4 ms·
As I said, > I think that actual scientific study is needed to explain these numbers. Science is not done in the media. I'm tired of being told that I have to
by unanswered 5y ago
As I said,
> I think that actual scientific study is needed to explain these numbers.
Science is not done in the media. I'm tired of being told that I have to believe the science that's on TV when every single time I investigate it turns out the science says the exact opposite. The non-scientific "facts" in the media are even worse; take those overwhelmed hospitals in Oklahoma and the nationwide overwhelmed poison control centers, which were both bold-faced lies. (In case you've missed the non-retractions, Oklahoma hospitals denied having ivermectin patients and only 2% of calls to poison control had anything to do with covid.)
- CyberDildonics 5y agoYou dodged the question of what you actually would believe. You were linked a government study, then said "science is not done in the media"
- unanswered 5y agoThe only link I see in this thread is a government press release, not a scientific study. The first step is to be able to distinguish those.
- CyberDildonics 5y agoThat's not a press release, it's a summary of government data, which they source here: http://news.gov.bc.ca/files/8-31_PHO_modelling.pdf http://news.gov.bc.ca/files/8-31_PHO_modelling.pdf And here: http://www.bccdc.ca/health-info/diseases-conditions/covid-19/data http://www.bccdc.ca/health-info/diseases-conditions/covid-19... You still didn't answer the question of what would you actually believe. It seems like you might just call anything you don't like "the media". Let's see where you get your information.
- _moof 5y agoThat link isn't from the media.
- unanswered 5y agoDid you miss the first (last) component of the address? "news"? It's a press release, which is a step in the wrong direction from the media. I was attempting to steelman the opposing position by upgrading it to media interpretations of press releases.