Zullen we een potje anecdotes vertellen spelen? Leuk!

Dag aluhoedje.

128,000 covid-19 cases, resulting in 6,428 deaths, on a population of 17.28 million.

These are the official numbers shared by the National Institute of Public Health.

No amount of loud bleating is going to change these.

1. We're not done yet. 2. you're pretending everything being done to avoid the spread in the Netherlands had no effect. 3. If you look at countries with shitty policies, death rates are much higher than the flu.

No amount of stupidity is going to make you right.

:100:

Ive started to realize that the people who broadcast preductions that no climate scientist supports will continue to do so because they don't care about the truth. That's true on both sides of the issue. — frank

Not caring about the truth is insufficient. What was mysterious or conflated with political and economic short-termism in the context of climate change denial has become less ambiguous and much scarier in the context of Covid. Anti-maskers and people who spit and cough on strangers, world leaders who know that lifting lockdown will kill thousands and hurt the economy lift it anyway.

What's become apparent to me is that not only do people not care about the truth, their truth is always how they want the world to be. You don't want to be at risk in a deadly pandemic? Don't want to wear a mask or socially distance? Then your truth is the virus is a hoax. You want to drive an SUV and not recycle and buy all the pretty things? Fine, then climate change is a hoax. Want to have a hard border between you and the EU and no border between you and Ireland? That's completely reasonable. And God forbid anyone reference things like facts that say otherwise, tantamount to spray painting a target on your own back.

It seems that almost 50% of the world is living in a completely different reality, something akin to a Twilight Zone episode in which a petulant, tantrum-throwing child has the power to bend reality to its infantile, ignorant, selfish will. And these mentally unstable manchildren vote and are really energetic on social media.

Conflating truth and belief is not helpful here. That's a large part of problem.

That covid isn't the killer virus that everyone had expected is painfully clear here, and the only ones still maintaining that it is, are in the sitting government who is being torn to shreds by the opposition for it. Meanwhile, the population has been in a state of lockdown for half a year, and legislation is being passed which gives the government power over people's private lives which is simply unconstitutional. — Tzeentch

This doesn't make any sense as this is a global event with a global response to it. This isn't a Dutch issue only, it's a global issue.

You have totally different political situations in different countries, hence to assume a single political narrative is absurd. For example, in my country the opposition isn't taring to shreds the administration on the Covid-19 response BECAUSE THEY THEMSELVES DEMANDED tough lock-down measures to be implemented and the young women in charge of our leftist administration did do exactly that. At least opposition politicians here are consistent enough that they are fine if the administration accepts their demands and hence they are not against their own demands later.

You know Tzeentch, it's one thing to say that corona-virus is a non-issue seven months ago especially when the WHO hadn't declared a global pandemic. Yes, there have been earlier numerous epidemic breakouts that the news media have followed which luckily have ended with only a few deaths. Yes, the media usually makes everything a more bigger threat than they are in reality to get people to follow the news. However, to assume now that Covid-19 isn't a killer is simply false. If someone said it would kill tens of millions and this didn't happen (because of the huge response), that surely doesn't make it to be a hoax of some sort.

And as pointed out, this is still underway.

The first thing Trump said in his post-Covid address was to humbly thank the many doctors and nurses who enabled his recovery, the very doctors and nurses he believes the poor should not have access to. And half of those poor will still vote for him. :vomit:

Definitely there are some people who say things contrary to science because they don't care about truth. But I think the vast majority are just idiots. Never underestimate a stupid person who thinks they're smart. — darthbarracuda

This made me laugh. I think you're right.

The issue is that humanity is not correcting the problem, the fossil fuel emissions are still going up. This may be why some folk start shouting about it. — Punshhh

I understand. More misinformation just leaves people not trusting anyone or over reacting. Better to not shout at all than shout untruths.


It's both sides. It's not truth vs lies. It's battle of the bullshit.

It's both sides. It's not truth vs lies. It's battle of the bullshit — frank

False equivalence. Environmental concern is overwhelmingly backed by science, that is, the scientific consensus is overwhelmingly in favour of climate action. The other "side" of this debate is that science is a hoax, that everything is fine, that all climate change is to do with natural cycles of the Earth and Sun, and that we can safely increase fossil fuel consumption. Sure, you can point to some lunatics on both sides, but to conclude from that that the whole argument is bullshit, that each side of that argument is as bad as the other, is irrational. Like Trump saying that violent white supremacists and BLM protesters are as bad as one another just because of opportunistic thuggery on both sides.

:100:

Conflating truth and belief is not helpful here. That's a large part of problem. — creativesoul

:up:

I heard on NPR yesterday that both Bolsonaro of Brazil and Johnson of the UK saw their popularity rise after they recovered from the virus. Who wants to place money on Trump emerging victorious from the hospital a week before the election?

[

Sure, you can point to some lunatics on both sides, — Kenosha Kid

A few lunatics representing environmental concern is not responsible for incidence of depression and suicidal ideation surrounding climate science as evidenced by reddit.

It's that some well meaning person suggested we should take seriously the threat of the earth becoming like Venus. It's that someone failed to explain that "tipping point" does not mean doom. It just means we cant go back.

BLM protesters are as bad as one another just because of opportunistic thuggery on both sides. — Kenosha Kid

I dont want to wake up this forum's psych ward, but theres misinformation on both sides of political issues as well.

Not quite Caesar, but anyway ...

Trump came, Trump worked his taxes, Trump worked the voters

It's that some well meaning person suggested we should take seriously the threat of the earth becoming like Venus. It's that someone failed to explain that "tipping point" does not mean doom. It just means we cant go back. — frank

It is very much characteristic of the [bullshit] side of the argument to conclude that, because the dangers of unconstrained fossil fuel consumption is bad, that means that the argument for climate action is bullshit. That's effectively saying that if facts make us feel bad, they aren't facts any more, which is a whacked way of reasoning.

The reason why climate change is depressing is not because people are presenting facts, or even that the occasional person exaggerates them. What is depressing is knowing that, even armed with all the facts, we can't do anything about it because the majority of us would rather believe the guys who tell us it's okay, it's a scientific hoax, and you can just keep burning oil forever with no consequences.

There is every reason to feel depressed. It is a depressing situation.

Anyway, I think that your country will survive this just fine just as Arizona will do also. I said to my children that remember this time as when you are older, so you can tell about how it was as a child during the 2020 corona-pandemic. Those stories may get younger people listening, but who knows. — ssu

My Indians are listening quite intentently and in many cases are already leading us home. :flower:

Environmental concern is overwhelmingly backed by science, that is, the scientific consensus is overwhelmingly in favour of climate action. — Kenosha Kid

Climate science and economic policy recommendations are still a bit different from each other.

I lost all hope after following the debate on nuclear energy in Europe decades ago. Something where energy policy and environmental policy cross ought to be topic where facts should be the real factor, but no. Even then, both sides had totally different facts to show, which were totally opposite to each other. The simple fact is that when anything reaches such political controversy and becomes a hot potato, facts at some level fade to the background and political attacks and accusations take over the discussion.

Best to discuss issues where politicians haven't taken the center stage. Then solutions based on facts can be found.

Best to discuss issues where politicians haven't taken the center stage. — ssu

I hope I'm reading you incorrectly, and you're not saying we should not discuss climate change on grounds that politicians cannot discuss it well.

I hope I'm reading you incorrectly, and you're not saying we should not discuss climate change on grounds that politicians cannot discuss it well. — Kenosha Kid

I'd take that grain of salt when a matter comes to be the focus of politicians. Only that.

But of course, politicians are there to solve the moral dilemmas of policies...a judge cannot simply read the law book and make his or her verdict.

That's nice to hear. :smile:

I'd take that grain of salt when a matter comes to be the focus of politicians. Only that. — ssu

Ah. If a politician promised to follow the science, I would remain sceptical until she demonstrated it, but at least relieved they were not promising to ignore the science. Again, even in the most pessimistic situation, there are better and worse outcomes.

is very much characteristic of the [bullshit] side of the argument to conclude that, because the dangers of unconstrained fossil fuel consumption is bad, that means that the argument for climate action is bullshit. — Kenosha Kid

I dont know anybody who reasons this way. I think you're making stuff up.

What is depressing is knowing that, even armed with all the facts, we can't do anything about it because the majority of us would rather believe the guys who tell us it's okay, it's a scientific hoax, and you can just keep burning oil forever with no consequences. — Kenosha Kid

“Panglossian falsehoods convene the crowd, discouraging truths disperse it.” ~Thomas Ligotti

:mask:

I don't think Pence would be much of an improvement — tim wood

Pence is also a stable genius but from another stable.

That's nice to hear. :smile: — ssu

Right now it's the best I can do :flower:

I dont know anybody who reasons this way. I think you're making stuff up. — frank

Forests and trees maybe.

What's become apparent to me is that not only do people not care about the truth, their truth is always how they want the world to be. — Kenosha Kid

Observing my religious family members, it’s pretty clear to me that that is the reason they are religious: because it would be just awful if God didn’t exist, therefore he does.

These various “truther” movements, who think that they alone are aware of the secret truth that THEY don’t want you to know, are effectively proto-religions already. So it doesn’t surprise me at all that they choose their beliefs on the grounds that it would be too awful otherwise, too. Even beliefs about malevolent cabals controlling the world etc, because the alternative to that is that evil is banal and omnipresent, and nobody is really in control of anything, which is much scarier than just a few villains without whom — if only the good guys could defeat them — everything would be just fine.

I understand. More misinformation just leaves people not trusting anyone or over reacting. Better to not shout at all than shout untruths.

This not the case on climate change, the vast majority do trust the scientific message. My point about humanity not cutting fossil fuel use is blaming the policy makers and governments, not the public at large. A case in point, the leader of the free world, Trump, says that the reason there are these large forest fires on the west coast of America, is because the leaves haven't been swept up. Implying that the solution to the climate and ecological crisis of that part of the world is for someone to come along and sweep up the leaves. Over an area of thousands of square miles presumably. Is it any wonder folk hear that and sigh, saying we really are doomed.

Trump receiving powerful lung drug, doctors disclose, revealing more serious symptoms

President Trump, who is hospitalized with COVID-19, received supplemental oxygen on Saturday – an episode previously undisclosed by the team treating him -- and is now being treated with a powerful steroid amid indications that his lungs may have suffered some damage, the White House physician said Sunday.

At a briefing at Walter Reed medical center, doctors treating Trump continued to be upbeat about his condition, with one of his physicians saying that the president could be discharged as soon as tomorrow. But White House physician, Dr. Sean Conley, also acknowledged that he had omitted some information from his briefing on Saturday, saying he was “trying to reflect the upbeat attitude” of Trump and his aides.

“It came off that we were trying to hide something,” he admitted, saying that had not been their intent.

Conley provided several significant new pieces of information Sunday about the 74-year-old president, saying that he had experienced a “high fever” and received supplemental oxygen on Friday, before being transported to the military hospital in suburban Bethesda, Md. He revealed that Trump’s oxygen level had fallen again on Saturday to the point that oxygen was required and that scans of his lungs showed some indications of damage, although he insisted they were not of “major clinical concern.”

Significantly, Conley said the president had been given dexamethasone, a steroid, which some experts had said previously would be a significant development.

Ashish Jha, dean of the Brown University School of Public Health, said in an interview Saturday that he would watch for use of dexamethasone, saying it would be a “very clear signal that he has a more severe disease.”

In mild cases, he said, “we actually think it does more harm than good.”