Why Is All Covid-19 News Bad News? (opens in new tab)

Why does the plight of Brazil have to be a magnet for all manner of denialism to show up in the comments? Ivermectin doesn't work, just like Hydroxichloroquine doesn't. Seriously, if these things actually worked wouldn't it be expected that rich countries would purchase the entire supply, as they've been doing with the vaccines? Part of that tragedy we're going through is precisely because our government instead of working to acquire life-saving vaccines, is pushing the lie that there's an "early treatment" for COVID with these medications.

Would love to hear personal experience of OP but there are horrifying news stories.

Lots of young people and kids getting very sick [1], lack of food [2], running out of oxygen w/ over 4k dying a day (reported who knows the real number..), vaccine they are using only 50% effective [3], asking women to delay getting pregnant [4] and more.

1 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/brazil-alarming-high-num... 2 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-56765150 3 https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/4/10/out-of-control-braz... 4 https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/17/americas/brazil-pregnancy-cov...

The lack of limitations is part of the problem. We're currently at the highest number of COVID cases and deaths but despite that there is a lot of resistance against the government implementing a lockdown, in large part because the federal government is run by science-hating lunatics.

The most horrifying recent news is that hospitals around the country are running out of sedatives used for COVID intensive care. There have been reports of intubated patients waking up from sedation and having to be tied down to their beds to keep them from ripping out the air tube. It's inhumane.

(Link warning: shocking images) https://www1.folha.uol.com.br/equilibrioesaude/2021/04/nas-u...

Linking to a Wikipedia article doesn't seem like a great way to convey an accusation, especially when you don't want to address the content.

I suppose you don't want to also link to the defamation lawsuit Project Veritas recently won against The New York Times.

Concerning the actual content, I don't see how you can chalk this up to selective editing, the guy goes on for quite a while describing CNN's tactics.

What context do you think was left out?

Maybe, but ignore Vertias involvement and just concentrate on the raw footage they captured. You can't just fake a conversation like that without fearsome technology or maybe bribery.

translation: I don't like what Project Veritas presents, so it must be wildly deceitful, and I need not consider the issue any further.

I wouldn't say zero. He works there, he gets the feel there.

You have to wonder why did he said all of those specific things. Do you think he made them all up on the spot?

Those things he said line up with their programming (the death toll counters, etc.).

Indeed, but they can definitely provide insight as to what's going on on set.

That's a straw man argument. I wont necessarily dispute the axe to grind, but can you provide proof when "deceptive editing" occurred?

Currently Project Veritas is in multiple lawsuits disputing that claim.

Most recently, in Project Veritas vs New York Times, the NYT claimed their articles contain journalistic "opinions" without notifying readers. Meaning they made claims they can't back up:

https://assets.ctfassets.net/syq3snmxclc9/maEy58HDFCR7qdtFOb...

I don't think it's fair to dismiss the content of their videos out of hand. While I disagree with the tactics, this is essentially undercover journalism and you can hear longs stretches of the CNN technical director discussing the mood / methods on set.

> Perhaps a better metric would be the information content,

Celebrity gossip tabloids!

And if you find yourself depressed and all that, stop reading "the news."

There actually is good news in the world, but it is seldom found in "the news."

See also Don Henley's Dirty Laundry.

Kick 'em when they're up. Kick 'em when they're down.

That is the tyranny of the uninformed manifesting. In technicall matters the vote of uninformed people lacks validity to change affairs. The human immune system(s) - yes, we have a number of them. The innate system which evolution has fine tuned to protect us, and the adaptive (learns to defeat a pathogen). These are not voted on by an animal's free will. They are entirely automatic, as animals and man in the past had zero comprehension of what occurs behind the scenes. People have the unwise right to refuse vaccination - perhaps to their detriment or death. (try to keep living after you get bitten by an infectious rabid animal and see what happens). This brings to center stage the true merits of the anti-vaxxers. Get enough doubters and many controlled viruses will lose their 'herd immunity' at which point we well get sweeping waves of infection of many of these 'defeated' viruses. This is OK, of you feel mankind has overpopulated the earth - the added deaths will reduce the degree of overpopulation. I for one want measles to be eliminated and stay dead. Many orthdox Jewish communities seem to want measles to be an ongoing scourge of man. What about smallpox = 35% death rate. The plague - about the same. Polio? I am old enough to recall the huge rooms full of people doomed to live the rest of their lives encased in an artificial lung. So, no, I will not respect that choice = no respect at all - they can do it if they like, but if they choose to let their kids get those illnesses deliberately, then they need to be forced to buy disease specific health insurance, and remove that burden from my health care pool.

"Why should I get this shot instead of waiting for the one that works?"

Do I really need to clarify that I am not the one asking this question?