[ mona / prog / sol ]

sol


COVID-19 & Masks & mis-information

1 2020-08-16 18:28

What are your thoughts on COVID-19 & Masks & mis-information?

Do you feel like you can easily determine the truth? If so, how?

Some people claim COVID-19 is a complete hoax, despite that would require every government worldwide having either fallen for it or be complicit in this hoax.

Some people claim masks are useless or unhealthy. Others claim areas and cultures that regularly use masks when having any symptom of sickness have already largely recovered (ex. Japan).

Some people claim mask usage helps with privacy and protects to some degree against facial recognition. That clearly incentives some corporations and anti-privacy advocates (hard on crime type people) to oppose mask usage.

Some people claim that that common cold and the flu are being intentional misdiagnosed as COVID-19. Why would this be done? Who benefits? The yearly flu vaccine already makes money, such the producers of that vaccine would lose money? At least until they can sell the COVID-19 vaccine? Big-tech and billionaires are making money, but their money is also worth less with the large uptick in inflation (maybe that doesn't matter with their investments being in things other than money?).

Some people claim that the number of deaths are being inflated by intentionally misattributing other causes of death as COVID-19. Some people claim that doing this in financial advantageous for the hospitals.

I probably have heard a lot of other information/misinformation, but I don't know what to believe. I don't think anything anyone tells me will be able to convince me that I am actually able to verify things for myself, but at least I can try to get a better understanding of why and where mis-information is coming from.

2 2020-08-17 14:41

I haven’t followed the story from the very beginning so I will be the first to admit I have no idea. I remember when it was on Reddit months before any of the major news networks. COVID-19 is being used like 9/11 as a catalyst for a worse, more paranoid world.

I personally don’t like masks because they go hand in hand with lower social trust is all.

3 2020-08-17 19:21

>>2

I personally don’t like masks because they go hand in hand with lower social trust is all.

Could you expand on what you mean by lower social trust? I don't know what you mean. An example might be helpful.

Do you care about any advantages to your privacy that a mask might offer?

COVID-19 is being used like 9/11 as a catalyst for a worse, more paranoid world.

It is true that temporary power given to authorities in times of crisis are rarely relinquished.

I don't think wearing a mask hurts people's health. Many cultures have used masks for years and I am not aware of any short-term or long-term affects on peoples' health. I don't think people should be required to wear masks by government, but I think companies should have the right to deny customers for any reason (in other words the government should not be able to mandate which customers you can and cannot serve).

In what ways is the paranoia causing the world to become worse? I am sure you are right, but would like to know which you are seeing.

4 2020-08-18 19:59

There's probably more complexity than "they work" or "they don't work."

My 2c: government shouldn't be mandating anything, but should be making recommendations with explicit and lengthy reference to the reasons for their recommendations. Private organizations should make choices for their own property. Private citizens should make their own choices based on their own situation.

Work with elderly? maybe wear a mask and use a lot of sanitizer.

Work outside all day? maybe don't worry about it.

5 2020-08-21 06:54

It seems like masks would help prevent the transmission of respiratory viruses, but so would locking yourself in your room permanently or just covering your whole body with garbage bags and breathing through a six-foot snorkel. You have to balance the safety measure against the risk, and unless you're over 75 or in failing health (or caring for someone who is), the risk of covid is comparable to the risk of getting the flu. And no one did this stuff during flu season. Then again, if a mask would lower your risk of catching the flu a little, then maybe you'd want to wear a mask.

6 2020-08-21 09:42

>>5
You wear the mask for those over 75 and in failing health. The mask lowers the risk of you spreading the virus.

7 2020-08-22 04:38

I'm thinking not wearing masks is extremely dumb, but government has now powers to mandate mandatory vaccinations, virus tests, isolation of suspected carriers that combine to something equal in scope to 1984:
these new 'coronavirus emergency powers' are a huge magnet for authoritarians to assert necessity of the moment excuses for implementation of any draconian/anti-democratic measures they choose, use any surveillance tech they can dream of or restricting travel/movement to any degree short of complete curfew in any place they pick.
If anything they WILL WANT TO CONTINUE with this situation that will give them such emergency powers, as the threat is ever-present and evolving:
especially the less democratic governments of third-world.
If you don't see how the "emergency powers" scenario can be prolonged artificially, the vaccines for coronavirus are strain-specific so when it evolves(like common cold strains) the government will declare(predictably) that the current vaccine is useless and the emergency must be extended to deal with the threat...this can drag on for years.

8 2020-08-22 11:58

>>7
I doubt they will want it to continue as it is incredibly expensive, especially compared to terrorism which has been very effectively used for the same purposes since at least the Piazza Fontana bombing.

9 2020-08-22 16:35

>>8

I doubt they will want it to continue as it is incredibly expensive

I think >>7 was talking about prolonging the governments emergency powers. Phases can ensure the tech giants and elites will still profit throughout the future phases of the governments measures.

especially compared to terrorism which has been very effectively used for the same purposes since at least the Piazza Fontana bombing.

Good point, but perhaps new fears can sustain government's power over people better than old fears.

10 2020-08-22 16:43 *

>>7

democratic

Look up what that word really means compared to democracy. Everyone still understood what you posted unlike some posters though.

11 2020-08-23 04:18

>>10
'less democratic' meant those governments which forcefully capture the state power for their own benefit, common in third-world where single-party government can reign for decades if not outright declaring dictatorship. Democracy in its real meaning, is now viewed in the west as "Direct democracy" and in most cases supplanted by "representative democracy" where plebs choose elite "representatives" of high political/social status that decide for them. A real democracy would allow citizens to vote on laws(familiar to Americans as "propositions") and propose new legislation, powers which are currently subjugated to "special governing bodies" where "elected representatives" are bribed("lobbied") to initiate voting on behalf of elite to create new laws and measures. Its a farce of democracy.

12 2020-08-23 07:03 *

>>11
You already understand most of this as external organisations "special governing bodies" and bribery but you took the time to further explain so ill type this out even though it will get misunderstood, the definitions cut vary close that explaining the cutting difference is hard even for an analytical language.
The democratic attribute has to do with the directly affiliated society not all societies involved and other societies can forcibly capture since they are unequal even from that goverment if in that form of democracy the government isn't under one society not the other way around or with modifications. It's an attribute all forms of democracy you listed have but not the entirety nor does any of them really prevent forceful capture by the government it's self, it's the will of the society that does at varying degrees depending on the democracy. Having the democratic trait may affect that will towards not allowing a take over. If you want to use america as an example their constitution and related papers are a written societal will, the social contract.
Here's the american definitions from oxford which show the important difference, most "westerners" don't understand how democratic doesn't directly equal any form of democracy and is only an attribute.

democratic
  based on the principle that all members of society are equal rather than divided by money or social class
democracy
  uncountable fair and equal treatment of everyone in an organization, etc, and their right to take part in making decisions

Uncountable is also of interest here. The society is usually part of the organisation in theory but not it's entirety in most cases and no form of democracy strictly requires the governmental organisation to be completely embedded with the affiliated society in use, other unequal societies are still part of.
All posters here understand there's multiple forms of democracy and theoretical systems don't directly apply in real life or atleast now do. This has almost nothing to do with the linguistic origins of these words which gives an even worse case for the terms democratic and democraties. I would like if you researched both of them but there's really no practical use, there's a high chance everyone here is in the position those who study history are, even if they appear to have absolute power over others. Influencing the societal will for no take overs lowers the democratic trait in the same way free speech snuffs out other free speech. The absolutes don't work with reality as you know. I'm not using societal to mean democratic republic or define the policies involved, instead it's a descriptive for the concept of society here.

13 2020-08-23 07:28 *

>>12
3s/american/english/

14 2020-08-23 11:00

The whole thing's been misinformation from start to finish and from organisations of every stripe.

Some of it is even old disinfo that's just now catching up with reality; pharma companies cry wolf every flu season and now they wonder why people aren't taking the canton cough seriously.

15 2020-08-23 11:06 *

>>14
They cried pretty hard this time around and it was hilarious in my opinion.

16 2020-08-25 14:01

>>12
It feels like deciphering advanced AI ramblings about humans: obviously there are "casual meanings" for democratic that involve anything from US Democrats to human freedoms.

17 2020-08-25 19:32

>>16
Reverting to argumentum ad lapidem doesn't change history, the linguistic semantics or how these words are used in effect repeating history. I am a stone though so appeal to me.

18 2020-09-03 16:52

What are your thoughts on COVID-19 & Masks & mis-information?

I think we should listen to doctors (like Fauci) and epidemiologists. Who universally say masks protect people.

Do you feel like you can easily determine the truth? If so, how?

Yes. Misinformation spreads easily on social media sites and lesser known fake news sites. Stick to reputable news sources and pay close attention to where the information is coming from. Do they have a vested interest in peddling falsehood?

Some people claim COVID-19 is a complete hoax, despite that would require every government worldwide having either fallen for it or be complicit in this hoax.

Some people can claim we are in fact living in the recesses of Europa, inside an alien's armpit. The point is, you can claim anything without evidence.

Some people claim masks are useless or unhealthy. Others claim areas and cultures that regularly use masks when having any symptom of sickness have already largely recovered (ex. Japan).

Not sure about that. Do a literature review and get back to me.

Some people claim mask usage helps with privacy and protects to some degree against facial recognition. That clearly incentives some corporations and anti-privacy advocates (hard on crime type people) to oppose mask usage.

True but I've not seen any evidence of that.

Some people claim that that common cold and the flu are being intentional misdiagnosed as COVID-19. Why would this be done? Who benefits? The yearly flu vaccine already makes money, such the producers of that vaccine would lose money? At least until they can sell the COVID-19 vaccine? Big-tech and billionaires are making money, but their money is also worth less with the large uptick in inflation (maybe that doesn't matter with their investments being in things other than money?).

A lot of your points start with 'some people'. Who? Donald J. Trump? The Surgeon General? The crack addict who lives at the end of your block? Sounds like a bullshit conspiracy theory.

Some people claim that the number of deaths are being inflated by intentionally misattributing other causes of death as COVID-19. Some people claim that doing this in financial advantageous for the hospitals.

On the last point, God bless amerikkka. In the civilised world, you can look at excess death statistics and you can see for yourself the direct and indirect consequences of Covid-19 (compare 2019 deaths to 2020). There is some debate of when to issue the cut off for a Covid death, 30, 60 or 90 days post test. I think dying with symptoms is the most accurate.

I probably have heard a lot of other information/misinformation, but I don't know what to believe. I don't think anything anyone tells me will be able to convince me that I am actually able to verify things for myself, but at least I can try to get a better understanding of why and where mis-information is coming from.

BBC podcast 'More or Less' has done a podcast series about Covid-19, you should listen to that.

tl;dr stay off social media stick to mainstream, non state-sponsored, objective, news sources. E.g. Reuters.

19 2020-09-03 19:22 *

>>18

Incidentally, here's more information on masks working and reducing transmission when worn:

https://outline.com/jxETTe

It mentions this CDC study: www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6928e2.htm%23contribAff&sa=D&ust=1599164368468000&usg=AOvVaw2YGfyyx6mzqLDbPICmbf5E

20 2020-09-04 04:08

>>17
Mainstream just means what people in positions of authority believe to be true. Not a good yardstick, unless bombing the middle east is your thing. They also push russian conspiracy theories that are as baroque as anything that came out of an online discussion board.

And "state sponsored" means nothing when the higher level mainstream voices all went to the same schools, subscribe to the same twitter feeds, live in the same neighbourhoods, and send their kids to the same schools as the officials they are supposedly holding to account.

21 2020-09-04 05:53 *

tl;dr stay off social media stick to mainstream, non state-sponsored, objective, news sources. E.g. Reuters.

This is the only advice you can give to a hopelessly myopic people who even consider their problems another example of their exceptionalism. Only in the USA could you believe it was a hoax and not be laughed out of the room.

22 2020-09-05 09:50 *

>>21
In the USA you always get laughed at anyway.

23 2020-09-06 02:12

I'm anti-mask. People do not understand exactly how masks work for some reason. It isn't meant to prevent you from being infected, it's meant to keep you from infecting others if you're asymptomatic. There is some evidence that surgical masks offer a bit of protection, but not enough to actually call it a protective device. Not that this matters, since most people only have cloth masks. What does matter is how forcing people to wear masks when spread is still low causes civil discord and how people incorrectly assume that they're safe because they're wearing a mask. I also think that seeing everybody wearing a mask and putting all these restrictions on people can ravage a person's mental health, hence the raised suicide rate. It would be far better to make masks optional and put more focus on hand-washing and staying home when sick. Frankly, nothing has stopped COVID-19 from getting into the nursing homes, where most of the fatalities occur. I think everybody needs to seriously come to terms with the real consequences of the world's COVID-19 response and decide whether or not it's worth it. I think most level-headed people would agree that the cure is worse than the poison.

24 2020-09-06 06:36

I think it's a whole bunch of shit wrapped up in a fuck blanket to make a few people some money.

25 2020-09-12 08:34

I remember when it was only in China it was super deadly and the CPC was surely lying about their numbers and secretly burning the bodies of the deceased, yet when it reached the West it suddenly became completely harmless or outright made up. Being a right-wing grifter sounds so easy, you retards eat every shit up.

26 2020-09-12 20:36 *

>>25
I'm "right wing", but I still wear a mask in public and take reasonable precautions. How it all became politicized is beyond me.

you retards eat every shit up

This tbh.

27 2020-09-12 23:24 *

>>25,26
I'm the grifter for all sides pay me or get scammed anyway.

28 2020-09-14 01:40

Masks aren't mandatory in my province and most people don't wear them. Every night the wagons come around to collect our unmasked corpses. Soon, there will be no one left to pull those wagons, and moose will gnaw our bones in the street.

All because we mostly don't wear masks.

Remember us /sol/ ... remember us...

29 2020-09-14 07:06 *

>>28

Soon, there will be no one left to pull those wagons, and moose will gnaw our bones in the street.

Sounds like your province is embracing providence.
Soon, a paradise ...

30 2020-09-14 17:24

>>29

Speaking of paradise, the living should find it a nice place for a nature tour in a few months, honestly.

Note that a small percentage of people who get the covid survive, but become fully nocturnal and retreat to caves. So if you're in the area at night and hear rapid clicking, try to reduce your echolocation profile and find a sturdy shelter. Better yet, just barricade yourself in at dusk. Lovely by day, though.

31


VIP:

do not edit these