The fight against coronavirus misinformation

Definitely not. It's important to note that he was merely asking a question, rather than saying that people should do it. There's a very big difference between the two.

 

This could explain a lot.

 

bellgamin you've missed the point and swung to the extreme left and right in doing so. Just because a company is a commercial enterprise doesn't mean people can't express what they believe.

When you have a monopoly such as with Google FB etc, AND they have continually shown themselves to be untrustworthy on numerous counts then THAT is evil. If you have no problem what their agenda is then perhaps you need to open your eyes instead of getting in such a lather lashing out at people in a forum. When it is left to lamestream media and other questionable sources to feed us the narrative then that sets a dangerous precedent. If you think everything they feed you is legit, you better wake up.

 

That is an assumption of facts not in evidence. These are specious arguments such as first encountered during recess in elementary school -- usually followed by nyah nyah nyah.

By the way, neither Google nor Facebook are monopolies.

This is a security forum. If someone wants to tilt with windmills, it would best be done by legal suit, or vlog, or letters to editors, or some other means that might actually make a difference, over & above mere invective and sophomoric name calling.

 

And:
Face masks 'not recommended'
"It's important to note that the wearing of such a mask does not protect you from an infection, but if you are displaying respiratory symptoms then it is, at best, a measure that prevents you transferring it to others."
1. N95 or better masks do protect, but it is discouraged except for health workers, due to the world-wide shortage.
2. And if you aren't displaying respiratory symptoms, you are free to not wear any mask, and transmit it to others?
The Diamond Princess, as close as you can get to a lab environment, has shown that 48% of positive cases are asymptomatic (CDC).

There is opinion, and there is fact. Confirmation bias dictates that the former poses as the latter.

The 1918 H1N1 pandemic was more virulent, but at least they didn't have social media BS to contend with.

 

I could provide you plenty of facts. But this is not the right place to do so.

 

Seriously. Stop being full of it. Get over yourself and grow up.

Specious arguments according to who? You. So what makes you the final authority as to what is legitimate what is fake news and what isn't.

Plenty of evidence that Google, FB and the like are evil and much to your chagrin you won't have to look far to find it documented right here at wilders - in numerous places and on topic. All relevant info because of the ongoing overreach, security and privacy nightmares they are.

Anyone who would trust these guys to feed us the truth is a brick short of the load.

 

This thread could just as well be "The fight against misinformation".

 

Unfortunately all people are doing is just re-posting that very same misinformation. The fight part will eventually break out.

 

I would say they combined with eye protection may protect, but somebody must know how to wear a mask, how to handle it and discipline to stick to that hygiene regime. Most people won't. Mask is going to contain virus concentrate after contact with infected person after latency period when infected person don't wear mask. That virus concentrate would eventually end up contaminating hands of people wearing masks and from there it is just one touch to the eye, nose or mouth and you are infected. Most people would not follow procedures day after day strictly enough to not contaminate they faces.
There is an expectation that when all people wear masks then virus may not infect others, because it changes focus from protecting yourself to protecting other people.

 

Note post #82. Right there you have a prime example of how misinformation is proliferated in the guise of quoting a source. In my post #79, I clearly gave "Nyah nyah nyah" as an example of the type of arguments that sometimes take place among elementary school children during recess. In post #82, Reality quotes it out of context in order to make it seem that I myself was resorting to such childishness.

This thread contains a number of meaningful comments, such as those by roger_m, mood, Krusty, Mrkvonic, & ronjor. My comments primarily pertain to posts that foment misinformation, such as posts #68 & #82. Why? Because those posts are, themselves, resorting to the very tactics that produce misinformation -- to wit: labelling, name-calling, quoting out of context, and citing of nameless, faceless sources of information to support their viewpoints.

Because of the internet, it is NOT at all difficult to support one's statements with sources rather than mere assertions. That is exactly what mood did when initiating this thread -- to wit, mood provided many source citations.

In citing sources, however, one should take pains to discuss sources on both sides of an issue. For example, take the issue: *Is 5G a causative factor for the Covid-19 pandemic?*
==>If one wants to take the *YES* side so as to influence rather than inform, then he would cite ONLY such sources as THIS, and THIS, and especially THIS.
==>Conversely, if one wants to take the *NO* side so as to influence rather than inform, he would cite ONLY such sources as THIS, and THIS, and especially THIS.
==>However, if one is seeking to lead rather than mis-lead, he would cite sources from BOTH sides of the issue, and then discuss them so as to arrive at a reasoned conclusion.

If someone were an advocate of *5g NO-bad-effects*, and wished to resort to a common shyster tactic, then he would cite *YES* sources primarily (or solely) from the borderline lunatic fringe such as THIS. This is done so as to lead folks to think that ALL those who hold *YES* views are in a lunatic fringe and not worthy of any consideration whatsoever.

I was reading this thread with interest until I ran across a few posts, such as #68, that were employing the very same sort of misleading tactics as those I just now discussed.

By the way, I used the 5G issue as an example and not as any indication of where I personally stand on that particular issue. If one takes a few 101 courses in forensic medicine, he will come to realize that two factors are often overlooked in discussions of "misinformation" about human health, infectious viruses, et alia. Those 2 factors are : (a) Time, and (b) Cause & Effect.

Consider thalidomide -- a wonder drug in its day, until time proved that it caused deformed babies and miscarriages & other human ailments.

Consider Zantac and talcum powder -- more good news that time proved to be bad news.

Consider tobacco smoking -- thought harmless for a long while. Smoking was thought, by many, to be a mark of sophistication -- plenty of movies showed Hollywood stars smoking, & advertisements showed beautiful people smoking, so it was THE thing to do, right? Remember when a few doctors & scientists first began saying that smoking caused cancer. Remember -- the tobacco industry amassed MANY doctors & scientists to poo-poo that idea, and label it as "misinformation." (Read the book, "Devils, Drugs, & Doctors" for further historical facts re the oft-fallacy of "expert testimony.")

Consider the automobile (horse-less carriage as it was initially called). It came as a great blessing, and folks all marvelled at the wonders of such advanceed technology. Yet time proved that the automobile was a causal factor for smog, damage to the earth's protective atmospheric envelope, & global warming.

So now... along comes microwave -- another great technological step forward for the human species, right? However, some "lunatic fringe folks" noticed that microwave ovens COOKED stuff. They wondered, "Are microwave antennas also cooking people, slowly by slowly?"

Then along comes 5G -- to date, the most micro of microwaves. So the *lunatic fringe folks" begin proclaiming that COVID-19 is caused by 5G. Are they wrong? The brutally honest answer (in my OPINION) is "We do not know... YET."

Can a microwave cause a virus to mutate into a super-virus, such as SARS or Covid-19? Can a microwave cause long-term damage to the human immune system, little bit by little bit -- passed along cumulatively to successive generations -- thereby lowering our resistance to viruses & bacteria, & thereby making pandemics more feasible?

We simply do not YET know the answers to those questions with any degree of absolute certainty. Time will tell. Some day -- if the human species lasts long enough -- we probably WILL know those answers, just as we eventually (not quickly) learned the drawbacks of thalidomide, Zantac, asbestos, coal-fired furnaces, automobile exhausts, tobacco smoking, plastic grocery bags, cattle farts, etc etc etc.

NOW -- back to this thread's topic of "misinformation about coronavirus" -- a topic which has somehow mutated into a discussion of censorship. "Censorship" is one of those buzz words that can be flung at someone so as to make them instantly be classed as a bad person by people who are easily swayed. Similar weaponized buzz words include but are not limited to: evil, monopoly, racist, elitist, bigot, far-left, far-right, commie, etc.

What began this thread was a reasoned discussion of "what is and is not misinformation re Covid-19." The weaponized use of the word, "censorship," has now changed the discussion of Covid-19 misinformation into a discussion of "free speech" -- a classical "trial law 101" tactic: "If you can't defend your client, defend the flag" (a tactic that helped get OJ Simpson declared "Not guilty" of murder).

I hope this thread will revert back to its topic. Is there an absolute certainty that everything that has been branded "misinformation about Covid-19" is really MISinformation? Or is it just uncertain, or unproven, or illogical, or contrary to majority public opinion, or simply "too soon to really know so we have to take the most scientific-sounding guesses in the meantime" ........ or ??