the left. Right leaning ones to the right.

That was easy.

 

[PikminOC]

"Dr." Trump says that sunlight and hot weather are effective for eradicating COVID-19. Didn't you see his impressive science fair poster? #The perfect poster. Tanning beds and UV light for all...the next step in the evolution of the human species involves altering one's skin to a "healthy" orange color as a means of survival

Sarcasm

You think that's why people are ditching quarantine?

 

[JustFillIt]

Ok. More reliable sources appear to be at the top of the chart. Less reliable ones at the bottom. Left leaning ones appear to the left. Right leaning ones to the right.

That was easy.

Gotcha - that was not biased at all. I stand corrected.

 

[LazyPharmacist2.0]

Yeah, ok. So what's so biased about it?

How do you ascertain the "truth" or deem something to be factual? Does it have to be published on "newsworthy" media. Who decides what is fact and fiction? The point I'm making is that a lot of information that we deem factual is dependent on us believing what others have told us. We are all at the mercy of others when it comes to information. None of us are first hand witnesses of these events.

What if all those news sources that were displayed on your chart appear to be different but were actually controlled by one entity? How do you know to trust any of those sources?

 

[LazyPharmacist2.0]

Ok. More reliable sources appear to be at the top of the chart. Less reliable ones at the bottom. Left leaning ones appear to the left. Right leaning ones to the right.

That was easy.

What standards do you employ to decide what is reliable? Just because a source is biased doesn't mean its wrong. And all sources are biased by the way. That argument is very weak and superficial.

 

[LazyPharmacist2.0]

Another example, if I told you the Dalai Lama is employed by the CIA to undermine China's regional influence, is that a conspiracy? How do I prove this to you? Well according to you I have to provide a reliable source and I happen to have one from the LA Times. But this was written well after the fact and many people who held this belief were ostracized and labeled as conspirators.

CIA Gave Aid to Tibetan Exiles in '60s, Files Show

For much of the 1960s, the CIA provided the Tibetan exile movement with $1.7 million a year for operations against China, including an annual subsidy of $180,000 for the Dalai Lama, according to newly released U.S. intelligence documents.

www.latimes.com

 

[owlegrad]

How do you ascertain the "truth" or deem something to be factual? Does it have to be published on "newsworthy" media. Who decides what is fact and fiction? The point I'm making is that a lot of information that we deem factual is dependent on us believing what others have told us. We are all the mercy of others when it comes to information. None of us are first hand witnesses of these events.

What if all those news sources that were displayed on your chart appear to be different but were actually controlled by one entity? How do you know to trust any of those sources?

How is rejecting every source of information helpful? These is being critical and then there is being irrational.

 

[LazyPharmacist2.0]

How is rejecting every source of information helpful? These is being critical and then there is being irrational.

You're right, there is no point to rejecting every source of information, that wouldn't make sense. But you have to question it, don't simply accept it because it was printed on what is deemed "reliable." Information is "fluid" in the sense that what was once fact can turn out to be fiction much later on.

 

[JustFillIt]

How is rejecting every source of information helpful? These is being critical and then there is being irrational.

Fair enough.... But flashing a neat little chart with a bunch of “stuff” presented on it is not at all objective or unbiased in any way at all.

The methods behind developing a chart like that would be epically destroyed if peer reviewed by experts in statistics.

That’s all I will say about that as it is a waste of energy to get much more into it than that.

Accepting things at face value is foolish - and your right - rejecting every piece of material is not helpful either. I would just say that we live in a very confusing and unhelpful world where, in the end if we die and have all things revealed to us in some sort of celestial event, we will see how little truth we actually were exposed to in this lifetime (on all levels of our life).

 

[owlegrad]

Fair enough.... But flashing a neat little chart with a bunch of “stuff” presented on it is not at all objective or unbiased in any way at all.

The methods behind developing a chart like that would be epically destroyed if peer reviewed by experts in statistics.

What specifically do you think that chart’s bias is? Too liberal? Too conservative? Biased towards big journalism? Biased against insane internet websites?

Just claiming it is biased isn’t very helpful. I need to know in what direction the crazy is so I know where to duck.

 

[LazyPharmacist2.0]

What specifically do you think that chart’s bias is? Too liberal? Too conservative? Biased towards big journalism? Biased against insane internet websites?

Just claiming it is biased isn’t very helpful. I need to know in what direction the crazy is so I know where to duck.

You're missing the point. What is the definition of crazy? This is a relative term for people because it depends on what your overall perspective is.

 

[JustFillIt]

What specifically do you think that chart’s bias is? Too liberal? Too conservative? Biased towards big journalism? Biased against insane internet websites?

Just claiming it is biased isn’t very helpful. I need to know in what direction the crazy is so I know where to duck.

Ok - I would say the bias likely exists in the data collection. How exactly do they identify an event of “bias” in order to scale these graphs?

How exactly do they identify an event of “left leaning or right leaning”?

Finally - how random are the samples that they collect? How are they collecting these samples? Who decides when an event of bias takes place and what is their background?

This chart about media bias is a statistical nightmare of bias in its own right.... It would take a very carefully designed method and data collection/interpretation in order to make a study like this remotely valid. It would need an incredible feat of data collection, blinding, then finding objective interpretation which has somehow proven that they do not have a political bias themselves.

I am assuming that the data on that chart is freshman and laughable in the eyes of someone who understands a sound experimental design.

I will agree with this charts view on Infowars though. There are not many people more disgusting than Alex Jones in my opinion.

 

[PikminOC]

They are a bit more prepared than 1 month ago at least for wave 2.

There is no way we are coming back to normal. Even if people are going back to "normal", there are 25%+ who adopt the new normal and stay with it; it only takes a month to develop a new habit. Online meeting (business travel is going way down), telemedicine, home study, Netflix, Amazon, online retailing, mail orders, no more shopping malls, etc are gaining big time. The businesses landscape has changed forever.

Doubtful. The planes are already full

 

[M0df]

Sounds like the only way to get reliable information is to buy at least 20 acres of land in the middle of nowhere and live off the grid. Of course, Smurf and Pope can ruin your plans... Sorry Animal Kingdom reference.

I am just trying to figure out what people use for reliable and unbiased information.

 

[JustFillIt]

Sounds like the only way to get reliable information is to buy at least 20 acres of land in the middle of nowhere and live off the grid. Of course, Smurf and Pope can ruin your plans... Sorry Animal Kingdom reference.

I am just trying to figure out what people use for reliable and unbiased information.

My own eyes and ears I guess

 

[LazyPharmacist2.0]

My own eyes and ears I guess

Looks can be deceiving haha

 

[WVUPharm2007]

How do you ascertain the "truth" or deem something to be factual? Does it have to be published on "newsworthy" media. Who decides what is fact and fiction? The point I'm making is that a lot of information that we deem factual is dependent on us believing what others have told us. We are all at the mercy of others when it comes to information. None of us are first hand witnesses of these events.

What if all those news sources that were displayed on your chart appear to be different but were actually controlled by one entity? How do you know to trust any of those sources?

They have a white paper with in their methodology. It's pretty well done.

White Paper: Multi-Analyst Ratings Project August 2019 - Ad Fontes Media

Ad Fontes Media’s First Multi-Analyst Content Analysis Ratings ProjectWhite PaperAugust 2019Author: Vanessa OteroDownload PDF Here: Multi-Analyst Ratings Project White Paper Aug 2019I. OverviewII. AnalystsIII. TrainingIV. StructureV. Data Analysis Results a. Standard Deviations and...

www.adfontesmedia.com

And all those sources aren't controlled by one entity. That's ridiculous.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

Ok - I would say the bias likely exists in the data collection. How exactly do they identify an event of “bias” in order to scale these graphs?

How exactly do they identify an event of “left leaning or right leaning”?

Finally - how random are the samples that they collect? How are they collecting these samples? Who decides when an event of bias takes place and what is their background?

This chart about media bias is a statistical nightmare of bias in its own right.... It would take a very carefully designed method and data collection/interpretation in order to make a study like this remotely valid. It would need an incredible feat of data collection, blinding, then finding objective interpretation which has somehow proven that they do not have a political bias themselves.

I am assuming that the data on that chart is freshman and laughable in the eyes of someone who understands a sound experimental design.

I will agree with this charts view on Infowars though. There are not many people more disgusting than Alex Jones in my opinion.

White Paper: Multi-Analyst Ratings Project August 2019 - Ad Fontes Media

Ad Fontes Media’s First Multi-Analyst Content Analysis Ratings ProjectWhite PaperAugust 2019Author: Vanessa OteroDownload PDF Here: Multi-Analyst Ratings Project White Paper Aug 2019I. OverviewII. AnalystsIII. TrainingIV. StructureV. Data Analysis Results a. Standard Deviations and...

www.adfontesmedia.com

 

[WVUPharm2007]

Another example, if I told you the Dalai Lama is employed by the CIA to undermine China's regional influence, is that a conspiracy? How do I prove this to you? Well according to you I have to provide a reliable source and I happen to have one from the LA Times. But this was written well after the fact and many people who held this belief were ostracized and labeled as conspirators.

CIA Gave Aid to Tibetan Exiles in '60s, Files Show

For much of the 1960s, the CIA provided the Tibetan exile movement with $1.7 million a year for operations against China, including an annual subsidy of $180,000 for the Dalai Lama, according to newly released U.S. intelligence documents.

www.latimes.com

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If evidence comes out later that prove a claim, then it is fact.

The 1 in 1,000,000 conspiracy theory that would up being true doesn't nullify all fact based reporting from quality news agencies.

 

[owlegrad]

My own eyes and ears I guess

My dad used to say "don't believe anything you hear and only half of what you see". You would have liked him I think.

The concept of only believing what you can see for yourself is extremely limiting. As a species we wouldn't have been able to go to the moon if every scientist and engineer involved in that undertaking had to reproduce for themselves every experiment that unpinned the theories involved in getting to that point. Of course I guess that is a moot point if you don't believe we went to the moon.

Heck, how can you as a pharmacist dispense medications that you yourself have not ran clinical trials on to prove they are safe and effective? Is it not exactly the same thing? Why do you trust scientific journals if you don't trust other sources of information? Is it turtles all the way down?

Not every person can personally verify for themselves every piece of information they run across. At some point you just have to trust that reputable news sources aren't actively lying to you. Alternatively I guess you can reject the very idea of facts and believe that opinions are as good or better than "facts". That seems to work for a lot of people. 😉

 

[LazyPharmacist2.0]

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If evidence comes out later that prove a claim, then it is fact.

The 1 in 1,000,000 conspiracy theory that would up being true doesn't nullify all fact based reporting from quality news agencies.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If evidence comes out later that prove a claim, then it is fact.

The 1 in 1,000,000 conspiracy theory that would up being true doesn't nullify all fact based reporting from quality news agencies.

Years from now I guess, we'll have to wait for the news agencies to write how a global economic disaster was set into motion by a cabal of global elites.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

Years from now I guess, we'll have to wait for the news agencies to write how a global economic disaster was set into motion by a cabal of global elites.

If you can show is verifiable evidence, please do.

Until then, it's complete nonsense.

 

[LazyPharmacist2.0]

If you can show is verifiable evidence, please do.

Until then, it's complete nonsense.

I can't bro, there's no verifiable evidence that I can show you at the moment. Just give it some time, I promise you.

Time is an excellent teacher.

 

[JustFillIt]

My dad used to say "don't believe anything you hear and only half of what you see". You would have liked him I think.

The concept of only believing what you can see for yourself is extremely limiting. As a species we wouldn't have been able to go to the moon if every scientist and engineer involved in that undertaking had to reproduce for themselves every experiment that unpinned the theories involved in getting to that point. Of course I guess that is a moot point if you don't believe we went to the moon.

Heck, how can you as a pharmacist dispense medications that you yourself have not ran clinical trials on to prove they are safe and effective? Is it not exactly the same thing? Why do you trust scientific journals if you don't trust other sources of information? Is it turtles all the way down?

Not every person can personally verify for themselves every piece of information they run across. At some point you just have to trust that reputable news sources aren't actively lying to you. Alternatively I guess you can reject the very idea of facts and believe that opinions are as good or better than "facts". That seems to work for a lot of people. 😉

To be honest - I have not discovered a reasonable way to access pure unbiased truth in this world.... I suppose this is a good reason to go to church?

 

[DagS132]

I can't bro, there's no verifiable evidence that I can show you at the moment. Just give it some time, I promise you.

Time is an excellent teacher.

Another classic line from conspiracy theorists. Im surprised you didn't add in the, "spend time with your family" part

To be honest - I have not discovered a reasonable way to access pure unbiased truth in this world.... I suppose this is a good reason to go to church?

The laws of thermodynamics won't lie to you.

 

[TerryTerry]

It`s summer now. Quarantine would be impossible at this point.
I can see that most people are now trying to get back to their normal life. People cannot continue to fear COVID. They can only take precautions and take chances individually.

 

[owlegrad]

I think it’s fun to reject all news sources as biased and unreliable while accepting a crazy conspiracy theory about said news sources with no evidence whatsoever.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

I think it’s fun to reject all news sources as biased and unreliable while accepting a crazy conspiracy theory about said news sources with no evidence whatsoever.

This isn't the first time I've heard this recently. When faced with the prospect of having their information sources analyzed, they fall back to this argument.

It's actually a classic Soviet propaganda technique, interestingly.

 

[wagrxm2000]

Jeremy Siegel: the lockdown was the wrong decision. Social distancing and masks should have been the only thing we should have done. CDC dropped the ball. It destroyed a lot of small businesses with no benefits.

 

[VictorOfHungerGames]

I think it’s fun to reject all news sources as biased and unreliable while accepting a crazy conspiracy theory about said news sources with no evidence whatsoever.

Well according to the new source, this economic shut down is very much justified. Not sure wanting to question the pros and cons of this chaos is necessarily a conspiracy theory.

It's perfectly fine to think or question things when they don't make sense to you right? If you understand basic gas law, you should be questioning how our atmosphere stays intact or if you know how light optics work, you should be questioning how the sun could be million miles away and is 1 million times bigger than the earth or how water always finds its level yet some how curves at some point...

I wouldn't be surprised if this whole thing is part of the new world order. I don't know much about it but based on what i've read, it's perfectly reasonable to think that this aligns with their agenda.

That being said, have we figured out death with covid19 vs death by covid19? if not, news sources are probably all BS.

 

[TheBlaah]

Jeremy Siegel: the lockdown was the wrong decision. Social distancing and masks should have been the only thing we should have done. CDC dropped the ball. It destroyed a lot of small businesses with no benefits.

Who is he, why should we care, and did he actually say that. Or is this more of your fake news with no source.

 

[owlegrad]

If you understand what a sphere is you wouldn’t ask at what point it curves or ask how it can find it’s own level in a sphere. A sphere is always curving and water will still find its own level even as a sphere.

I am not sure what part of light optics makes you think the sun being very big and very far away is impossible so I guess I don’t understand light optics as well as you.

Gas law isn’t incompatible with an atmosphere. You just need to know a little tiny bit more than “gas expands indefinitely”.

Even if we don’t know exactly how something works we can know it works by observation. The earth has an atmosphere so even if you don’t understand what keeps the gas near the planet you can see that something does. It’s not that mysterious. Well it’s no more mysterious than what keeps us from falling up into the sky.

 

[VictorOfHungerGames]

If you understand what a sphere is you wouldn’t ask at what point it curves or ask how it can find it’s own level in a sphere. A sphere is always curving and water will still find its own level even as a sphere.

I am not sure what part of light optics makes you think the sun being very big and very far away is impossible so I guess I don’t understand light optics as well as you.

Gas law isn’t incompatible with an atmosphere. You just need to know a little tiny bit more than “gas expands indefinitely”.

Even if we don’t know exactly how something works we can know it works by observation. The earth has an atmosphere so even if you don’t understand what keeps the gas near the planet you can see that something does. It’s not that mysterious. Well it’s no more mysterious than what keeps us from falling up into the sky.

So, you think that water can stick on a spinning sphere? interesting... How do you explain gas not leaking out into the space where gas will ALWAYS from from high to low concentration? Sun rays always confused me. If the sun is so large, sun rays make no sense.

Again, I go back to what's the real truth? death with covid19 vs death by covid19. So many questions, no real answers... wonder why that is.

 

[owlegrad]

The answer to both why water and gas isnt flung into space is gravity.

I don’t know why the sun being big makes ‘sun rays’ impossible.

What would you use as the criteria for determining “death with COVID” vs“death by COVID”? Perhaps a video of the victim’s final breath as they gasp “it’s the COVID” and slump over dead?

 

[lane one]

NYT is a quality news source. The majority of unbiased observers recognize this.

Again, a handy chart:

And if the NYT is an untrustworthy news source, what news sources do you rely upon, then?

Love the media bias chart. Most of it isn't surprising, but I do find the nuance interesting. Like that the analysis suggested that the Weather Channel leans slightly left, and that "CNN" and "CNN.com" score differently.

Even without reading the analysis, these odd quirks suggest that there is actual data collection and analysis going on, and not just someone's opinion.

I also find it hilarious that there's a publication called "Bipartisan Report" that is literally the farthest thing from bipartisan.

 

[owlegrad]

I also find it hilarious that there's a publication called "Bipartisan Report" that is literally the farthest thing from bipartisan.

That is funny. It reminds me of Fox News old slogan “fair and balanced”. Love it or hate it I really cannot imagine anyone thinking it is balanced.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

Love the media bias chart. Most of it isn't surprising, but I do find the nuance interesting. Like that the analysis suggested that the Weather Channel leans slightly left, and that "CNN" and "CNN.com" score differently.

Even without reading the analysis, these odd quirks suggest that there is actual data collection and analysis going on, and not just someone's opinion.

I also find it hilarious that there's a publication called "Bipartisan Report" that is literally the farthest thing from bipartisan.

Weather Channel accepts climate change. That makes them lean left in this country.

 

[CynicalIntern]

I lamented this morning to a friend of mine that the most depressing part of the pandemic isn't how the general population has reacted - we know that they're complete fools.

It's how large a percentage of our profession apparently doesn't believe in evidence based medicine and trusts the talking heads on the news more than experts in the fields.

In terms of the "healthcare kook heirarchy,"my experience seems to rank them "chiros and naturopaths," then "MAs who tell everyone they're a nurse" then "70% of your graduating class of pharmacy school"

 

[Old Timer]

The average age of a virus victim is 82. Twenty percent and up of deaths are nursing home deaths

It's well known at this point that the younger healthy population has nothing to worry about.

Study recently published BMJ

The focus on #COVID19 death rates neglects the fact there are 4x as many people who spend 1-2 weeks in the hospital. True, elderly die at much higher rates, but younger adults hospitalized at high rates. Of 2,741 hospitalized: -

1. Most (53%) were age<65 -
2. 437 (16%) were age<45

When looking at the 990 #COVID19 patients in this cohort who developed critical illness (ICU admission, intubated on life support, death, or discharge to hospice): -

1. 40% were age <65 -
2. 91 (9.2%) patients were 19 to 44 years old

And for those who think #COVID19 poses no risk to the non-elderly population, spend a few minutes browsing some of the #COVID19 survivor group facebook pages. Ailments and debility persist for weeks. You do not want these things to happen to you: Log into Facebook | Facebook

So let's not ignore that the "risk" of #COVID19 is not just death. Yes, older adults account for the majority of those who die. Younger adults also get hospitalized, but tend to pull through. Trust me, you would rather not test your chances

Thank you @kit_delgadoMD from the UPenn ER for summarizing the work of @leorahorwitzmd and her team at NYU the lead author of the study just released in the BMJ.

This isn't nothing. It is not something that only effects a small number of people. This not something that only effects old people. This is a huge health problem affecting the entire world and people who minimize it are either uninformed or deliberately misleading

 

[LazyPharmacist2.0]

I have had a few Facebook friends who have had loved ones die and they were angry that the cause of death was listed as Covid when the person died from something completely different.

Now why would doctors be pressured to list the cause of death as Covid if this virus is claiming as many lives as portrayed in the media?

 

[LazyPharmacist2.0]

 

[LazyPharmacist2.0]

People on here who buy into this pandemic and don't care if this lockdown lasts indefinitely are the ones with nice cushy jobs and receive fat paychecks.

Heck they even enjoy the stimulus checks sent out that others can barely survive on.

Thanks for supporting the system that will eventually devour you as it did others.

 

[lane one]

And for those who think #COVID19 poses no risk to the non-elderly population, spend a few minutes browsing some of the #COVID19 survivor group facebook pages. Ailments and debility persist for weeks. You do not want these things to happen to you: Log into Facebook | Facebook

Ah. The treasure chest of epidemiological data; Facebook.

 

[owlegrad]

People on here who buy into this pandemic and don't care if this lockdown lasts indefinitely are the ones with nice cushy jobs and receive fat paychecks.

Heck they even enjoy the stimulus checks sent out that others can barely survive on.

Thanks for supporting the system that will eventually devour you as it did others.

I suspect that the vast majority of us on this forum received no stimulus check at all. I know I didn’t.

And I really don’t understand how “believes a pandemic exists” is a political issue.

As an aside, I would be really interested to know what that person really died from if not COVID.

 

[LazyPharmacist2.0]

I suspect that the vast majority of us on this forum received no stimulus check at all. I know I didn’t.

And I really don’t understand how “believes a pandemic exists” is a political issue.

As an aside, I would be really interested to know what that person really died from if not COVID.

Why would their family be fighting about something like this if he had died from Covid?
Obviously people die from diseases other than Covid.

There are many stories like this on Facebook but most people don't hear about it. If anyone happens to die it must be Covid.

 

[Old Timer]

Ah. The treasure chest of epidemiological data; Facebook.

So you ignore the rest of the information which is hard cold data you can't refute. There have been two large studies in NYC. This one which has been available in pre-print and one from Northwell. The Northwll study had almost 50% still hospitalized. The NYU people waited a month for most people to clear the hospital and they re-crunched the numbers.

Nice if you to ignore:

The focus on #COVID19 death rates neglects the fact there are 4x as many people who spend 1-2 weeks in the hospital. True, elderly die at much higher rates, but younger adults hospitalized at high rates. Of 2,741 hospitalized: -

1. Most (53%) were age<65 -
2. 437 (16%) were age<45

When looking at the 990 #COVID19 patients in this cohort who developed critical illness (ICU admission, intubated on life support, death, or discharge to hospice): -

1. 40% were age <65 -
2. 91 (9.2%) patients were 19 to 44 years old

Like I said, if you fail to accept good peer reviewed data you are either misinformed or deliberately misleading.

 

[owlegrad]

Why would their family be fighting about something like this if he had died from Covid?
Obviously people die from diseases other than Covid.

There are many stories like this on Facebook but most people don't hear about it. If anyone happens to die it must be Covid.

Why don’t they put what the real cause is? Perhaps the doctors know better than the family what the cause of death is. Or perhaps it is 100% true that the listed cause of death is wrong but I would still be curious to know what the real cause of death is.

 

[LazyPharmacist2.0]

Why don’t they put what the real cause is? Perhaps the doctors know better than the family what the cause of death is. Or perhaps it is 100% true that the listed cause of death is wrong but I would still be curious to know what the real cause of death is.

Bro, now you're sounding like a conspirator. It could be a personal reason why the family didn't state the reason. I believe the father had heart issues from before I don't remember.

That's not the point, the question is what incentive would the family have in pursuing a cause of death other than Covid?

If I was driving a car and I got in a car accident and died for example, that's not Covid. I wouldn't want my death certificate to say that.

Not everything has to be about Covid

 

[owlegrad]

I know this is going to be shocking but people don’t need to have a reason to lie or simply be wrong. Maybe they don’t want their neighbors to know anyone in the family had COVID. Perhaps they are simply in denial about it. Perhaps the person who died didn’t want anyone to know he had COVID so he lied about it before his death. There are a multitude of reasons that the family could be wrong about what they think the cause of death is. There are also reasons they might be untruthful about it.

Or perhaps they are right and the reason wasn’t COVID. Still seems weird not to say what the real cause was imo.