A thought experiment for those who do not believe some or most of what we have been told about Covid 19.

Thanks and I hope your move works out well. I have heard the covid cases are high in some parts of Canada. Maybe this move will help you both. Hugs and have a good day - Chic.

View attachment 159389
Thanks chic. We don’t live in a high Covid area but where my husband worked, was. Just south of us, closer to the city areas are some of the most infected areas in Canada. Ontario is getting around 4500 cases a day now. Where we are moving has almost none in comparison but that’s not the main reason for moving there. We want an area where we are near the ocean, lakes and rivers so we can swim, fish and canoe or kayak which we are. The scenery is gorgeous and apparently the lifestyle is slower paced, the people more friendly. I’ll take pictures once we get there and post them.
Have a great day also. It’s pouring down with rain here but I’ve got lots to get done inside anyway.
 

Last edited:
I would generally trust Hannity or the "America First" site. CDC , not so much. Their site really diminishes the adverse side effects expected, while"through the grapevine" I'm hearing of all kinds of deaths and severe diseases/ reactions from the vaccine. This is odd because I hardly talk to anyone!
Why are they hiding that three labs in Wuhan were working on this vaccine at the same time because the Chinese Communist Government ordered this to be made and distributed throughout the world? And the techniction who told that it was purely political "Disappeared"?
It's so hard to trust these days.

Thank you for sharing which sources you would trust and the things that are bothering you about what's been and what is being reported (or not being reported) which are leading to your views.
 
We're not in the clear yet and it's still a brand new bug from a medical perspective, vaccines are still in an emergency, experimental stage. Advice and recommendations have naturally shifted over the past year or so because it is a 'novel' virus as its full name indicates. Qualified scientists and medical professionals are still not in agreement over prevention and treatment measures.

More concerning than naming a current "who to trust" for accurate information is the silencing of qualified professionals (most recently Princeton educated Dr. Sunetra Gupta, professor of theoretical epidemiology at Oxford) that are not following the 'script of the moment' by media and social media. Science isn't easy or 'cookie cutter' ...and though we're in a pandemic situation, there's not just a medical component, there's also an economic impact that may in the end be more devastating; I hope not, but the potential is certainly there. Regardless of how all that shakes out, silencing debate is not in the best interest of science ...either medical or social.

So I really can't answer the question as you posed it while the pandemic is ongoing. I hope there is enough freedom of information online in five to ten years to be able to retrospectively analyze who was most accurate.

Currently, we have to keep in mind that the disease is new. As Keesha stated above, we also have to keep in mind as we read ever shifting edicts who is profiting from the advice of the moment ...both from a monetary and a social engineering standpoint.

Thank you for your thorough reply and thoughts.
 

One reason for the constantly changing information is that this virus is still very new to humankind. That's why it's called the "novel" coronavirus. The findings of the medical community keep changing because all we have to go on it what's happened so far. So the way things "seemed to be" a year ago, when the virus was just a few months old, would of course have to be different after millions have died from the disease, and many more millions were sickened by it. The medical and scientific researchers are learning all the time, and passing their findings along to us.

For instance, it was logical to think, at the beginning, that this disease was easily spread by touching surfaces (tables, countertops, doorknobs) that had the virus sitting on them. Recent research shows that that wasn't really true, it spreads almost entirely through the air, especially when propelled by sneezing, coughing, or yelling. So of course, masks are more effective than wearing gloves.

There seems to be an air of suspicion in some members of this forum, against scientists and others who are educated in this subject. I think some people have been indoctrinated to mistrust the findings of science and think there is a conspiracy out there to fool the public into believing what is not true, for some reason. But I think the answer is much simpler. We are all just learning, and our knowledge is incomplete. We do the best we can. Scientists are working very hard to seek answers, and I think the speed with which they came up with a vaccine is astonishing!

Interesting question, Asp, thanks for asking it.

Thank you for your thoughts on the topic.
 
I'm really trying to understand your points of view and I am not trying to set you up for criticism or ridicule. I'd just like to know what you would need to change your mind.

So, let's assume that most of what we've been told about Covid-19 is reasonably accurate. (You can use your own definition of reasonably accurate.) What sort of reporting or who would you need to hear from to trust that what has been widely reported is correct?

I sense that you're attempting to raise doubt about the validity of reporting on the Covid 19 pandemic, and all I can say is for people to stay away from the media that promotes conspiracy tales for their political agendas.

I had Covid 19 back in December, it was real. Part 1 of my Moderna vaccine was real, part two scheduled for tomorrow.
The mainstream media is reporting what they hear from medical and scientific sources. Does some media sometimes sensationalize some stories? Sure, one of those pitfalls one needs to watch out for.
 
I sense that you're attempting to raise doubt about the validity of reporting on the Covid 19 pandemic, and all I can say is for people to stay away from the media that promotes conspiracy tales for their political agendas.

I had Covid 19 back in December, it was real. Part 1 of my Moderna vaccine was real, part two scheduled for tomorrow.
The mainstream media is reporting what they hear from medical and scientific sources. Does some media sometimes sensationalize some stories? Sure, one of those pitfalls one needs to watch out for.

I'm sorry my OP came across that way. I left out my opinions in the OP because I wanted to get responses from people regarding what they would trust to confirm what has generally been reported and is generally accepted by most mainstream media sources.

Overall I have a good deal of confidence in what has been reported and am comfortable with the changing information because as those working on Covid-19 prevention and treatment have changed some of what they thought about the virus and how it behaves in different environments and populations.

My own personal thought experiment has been to think of what it would take for me to believe some of the things that other people suspect are going on. I completely believe things like what @chic wrote about going to her local hospital and seeing it practically empty or people who've shared information that people they know in the medical community have told them.

So what I would trust to counter what I generally believe about the pandemic would be investigative reporting which counters what we've been told from a publication with high marks for the accuracy of their investigative reporting. If someone were to share something like that from a right leaning publication with a high accuracy rating I'd believe that.
 
I really feel ya, amigo but it just ain't gonna happen. Nobody's mind will change no matter what good evidence you present. If they wanna believe the earth is flat and the orange slime is their savior, qanonannoying fake news will win out every time. "Stupid is as stupid does."

Anyone open to a good debate might listen . . . but, that's not what we're dealin' with here.

So, I wish ya lots a luck. I really do. :cool:

Tried to resist replying to this but just can't due to how intellectually lazy it is coming from a smart person. It's that you are otherwise intelligent that bothers me. Can you not see that you're being played by polarizing herding just as neatly as those you compartmentalize, 'other' and disdain?

I keep hoping intelligent people will wake up and push back against dichotomous thinking.
 
My personal opinion is that this is a multi-faceted situation. On one hand, we are all learning about this virus together. The medical community said it was a "novel" virus so they were completely unprepared for it. The government relies on the advice and information from the medical community.

Then, we have the news media whose true responsibility is to make money for their stock holders. So, while they pass on information provided to them by the medical community and government officials, they also need to grab headlines and consumer attention.

Drawing a single conclusion about conspiracy, misleading the public by design, or whatever theory one might draw, would at best, tend to ignore the other aspects of what is going on. It simply isn't "black and white".

Tony
 
So what I would trust to counter what I generally believe about the pandemic would be investigative reporting which counters what we've been told from a publication with high marks for the accuracy of their investigative reporting. If someone were to share something like that from a right leaning publication with a high accuracy rating I'd believe that.

There goes the dichotomous thinking. Media is polarized no matter how much you'd like to think you've found publications that are accurate and trustworthy. Same goes for people who read 'right leaning' publications and trust them. Read from both sides (as well as international sources) with healthy skepticism and try to figure out the truth.

This is a particularly poor topic to try to set 'sides' due to the ever shifting nature of dealing with a novel virus. Go back and read your 'trusted' sources since the start of the pandemic and see if the information has been consistent.

I think I misunderstood the OP ...thought it was a great thread until this latest post. I thought you wanted an open-minded discussion that acknowledged members' distrust of the sometimes contradictory parade of latest and greatest recommendations to come along as well as the lack of consensus among experts. I think you should have left out the word 'some' in your title; it would've made what now seems to be your intent based on the above quote much more clear.
 
Last edited:
This boils down to figuring out which sources people trust and why. There's a lot of confirmation bias afoot here.

People who tend to believe in conspiracy theories have found plenty of media offering supportive fodder over the past year. Same with people who've long been fearful that governments are attempting to control their lives and permanently limit their freedoms. They see the pandemic as a convenient excuse for governments to do exactly that.

Folks who generally trust their government, science, scientists and modern medicine view the vaccines through those lenses.
 
There goes the dichotomous thinking. Media is polarized no matter how much you'd like to think you've found publications that are accurate and trustworthy. Same goes for people who read 'right leaning' publications and trust them. Read from both sides (as well as international sources) with healthy skepticism and try to figure out the truth.

This is a particularly poor topic to try to set 'sides' due to the ever shifting nature of dealing with a novel virus. Go back and read your 'trusted' sources since the start of the pandemic and see if the information has been consistent.

I think I misunderstood the OP ...thought it was a great thread until this latest post. I thought you wanted an open-minded discussion that acknowledged members' distrust of the sometimes contradictory parade of latest and greatest recommendations to come along as well as the lack of consensus among experts. I think you should have left out the word 'some' in your title; it would've made what now seems to be your intent based on the above quote much more clear.

Once again I think I didn't do a good job of communication what I meant. I should have left out the right leaning description. I think most of the people who read my posts here know that I am more left leaning myself and prefer less biased to left leaning publications. What I meant to say that if the investigative reporting from a given publication has been very accurate and is well regarded then I would trust it no matter what the perceived political slant of the publication.

I used the word some because there are people here who believe a lot of what is generally accepted from the standpoint of mainstream media but are bothered by a few things that are generally accepted. I was wondering what they would trust to change their mind about one or more things that they suspect are not being reported accurately.
 
.... I was wondering what they would trust to change their mind about one or more things that they suspect are not being reported accurately.

Many things aren't reported accurately from either side; no subject is exempt.

As far as what to believe is accurate information regarding Covid-19, that will take a retrospective analysis and there will still be gray areas and dissent years after the pandemic is over.

 
This boils down to figuring out which sources people trust and why. There's a lot of confirmation bias afoot here.

People who tend to believe in conspiracy theories have found plenty of media offering supportive fodder over the past year. Same with people who've long been fearful that governments are attempting to control their lives and permanently limit their freedoms. They see the pandemic as a convenient excuse for governments to do exactly that.

Folks who generally trust their government, science, scientists and modern medicine view the vaccines through those lenses.

Dismayed to say I realize now the two extremes are what the OP was all about and feel it oversimplifies an issue in which there is dissent among highly educated and experienced scientists as well as drastically different government edicts that haven't made that much difference in rates in numerous parts of the US.
 
Last edited:
Tried to resist replying to this but just can't due to how intellectually lazy it is coming from a smart person. It's that you are otherwise intelligent that bothers me. Can you not see that you're being played by polarizing herding just as neatly as those you compartmentalize, 'other' and disdain?

I keep hoping intelligent people will wake up and push back against dichotomous thinking.
Unknown-1.jpeg
 
unknown-1-jpeg.159424
I keep hoping intelligent people will wake up and push back against dichotomous thinking.

Guess some won't... I'll keep hoping...
 
Dismayed to say I realize now the two extremes are what the OP was all about and feel it oversimplifies an issue in which there is dissent among highly educated and experienced scientists as well as drastically different government edicts that haven't made that much difference in rates in numerous parts of the US.
I guess part of the bias is whether people believe that most scientists, doctors, and government agencies are doing the best they can under extraordinary circumstances.

On another subject, if I recall correctly, you're a healthcare provider who calls on nursing homes or facilities that catered to the elderly and/or ill.

There were plenty of people who objected to the restrictions, saying it was overstepping to disallow family members from having in-person visits with loved ones in those facilities.

Do you think those places should have been (or should now be) fully opened up to family members, similar to 2019 levels?
 
I guess part of the bias is whether people believe that most scientists, doctors, and government agencies are doing the best they can under extraordinary circumstances.

On another subject, if I recall correctly, you're a healthcare provider who calls on nursing homes or facilities that catered to the elderly and/or ill.

There were plenty of people who objected to the restrictions, saying it was overstepping to disallow family members from having in-person visits with loved ones in those facilities.

Do you think those places should have been (or should now be) fully opened up to family members, similar to 2019 levels?

I do agree with you that many are trying their best but I've questioned some things along the way. When Dr. Fauci early on advised against mask use for the general public, I thought that was dangerous information and wore one anyway ....n95s for work, homemade ones elsewhere. Mississippi has lifted it's mask mandate but I still wear one indoors. I also don't agree with the CDCs current recommendation not to disinfect surfaces ... and also thought they were incompetent in the way in which they mishandled early testing and by no means did the best they were capable of doing. Think both presidential administrations have made foolish statements though I'm not going to go into those per rules of the board.

Yes, I do consulting for nursing homes and think the administration of the group I consult handled things well. After a couple of months of complete isolation when so much was unknown, masked outside visits with a six foot distance were then allowed as well as phone visits through a glass door. Currently, we are opening up gradually. Residents of the skilled nursing facility and family members who have been vaccinated or have antibodies are now allowed in person visits away from other residents.

My point in all these examples and posts above is that we can't polarize this and have to weigh experts advice of the moment with common sense that includes disregarding a lot of media noise.

But I think @asp3 meant the thread for deniers to offer proof backing their position so I probably should've never joined in the discussion. My apologies to @asp3
 
But I think @asp3 meant the thread for deniers to offer proof backing their position so I probably should've never joined in the discussion. My apologies to @asp3

@AnnieA - I never meant the thread for people to offer up proof backing up their positions. I'm sorry you took my post about my personal thought experiment that way. I was trying to find out what, if anything, they would believe backed up some or all of the current mainstream ideas that they do not accept and believe are incorrect.

What I was doing with my post was turning the tables around on myself and trying to answer the question of what would make me believe some or all the things I believe about Covid and the pandemic are wrong. For me the things I think I accept about Covid and the pandemic are pretty much what one hears from most mainstream media.

BTW I do pay attention to opinions that are not in line with what I believe none of them have enough evidence behind them for me to accept them.
 
"I never meant the thread for people to offer up proof backing up their positions"

"I was trying to find out what, if anything, they would believe backed up some or all of the current mainstream ideas that they do not accept and believe are incorrect"

Providing the requested information is the same as seeking their proof.
 
i just read on the pc if your loved one dies from the shot they will give $9000 towards the funeral--that tells me they are experimenting
 
A friend who was equivocating made her decision when her adult grandson said he’d be able to visit her more. He works with the public and it’ll be quite a while before he can get his shots. Even with both shots, nothing is 100% so he doesn’t want to bring it home to her.
 

Back
Top