Chat about Novel Coronavirus - 2019-nCoV - COVID-19

Yeh but isn't it just as lazy to dismiss a link to Twitter without taking the 30 seconds to review someone's bio and see if they might be someone relevant and worth reading?
If it turns out to be a link to complete conspiracy junk then you can make an informed decision to just ignore anything the user posts going forwards.
If it turns out to be credible analysis or commentary but not aligned to the forums groupthink then maybe it's worth reading?

I guess none of this is really aimed at you but I have found this thread tiring some times as any difference of opinion seems to get shut down quickly and a lot of the conversation is around what policy should be and there is scope for different points of view in that as opposed to the science.

happens to any newspaper they get things wrong.

This is a pretty stupid mistake.

I'm sure we can find blunders like that for any paper, so as a whole I think it's better to review any paper as a whole.

The times / FT I don't subscribe to but those are still quality.

I'm here all day for daily mail / sun / express bashing, but it's the emotional nastiness of it those I can't stand.

What is your beef with the guardian?

Yeh but isn't it just as lazy to dismiss a link to Twitter without taking the 30 seconds to review someone's bio and see if they might be someone relevant and worth reading?

Yeah, that's what I generally do, I wasn't dismissing the posted links, there's plenty to bash about Twitter, but plenty it does well too, this isn't so much about that. Just the unusual unwillingness to click a guardian link juxtaposed with posting of twitter stuff.

Although of course just because someone has an impressive bio doesn't necessarily mean they're not a complete and utter nutcase on certain emotive topics.

there's plenty to bash about Twitter, but plenty it does well too,

The same can be said about most of our major newspapers in the UK. Guardian included.

Oh yeah, 100%, and they've all been getting worse.

I picked up a copy of the Times a few weeks ago. It's depressing how far standards have dropped.

Point being, its not exactly a good ideas to dismisses one article, it’s always best to read several sources on one story, even if it’s one that disagrees with you.

I don’t like the Sunday Times, but do read them with a pinch of salt.

But then you have to get over conformational bias too.

That article is worth reading tbh.

Already, the Bush administration is assembling an international coalition for an Israeli-style war against terrorism, as if such counter-productive acts of outrage had an existence separate from the social conditions out of which they arise. But for every "terror network" that is rooted out, another will emerge - until the injustices and inequalities that produce them are addressed.

Here's a digital version for ease

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2001/sep/13/september11.britainand911

Which newspapers do you like then? I assume that for each of them you have looked back through every article in the last >20 years and approve of every single one.

I'm sure in the 1990s we just didn't consume so much news and were happier for it.

okay boomer

That was all the Garys everyone was consuming instead.

Bit of a weird take though. Have any of you forumites seen a senior academic claim that vaccines block transmission? I've only seen medics and academics say that vaccines reduce transmission.

Francis Bollocks is a top name though, I'm reading his stuff just for that from now on.

I mean, the UK government and NHS guidance on vaccines go to great lengths to explain that vaccines have side effects, only reduce the rate of transmission and serious illness and even go so far as to spell out that vaccines don't guarantee safety....who exactly is Francis Bollocks seeing say otherwise?

Not an arguement more an additional of what I think:

Thought the vaccine reduces the risk of extreme reactions to covid and needing hospitalisation. While masks and clean hands reduce the transmission.

clean hands

That probably does very little to reduce Covid spread.

who exactly is Francis Bollocks seeing say otherwise?

The strawman he's just created.

Sure, but isn't that tweet then for everyone? Yet he only aims it at "the negative UK views" without giving more context. The overly positive ones were wrong too. Eat out to help out, the faffing about with Christmas last year have led to deaths.

"I can't understand how those who are so wrong last March and Christmas are now so certain doing nothing is fine" equally applies...

At least it looks like the peak is going down again, perhaps in some cities people have been re-infected again. There is definitely a lot we don't know yet.

Not sure we need a lockdown right but sure hope the government won't wait until the very very last moment and Christmas be a mess, again. If cases keep dropping, then fine we won't need it. (though Norn Ire where I live it doesn't look good, too much NHS pressure)

Careful now, he's commenting on a guardian piece.

Sanitising/washing hands is what I meant. Would cleaning hands have made more sense?

Sanitising/washing hands is what I meant. Would cleaning hands have made more sense?

In a preventing the spread of Covid context, not really. Almost all spread is by airborne particles, not touch.

Right then ! The christmas work party has raised its ugly head after two years ! An Italian place in Liverpool . The echo/ mail reading workers think its a great idea .
Personally hell no would i spend any more time with them .
The presumption is that its all safe now . Non of them wear masks either. I still do .

I hate the Times but having worked in PR for 20 years and for a very big news agency for seven of those I've dealt with more national journalists than anyone would ever want to. It has to be said that these days the Guardian is often just sloppy. Well meaning, but sloppy, with some often super crap journalism.

The Times tends to be much more thorough and journalistically sharper, but it's editorially evil, running misguided campaigns against vulnerable groups and fuck me does it bear grudges.

Basically all newspapers are shit. The FT is the one exception I can think of right now but it's pretty much a slave to mammon isn't it?