Preparing for COVID-19

Miura knives
Kitchen Knife Forums

Help Support Kitchen Knife Forums:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
daveb said:
Same WHO that said it's not infectious?
Click to expand...
Same WHO that had to listen to reports from the individual countries medical/research establishments and base their recommendations on that data, as their funding and charter did not include an army of armed storm troopers/research assistants to rendition unfiltered and non politically spun data from around the world.

Still, I can find things to complain about.
 
I kinda agree with this except for the being simple part...

94526919_10221880090412266_5530301882917978112_n.jpg
 
ian said:
It's hit and miss here. I'd say more than 85% of people are wearing masks, but there are some people (often 20somethings) who seem unaware that there's even a pandemic. Then again, I'm in a liberal neighborhood in Boston.
Click to expand...
I went to TJ's on Friday and they are basically require masks. They also has ample hand sanitizers and disposable wipes.
IMG_6020.jpeg
..
 
Last edited:
ian said:
Not sure exactly what I think about all this. The first amendment is important, but we've been seeing more and more the dangers posed by the easy spread of disinformation on these platforms. I'm generally in favor of banning content that can be proven false and misleading. It's just too dangerous.

Disinformation seems especially important to combat during a pandemic. On the other hand, the WHO guidelines haven't been completely stellar so far, so using them as a benchmark is arguable. Not sure where the video you linked fits on the scale from
Click to expand...

The clock is ticking on what big tech-companies can get away with. So far they have been able to hide behind shields such as "free speech", "it is user generated content; not ours" or "we just aggregate data". There have already been several years of push and pull from many sides. It is a new technology and society is figuring out how to regulate it and what our collective expectations are.

There are strong ideological beliefs in the absolute power of "freedom of speech" in America. I'll leave it for Americans to discuss that. Suffice to say that, that specific culture is not shared globally (and these tech-companies are multinational). Other advanced western nations share similar laws to America but have different cultures and expectations around how far those boundaries can be extended. Some of those countries are pushing harder than others to hold the tech-world to a higher standard when it comes to veracity (read, more limitations). For instance, holding aspects of social media to the same standards as traditional media... that would have a rather profound impact on what was deemed publishable (or how it was indexed).

I am not proposing a solution. Just encouraging you to think about the wisdom of unchecked "freedom of speech".

For my money; a democracy cant function as a proper informed body if the discussion is muddied with vested interest and ideologically motivated nonsense. At a time like this we should be appealing to the advice of true experts - if it means some voices are not given a megaphone... all the better.
 
I'm not sure that the idea of "free speech" necessarily applies at all times.

We have no problems, for example, with regulating banks to enforce money laundering regulations. We also have no problems taking down sites such a Silk Road (essentially an eBay for illegal drugs) or MegaUpload (which was widely used to share content that infringed copyright). "Free speech" doesn't even enter the discussion in such cases.

There are deep problems associated with technologies such as YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc. These services have made it possible for a single person to potentially reach millions of people, at zero cost. They also have made it possible for foreign actors to influence and manipulate public opinion, potentially to the point of changing election outcomes.

Prior to the Internet, it was very difficult for a foreign secret service to infiltrate and manipulate mass media. They couldn't just go and change what TV stations broadcast, or what journalists wrote in newspapers. With digital media, this is easily possible, and is being carried out systematically.

I am very unsure that "free speech" is a right that should extend to foreign nations but, effectively, digital media allows them to say whatever they want and lie as much as they like.

Also, I do not believe that we have had "free speech" in mass media all along, even prior to the Internet. There are censorship boards that classify or prohibit the screening of certain films. TV stations cannot broadcast anything they like, such as incite people to riot, and similar. Many countries have anti-discrimination rules (for good reasons) that make it illegal to promote hate speech, discrimate against people based on their race, religion, political views, etc.

We do not allow pedophiles to exercise their right to "free speech" by allowing them to publish child pornography, and the video of the New Zealand mass shootings was hunted down and removed from easy access quite quickly and effectively. (Did that removal violate the shooter's right to "free speech"?)

To me, the real problem here is that, in general, it's a bad idea to let anyone—no matter how dumb, extreme, radical, and dangerous—publish anything they want to a potentially unlimited audience at zero cost. Prior to digital media, if I wanted to reach a large audience, I needed—first and foremost—money. Because purchasing TV broadcast time or newspaper ads was expensive, and books could typically be published only with the assistance of a publisher, who would exercise some editorial control.

In other words, in the past, cranks had a much harder time, both in finding each other, and in reaching an audience. But now, all it sometimes takes is a single idiot posting a piece of fake video or some made-up story and, before you know it, it can go viral.

Personally, I don't believe it is appropriate to allow companies such as Facebook and Google to indefinitely wash their hands of any and all responsibility for what appears on their platforms. They don't mind collecting all the revenue from advertising and selling users' data, so why should they not be obliged to use some of that money to enforce to some level of journalistic integrity?

We are in the Wild West era of digital platforms. At the moment, pretty much anything goes. I believe that we will have to change this over time. In particular, it should be made very difficult to post content anonymously or with a fake identity. People tend to be a lot more circumspect when they know that readers/viewers can find out who they are.
 
Last edited:
Luftmensch said:
There are strong ideological beliefs in the absolute power of "freedom of speech" in America. I'll leave it for Americans to discuss that. Suffice to say that, that specific culture is not shared globally (and these tech-companies are multinational). Other advanced western nations share similar laws to America but have different cultures and expectations around how far those boundaries can be extended. Some of those countries are pushing harder than others to hold the tech-world to a higher standard when it comes to veracity (read, more limitations). For instance, holding aspects of social media to the same standards as traditional media... that would have a rather profound impact on what was deemed publishable (or how it was indexed).
Click to expand...

Yea, hope this attitude shifts in the US soon. The problem of our time is definitely too much speech, not too little.

edit: although, sorry, let me just register that (obviously) I don’t want to have a censored internet like in china. guess it’s like, a hard problem, or something... :)
 
Last edited:
I am not sure how a bio tech company describing their UV light treatment violates their rules?? They have not just removed the video they have now removed their account. This is a publicly traded company in the US. Again private co so they have that right. I'm double creeped out. Maybe we should just call this group of companies "the ministry of truth"
 

Attachments

  • Aytu.jpg
    Aytu.jpg
    29.4 KB · Views: 6
Bill13 said:
I am not sure how a bio tech company describing their UV light treatment violates their rules?? They have not just removed the video they have now removed their account. This is a publicly traded company in the US. Again private co so they have that right. I'm double creeped out. Maybe we should just call this group of companies "the ministry of truth"
Click to expand...

That’s a little confusing to me too. I’m not sure exactly what’s going on. There are articles like this one that indicate that the company is practicing coronavirus opportunism and is not really operating in anyone’s best interest, but I don’t know anything about this. I’d be interested to know exactly why their twitter account was deleted. That said, I’m hesitant to cry ministry of truth since I don’t know any of the details here.
 
This piece of news is concerning for the time being:

A test made by Bioperfectus detected antibodies in 100 percent of the infected samples, but only after three weeks of infection. None of the tests did better than 80 percent until that time period, which was longer than expected, Dr. Hsu said.
Click to expand...

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/24/health/coronavirus-antibody-tests.html
Recall our discussion earlier about the USS Roosevelt - the 2 week quarantine was leading to apparent re-infections. suggesting at a minimum the 2-week window may be insufficient to "flush" the virus from your system.

The above article is about antibody testing. Basically saying that antibody tests need 3 weeks to produce reliable results (>80% detection).

I'n not a rocket scientist but this suggests that 2 weeks is maybe too short. How are you flushing the virus if you are not making (detectable levels of) antibodies? Virus levels maybe in remission but assuming its fully gone seems to be "just an assumption".

IN any event, more strange results...
 
Brian Weekley said:
Not taking a position but this is worth a watch ....

Click to expand...


Fyi, I found this link which summarizes their main arguments. (I think. I still haven’t watched the video. Too long for me. Also, I’m porting this quote over to this thread from the “coping” thread.)

Guess their main point is that lots of people in CA have it, with estimated up to 12%, so the death rate is much lower than expected, and it’s more like a flu, and Sweden’s doing relatively ok. Well, in any case I’ll be waiting to see if any of the new data that is coming in changes the CDC/WHO recommendations.
 
Last edited:
I haven't figured out whether the lower death rate is good news or bad. On one hand it means that if I do get it, my chances of it not being serious are better. On the other hand, it means that it's much more likely for people to become infected.

At 12% we're still a long way from herd immunity.
 
Last edited:
VICTOR J CREAZZI said:
I haven't figured out whether the lower death rate is good news or bad. On one hand it means that if I do get it, my chances of it not being serious are better. On the other hand, it means that it's much more likely for people to become infected.

At 12% we're still a long way from heard immunity.
Click to expand...

Lower death rate if true is good news.
 
VICTOR J CREAZZI said:
I mostly agree, but extrapolated out It means that about 6 times as many total dead before we get to herd immunity.

Hmmm. 300,000 in the U.S. is of a magnitude that I had heard in early estimates.
Click to expand...
I am not sure why you equate lower death rate to more people getting sick. Flu has relatively low death rate and it doesn’t kill more people. In general really deadly viruses burn themselves out faster and infect less people, but this one already seems pretty contagious. Understanding how deadly it is will not in itself make it more contagious.
 
Barmoley said:
I am not sure why you equate lower death rate to more people getting sick. Flu has relatively low death rate and it doesn’t kill more people.
Click to expand...
I equate more people having it to more people getting sick. We have vaccines and some immunity to flu. This is totally different from flu.
 
VICTOR J CREAZZI said:
I equate more people having it to more people getting sick. We have vaccines and some immunity to flu. This is totally different from flu.
Click to expand...
I was commenting on you not being sure if lower death rate was good or bad. It is good. It is different from flu now, I wonder what the flu was like when it first appeared, before immunity and vaccines. I don’t know, but it would be interesting. It seems that the virus has been in CA for months before we knew it was here, it also seems to be very contagious. It’s been expected that more people had it, we are getting more data now and as we get more tests the percentage is likely to go up. Unfortunately, the tests are crap, but with more tests and hopefully better tests I suspect we will see that even more people have had it.
 
Michi said:
I do not believe that we have had "free speech" in mass media all along, even prior to the Internet.
Click to expand...

Certainly not! We never have. Never will. Australia does not have 'free speech' enshrined in a bill of rights - it only exists under common law. Our laws grants us freedom to speak our mind in a way that does not harm others. The limitations establish libel/defamation and vilification protections... etc...

Michi said:
Personally, I don't believe it is appropriate to allow companies such as Facebook and Google to indefinitely wash their hands of any and all responsibility for what appears on their platforms. They don't mind collecting all the revenue from advertising and selling users' data, so why should they not be obliged to use some of that money to enforce to some level of journalistic integrity?

We are in the Wild West era of digital platforms. At the moment, pretty much anything goes.
Click to expand...

I think that day of reckoning will come. In the meantime they are strangling traditional journalism. The ACCC digital platform inquiry is looking into these issues. Quote from the executive summary:

Digitalisation and the increase in online sources of news and media content highlight inconsistencies in the current sector-specific approach to media regulation in Australia that gives rise to an uneven playing field between digital platforms and some news media businesses. Digital platforms increasingly perform similar functions to media businesses, such as selecting and curating content, evaluating content, and ranking and arranging content online.

Despite this, virtually no media regulation applies to digital platforms. This creates regulatory disparity between some digital platforms and some more heavily-regulated media businesses that perform comparable functions. This regulatory disparity has two potential consequences:
  • first, the regulation may be less effective and unable to meet the goals set by policy makers (for example, protecting children from inappropriate advertisements or content)
  • second, the disparity risks distorting competition, such as competition between the digital platforms and media businesses supplying advertising opportunities.
The disparity exists due to the failure of current regulatory frameworks to keep pace with changes in technology, consumer preferences and the way in which media businesses now operate.

The ACCC recommends that media regulatory frameworks be updated, to ensure comparable functions are effectively and consistently regulated. The framework should, as far as possible, be platform neutral, clear and contain appropriate enforcement mechanisms and meaningful sanctions.
Click to expand...

One of many recommendations (blegh... another industry code of conduct):

Digital platforms with more than one million monthly active users in Australia should implement an industry code of conduct to govern the handling of complaints about disinformation (inaccurate information created and spread with the intent to cause harm) in relation to news and journalism, or content presented as news and journalism, on their services. Application of the code should be restricted to complaints about disinformation that meet a ‘serious public detriment’ threshold as defined in the code.
Click to expand...

... We'll get it right... eventually (I hope 😖 ).
 
Brian Weekley said:
Not taking a position but this is worth a watch ....

Click to expand...


ian said:
What are the things you found compelling about it? I don’t have an hour to watch it atm. Watched the beginning and my main takeaways were that their urgent care clinics were in trouble financially because noone’s coming in for other stuff. And I always consider it a red flag when people advertise their expertise by saying they “took classes” in the field, at least when arguing against the advice of the actual experts. (Taking classes is the first of like 20 steps to becoming an expert.) But I’m just being crotchety... noone really knows for sure what’s up now anyway, not even the experts. And the people in the video sure know more than I do. Anyway, I’d like to know what you liked about their argument. Maybe this should be in the “Preparing for...” thread, though?
Click to expand...

I watched the first four minutes... until this part:

We decided to keep people at home and isolate them; even though everything we've studied about quarantine typically you quarantine the sick; when someone has measles you quarantine them; we've never seen where we quarantine the healthy; where you take those without disease and without symptoms and lock them in your home. So some of these things from what we have studied from immunology and microbiology aren't really meshing with what we know as people of scientific minds that read this stuff every day
Click to expand...

This prevented me from watching the rest - a pity if there was useful information in there. An 'expert' getting the definition of quarantine wrong, or communicating it that poorly, made me want to save my time. I can't comment on its content, I didn't have the energy to slug through it...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top