All things political. Coronavirus Edition. (10 Viewers)

[Maxp]

I fear we are really going to be in a bad place due to the obvious cuts to the federal agencies that deal with infectious disease, but also the negative effect the Affordable Care act has had on non urban hospitals. Our front line defenses are ineffectual and our ability to treat the populous is probably at an all time low. Factor in the cost of healthcare and I can see our system crashing. What do you think about the politics of this virus?

 

[PartTimeLurker]

This older guy on CNBC said, follow the data and dont panic. If under 60 mortality is almost 0 (or is?). 60-80 it is in single digits. Above 80, it is like a 20% and up mortality rate...

Not sure if he was accurate or not.

I think that is somewhat accurate depending on the region and response. I think our mortality rate will be above China when this all plays out. They were caught flatfooted but were able to take measures that we won't consider. While I think one should always try to keep a clear head, the CNBC guy's logic doesn't resonate with me. I think I would be okay, as would my son but my wife has asthma and I actually care about most of the elderly in my family.

A: "I have good news and a little bad news."

B: "Good news first!"

A: "Okay, so the majority of people will experience mild flu like symptoms or a bad chest cold."

B: "And the bad news?"

A: "Bernice, you're screwed."

 

[SaintForLife]

So that’s a gross misrepresentation of what happened.

You were the one asserting your fave the yellow highlighter lady is an unbiased, I think you used the word “straight”, news reporter. What I pointed out to you is that she is totally in the conservative camp, and her work is completely one sided. You can still like her or whatever, but she’s definitely coming at everything from one side. Just like Maddow, who you totally dismiss, she’s the right’s version of Maddow. She was one of the reporters who worked for Fox when they started it up. Neither one just makes stuff up, but both are only going to give you one side of the story.

It’s fine to consume biased sources, but you need to at least recognize that you are doing so.

I never said anything about her being unbiased. I said she was credible and a straight news reporter. She doesn't write editorials or opinion articles. You comparing her to Maddow shows how little you know about both of them.

The guy you posted was retweeting MSNBC's Chris Hayes. Are you claiming he's not biased or one sided? I asked you before, but you ignored it. Can you point out some of the reporters that you read or follow that dont have a "POV" or aren't "one sided"?

 

[CoolBrees]

I can’t speak for MT15 and where she gets her info but AP and Reuter’s is news only, no slant. They are great sources of information.

 

[MT15]

I never said anything about her being unbiased. I said she was credible and a straight news reporter. She doesn't write editorials or opinion articles. You comparing her to Maddow shows how little you know about both of them.

The guy you posted was retweeting MSNBC's Chris Hayes. Are you claiming he's not biased or one sided? I asked you before, but you ignored it. Can you point out some of the reporters that you read or follow that dont have a "POV" or aren't "one sided"?

You‘re being a bit touchy about this, IMO. You called her a straight news reporter, which implies balanced coverage. She’s anything but that. I know enough about her to know her politics slants her reporting, just like Maddow. It’s hard for you to admit it, which should tell you something. Just read the comments after one of her tweets and that will show you who her audience is. She’s not trying to be a straight news reporter, she’s writing for a conservative audience. There’s nothing wrong with it, as long as you realize it and take it into account.

I don’t claim to have a bunch of people I read that are unbiased. I can recognize that they have a POV and take that into account, and I don’t go around saying that someone who has clearly made a career out of covering things from one perspective is a “straight news“ reporter.

He retweeted Chris Hayes? OMG, he must be a dirty commie! Firing squad at dawn!

 

[GMRfellowtraveller]

I never said anything about her being unbiased. I said she was credible and a straight news reporter. She doesn't write editorials or opinion articles. You comparing her to Maddow shows how little you know about both of them.

The guy you posted was retweeting MSNBC's Chris Hayes. Are you claiming he's not biased or one sided? I asked you before, but you ignored it. Can you point out some of the reporters that you read or follow that dont have a "POV" or aren't "one sided"?

I don’t know the reporter
But I will agree that ‘straight’ can simply be like a beat reporter (vs opinion)

 

[SaintForLife]

You‘re being a bit touchy about this, IMO. You called her a straight news reporter, which implies balanced coverage. She’s anything but that. I know enough about her to know her politics slants her reporting, just like Maddow. It’s hard for you to admit it, which should tell you something. Just read the comments after one of her tweets and that will show you who her audience is. She’s not trying to be a straight news reporter, she’s writing for a conservative audience. There’s nothing wrong with it, as long as you realize it and take it into account.

I don’t claim to have a bunch of people I read that are unbiased. I can recognize that they have a POV and take that into account, and I don’t go around saying that someone who has clearly made a career out of covering things from one perspective is a “straight news“ reporter.

He retweeted Chris Hayes? OMG, he must be a dirty commie! Firing squad at dawn!

As GMR pointed out a straight news reporter means a beat reporter as opposed to opinion writer. It doesn't mean the reporter is unbiased.

You still haven't even pointed out a single instance where Herridge's reporting wasn't accurate. Nothing, nada. So you can criticize her POV all you want, but it rings hollow if you can't show how her reporting isn't accurate. She is all over the FISA abuse so I could see how you wouldn't like seeing that.

 

[superchuck500]

 

[MT15]

As GMR pointed out a straight news reporter means a beat reporter as opposed to opinion writer. It doesn't mean the reporter is unbiased.

You still haven't even pointed out a single instance where Herridge's reporting wasn't accurate. Nothing, nada. So you can criticize her POV all you want, but it rings hollow if you can't show how her reporting isn't accurate. She is all over the FISA abuse so I could see how you wouldn't like seeing that.

Sigh.

I never said she was not reporting facts. Seriously, you keep putting words in my mouth. It’s a real problem, and makes me rethink even engaging with you. What’s the point of our conversation if you cannot seem to even figure out what I am saying? It’s exhausting to have to keep clarifying to you when you throw up all these strawmen.

When she does her reporting, she only reports on whatever she finds that will fit her POV. She seems to ignore anything that doesn’t fit her POV. In that regard she is similar to any other “reporter” who has a bias. When you rely on her, you are only seeing the conservative POV. She has a “take” on the subject she is reporting on, and her reports will support that take. It happens all the time, and on both sides of the aisle. That’s all I was ever saying.

She doesn’t keep her politics secret, she is open about her stance. This doesn’t make her a bad person, or even a bad reporter, just one with a narrative she is interested in supporting. You tend to scoff and demean media people from the left who are open about their stances, yet you defend her like crazy. That’s confirmation bias, we all tend to fall into that, it’s just better for everyone you are conversing with if you have the ability to recognize it in yourself as well as on the other side. It seems to be a struggle.

 

[Beach Friends]

Sigh.

I never said she was not reporting facts. Seriously, you keep putting words in my mouth. It’s a real problem, and makes me rethink even engaging with you. What’s the point of our conversation if you cannot seem to even figure out what I am saying? It’s exhausting to have to keep clarifying to you when you throw up all these strawmen.

When she does her reporting, she only reports on whatever she finds that will fit her POV. She seems to ignore anything that doesn’t fit her POV. In that regard she is similar to any other “reporter” who has a bias. When you rely on her, you are only seeing the conservative POV. She has a “take” on the subject she is reporting on, and her reports will support that take. It happens all the time, and on both sides of the aisle. That’s all I was ever saying.

She doesn’t keep her politics secret, she is open about her stance. This doesn’t make her a bad person, or even a bad reporter, just one with a narrative she is interested in supporting. You tend to scoff and demean media people from the left who are open about their stances, yet you defend her like crazy. That’s confirmation bias, we all tend to fall into that, it’s just better for everyone you are conversing with if you have the ability to recognize it in yourself as well as on the other side. It seems to be a struggle.

I think the problem is your comparison between her and Rachel Maddow. Hard to come back from that.

 

[MT15]

I think the problem is your comparison between her and Rachel Maddow. Hard to come back from that.

Only for people who are totally biased. You guys reveal yourselves. You both consume slanted coverage and then internalize it. I have watched Maddow, and while I do see her bias, she doesn’t report things that are not true. She does editorialize or speculate, but always discloses when she does that.

She combs through obscure court hearings and finds some really interesting nuggets, much like the highlighter lady, plus she does a really good interview. She has her good points, but is definitely operating from her POV. I have noticed when she can gloss over or just ignore something that would embarrass a Democrat, much like highlighter lady will ignore anything embarrassing that Trump says or does.

You and SFL don’t like Maddow’s POV, so you demonize her. Or maybe rather you read people who demonize her because they don’t like her POV. So you call her names and trash her, while holding up someone who is basically doing the same thing, just from a side where you like the reporting, as a paragon of virtue.

They are just working different sides of the fence. If we all can’t be at least a little bit honest with ourselves about our own biases, what are we even doing here? Neither side is right about everything, both sides have issues and problems.

(And before I get kneecapped from my own side, I don’t think both sides are equally wrong, because of course I wouldn’t.)

 

[superchuck500]

I was thinking about this exact issue last night. The US response to this epidemic has been fractured, mismanaged, and ineffective. The federal government in particular has been frighteningly bad (both in poor execution in the executive and unnecessary tribal politicization everywhere else). I recognize that quote a bit of that is due to a demagogue narcissist president that cares more about his own perception than actually addressing the problem - and more appropriate leader might fare better. But it shouldn’t give Americans confidence that we will effectively respond in other crisis situations.

 

[GMRfellowtraveller]

I was thinking about this exact issue last night. The US response to this epidemic has been fractured, mismanaged, and ineffective. The federal government in particular has been frighteningly bad (both in poor execution in the executive and unnecessary tribal politicization everywhere else). I recognize that quote a bit of that is due to a demagogue narcissist president that cares more about his own perception than actually addressing the problem - and more appropriate leader might fare better. But it shouldn’t give Americans confidence that we will effectively respond in other crisis situations.

Well if all the weather and infrastructural crises that we’ve stumbled through since 9/11 haven’t spurred us to smart solutions, there is no reason to think this one would

 

[superchuck500]

Just so everyone is clear - the federal policy on Conronavirus is literally “it’s not gonna be that bad so, don’t sweat it.”

It’s nothing more than hope. We’ll see, hopefully they’re right.

 

[Optimus Prime]

meanwhile:
In 2014, Trump relentlessly attacked Obama’s handling of the Ebola epidemic in Africa, savaging him in nearly 100 Twitter posts over a three-month period.

“The United States must immediately institute strong travel restrictions or Ebola will be all over the United States-a plague like no other!” Trump wrote on Sept. 30, 2014.

“Obama just appointed an Ebola Czar with zero experience in the medical area and zero experience in infectious disease control. A TOTAL JOKE!” he wrote two weeks later. (Wednesday, Trump defended his choice of Pence, who is also not a doctor or scientist, because he had been a governor.)

(Oh and Trump also dismantled the pandemic response team Obama left him) https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-fire-pandemic-team/

When things get tough in the Trump administration, the president has a default position — blame Barack Obama.

The administration has been under fire for its failure to quickly expand testing for coronavirus across the United States; the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention had distributed flawed tests to state and local health departments.

The lack of tests, compared with countries like South Korea that have tested tens of thousands of people, has meant the possible spread of the virus in the United States may be hidden.

Trump suggested the problem instead was an “Obama rule” on testing that his administration had recently overturned. But this is completely wrong. Let’s explore..........

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/03/06/trumps-bogus-effort-blame-obama-sluggish-coronavirus-testing/

 

[superchuck500]

In Trump-speak, calling something perfect means he knows it was messed up.

 

[MT15]

Really good article:

“Trump, like other authoritarians, is not into transparency or accountability,” said Ruth Ben-Ghiat, a history professor at New York University and an expert on authoritarians. “What matters to him most of all is loyalty and ratings. He has persisted in disclosing things to the public that are not true and consistently sidelined the experts so the stock market won’t fall. He doesn’t want the truth to get out. And it’s the public who pays the price.”

“Obfuscation in a public health crisis doesn't bode well for any Americans. “What often happens once people bond to an authoritarian ruler is that they don't wake up until there’s a big crisis, like a bad recession or losing a war or perhaps some kind of health crisis that they see as being mishandled,” said Ben-Ghiat. Benito Mussolini’s fascist regime in Italy, she noted, fell because he was so busy getting cheers at rallies that he never bothered to build any anti-aircraft defenses, and the Italians were bombed. “This could be a moment for some people who are already wavering on Trump to realize he's not what he says he is.” ”

How Trump’s Authoritarian Coronavirus Response Puts America at Risk—Especially His Own Supporters

The president has been more concerned with the CDC showing him in a good light, as the coronavirus spreads across the globe.

www.gq.com

 

[GMRfellowtraveller]

IDK, but I have a daughter in Europe right now so I am pretty anxious. There is nothing about that situation that doesn't make me nervous, especially the transit home.

Just saw this
I hope your daughter is well

 

[zztop]

Just so everyone is clear - the federal policy on Conronavirus is literally “it’s not gonna be that bad so, don’t sweat it.”

It’s nothing more than hope. We’ll see, hopefully they’re right.

don't worry, trump said that warmer weather will kill the virus.
I wonder if this is how the zombie apocalypse starts