3 ms·

Not every comment is a disagreement. You should read the link though. It’s two issues. Fact checkers are needed because of misinformation, “official sources”

Not every comment is a disagreement. You should read the link though. It’s two issues. Fact checkers are needed because of misinformation, “official sources” are spreading their own misinformation.

defrost 2y ago
The Federalist isn't an official source, just a US ultra conservative rag putting spin on early reasonable statements about airbourne transmission. That whole selective quoting out of context thing is a good example of misinformation though.
- SV_BubbleTime 2y ago
  Sounds to me like you are attacking the source and not the content of the article. Are you saying that he lied under oath and that there was scientific reasoning behind the social distancing directive?
  - Spivak 2y ago
    He didn't lie under oath, but both you and the article are extrapolating quite a bit from the testimony of one guy who's not an authoritative source of anything, absence of evidence and all that. The 6ft (really the 2 meter) rule didn't come from nowhere and does have research backing -- a lot of it going back to the late 1800's. Here's a great overview of the research and history surrounding it: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8504878/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8504878/ Were it gets interesting is that this model of disease transmission doesn't fit covid (and might not fit anything really) but the take-away is the opposite -- that it's actually worse and that 6ft isn't enough. It would be easier to take the criticism leveled from the anti-social distancing crowd seriously if they were arguing for more distance and isolation, not less because that's just fixing wrong with different wrong.
    - SV_BubbleTime 2y ago
      Ah, so before or at the dawn of germ theory is part of your point? OK, I’ve heard enough.
  - defrost 2y ago
    The content of article selectively quotes and frames things to suggest that advice to keep distance to reduce the rate of spread of a severe acute respiratory virus was bad advice. It was very good advice. It has been known to be good advice for decades, recent decades. The fact that this had not been specificly reproven specifically with SARS-CoV-2 during the earliest days of a global outbreak isn't relevant to the value of that advice. Sturgis, and numerous other outbreaks arising from events in the shit show that exampled the US approach to social distancing highlighted what happened as a result of not heeding such advice ... some of the highest per capita death rates in the world.
- SV_BubbleTime 2y ago
  > The Federalist isn't an official source lol > just a US ultra conservative rag Ultra conservative huh? Good one. Tell me to go check NPR or BBC or your favorite state media next won’t you?
  - defrost 2y ago
    You're clearly struggling. The point here is that keeping distance from others is a sound strategy to slow the spread of respiratory infections. The Federalist article is being delibrately obtuse and weasel framing an obviously politically motived line of questioning in a US committee. It's the kind of thing intuitively obvious to the meanest intellect, regardless of leaning. Dipshits in the US putting politics above public safety is par for the course. What's preventing you from seeing that?

defrost 2y ago

The Federalist isn't an official source, just a US ultra conservative rag putting spin on early reasonable statements about airbourne transmission. That whole selective quoting out of context thing is a good example of misinformation though.

SV_BubbleTime 2y ago
Sounds to me like you are attacking the source and not the content of the article. Are you saying that he lied under oath and that there was scientific reasoning behind the social distancing directive?
- Spivak 2y ago
  He didn't lie under oath, but both you and the article are extrapolating quite a bit from the testimony of one guy who's not an authoritative source of anything, absence of evidence and all that. The 6ft (really the 2 meter) rule didn't come from nowhere and does have research backing -- a lot of it going back to the late 1800's. Here's a great overview of the research and history surrounding it: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8504878/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8504878/ Were it gets interesting is that this model of disease transmission doesn't fit covid (and might not fit anything really) but the take-away is the opposite -- that it's actually worse and that 6ft isn't enough. It would be easier to take the criticism leveled from the anti-social distancing crowd seriously if they were arguing for more distance and isolation, not less because that's just fixing wrong with different wrong.
  - SV_BubbleTime 2y ago
    Ah, so before or at the dawn of germ theory is part of your point? OK, I’ve heard enough.
- defrost 2y ago
  The content of article selectively quotes and frames things to suggest that advice to keep distance to reduce the rate of spread of a severe acute respiratory virus was bad advice. It was very good advice. It has been known to be good advice for decades, recent decades. The fact that this had not been specificly reproven specifically with SARS-CoV-2 during the earliest days of a global outbreak isn't relevant to the value of that advice. Sturgis, and numerous other outbreaks arising from events in the shit show that exampled the US approach to social distancing highlighted what happened as a result of not heeding such advice ... some of the highest per capita death rates in the world.
SV_BubbleTime 2y ago
> The Federalist isn't an official source lol > just a US ultra conservative rag Ultra conservative huh? Good one. Tell me to go check NPR or BBC or your favorite state media next won’t you?
- defrost 2y ago
  You're clearly struggling. The point here is that keeping distance from others is a sound strategy to slow the spread of respiratory infections. The Federalist article is being delibrately obtuse and weasel framing an obviously politically motived line of questioning in a US committee. It's the kind of thing intuitively obvious to the meanest intellect, regardless of leaning. Dipshits in the US putting politics above public safety is par for the course. What's preventing you from seeing that?