3 ms·

Is this offering anything more substantive than you own bias and suspicions? Is there any response that could get you to consider that the comment "anything wh

Is this offering anything more substantive than you own bias and suspicions? Is there any response that could get you to consider that the comment "anything which doesn't make people more fearful must be suppressed" is as harmful or even more harmful than the media itself? Asking because I'd like to better understand how to address people with your beliefs in the future.

mikem170 5y ago
Not the poster you are replying to, but I'll bite, out of curiosity about your thinking... > Is this offering anything more substantive than you own bias and suspicions? My take-away from the article is that they found all the bits of the immune system primed for long term protection after covid infections. Which is not entirely unexpected, this is what happens with sars, also. > Is there any response that could get you to consider that the comment "anything which doesn't make people more fearful must be suppressed" is as harmful or even more harmful than the media itself? I got pretty fed up the news other day when the front page of the BBC led with the an article about leaked CNN memo and three unnamed employees who were fired for not getting vaccinated, and another about Jennifer Aniston apparently cutting off contact with unvaccinated friends. I felt manipulated. I consider stuff like this to be propaganda, not news. It reminded me that I need better sources for covid information, like statnews.com, to get away from such things. I'd rather see more facts and less adjectives in the news. I'd rather that politicians justify their actions based on numbers, not vague statements. It doesn't seem like the general public is trusted with the facts, but are rather fed a lot of alarmist information. I imagine the parent poster's assumption is that it would be front page if this study said that natural immunity expires quickly, but we won't see this good news about long lasting immunity on the front page.

mikem170 5y ago

Not the poster you are replying to, but I'll bite, out of curiosity about your thinking... > Is this offering anything more substantive than you own bias and suspicions? My take-away from the article is that they found all the bits of the immune system primed for long term protection after covid infections. Which is not entirely unexpected, this is what happens with sars, also. > Is there any response that could get you to consider that the comment "anything which doesn't make people more fearful must be suppressed" is as harmful or even more harmful than the media itself? I got pretty fed up the news other day when the front page of the BBC led with the an article about leaked CNN memo and three unnamed employees who were fired for not getting vaccinated, and another about Jennifer Aniston apparently cutting off contact with unvaccinated friends. I felt manipulated. I consider stuff like this to be propaganda, not news. It reminded me that I need better sources for covid information, like statnews.com, to get away from such things. I'd rather see more facts and less adjectives in the news. I'd rather that politicians justify their actions based on numbers, not vague statements. It doesn't seem like the general public is trusted with the facts, but are rather fed a lot of alarmist information. I imagine the parent poster's assumption is that it would be front page if this study said that natural immunity expires quickly, but we won't see this good news about long lasting immunity on the front page.