At what point did you / will you take the coronavirus epidemic seriously?

[SeattleUte]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/coronavirus-herd-immunity-lockdown-boris-johnson-graham-medley-a9447021.htm

We are arriving at the place where it has all along been obvious we would arrive.

Personal opinions disagreeing with the UK's top epidemiologist are not welcome. If you want to cite a contrary or consistent opinion from a qualified expert, that's fine.

[Northwestcoug]

Are we sure it's gone so wrong?

Pretty sure!

Many things went wrong to allow one of the most technologically advanced countries to be caught flat footed for a pandemic that had been predicted.

[SeattleUte]

Are we sure it's gone so wrong?

This article is a polemic. These are not helpful either.

[old_gregg]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...y-a9447021.htm

We are arriving at the place where it has all along been obvious we would arrive.

Personal opinions disagreeing with the UK's top epidemiologist are not welcome. If you want to cite a contrary or consistent opinion from a qualified expert, that's fine.

your link doesnt work, chief

[Northwestcoug]

This article is a polemic. These are not helpful either.

Bullshit. That is a very fair article. It outlines institutional failures with little conjecture. Trump receives the minority of blame.

It is a shame when solid news reporting is automatically viewed with suspicion. Don’t let Ben Shapiro tell you otherwise.

[SeattleUte]

your link doesnt work, chief

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/coronavirus-herd-immunity-lockdown-boris-johnson-graham-medley-a9447021.html

[SeattleUte]

Bullshit. That is a very fair article. It outlines institutional failures with little conjecture. Trump receives the minority of blame.

It is a shame when solid news reporting is automatically viewed with suspicion. Don’t let Ben Shapiro tell you otherwise.

We all should view the media with suspicion. Its bad reputation is deserved.

Regardless, it's time to look forward, to find a way out of this corner government and media have painted us into.

Several hundred thousand travelers were entering the US from China while the Chinese were lying to us. Right now, with no real data, we don't know what difference any of this would have made.

[UVACoug]

We all should view the media with suspicion. Its bad reputation is deserved.

Regardless, it's time to look forward, to find a way out of this corner government and media have painted us into.

Several hundred thousand travelers were entering the US from China while the Chinese were lying to us. Right now, with no real data, we don't know what difference any of this would have made.

Got to agree with SU on this one. That article was full of internal contradictions, vagueries, speculation, and opinions couched as facts (with no support). The authors clearly started with the theory that massive failures in the Trump administration put us in our current situation and then tried to build the case for that through hindsight. Where the timeline didn't fit the narrative, they simply glossed over specific dates and spoke in generalities.

An example, they make a big deal out of the fact that the government should have ordered ventilators earlier, but then complain that the ventilators they did eventually order wouldn't arrive until late summer or fall. If the government had ordered ventilators a few weeks earlier, would we have them now? Of course not. There would have still been a delay and they probably wouldn't have arrived until July. The real problem is that we hadn't stock piled more ventilators before this crisis started. Trump certainly deserves some blame for this, but so do prior administrations. That doesn't fit the narrative that the immediate response was a failure though, so it isn't discussed.

Another example. They correctly note that the first US case was not discovered until January 21st. A few paragraphs later, though, they claim we were in the full throws of a crisis four days earlier (on January 17) and when Trump was in Davos (January 21-24). While it may be the case that the virus was spreading rapidly in the United States by that time, we don't really know that and the administration certainly didn't know that at the time.

It also seems a little bit unseemly to be putting out a redux like this in the midst of a crisis (the outcome of which we do not know) when we still have so much incomplete information. That's just my opinion though. Feel like we would be better off putting up a unified front towards fighting this thing rather than devolving into the kind of political bickering and finger pointing that we see relentlessly in the media. It's an election year and Trump is in charge though, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised with where we are.

[Northwestcoug]

We all should view the media with suspicion. Its bad reputation is deserved.

Regardless, it's time to look forward, to find a way out of this corner government and media have painted us into.

Several hundred thousand travelers were entering the US from China while the Chinese were lying to us. Right now, with no real data, we don't know what difference any of this would have made.

I'm on your side of the spectrum. But the word should be replaced with 'skepticism'. We're all good at detecting bias in the press. We're the Drudge Report generation. But it cannot be used as a cudgel to bash the press in general. The press is not the enemy.

Got to agree with SU on this one. That article was full of internal contradictions, vagueries, speculation, and opinions couched as facts (with no support). The authors clearly started with the theory that massive failures in the Trump administration put us in our current situation and then tried to build the case for that through hindsight. Where the timeline didn't fit the narrative, they simply glossed over specific dates and spoke in generalities.

An example, they make a big deal out of the fact that the government should have ordered ventilators earlier, but then complain that the ventilators they did eventually order wouldn't arrive until late summer or fall. If the government had ordered ventilators a few weeks earlier, would we have them now? Of course not. There would have still been a delay and they probably wouldn't have arrived until July. The real problem is that we hadn't stock piled more ventilators before this crisis started. Trump certainly deserves some blame for this, but so do prior administrations. That doesn't fit the narrative that the immediate response was a failure though, so it isn't discussed.

Another example. They correctly note that the first US case was not discovered until January 21st. A few paragraphs later, though, they claim we were in the full throws of a crisis four days earlier (on January 17) and when Trump was in Davos (January 21-24). While it may be the case that the virus was spreading rapidly in the United States by that time, we don't really know that and the administration certainly didn't know that at the time.

It also seems a little bit unseemly to be putting out a redux like this in the midst of a crisis (the outcome of which we do not know) when we still have so much incomplete information. That's just my opinion though. Feel like we would be better off putting up a unified front towards fighting this thing rather than devolving into the kind of political bickering and finger pointing that we see relentlessly in the media. It's an election year and Trump is in charge though, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised with where we are.

No. The press shouldn't be playing on any team. It should stand apart and report on the news as accurately as possible, no matter what the political climate.

I stand by what I said. That article is pretty solid. I used the term 'flat-footed', and I think the article's tone also reflects that sentiment. I think that very accurately and fairly represents a lot of the governmental actions that got us here. There was no one action by anyone, that if not done better or omitted, got us here. And some of those actions and inactions would be defensible a few years ago. But there are not defensible now. They should be documented for history.

[SeattleUte]

Got to agree with SU on this one. That article was full of internal contradictions, vagueries, speculation, and opinions couched as facts (with no support). The authors clearly started with the theory that massive failures in the Trump administration put us in our current situation and then tried to build the case for that through hindsight. Where the timeline didn't fit the narrative, they simply glossed over specific dates and spoke in generalities.

An example, they make a big deal out of the fact that the government should have ordered ventilators earlier, but then complain that the ventilators they did eventually order wouldn't arrive until late summer or fall. If the government had ordered ventilators a few weeks earlier, would we have them now? Of course not. There would have still been a delay and they probably wouldn't have arrived until July. The real problem is that we hadn't stock piled more ventilators before this crisis started. Trump certainly deserves some blame for this, but so do prior administrations. That doesn't fit the narrative that the immediate response was a failure though, so it isn't discussed.

Another example. They correctly note that the first US case was not discovered until January 21st. A few paragraphs later, though, they claim we were in the full throws of a crisis four days earlier (on January 17) and when Trump was in Davos (January 21-24). While it may be the case that the virus was spreading rapidly in the United States by that time, we don't really know that and the administration certainly didn't know that at the time.

It also seems a little bit unseemly to be putting out a redux like this in the midst of a crisis (the outcome of which we do not know) when we still have so much incomplete information. That's just my opinion though. Feel like we would be better off putting up a unified front towards fighting this thing rather than devolving into the kind of political bickering and finger pointing that we see relentlessly in the media. It's an election year and Trump is in charge though, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised with where we are.

Fox, CNN, MSNBC, the Washington Post, they’re all garbage. I never read Fox. I’d never cite it or link it. Pretty much the same with the others. I am a Washington Post subscriber in self-defense. I only cite or link the ones other than Fox if they have something that appears to deviate from their usual transparent agenda.

The New York Times is very worthwhile because of its resources and ambition. It’s also more diverse than the ones listed above, though still slanted.

The WSJ news on the front page is trustworthy. Still hews to the old fashioned rule of pure news on the front pages. I happen to agree more often with the opinions on the Wall Street Journal than other opinions, but yes, they are opinions, and properly designated as such.

We’ve all said this before, though. These tendencies are very obvious and not concealed.

Agree with you that a politicized post mortem is in very bad taste right now. That’s an opinion we’re qualified to give.

[UVACoug]

I'm on your side of the spectrum. But the word should be replaced with 'skepticism'. We're all good at detecting bias in the press. We're the Drudge Report generation. But it cannot be used as a cudgel to bash the press in general. The press is not the enemy.



No. The press shouldn't be playing on any team. It should stand apart and report on the news as accurately as possible, no matter what the political climate.

I stand by what I said. That article is pretty solid. I used the term 'flat-footed', and I think the article's tone also reflects that sentiment. I think that very accurately and fairly represents a lot of the governmental actions that got us here. There was no one action by anyone, that if not done better or omitted, got us here. And some of those actions and inactions would be defensible a few years ago. But there are not defensible now. They should be documented for history.

If you think that article was not "playing on a team," I don't know what to say. Of course the media should be as accurate as policy, but the article does not fit that bill. It was full of contradictions and speculation. There were a lot of good and factual things in it, but as seems to be the M.O. of the current media, they fill in the gaps with the worst possible assumptions of the people they don't like. It's not good journalism ... it is pushing an agenda. Everything that happened over the last few months should be documented for history, but there is a time and a place for everything. And this just doesn't feel like the right time to me for journalists to be pushing an agenda that tries to discredit the current response.

[SeattleUte]

I'm on your side of the spectrum. But the word should be replaced with 'skepticism'. We're all good at detecting bias in the press. We're the Drudge Report generation. But it cannot be used as a cudgel to bash the press in general. The press is not the enemy.



No. The press shouldn't be playing on any team. It should stand apart and report on the news as accurately as possible, no matter what the political climate.

I stand by what I said. That article is pretty solid. I used the term 'flat-footed', and I think the article's tone also reflects that sentiment. I think that very accurately and fairly represents a lot of the governmental actions that got us here. There was no one action by anyone, that if not done better or omitted, got us here. And some of those actions and inactions would be defensible a few years ago. But there are not defensible now. They should be documented for history.

I very much agree with you that the press or medial is not the enemy. More speech is better. Speech is essential.But the mainstream has been disappointing for several years now. Constricting speech. For the most part it does take sides. We could have a long discussion about why this happens and not reach a definitive answer. But clearly that’s been occurring.

This disease in the media will only be cured with more speech

[old_gregg]

this boomer fascination with media bias and dismissing things out of hand based on the domain the link is from are up there with the dumbest things in the world. if you can't consume media with enough skepticism to figure out what's verifiable and what's not, you shouldn't be allowed to vote or drive.

[Jeff Lebowski]

this boomer fascination with media bias and dismissing things out of hand based on the domain the link is from are up there with the dumbest things in the world. if you can't consume media with enough skepticism to figure out what's verifiable and what's not, you shouldn't be allowed to vote or drive.

Agreed.

[Northwestcoug]

If you think that article was not "playing on a team," I don't know what to say. Of course the media should be as accurate as policy, but the article does not fit that bill. It was full of contradictions and speculation. There were a lot of good and factual things in it, but as seems to be the M.O. of the current media, they fill in the gaps with the worst possible assumptions of the people they don't like. It's not good journalism ... it is pushing an agenda. Everything that happened over the last few months should be documented for history, but there is a time and a place for everything. And this just doesn't feel like the right time to me for journalists to be pushing an agenda that tries to discredit the current response.

This can get tedious very fast, but...

Is your evidence of 'pushing an agenda' anything more substantial than the press doesn't like Trump? Is it possible to believe in two things simultaneously; that the press overwhelmingly leans left, and that there isn't a general liberal agenda that they try to push on the country?