Quote:
Originally Posted by mapuc
You're addressing an interesting thing.
How can I define what is true and not.
When I see the primetime news on one of our public tv channels I have to believe what I see and heard is as true as possible.
I could as MaDef said
"There's an easy fix, believe nothing you hear and only 1/2 of what you see. Follow that rule and you generally can figure out the truth."
If I should follow this rule I should not believe what our authorities tells me about Corona virus, nor shall I believe my friends(I do not believe them anyway, when it comes to this Corona)
And that's why I have decided to stay neutral in politics and society related problems.
An another thing.
What a person see as truth or fake is mostly based on this person political standpoint and perhaps their social standpoints.
Markus
|
To some extent, this is true.
There are several issues that give rise to disbelief in the news.
1. "Experts" who aren't. I'll use Fauci since he is an easy target. He's not a virologist or epidemiologist. He's an immunologist who moved from the ranks of active researcher to administrator years ago. Someone like that is *not* the right expert to address a pandemic because he's focused on zero-risk based upon immunological factors (a single point addressing of how to respond) - not on the impact of human nature on how a pandemic unfolds. You need someone *intimately* familiar with actual human nature and a separate someone also familiar with how disease *actually* spreads. Then you also need someone who is familiar with what can reasonably be done from a marketing/messaging standpoint. Fauci is none of these. The various modelers showing millions dead aren't either. They've pretty much all been wrong in their predictions.
2. Unbiased experts. You can't have people advising government if they have a conflict of interest - even the appearance of bias is a problem.
3. Politicization of science. You can't have people citing various studies (on either side of the political aisle) to push public policy if the citing doesn't pass the smell test. When you have people asking common sense questions and don't address them seriously, it leads to conspiracy theory thoughts. A simple one: if masks and social distancing are supposed to prevent covid transmission and the experts claim that it prevented flu season this year, why did covid cases continue on throughout that time instead of also dropping? Instead of ignoring, deflecting, etc., a better response from the experts would have been to explain that coronaviruses are strongly seasonal and they outcompeted flu. Which *also* tracks with why covid started to decrease after January as we entered rhinovirus season which outcompeted covid. Again, the other piece is actual masks and distancing vs claims of them could have resulted in continued transmission. The piece that needs to be addressed is whether masks *actually* work against covid or if it is actually airborne without needing the medium of exhaled breath since we know it's smaller in size than a mask weave. Again - address the questions rather than ridiculing the questioner...