4 ms·

That’s what the news business would like you to think. How much action are you taking from the 100+ bad news stories bombarding you every day?

tomjen3 5y ago
Covid. Covid lockdowns. New variants. These are all things that we have to act on, as individuals. They are all bad news. Then you have the rest of the 99.999% that you don't need to know, but you do need to know the very few stories. And for that you have to go through all the other ones.
culi 5y ago
Sure, that's generally true. But in the case of a global pandemic, I think the comment is valid
- redisman 5y ago
  Not really. Consuming your daily drip of numbers from the news is hardly any more actionable than checking your local public health officials guidance every quarter
  - moistly 5y ago
    Every quarter? This new variant doubles every two days. You’d best be paying a bit more than checking the PHO every three months!
epgui 5y ago
Well I’m a scientist with 12 years of post secondary education in life science (and no conflict of interest), and that’s exactly what I’d like you to think too. Be reasonable.
- justtologin 5y ago
  This is a good argument against technocracy. I want expert's views to be taken into consideration when making decisions that affect other people. I don't want them telling people what to do using the lens of their narrow technical expertise.
  - epgui 5y ago
    I understand what you are saying, but I’m not sure I understand how it relates to what I wrote. Do you mind clarifying that?
    - justtologin 5y ago
      What I took from the thread was: Bad news is reported more, if bad things happen, you need to act fast so it's good to pay close attention to bad news, that's what news organizations want you to think. And then you commented that as an educated scientist, you also think we should pay close attention to bad news. At least that's how I took it.
      - epgui 5y ago
        Right, I see where you’re coming from. When I wrote my comment, my intended meaning was more specific to the current situation: I really wish people would be more united in taking action in the face of an infectious disease, the transmission of which is entirely preventable in the aggregate.

tomjen3 5y ago

Covid. Covid lockdowns. New variants. These are all things that we have to act on, as individuals. They are all bad news. Then you have the rest of the 99.999% that you don't need to know, but you do need to know the very few stories. And for that you have to go through all the other ones.

culi 5y ago

Sure, that's generally true. But in the case of a global pandemic, I think the comment is valid

redisman 5y ago
Not really. Consuming your daily drip of numbers from the news is hardly any more actionable than checking your local public health officials guidance every quarter
- moistly 5y ago
  Every quarter? This new variant doubles every two days. You’d best be paying a bit more than checking the PHO every three months!

epgui 5y ago

Well I’m a scientist with 12 years of post secondary education in life science (and no conflict of interest), and that’s exactly what I’d like you to think too. Be reasonable.

justtologin 5y ago
This is a good argument against technocracy. I want expert's views to be taken into consideration when making decisions that affect other people. I don't want them telling people what to do using the lens of their narrow technical expertise.
- epgui 5y ago
  I understand what you are saying, but I’m not sure I understand how it relates to what I wrote. Do you mind clarifying that?
  - justtologin 5y ago
    What I took from the thread was: Bad news is reported more, if bad things happen, you need to act fast so it's good to pay close attention to bad news, that's what news organizations want you to think. And then you commented that as an educated scientist, you also think we should pay close attention to bad news. At least that's how I took it.
    - epgui 5y ago
      Right, I see where you’re coming from. When I wrote my comment, my intended meaning was more specific to the current situation: I really wish people would be more united in taking action in the face of an infectious disease, the transmission of which is entirely preventable in the aggregate.