Originally Posted by JMintzer (Post 1930698)

Then please explain why cases of "The Flu" are almost non-existent this year...

Originally Posted by Bucco (Post 1930781)

One of, and most important reason I post about misinformation and truth is the constant posting of plain out false conspiracy theories about everything, but sadly not excluding this virus and attempts to save lives.

FOR EXAMPLE.....


... text of example removed to save space ...

While this poster has had problems in the past with TRUTH, Facebook will do nothing about this.......it is called " gray area misinformation"

"Experts call this sort of tactic gray area misinformation and said it can have the same impact on an audience as blatant falsehoods when it's being received without proper context or by people with preconceived ideas."

As a country we get greatly agitated by information being "edited" by platforms, even though they contain blatant lies and or untruths.

We better wake up and address this because tolerance for lying and liars is becoming normal........there is not negative to simply going on line and lying about anything.

This has caused a great chasm in our country and has to be addressed.

COVID is serious and for me, there is no reason or room for spreading lies or misinformation about the disease.

If you do not know the truth, do not post.....or just shut up. There are so many websites that peddle nothing but false information to satisfy whatever movement they endorse, and sadly there appears to be enough lazy, uninformed folks who will follow them to the end of the earth (hopefully not literally).

I find this problem in so many areas and we just seem to accept it.......to me, that signal of acceptance is a very bad omen.

You certainly hold your own family to the truth........why do you accept and endorse lying on so many important issues ?

Originally Posted by JMintzer (Post 1930698)

Then please explain why cases of "The Flu" are almost non-existent this year...

Originally Posted by Bill14564 (Post 1930809)

I accept "lying" today because I want to have a voice tomorrow when I disagree with the "truth." Or put another way, who decides what "truth" is? I feel we need to encourage and rely upon critical thinking rather than censorship. I also feel we really have to come to a common understanding that facebook is not a reliable source of information.

"The earth is round" and "the earth revolves around the sun" are two truths that few will dispute, but there are some that will. Should we censor those who would say the earth is flat or should we let them have their voice? Give them their voice but then provide the other side to the argument.

Today the discussion is the seriousness of Covid and the effectiveness of the vaccines. While the majority agree, there are a significant number of deniers. But which is better, asking Facebook to spoon-feed people with the "real truth" or letting the deniers have their say and then providing the data that shows them to be wrong? To me, asking the reader to make the effort to consider both sides will help society in the future.

One more example: is the statement, "Trump was a good president," true or false? Who decides which is the correct answer? Should facebook remove any comments to the contrary?

It's easy to argue for the removal of misinformation when nearly everyone agrees on what misinformation looks like. it becomes less easy to agree when the topic is more controversial, especially if you find yourself in the minority. It is better for society if we allow all viewpoints and demand that the reader take the time to think about the subject rather than creating a Department of Truth that determines which truths are allowed to be presented.

Originally Posted by GrumpyOldMan (Post 1930821)

Why do I have the right to say what the owners of Facebook, Twitter, or any other company can control what is on their company?

I guess I was under the mistaken opinion that capitalism and not socialism was what made America great - so, now we want the government to step in and tell companies how to operate.

hmm.

Originally Posted by Bill14564 (Post 1930809)

I accept "lying" today because I want to have a voice tomorrow when I disagree with the "truth." Or put another way, who decides what "truth" is? I feel we need to encourage and rely upon critical thinking rather than censorship. I also feel we really have to come to a common understanding that facebook is not a reliable source of information.

"The earth is round" and "the earth revolves around the sun" are two truths that few will dispute, but there are some that will. Should we censor those who would say the earth is flat or should we let them have their voice? Give them their voice but then provide the other side to the argument.

Today the discussion is the seriousness of Covid and the effectiveness of the vaccines. While the majority agree, there are a significant number of deniers. But which is better, asking facebook to spoon feed people with the "real truth" or letting the deniers have their say and then providing the data that shows them to be wrong? To me, asking the reader to make the effort to consider both sides will help society in the future.

One more example: is the statement, "Trump was a good president," true or false? Who decides which is the correct answer? Should facebook remove any comments to the contrary?

It's easy to argue for the removal of misinformation when nearly everyone agrees on what misinformation looks like. it becomes less easy to agree when the topic is more controversial, especially if you find yourself in the minority. It is better for society if we allow all viewpoints and demand that the reader take the time to think about the subject rather than creating a Department of Truth that determines which truths are allowed to be presented.

Originally Posted by Bucco (Post 1930850)

In my family, lying was a big tabu.....no justification for it.

Sticking with family analogy, i think we need responsible, honest adults in "the room"

Originally Posted by Bill14564 (Post 1930855)

Lying requires stating something that is opposite to the truth; who gets to decide what the truth is? Extending your family analogy, the question, "why?" is often answered, "because I said so." I am frightened by the idea of a centralized "mom" that establishes "truth" by the criteria, "because I said so."

Originally Posted by Bucco (Post 1930874)

This will be my last post as you are twisting my meaning, and it appears that lying to some is connected to what they want to believe.

Truth is very easy.

Conspiracy theories rare usually easy....thus the term. Cannot, off the top of my head think of any conspiracy theories that have ever been proven to be true.

Your problem with recognizing truth is a problem.

Telling folks when facing serious illness that what they fear does not exist....that it is a conspiracy theory...that crosses all conceivable boundaries of civil discourse that I am aware of. I, me, believe that the promulgating of conspiracy theories is a demonstrative fear of the truth.

Or, as we are beginning to see, the lazy way out. Many of those who left Jamestown before the mass suicide have said exactly that....they knew they were being lied to but it was comfortable.

This is a serious disease. I find no humor, no wish to debate it.

It deserves truth and adherence to it.

And I lived in no fear growing up. I learned early to identify truth, and liars. And especially to be responsible for my actions and words

Originally Posted by blueash (Post 1930288)

Sorry. Remember in math class how the teacher said to show all your work. I failed to do that. The 52 is not 52 million people, it is 52 weeks in a year. If you know the number of deaths in one week and you want to know, if that rate continues, how many deaths will there be in a year, you need to multiple the deaths by 52.

Example 5 people died in Smithville from gunshots last week where the population is one million. What is the yearly death rate from gunshots?

Answer If 5 people die every week then in one year 5 times 52 will die, or 260 deaths per million

The issue with the Covid vaccine clot number is that so far all the reports are in a one week time frame. I'd like to think that the vaccine only may present a very tiny risk of clots to a particular patient segment for a short time, but I don't have enough data to say that yet. The question in assessing whether the shot causes clots is whether the expected number of clots detected is any different than the expected number in an unvaccinated population, the background rate.

The announcement that the clots are only seen in one per million is accurate but all the cases appeared in a one week period. If new clots continue to form each and every week then you'd get 52 per million in a year. I was comparing that to the background rate of 13 per million per year which is the highest number I saw in my brief literature search.

If 13 per million people get clots a year, then the weekly rate is 1/52 of the yearly rate. In the gunshot example if I tell you that 260 per million die in a year, to get the weekly rate you have to divide the 260 by 52 to get 5 deaths per million per week. If 13 die in a year then 1/4 person dies per week. In the Covid vaccines the rate described is 1 per million doses in one week.

There are lots of wrong assumptions here I hope. I truly believe that if there is a causal relationship of the adenoviral vaccines [J & J and AZ] that there is likely a very brief period of risk and that it will not be ongoing. But until i have that data, like the gunshot situation, I can use a short term finding and extend it. See why I didn't show my work!

Originally Posted by Bill14564 (Post 1930443)

I remember the kids in high school who fought against conforming to societal norms, particularly in the way they dressed. They weren't going to "follow the crowd," they were going to think for themselves, they were going to be themselves. You could tell who they were, they all dressed alike.

You are following one crowd or another. With Covid there seems to be the 1 in 50 crowd or the 1 in 1,000+ crowd. I think I'll choose the latter.

Originally Posted by Robbie0723 (Post 1929811)

On Twitter, Dr. Stephanie Graff, director of Clinical Research at the Sarah Cannon Research Institute at HCA Midwest Health, shared an infographic placing the risk of blood clots from the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine in context with other common causes of blood clots. The risk of blood clots from the AstraZeneca vaccine is lower than that from birth control pills and smoking, and COVID itself leads to high prevalence of blood clotting.