Re: Corona Virus: is it the beginning of the end?
See, I'm not ignoring your source, Accman. Not entirely, at least. It's out there, so I did look at it. What I read made me start asking a lot of questions, since if the article could be taken on its own, at face value, then it makes a strong case for what you've been saying all along.
I noticed some troubling issues with the article; for instance, mention of confederate monuments and a tieback to more positive tests raising positive numbers. This article definitely has a right-wing slant on it. That doesn't by default make it a lie, and it doesn't mean it's worthless, but it doubled my desire to start looking into the matter more.
So off I went, and right away I found this article:
https://www.statnews.com/2020/06/09/who … -covid-19/
This particular piece put into greater context the entire issue, suggesting that truly asymptomatic spread is very rare, but pre-symptomatic spread might account for up to half of overall viral transmission. It did not completely invalidate your own news source, but it immediately raised a lot of questions about its validity. Interestingly, Statnews did not appear to cite politics in so doing; they did not criticize Trump, America or anything else, merely presented facts. Again, this doesn't make them right by default, but it suggests that they wanted to stick to the facts, instead of an interpretation thereof.
So I kept digging, and I found this news article:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/who-covi … -1.5604353
It seems to largely echo the first one I found, but is critical of the WHO for making inaccurate claims. I cite this article in particular because it feeds into your own narrative about inaccurate or untrustworthy information. It appears that Maria van Kerkhove tried and failed to explain this situation clearly, and faced almost immediate backlash, the brunt of which implies that data about this issue is simply not clear enough to be making such claims. In response, the WHO walked that claim back. I ought to mention here that this sort of thing does happen, and it alone is not an indicator that a source cannot be trusted, unless the behaviour becomes so common that it dominates the organization's narrative. That hasn't appeared to happen here. It's also important to note that given van Kerkhove's familiarity with the situation overall, her particular choice of words in relation to her expertise, she may have been misunderstood to some extent. That doesn't mean she's off the hook - she's not, and I do feel that health experts need to be very careful when the public is going to be this hyper-dependent upon them for guidance - but it does mean that even a small miscommunication can have large consequences. That appears to be the case here. Yet again, CBC cited facts, and did not make this a political issue. They did not overly criticize anyone who was not involved or who did not deserve it. They cited sources, their quotes were on point, and there is no good reason to doubt what they had to say.
Now, I could keep going, but at this point, I don't need to. Here are the conclusions i've drawn:
1. Over a month ago, when talk of reopening while wearing masks was not quite as charged as it seems to be now, the WHO, in the personage of Maria van Kerkhove, miscommunicated details about asymptomatic spread.
2. This miscommunication - partially the fault of the WHO, partially the fault of those who leapt to conclusions - caused considerable backlash.
3. The WHO corrected these statements and attempted, with limited success, to clarify the intended message.
4. Because data is not clear - again, multiple sources agree that this is the problem in the first place - taking precautions makes sense. Even if that assertion eventually proves correct in precisely the way your original news source implies. Right now, that certainty is beyond us. If and when we reach a point where we know that your likelihood of hurting someone is infinitessimally small unless you're showing a lot of symptoms, we will know that masks may have been an overreaction. At this stage, however, we simply don't have the data to assume that, so it is better to be safe than sorry.
5. Most damning of all: you and others read the first news source, the one you cited, and immediately jumped on board with it. For you, it represents the gospel truth, because it immediately aligns with your own personal beliefs. It doesn't help that it also furnishes some other nuggets of context which politicize the issue. Put bluntly, Accman, it told you what you wanted to hear with a slant that you trust, so you swallowed it whole. I, on the other hand, took the claim seriously, but not the entire article, and went digging. What you see above took me less than ninety seconds to find, read and process. I didn't even have to target especially left-leaning sources to get the info I suspected I would find. I went into your article expecting some truth and some misinterpretation, and that's precisely what I got. You went in, saw what you wanted to see, and decided the conversation was over. That, right there, is the difference between you and me, and it's why I've been so hell-bent on arguing with you.
I swear to god, people need to be taught how to process media sources. It is far, far too easy to read something which aligns with your own viewpoint and gulp it down without tasting it first. That's a great way to get poisoned with fake news, kids. And yes, I do mean everybody here. Believe me, I know of some very left-leaning sources that are all too eager to crucify people on scant grounds, and I tend to stay far, far away from them. I take my news from sources that stick to the facts as much as possible. If I come to you saying that Donald Trump did a specific thing, it is me, and not my news sources, that put a spin on it. I can think for myself. If I come to you and say that we don't have enough data to be certain of everyone's safety, that's because I've read it from dozens of news sources that I trust. If there ever is data which invalidates that interpretation, I'll incorporate it into my understanding of this pandemic. Flip it around, though, and this is where the problem lies. I doubt like hell that anything I tell you will actually influence your mindset. Thus, to my way of seeing it, this isn't even really an argument, because you're convinced that you're correct, and you expect one politically charged news source to validate your entire worldview on this subject.
You go do whatever you're gonna do, but I'm not going to forget the facts. As righteously frustrated as you are to be out of work and to have lost your livelihood, two very realistic concerns, the rest of your stance is unadulterated lunacy. It's really this simple. You don't want to wear a mask, so any source which comforts you by feeding into the delusion that you can't hurt people will help you sleep better. Just remember that the data you're relying on was a month out of date, misrepresented, and presented by a right-aligned news source all too eager to cackle with glee at the WHO's proclamation because it conveniently absolves them - and you, of course - of responsibility.
You're still tacitly okay with people dying, as long as it isn't you.
You're still deciding that your comfort, and your ability to smell freely, matters more than someone else's life.
You still deserve plenty of sympathy, understanding and help with your personal situation (your lack of work and the like), but absolutely none of those things for your personal beliefs, which are ignorant, harmful and self-serving. I am so, so glad you aren't working a front-line job right now, and facing down an army of people just like you who refuse to wear masks to keep you safe. Because even if the average person goes out and sees only a few people, the average worker may see dozens, even hundreds, during a shift, depending on their job. Every person who refuses to help protect them is part of the problem.
Don't like it? Well if the mask fits, wear it.
-- Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
