3 ms·

> The news media simply does a terrible job of communicating what exactly these "lockdowns" mean. The news media have no incentive to rationally analyse facts

by zabana 7y ago

> The news media simply does a terrible job of communicating what exactly these "lockdowns" mean. The news media have no incentive to rationally analyse facts and put them in perspective. They need panic and confusion so we continue to click on their substance-less articles and videos. In times of confusion like this, go directly to the official sources (WHO, ministry of health, NHS etc) and skip the "journalists" altogether, this will have a significant positive impact on your mental health. Stay safe everyone

cies 7y ago
I believe the WHO also presenting in ways to promote panic. For instance the quote "Globally, about 3.4% of reported COVID-19 cases have died. By comparison, seasonal flu generally kills far fewer than 1% of those infected." [1] These two number are are total false comparison. Now they may do this for good purposes: a little fear helps people take it serious and thus follow suit. But this I believe it is VERY intellectually dishonest and has me even question their narrative at this point. (No COVID19 denier here, just want to know what the chances of survival and inconveniences are for me + loved ones + world population at large) 3.4% = corona deaths / total cases tested positive >1% = flu deaths / estimated total infected Now these terms contain a lot of grey area but this is true, I did the peer review and made calcs to support what I say here: WHO presents apple-orange data. That's either by accident (I hope not, cuz statistics should be their game), or more likely to make it look more severe (again this could be with good intentions). Another thing to consider is that the "total cases tested positive" likely have a serious selection bias. Sick folk is tested at the moment. Where a population research should test a random sample. I'm just trying to make sense of this whole thing like all of us, but the WHO has put me off as a reputable source of info. Less shitty than the MSM journalists, sure, but not good either. 1: https://www.who.int/dg/speeches/detail/who-director-general-s-opening-remarks-at-the-media-briefing-on-covid-19---3-march-2020 https://www.who.int/dg/speeches/detail/who-director-general-...

by zabana 7y ago

cies 7y ago

I believe the WHO also presenting in ways to promote panic. For instance the quote "Globally, about 3.4% of reported COVID-19 cases have died. By comparison, seasonal flu generally kills far fewer than 1% of those infected." [1] These two number are are total false comparison. Now they may do this for good purposes: a little fear helps people take it serious and thus follow suit. But this I believe it is VERY intellectually dishonest and has me even question their narrative at this point. (No COVID19 denier here, just want to know what the chances of survival and inconveniences are for me + loved ones + world population at large) 3.4% = corona deaths / total cases tested positive >1% = flu deaths / estimated total infected Now these terms contain a lot of grey area but this is true, I did the peer review and made calcs to support what I say here: WHO presents apple-orange data. That's either by accident (I hope not, cuz statistics should be their game), or more likely to make it look more severe (again this could be with good intentions). Another thing to consider is that the "total cases tested positive" likely have a serious selection bias. Sick folk is tested at the moment. Where a population research should test a random sample. I'm just trying to make sense of this whole thing like all of us, but the WHO has put me off as a reputable source of info. Less shitty than the MSM journalists, sure, but not good either. 1: https://www.who.int/dg/speeches/detail/who-director-general-s-opening-remarks-at-the-media-briefing-on-covid-19---3-march-2020 https://www.who.int/dg/speeches/detail/who-director-general-...