To be fair, I don’t this the hatred is because of Covid. The hatred was there already, Covid just gave the two sides something new to fight about.
The media doesn't have Trump anymore and need a foil to drive click throughs and eyeballs. Still, it seems, oblivious that it's this very behavior that has caused their model of news to become so moribund.
Outrage media and fear mongering are powerful weapons. I wouldnt contribute all of Fox's numbers to that alone, more that it is one of the few alternatives to the rest of the liberal msm, but they certainly use it effectively as well. The numbers dont lie though, having Trump as a target was a serious, albeit temporary, boom to viewership. Theyve tried creating new boogiemen out of DeSantis and Joe Rogan(?!). Beyond that both are now far outstripped by Joe Rogan's format.
To be fair, DeSantis deserves pretty much everything he’s being criticized for. Since the pandemic started he’s been in denial on everything and a thorn in the side of society.
From DHS email: Until the federal case is settled, Biden's vaccine mandate for federal employees is toothless. Can't get reprimanded, fired, etc. for non compliance. You CAN however be passed over for deployments, projects, and assignments, so there's that. I can't imagine this case going any differently than the one in the SC. Last I looked, we were at 2% non-compliance, and the numbers on reasonable accomodation were pretty small. For my staff, I think out of a few hundred in the rotation, only 4 had to escalate an issue and say, "hey, for medical/religious reasons, I can't." and they had a pretty simple alternative (remote work) already laid out. Last I heard, Rogan's audience was a hard demographic to hit (men from 15-55), and the largest swath of them for nearly any other media outlet. He's the most prominent pordcast out there, and the anti-vax movement will rotate poster children. Rogan's made a recent career of hosting people with some controversial takes on reality, then disclaiming that he doesn't share their views or that he's just asking questions, etc., and I think the feigned neutrality is what's generating so much ire. Comparing him to Trump is a bit much, this kind of outrage isn't exactly Rogan's brand, nor does it serve political interests. Ultimately, until the platforms can divorce controversy and clicks/currency, they won't self-police. I think the calls for regulation deepen when they are caught utterly failing to uphold their own service agreements, but with a bunch of septegenarians in charge, I don't see tech regulation forthcoming. The only real anti-vax argument right now is "I talked to my doctor, and based on my health situation, it's not a good idea for me right now." I can wholeheartedly respect that, and upon hearing it, encourage everyone to shut the fuck up. Anyone who's not taking that posture, and proclaiming their research trumps the billions of vaccines already distributed, and millions of hours of work put into make sure they are safe had better come correct, and thus far no one has.
We are getting closer. https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/01/health/pfizer-covid-vaccine-eua-request-younger-children/index.html
There's a bunch of reports saying the US has the highest COVID death rate of developed countries. True. We also have the most expensive health care, highest rates of comorbidities (obesity, for example), and the greatest disparity between healthcare providers (ie, a hospital in Bumblefuck, Florida gives worse care than one in NYC). So....sigh. Fuck.
Currently about all the positive cases are Omicron, and it's early, but we might be trending down in Oregon. This plus a vaccine for our kid. Please let no more wrenches be thrown in this virus progression.
https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/cana...hns-hopkins-study-finds/ar-AATpC8U?li=AAggNb9 I've been unable to find the actual study, just articles interpreting it. Economists at Johns Hopkins used a meta-analysis of 32 other studies and found lockdowns were almost insignificant in terms of curbing the death rate for COVID in all areas of the world. What seemed to be the most effective was the closure of non-essential businesses, specifically those that serve alcohol. The critics of this study argue that the 86 studies not included in the analysis indicate cherry-picking; the reason JH excluded them was either due to those studies' methodology, or because they specifically only controlled for mortality rate. There's evidence that lockdowns may have helped keep healthcare systems from being overwhelmed and reduced overall case count, but (according to JH) did not reduce overall COVID mortality. The authors suggest that voluntary measures by individuals may have had a far more significant effect than any government-implemented mandates. The monetary cost of the lockdowns is appalling and, according to this at least, it remains to be seen if the financial and social cost was worth the lives that were actually saved. Again, this is speaking only to the mortality rate and was conducted by economists, not epidemiologists.
That has always been the case, as far as I've known. Lockdowns were about not drowning and killing the medical system, period. Same with the last round here... it was about helping protect the hospitals, etc.
So lockdowns weren't effective, but what was effective was locking the doors of non-essential businesses and shutting down operations? I feel like we may have an issue of definitions here.
Yep. There is a difference between forcing people to be locked down in their house vs not allowing unessential or "dangerous" businesses to operate.
Maybe it was different in the frozen north, but there were no lockdowns in the United States by that definition. There were the stay at home orders in the very beginning when no one knew what this thing was, but those were incredibly loose, even in the most liberal commie fauci-loving jurisdictions. Enforcement was non-existent, and voluntary compliance was... wishy washy at best.