Out of the Blue

Happy Giving Tuesday! This seems much more compatible with the thankfulness of Thanksgiving than all the shopping holidays between the two occasions. There are certainly enough worthy causes out there for those lucky enough to be able to give. Also, happy Saint Andrew's Day to all my fellow Scots (I'm a pretty mixed mutt of Anglo-Saxon interbreeding). Saint Andrew's Day is the official national day of Scotland, the national day of Independence in Barbados, and, somewhat surprisingly, a national holiday in Romania. Someone pour me a single-malt and pass the haggis.

Giving Round-up
Thanks Ant and Neutronbeam.

Stories

Images

Media

Follow-up

The Funnies

View : : :
47 Replies. 3 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  2  3  ] Older
47.
 
Re: OotB: Give!
Dec 6, 2021, 06:44
47.
Re: OotB: Give! Dec 6, 2021, 06:44
Dec 6, 2021, 06:44
 
UPDATE: On 22 November, health officials here in SA reported an additional and historic 17 718 Covid-19 infections, creating a sharp spike in the country’s epidemic curve and resulting in the travel bans.
So ya, totally self-inflicted. *sigh*
46.
 
Re: COVID-19 natural immunity versus vaccination
Dec 5, 2021, 22:56
46.
Re: COVID-19 natural immunity versus vaccination Dec 5, 2021, 22:56
Dec 5, 2021, 22:56
 
RedEye9 wrote on Dec 5, 2021, 20:07:
If you've had COVID-19 before, does your natural immunity work better than a vaccine?

The data is clear: Natural immunity is not better. The COVID-19 vaccines create more effective and longer-lasting immunity than natural immunity from infection.

More than a third of COVID-19 infections result in zero protective antibodies
Natural immunity fades faster than vaccine immunity
Natural immunity alone is less than half as effective than natural immunity plus vaccination
  • The results suggest that COVID-19 mRNA vaccines are around five times more effective at preventing hospitalization than a previous infection.
https://www.nebraskamed.com/COVID/covid-19-studies-natural-immunity-versus-vaccination
A recent study from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) addresses the issue of vaccine-induced versus infection-induced immunity.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7044e1.htm

Flat out wrong, the CDC study was not as large as the Israeli one:

"The natural immune protection that develops after a SARS-CoV-2 infection offers considerably more of a shield against the Delta variant of the pandemic coronavirus than two doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine"

“From multiple studies, we know that seropositive (antibody-positive) individuals, whether from prior natural infection or vaccination, are at a significantly lower risk of COVID-19, as compared to uninfected or unvaccinated individuals.”

"Downplaying the power of natural immunity has had deadly consequences. In January, February and March, we wasted scarce vaccine doses on millions of people who previously had covid. If we had asked Americans who were already protected by natural immunity to step aside in the vaccine line, tens of thousands of lives could have been saved. "

Ignoring natural immunity is not only stupid, it's dangerous.
45.
 
COVID-19 natural immunity versus vaccination
Dec 5, 2021, 20:07
45.
COVID-19 natural immunity versus vaccination Dec 5, 2021, 20:07
Dec 5, 2021, 20:07
 
If you've had COVID-19 before, does your natural immunity work better than a vaccine?

The data is clear: Natural immunity is not better. The COVID-19 vaccines create more effective and longer-lasting immunity than natural immunity from infection.

More than a third of COVID-19 infections result in zero protective antibodies
Natural immunity fades faster than vaccine immunity
Natural immunity alone is less than half as effective than natural immunity plus vaccination
  • The results suggest that COVID-19 mRNA vaccines are around five times more effective at preventing hospitalization than a previous infection.
https://www.nebraskamed.com/COVID/covid-19-studies-natural-immunity-versus-vaccination
A recent study from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) addresses the issue of vaccine-induced versus infection-induced immunity.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7044e1.htm
- At this point, Windows is the OS equivalent of Stockholm Syndrome. -
Burrito of Peace
Avatar 58135
44.
 
Re: OotB: Give!
Dec 5, 2021, 19:43
44.
Re: OotB: Give! Dec 5, 2021, 19:43
Dec 5, 2021, 19:43
 
RedEye9 wrote on Dec 5, 2021, 19:36:
Not to mention that the majority of people in most countries are already vaccinated

The rate of Republican vaccination against COVID-19 has flatlined at just 59%.

Republicans Increasingly Make Up A Larger Share Of Those Who Remain Unvaccinated Against COVID-19

"An unvaccinated person is three times as likely to lean Republican as they are to lean Democrat," says Liz Hamel, vice president of public opinion and survey research at the Kaiser Family Foundation, a nonpartisan health policy think tank that tracks attitudes toward vaccination. Political affiliation is now the strongest indicator of whether someone is vaccinated, she says: "If I wanted to guess if somebody was vaccinated or not and I could only know one thing about them, I would probably ask what their party affiliation is."

Unvaccinated Republicans Are Younger, Less Educated, And More Conservative Identifying Than Vaccinated Republicans

Pro-Trump counties now have far higher COVID death rates. Misinformation is to blame

COVID-19 Vaccine Monitor: The Increasing Importance of Partisanship in Predicting COVID-19 Vaccination Status

Screw off with your American partisan politics, no one cares.

71.1% of Americans have received at least one dose:
https://www.mayoclinic.org/coronavirus-covid-19/vaccine-tracker

And since you obviously failed math, 59.7% is still a majority.
43.
 
Re: OotB: Give!
Dec 5, 2021, 19:36
43.
Re: OotB: Give! Dec 5, 2021, 19:36
Dec 5, 2021, 19:36
 
Not to mention that the majority of people in most countries are already vaccinated

The rate of Republican vaccination against COVID-19 has flatlined at just 59%.

Republicans Increasingly Make Up A Larger Share Of Those Who Remain Unvaccinated Against COVID-19

"An unvaccinated person is three times as likely to lean Republican as they are to lean Democrat," says Liz Hamel, vice president of public opinion and survey research at the Kaiser Family Foundation, a nonpartisan health policy think tank that tracks attitudes toward vaccination. Political affiliation is now the strongest indicator of whether someone is vaccinated, she says: "If I wanted to guess if somebody was vaccinated or not and I could only know one thing about them, I would probably ask what their party affiliation is."

Pro-Trump counties now have far higher COVID death rates. Misinformation is to blame

COVID-19 Vaccine Monitor: The Increasing Importance of Partisanship in Predicting COVID-19 Vaccination Status

- At this point, Windows is the OS equivalent of Stockholm Syndrome. -
Burrito of Peace
Avatar 58135
42.
 
Re: OotB: Give!
Dec 5, 2021, 19:24
42.
Re: OotB: Give! Dec 5, 2021, 19:24
Dec 5, 2021, 19:24
 
hypnotic wrote on Dec 5, 2021, 13:36:
Hello from South Africa, so we're happy to have been of assistance to inform the world of the new variant Omicron and experienced the understandable fear and knee-jerk reaction from the rest of the world, who imposed travel bans on our country, which have further decimated our travel economy if that is even possible anymore. We probably would have done the same.

We have to somehow do better though, because if not, the net result will be reluctance to report new variants out of fear of the economic consequences otherwise. I am a simple person and don't suggest I have a solution to the problem. Just thankful Fauci and others now seem to now mirror the sentiment about what was originally stated, too early, about the threat the new variant seemingly poses.

The world needs a break from this goddamn bug.

It'll never end sadly, it was "Just two weeks to end this!" two years ago, and "We're all in this together." despite the fact we're clearly not, as the rich, popular and our overly paid politicians constantly flaunt the rules they claim are so important. Not to mention that the majority of people in most countries are already vaccinated, with most of the rest likely already having contracted it and gotten natural immunity (which is several times stronger BTW). But, gotta drum up those fears over a new variant that hasn't killed anyone yet and all evidence points to it being LESS deadly so far.

All of our governments are loving the totalitarian control they have on our lives right now, as they continue to slowly take away our rights. And it's only going to get worse. Just wait until they start trying to force "Green mandates" to combat climate change.
41.
 
Re: OotB: Give!
Dec 5, 2021, 13:36
41.
Re: OotB: Give! Dec 5, 2021, 13:36
Dec 5, 2021, 13:36
 
Hello from South Africa, so we're happy to have been of assistance to inform the world of the new variant Omicron and experienced the understandable fear and knee-jerk reaction from the rest of the world, who imposed travel bans on our country, which have further decimated our travel economy if that is even possible anymore. We probably would have done the same.

We have to somehow do better though, because if not, the net result will be reluctance to report new variants out of fear of the economic consequences otherwise. I am a simple person and don't suggest I have a solution to the problem. Just thankful Fauci and others now seem to now mirror the sentiment about what was originally stated, too early, about the threat the new variant seemingly poses.

The world needs a break from this goddamn bug.
40.
 
Re: OotB: Give!
Dec 4, 2021, 04:29
40.
Re: OotB: Give! Dec 4, 2021, 04:29
Dec 4, 2021, 04:29
 
Razumen wrote on Dec 3, 2021, 23:59:
Sepharo wrote on Dec 3, 2021, 20:11:
Razumen wrote on Dec 3, 2021, 07:35:
What the first sentence makes abundantly clear is that the source of the information is Angelique Coetzee, chair of the South African Medical Association, NOT Sputnik. This can be easily verified by one second of googling where one can easily see that see talked to many other news organizations.

If anyone had actually took one second to evaluate the source, rather than just talk about it, you'd see that. Instead we get nonsensical drivel about Russian "misinformation".

No, I can read that it's an interview with Angelique Coetzee, but the source for the India Times article is a piece by Sputnik... that's why they include that in the sentence.

Here are two playlists that you might find helpful regarding media literacy:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL8dPuuaLjXtN07XYqqWSKpPrtNDiCHTzU
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL8dPuuaLjXtM6jSpzb5gMNsx9kdmqBfmY

Highly recommended for everyone really. Many here are in the age group where they didn't learn this kind of stuff in school.

Being wrong is hard, but you'll get over it.

What would you say I'm wrong about?
Not totally sure you've been reading my posts.
Avatar 17249
39.
 
Re: OotB: Give!
Dec 4, 2021, 03:04
39.
Re: OotB: Give! Dec 4, 2021, 03:04
Dec 4, 2021, 03:04
 
Razumen wrote on Dec 3, 2021, 23:59:
Sepharo wrote on Dec 3, 2021, 20:11:
Razumen wrote on Dec 3, 2021, 07:35:
What the first sentence makes abundantly clear is that the source of the information is Angelique Coetzee, chair of the South African Medical Association, NOT Sputnik. This can be easily verified by one second of googling where one can easily see that see talked to many other news organizations.

If anyone had actually took one second to evaluate the source, rather than just talk about it, you'd see that. Instead we get nonsensical drivel about Russian "misinformation".

No, I can read that it's an interview with Angelique Coetzee, but the source for the India Times article is a piece by Sputnik... that's why they include that in the sentence.

Here are two playlists that you might find helpful regarding media literacy:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL8dPuuaLjXtN07XYqqWSKpPrtNDiCHTzU
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL8dPuuaLjXtM6jSpzb5gMNsx9kdmqBfmY

Highly recommended for everyone really. Many here are in the age group where they didn't learn this kind of stuff in school.

Being wrong is hard, but you'll get over it.

First step to knowing you are wrong is knowing that you are wrong
Avatar 54727
38.
 
Re: OotB: Give!
Dec 3, 2021, 23:59
38.
Re: OotB: Give! Dec 3, 2021, 23:59
Dec 3, 2021, 23:59
 
Sepharo wrote on Dec 3, 2021, 20:11:
Razumen wrote on Dec 3, 2021, 07:35:
What the first sentence makes abundantly clear is that the source of the information is Angelique Coetzee, chair of the South African Medical Association, NOT Sputnik. This can be easily verified by one second of googling where one can easily see that see talked to many other news organizations.

If anyone had actually took one second to evaluate the source, rather than just talk about it, you'd see that. Instead we get nonsensical drivel about Russian "misinformation".

No, I can read that it's an interview with Angelique Coetzee, but the source for the India Times article is a piece by Sputnik... that's why they include that in the sentence.

Here are two playlists that you might find helpful regarding media literacy:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL8dPuuaLjXtN07XYqqWSKpPrtNDiCHTzU
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL8dPuuaLjXtM6jSpzb5gMNsx9kdmqBfmY

Highly recommended for everyone really. Many here are in the age group where they didn't learn this kind of stuff in school.

Being wrong is hard, but you'll get over it.
37.
 
Re: OotB: Give!
Dec 3, 2021, 20:11
37.
Re: OotB: Give! Dec 3, 2021, 20:11
Dec 3, 2021, 20:11
 
Razumen wrote on Dec 3, 2021, 07:35:
What the first sentence makes abundantly clear is that the source of the information is Angelique Coetzee, chair of the South African Medical Association, NOT Sputnik. This can be easily verified by one second of googling where one can easily see that see talked to many other news organizations.

If anyone had actually took one second to evaluate the source, rather than just talk about it, you'd see that. Instead we get nonsensical drivel about Russian "misinformation".

No, I can read that it's an interview with Angelique Coetzee, but the source for the India Times article is a piece by Sputnik... that's why they include that in the sentence.

Here are two playlists that you might find helpful regarding media literacy:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL8dPuuaLjXtN07XYqqWSKpPrtNDiCHTzU
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL8dPuuaLjXtM6jSpzb5gMNsx9kdmqBfmY

Highly recommended for everyone really. Many here are in the age group where they didn't learn this kind of stuff in school.
Avatar 17249
36.
 
Re: OotB: Give!
Dec 3, 2021, 07:35
36.
Re: OotB: Give! Dec 3, 2021, 07:35
Dec 3, 2021, 07:35
 
Sepharo wrote on Dec 3, 2021, 07:20:
Razumen wrote on Dec 3, 2021, 05:05:
Sepharo wrote on Dec 3, 2021, 04:44:
Razumen wrote on Dec 2, 2021, 22:16:
Sepharo wrote on Dec 2, 2021, 13:41:
Imagine thinking that investigating the source is a "fallacy", that media literacy and critical reading are some kind of farce...

I'm not speaking to the validity of this particular piece or the claims within... but holy shit how wrong can you be when it comes to critical reading.

And yes, the very first sentence of the article here is,
"The new Omicron variant of the coronavirus results in mild disease, without prominent syndromes, Angelique Coetzee, the chairwoman of the South African Medical Association, told Sputnik on Saturday."

Which if you know how to read, means she was interviewed by Sputnik.


edit: Actually looks like Sputnik may have removed their own article on this...
but the original can still be found on archive.org
due to limitations with the url functionality here I can't post it as plain text or as a tagged url... so here it is with a url shortener
http://shorturl.at/glCE7

You're not investigating anything, you're dismissing news simply based on the site and your own bias. Critical reading and media literacy are the last things you stand for.

Again, she's been interviewed by other news sites, saying the same thing, Being anal about ONE news source of many, which has been corroborated by others, is the epitome of stupid.

You should read my post closer, I didn't dismiss anything.

You don't need to be "interviewed" to tell anyone anything. Hilariously ironic that you think you have critical reading skills and don't know that. She sent the same information to multiple sources.

Again, you seem to be missing my point.
Regardless of the topic or claims, part of media literacy and critical reading is considering and evaluating the source. You'll find that in every single explanation of those practices.
So you coming out the gates swinging on that "fallacy" and falsely claiming that the source of the India Times article was not Sputnik, even though their very first sentence establishes clearly that it is, means that you should probably brush up.

What the first sentence makes abundantly clear is that the source of the information is Angelique Coetzee, chair of the South African Medical Association, NOT Sputnik. This can be easily verified by one second of googling where one can easily see that see talked to many other news organizations.

If anyone had actually took one second to evaluate the source, rather than just talk about it, you'd see that. Instead we get nonsensical drivel about Russian "misinformation".

This comment was edited on Dec 3, 2021, 07:47.
35.
 
Re: OotB: Give!
Dec 3, 2021, 07:20
35.
Re: OotB: Give! Dec 3, 2021, 07:20
Dec 3, 2021, 07:20
 
Razumen wrote on Dec 3, 2021, 05:05:
Sepharo wrote on Dec 3, 2021, 04:44:
Razumen wrote on Dec 2, 2021, 22:16:
Sepharo wrote on Dec 2, 2021, 13:41:
Imagine thinking that investigating the source is a "fallacy", that media literacy and critical reading are some kind of farce...

I'm not speaking to the validity of this particular piece or the claims within... but holy shit how wrong can you be when it comes to critical reading.

And yes, the very first sentence of the article here is,
"The new Omicron variant of the coronavirus results in mild disease, without prominent syndromes, Angelique Coetzee, the chairwoman of the South African Medical Association, told Sputnik on Saturday."

Which if you know how to read, means she was interviewed by Sputnik.


edit: Actually looks like Sputnik may have removed their own article on this...
but the original can still be found on archive.org
due to limitations with the url functionality here I can't post it as plain text or as a tagged url... so here it is with a url shortener
http://shorturl.at/glCE7

You're not investigating anything, you're dismissing news simply based on the site and your own bias. Critical reading and media literacy are the last things you stand for.

Again, she's been interviewed by other news sites, saying the same thing, Being anal about ONE news source of many, which has been corroborated by others, is the epitome of stupid.

You should read my post closer, I didn't dismiss anything.

You don't need to be "interviewed" to tell anyone anything. Hilariously ironic that you think you have critical reading skills and don't know that. She sent the same information to multiple sources.

Again, you seem to be missing my point.
Regardless of the topic or claims, part of media literacy and critical reading is considering and evaluating the source. You'll find that in every single explanation of those practices.
So you coming out the gates swinging on that "fallacy" and falsely claiming that the source of the India Times article was not Sputnik, even though their very first sentence establishes clearly that it is, means that you should probably brush up.
Avatar 17249
34.
 
Re: OotB: Give!
Dec 3, 2021, 06:50
34.
Re: OotB: Give! Dec 3, 2021, 06:50
Dec 3, 2021, 06:50
 
eRe4s3r wrote on Dec 3, 2021, 06:11:
Razumen wrote on Dec 3, 2021, 05:05:
Sepharo wrote on Dec 3, 2021, 04:44:
Razumen wrote on Dec 2, 2021, 22:16:
Sepharo wrote on Dec 2, 2021, 13:41:
Imagine thinking that investigating the source is a "fallacy", that media literacy and critical reading are some kind of farce...

I'm not speaking to the validity of this particular piece or the claims within... but holy shit how wrong can you be when it comes to critical reading.

And yes, the very first sentence of the article here is,
"The new Omicron variant of the coronavirus results in mild disease, without prominent syndromes, Angelique Coetzee, the chairwoman of the South African Medical Association, told Sputnik on Saturday."

Which if you know how to read, means she was interviewed by Sputnik.


edit: Actually looks like Sputnik may have removed their own article on this...
but the original can still be found on archive.org
due to limitations with the url functionality here I can't post it as plain text or as a tagged url... so here it is with a url shortener
http://shorturl.at/glCE7

You're not investigating anything, you're dismissing news simply based on the site and your own bias. Critical reading and media literacy are the last things you stand for.

Again, she's been interviewed by other news sites, saying the same thing, Being anal about ONE news source of many, which has been corroborated by others, is the epitome of stupid.

You should read my post closer, I didn't dismiss anything.

You don't need to be "interviewed" to tell anyone anything. Hilariously ironic that you think you have critical reading skills and don't know that. She sent the same information to multiple sources.

Doesn't matter anyway anymore, because WHO statement on this tells you what Omikron is and why the above article headline is.. eh, let's just say......... special

Yeah, no. Information from every source is important. And that WHO article doesn't negate anything the South African medical association has reported.
33.
 
Re: OotB: Give!
Dec 3, 2021, 06:11
33.
Re: OotB: Give! Dec 3, 2021, 06:11
Dec 3, 2021, 06:11
 
Razumen wrote on Dec 3, 2021, 05:05:
Sepharo wrote on Dec 3, 2021, 04:44:
Razumen wrote on Dec 2, 2021, 22:16:
Sepharo wrote on Dec 2, 2021, 13:41:
Imagine thinking that investigating the source is a "fallacy", that media literacy and critical reading are some kind of farce...

I'm not speaking to the validity of this particular piece or the claims within... but holy shit how wrong can you be when it comes to critical reading.

And yes, the very first sentence of the article here is,
"The new Omicron variant of the coronavirus results in mild disease, without prominent syndromes, Angelique Coetzee, the chairwoman of the South African Medical Association, told Sputnik on Saturday."

Which if you know how to read, means she was interviewed by Sputnik.


edit: Actually looks like Sputnik may have removed their own article on this...
but the original can still be found on archive.org
due to limitations with the url functionality here I can't post it as plain text or as a tagged url... so here it is with a url shortener
http://shorturl.at/glCE7

You're not investigating anything, you're dismissing news simply based on the site and your own bias. Critical reading and media literacy are the last things you stand for.

Again, she's been interviewed by other news sites, saying the same thing, Being anal about ONE news source of many, which has been corroborated by others, is the epitome of stupid.

You should read my post closer, I didn't dismiss anything.

You don't need to be "interviewed" to tell anyone anything. Hilariously ironic that you think you have critical reading skills and don't know that. She sent the same information to multiple sources.

Doesn't matter anyway anymore, because WHO statement on this tells you what Omikron is and why the above article headline is.. eh, let's just say......... special
Avatar 54727
32.
 
Re: OotB: Give!
Dec 3, 2021, 05:05
32.
Re: OotB: Give! Dec 3, 2021, 05:05
Dec 3, 2021, 05:05
 
Sepharo wrote on Dec 3, 2021, 04:44:
Razumen wrote on Dec 2, 2021, 22:16:
Sepharo wrote on Dec 2, 2021, 13:41:
Imagine thinking that investigating the source is a "fallacy", that media literacy and critical reading are some kind of farce...

I'm not speaking to the validity of this particular piece or the claims within... but holy shit how wrong can you be when it comes to critical reading.

And yes, the very first sentence of the article here is,
"The new Omicron variant of the coronavirus results in mild disease, without prominent syndromes, Angelique Coetzee, the chairwoman of the South African Medical Association, told Sputnik on Saturday."

Which if you know how to read, means she was interviewed by Sputnik.


edit: Actually looks like Sputnik may have removed their own article on this...
but the original can still be found on archive.org
due to limitations with the url functionality here I can't post it as plain text or as a tagged url... so here it is with a url shortener
http://shorturl.at/glCE7

You're not investigating anything, you're dismissing news simply based on the site and your own bias. Critical reading and media literacy are the last things you stand for.

Again, she's been interviewed by other news sites, saying the same thing, Being anal about ONE news source of many, which has been corroborated by others, is the epitome of stupid.

You should read my post closer, I didn't dismiss anything.

You don't need to be "interviewed" to tell anyone anything. Hilariously ironic that you think you have critical reading skills and don't know that. She sent the same information to multiple sources.
31.
 
Re: OotB: Give!
Dec 3, 2021, 04:44
31.
Re: OotB: Give! Dec 3, 2021, 04:44
Dec 3, 2021, 04:44
 
Razumen wrote on Dec 2, 2021, 22:16:
Sepharo wrote on Dec 2, 2021, 13:41:
Imagine thinking that investigating the source is a "fallacy", that media literacy and critical reading are some kind of farce...

I'm not speaking to the validity of this particular piece or the claims within... but holy shit how wrong can you be when it comes to critical reading.

And yes, the very first sentence of the article here is,
"The new Omicron variant of the coronavirus results in mild disease, without prominent syndromes, Angelique Coetzee, the chairwoman of the South African Medical Association, told Sputnik on Saturday."

Which if you know how to read, means she was interviewed by Sputnik.


edit: Actually looks like Sputnik may have removed their own article on this...
but the original can still be found on archive.org
due to limitations with the url functionality here I can't post it as plain text or as a tagged url... so here it is with a url shortener
http://shorturl.at/glCE7

You're not investigating anything, you're dismissing news simply based on the site and your own bias. Critical reading and media literacy are the last things you stand for.

Again, she's been interviewed by other news sites, saying the same thing, Being anal about ONE news source of many, which has been corroborated by others, is the epitome of stupid.

You should read my post closer, I didn't dismiss anything.
Avatar 17249
30.
 
Re: OotB: Give!
Dec 2, 2021, 22:22
30.
Re: OotB: Give! Dec 2, 2021, 22:22
Dec 2, 2021, 22:22
 
Beamer wrote on Dec 2, 2021, 13:50:
She's very clearly done many interviews in which she says the patients she personally has observed had mild symptoms, but that you can't read into that due to the limited sample size, and it's just anecdotal.

Which, of course, is a type of fallacy - applying a limited set of personal experience to a whole.

Lol, please. It's not anecdotal, she's talking about the data they've collected so far, which is completely relevant, and the complete opposite of what an anecdote is.

Sample size is relevant yes, but the data they have is all anyone has at the moment, and it CAN be used to hesitantly extrapolate farther based on the initial conditions of those affected.
29.
 
Re: OotB: Give!
Dec 2, 2021, 22:16
29.
Re: OotB: Give! Dec 2, 2021, 22:16
Dec 2, 2021, 22:16
 
Sepharo wrote on Dec 2, 2021, 13:41:
Imagine thinking that investigating the source is a "fallacy", that media literacy and critical reading are some kind of farce...

I'm not speaking to the validity of this particular piece of the claims within... but holy shit how wrong can you be when it comes to critical reading.

And yes, the very first sentence of the article here is,
"The new Omicron variant of the coronavirus results in mild disease, without prominent syndromes, Angelique Coetzee, the chairwoman of the South African Medical Association, told Sputnik on Saturday."

Which if you know how to read, means she was interviewed by Sputnik.


edit: Actually looks like Sputnik may have removed their own article on this...
but the original can still be found on archive.org
due to limitations with the url functionality here I can't post it as plain text or as a tagged url... so here it is with a url shortener
http://shorturl.at/glCE7

You're not investigating anything, you're dismissing news simply based on the site and your own bias. Critical reading and media literacy are the last things you stand for.

Again, she's been interviewed by other news sites, saying the same thing, Being anal about ONE news source of many, which has been corroborated by others, is the epitome of stupid.
28.
 
Re: OotB: Give!
Dec 2, 2021, 17:40
28.
Re: OotB: Give! Dec 2, 2021, 17:40
Dec 2, 2021, 17:40
 
RedEye9 wrote on Dec 2, 2021, 15:11:
Sepharo wrote on Dec 2, 2021, 15:02:
Something must be blocking it for me then... when I visit that link it's all just black and white text and the only things that remains are unformatted comments that people made on the article.
Consider yourself lucky if your system autoblocks faux noise, timesofindia and sputnik.

If he only sees the comments he isn't really THAT lucky They are easily the worst thing on Sputnik
Avatar 54727
47 Replies. 3 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  2  3  ] Older