- Aug 6, 2012
- 28,474
- 25,242
- 2,405
An interesting read that gives two sides of the debate. The problem is the media have been so biased for so long, it's impossible to know if they push an agenda for easy cash in the system or, if the reaction is warranted. Many don't care about the consequences and many hoped for the economy to crash if it meant hurting Trump chances in 2020.
So odd isn't it? It would be different if there was a willingness to talk about the source of the virus and to discuss things rationally, give Trump credit early. However, compare their reaction now to when Obama dealt with H1N1. This bias by media can't be the norm. It's dangerous, especially in an election year.
I'm not saying this virus isn't dangerous or should be taken lightly (I doubt the scientist is either). I'm not a scientist, it's just my opinion and ideas need to be raised. There clearly has to be a strong response and Trump is using the full weight of government to address this. I'm saying, he has no choice, the panic has already set in, drastic measures were impossible to avoid.
I just hope the world focuses on the economy, normality, as well as health, because one is related to the other. Anyone whose had their career destroyed and opportunities stolen can tell you, it has a major impact on their existence. Let's not hurt generations by NOT spending and doing our best to remain normal, in a different way at least in the short term.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/coronavirus-covid-pandemic-response-scientists-1.5502423
It's a clash of titans — an epic battle between two famous scientists over the world's response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
In one corner, influential Stanford University epidemiologist John Ioannidis, who wrote a commentary asking whether taking such drastic action to combat the pandemic without evidence it will work is a "fiasco in the making."
Across the mat, prominent Harvard epidemiologist Marc Lipsitch punched back with a defiant response titled: "We know enough now to act decisively against COVID-19."
Watching from the sidelines? Everybody else. The people who worry the world has gone too far too fast.
And those afraid the response hasn't come fast enough.
The debate comes down to questions about data. What is the true fatality rate of COVID-19? How many people are already infected?
"Better information is needed to guide decisions and actions of monumental significance and to monitor their impact," Ioannidis wrote. "In the absence of data, prepare-for-the-worst reasoning leads to extreme measures of social distancing and lockdowns. Unfortunately, we do not know if these measures work."
Ioannidis told CBC News he worries about the consequences of those measures.
"Put a stall to the entire economy. Tell people to stay at their homes, get depressed, commit suicide, domestic violence. Who knows? Child abuse, children losing their education, companies crashing … unemployment, the stock market already dropping 20 per cent.
"Is that the solution?"
So odd isn't it? It would be different if there was a willingness to talk about the source of the virus and to discuss things rationally, give Trump credit early. However, compare their reaction now to when Obama dealt with H1N1. This bias by media can't be the norm. It's dangerous, especially in an election year.
I'm not saying this virus isn't dangerous or should be taken lightly (I doubt the scientist is either). I'm not a scientist, it's just my opinion and ideas need to be raised. There clearly has to be a strong response and Trump is using the full weight of government to address this. I'm saying, he has no choice, the panic has already set in, drastic measures were impossible to avoid.
I just hope the world focuses on the economy, normality, as well as health, because one is related to the other. Anyone whose had their career destroyed and opportunities stolen can tell you, it has a major impact on their existence. Let's not hurt generations by NOT spending and doing our best to remain normal, in a different way at least in the short term.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/coronavirus-covid-pandemic-response-scientists-1.5502423
It's a clash of titans — an epic battle between two famous scientists over the world's response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
In one corner, influential Stanford University epidemiologist John Ioannidis, who wrote a commentary asking whether taking such drastic action to combat the pandemic without evidence it will work is a "fiasco in the making."
Across the mat, prominent Harvard epidemiologist Marc Lipsitch punched back with a defiant response titled: "We know enough now to act decisively against COVID-19."
Watching from the sidelines? Everybody else. The people who worry the world has gone too far too fast.
And those afraid the response hasn't come fast enough.
The debate comes down to questions about data. What is the true fatality rate of COVID-19? How many people are already infected?
"Better information is needed to guide decisions and actions of monumental significance and to monitor their impact," Ioannidis wrote. "In the absence of data, prepare-for-the-worst reasoning leads to extreme measures of social distancing and lockdowns. Unfortunately, we do not know if these measures work."
Ioannidis told CBC News he worries about the consequences of those measures.
"Put a stall to the entire economy. Tell people to stay at their homes, get depressed, commit suicide, domestic violence. Who knows? Child abuse, children losing their education, companies crashing … unemployment, the stock market already dropping 20 per cent.
"Is that the solution?"
Last edited:
