6 ms·

Do you have a substantive critique about the actual article? I found it pretty reasonable and detailed, and consistent with what I’ve been reading elsewhere. An

by rsfern 5y ago

Do you have a substantive critique about the actual article? I found it pretty reasonable and detailed, and consistent with what I’ve been reading elsewhere. And there’s even a dedicated section pushing back on the doom and gloom attitude Also, they have detailed discussion included with three different scientists, one of whom is an author of one of the important recent studies on how omicron infects our cells

JPKab 5y ago
You're right. The article was relatively reasonable. I think I was fixated on how much it conflicts with the primary, and very aggressive, narrative push of NPR over the last 18 months. For example, this section: "Just as the virus is changing and evolving, so is your immune system. At the population level, immunity to SARS-CoV-2 is growing rapidly in the United States. More than half of the U.S. population has likely been infected. After the omicron surge, that percentage could rise above 80% or 90%. And more than 60% of people are vaccinated. Both of those types of exposures to SARS-CoV-2 will reduce a person's risk of severe disease in future surges, many studies have found. "Whether you've been previously infected or vaccinated, you're more likely to have a milder course than a person who is immune naive," Goldstein says." Just a few months ago, NPR and other mainstream media outlets were extremely aggressive in attacking anyone claiming that previous infection had similar effects as vaccination. Not because they disagreed with the actual substance of this argument (although many of the journalists did) but because of their obsession with the second-order effects of the public being informed about it. Instead of being concerned with informing the public, I would argue they are far more concerned with steering the public's behavior. They have a very narcissistic belief that they are an enlightened class who needs to shape the beliefs of the general public, who lack the Ivy League credentials, and therefore intelligence, that they uniquely possess. Over the course of the disease, time has proven every one of these publications wrong. They attacked Sweden's pandemic strategy with a coordinated and aggressive campaign. They pointed to higher numbers whenever Sweden had them, then quickly ignored every bit of good news when it arose. There is currently zero discussion in mainstream media about Sweden doing far better than other large European nations which contain global hubs. (Comparing Sweden to Finland is like comparing Colorado to Nebraska, yes they are neighbors, but population density and lack of large cities change the entire conversation). The same thing happened in the US with Florida. If Florida had a spike that New York didn't have, it was front-page news. The minute a state with a governor the media liked had higher numbers than Florida, the reporting disappeared. I trusted the media's narrative until May 2020, when in the course of 72 hours, aggressive attacks on people partying at the Lake of the Ozarks in outdoor settings without masks were replaced by open support of people protesting in the streets without masks. As if the virus cares about the motivation or virtue of the hosts. I lost all trust in these institutions at that very moment, and will never forget it. They are jobs programs for political activists, and that coverage proved it. They are more concerned about how they look to their yuppie friends at the next dinner party than they are with reporting actual truth.

by rsfern 5y ago

JPKab 5y ago

You're right. The article was relatively reasonable. I think I was fixated on how much it conflicts with the primary, and very aggressive, narrative push of NPR over the last 18 months. For example, this section: "Just as the virus is changing and evolving, so is your immune system. At the population level, immunity to SARS-CoV-2 is growing rapidly in the United States. More than half of the U.S. population has likely been infected. After the omicron surge, that percentage could rise above 80% or 90%. And more than 60% of people are vaccinated. Both of those types of exposures to SARS-CoV-2 will reduce a person's risk of severe disease in future surges, many studies have found. "Whether you've been previously infected or vaccinated, you're more likely to have a milder course than a person who is immune naive," Goldstein says." Just a few months ago, NPR and other mainstream media outlets were extremely aggressive in attacking anyone claiming that previous infection had similar effects as vaccination. Not because they disagreed with the actual substance of this argument (although many of the journalists did) but because of their obsession with the second-order effects of the public being informed about it. Instead of being concerned with informing the public, I would argue they are far more concerned with steering the public's behavior. They have a very narcissistic belief that they are an enlightened class who needs to shape the beliefs of the general public, who lack the Ivy League credentials, and therefore intelligence, that they uniquely possess. Over the course of the disease, time has proven every one of these publications wrong. They attacked Sweden's pandemic strategy with a coordinated and aggressive campaign. They pointed to higher numbers whenever Sweden had them, then quickly ignored every bit of good news when it arose. There is currently zero discussion in mainstream media about Sweden doing far better than other large European nations which contain global hubs. (Comparing Sweden to Finland is like comparing Colorado to Nebraska, yes they are neighbors, but population density and lack of large cities change the entire conversation). The same thing happened in the US with Florida. If Florida had a spike that New York didn't have, it was front-page news. The minute a state with a governor the media liked had higher numbers than Florida, the reporting disappeared. I trusted the media's narrative until May 2020, when in the course of 72 hours, aggressive attacks on people partying at the Lake of the Ozarks in outdoor settings without masks were replaced by open support of people protesting in the streets without masks. As if the virus cares about the motivation or virtue of the hosts. I lost all trust in these institutions at that very moment, and will never forget it. They are jobs programs for political activists, and that coverage proved it. They are more concerned about how they look to their yuppie friends at the next dinner party than they are with reporting actual truth.