Coronavirus Outbreak...

[seanD]

I keep hearing conflicting reports... that somebody who has the antibodies is immune - and others say "there's no proof they can't get infected again"...... I heard one of the female doctors being interviewed on this very same thing saying "we just don't know".

It's confusing. I hear that there are supposedly two kinds of people -- a person who is born immune and those who become immune after they contract it. However, the latter apparently can contract it again even if they develop antibodies. From the story FF linked to, they seem to imply the former can't catch it or spread it, otherwise, what would be the logic in the certification if they could still carry it and spread it? Of course, the story I read about the first group could have been asymptomatic carriers who have delayed sickness that they didn't know about at the time.

[seer]

More world changing input from the Aussies...

No bare-bottom farting

https://www.abc.net.au/radio/program...hs-in/12154256

[carpedm9587]

Right, it's the old "I don't dispute the facts, I just don't like how they're presented" canard.

No. It's the "I don't like how facts are selectively chosen to intentionally paint a false picture."


Fact: The rabbit population on my property has significantly declined in the past two months.
Fact: My neighbor has two new cats as of two months ago.

Claim: There has been a significant reduction in the rabbit population at the Carpe property since the neighbor acquired two new cats.

The claim is perfectly true. The casual reader, however, will walk away thinking the drop in rabbit population is somehow related to the two new cats. In point of fact, the two new cats are indoor cats and the drop in rabbit population is due to an increase in the local fox population, especially the family of foxes that now live in a den just down the road. But if you don't take time to dig into the structure of the sentence, you walk away with the wrong impression.

Breitbart does things like this regularly. So does Mother Jones. Facts are selectively picked out, and then woven together to support a desired claim. The further you go right or left in the media, the more it happens. You should be familiar with this dynamic, MM, and I understand why you like them. You do this to my posts frequently.

[carpedm9587]

More world changing input from the Aussies...

[Mountain Man]

No. It's the "I don't like how facts are selectively chosen to intentionally paint a false picture."

Or to put it another way, "I don't dispute the facts, I just don't like how they're presented."

[seanD]

No. It's the "I don't like how facts are selectively chosen to intentionally paint a false picture."


Fact: The rabbit population on my property has significantly declined in the past two months.
Fact: My neighbor has two new cats as of two months ago.

Claim: There has been a significant reduction in the rabbit population at the Carpe property since the neighbor acquired two new cats.

The claim is perfectly true. The casual reader, however, will walk away thinking the drop in rabbit population is somehow related to the two new cats. In point of fact, the two new cats are indoor cats and the drop in rabbit population is due to an increase in the local fox population, especially the family of foxes that now live in a den just down the road. But if you don't take time to dig into the structure of the sentence, you walk away with the wrong impression.

Breitbart does things like this regularly. So does Mother Jones. Facts are selectively picked out, and then woven together to support a desired claim. The further you go right or left in the media, the more it happens. You should be familiar with this dynamic, MM, and I understand why you like them. You do this to my posts frequently.

What MSM news source DOESN'T do that? I know, the ones you like and prefer *insert the ones you'll probably list and approve of in 3...2...

They all do that.

[Charles]

Or to put it another way, "I don't dispute the facts, I just don't like how they're presented."

Nope. And if you still don't get it after Carpe explained it, I am afraid it says something about your willingness or ability to understand rather basic and important differences.

[firstfloor]

So those who are immune are also excluded from being carriers as well? I haven't been keeping track of the subject. But from what I understand, and I read about this when it all began, that there are possibly those who are immune but can still be carriers.

[oxmixmudd]

I keep hearing conflicting reports... that somebody who has the antibodies is immune - and others say "there's no proof they can't get infected again"...... I heard one of the female doctors being interviewed on this very same thing saying "we just don't know".

At the current time, no one actually knows for sure. There are a lot of unknowns.

1) can you get it again if you had it

2) can you get it again if you didn't have it 'enough' - e.g. is a mild case enough to become immune

3) If you become immune, how long does immunity last - do you need 'boosters', and how often.

4) can your antibodies help someone else if you've had it (this one seems to be headed to 'yes')

5) is this a virus that we can create a vaccine for that doesn't do more harm than good

6) do antibodies/what kind of antibodies in your blood mean you are immune


Jim

[Cow Poke]

At the current time, no one actually knows for sure. There are a lot of unknowns.

1) can you get it again if you had it

2) can you get it again if you didn't have it 'enough' - e.g. is a mild case enough to become immune

3) If you become immune, how long does immunity last - do you need 'boosters', and how often.

4) can your antibodies help someone else if you've had it (this one seems to be headed to 'yes')

5) is this a virus that we can create a vaccine for that doesn't do more harm than good

6) do antibodies/what kind of antibodies in your blood mean you are immune


Jim

Yes sir, that's what I seem to keep seeing.

[oxmixmudd]

Yes sir, that's what I seem to keep seeing.

Yeah, so the bottom line anyone claiming to know the answers to these questions and exactly what we should do as a consequence of that knowledge should probably be ignored.

especially those that want to proceed as if we know things are 'safe' ...

[lilpixieofterror]

You misunderstood my post, Pix. The optimism I expressed was not about Trump - it was a (usually pointless) optimism about you - that you would (eventually) let go of the caricature you have created in your own mind and actually address the arguments I have made as they were made.



This is false (though I'm sure you won't accept that). As previously noted, no person is 100% evil. It is true, however, that Trump does far more that I find inappropriate, offensive, dangerous, and immoral than he does that I find appropriate, inoffensive, beneficial, and moral - hence my 95/5 comment earlier. And I draw a clear line between "policy-related" things and "ethics-related" things (thought there can be an overlap).

And, for the record, if someone actually asked me to compare Trump to Hitler, I would put Hitler closer to "pure evil" than Trump. In terms of balance of good/evil they are pretty close to at par, but in terms of degree of evil, they aren't even close. Trump lies regularly. Hitler murdered. Both are repugnant. But they do not even begin to compare in terms of "degree of evil," IMO.



The one referred to above.



Again - most of this is based on the caricature you have created. You're not about to let it go, as far as I can tell, so I really have no further response. You should take this up with the caricature you have created.

[carpedm9587]

What MSM news source DOESN'T do that? I know, the ones you like and prefer *insert the ones you'll probably list and approve of in 3...2...

They all do that.

Well...yes and no. It is more a matter of degree. When I read more centrist news sources, the work I have to do to weed out that kind of bias is significantly less. So Breitbart (far right) and Mother Jones (far left) I don't waste time on. Fox (right) and CNN (left) I am wary of but read/use. WSJ and BBC are go-to sources. I'm sure you get the idea.

[Mountain Man]

Anybody who thinks there are any meaningful similarities between Donald Trump and Adolf Hitler are abjectly ignorant of history and/or lack the capacity to think rationally.

[Mountain Man]

Well...yes and no. It is more a matter of degree. When I read more centrist news sources, the work I have to do to weed out that kind of bias is significantly less. So Breitbart (far right) and Mother Jones (far left) I don't waste time on. Fox (right) and CNN (left) I am wary of but read/use. WSJ and BBC are go-to sources. I'm sure you get the idea.

Breitbart: Right
Mother Jones: Extreme left
FOX: Neutral
CNN: Extreme left
WSJ: Left
BBC: Left