COVID-19: Keep reading, keep learning about all this

[Floor_Nurse]

Several months ago, an article was published by J. Bart Classen, MD
The link to the article is here:

COVID-19 RNA Based Vaccines and the Risk of Prion Disease

A year ago, we were learning more about the virus itself (for example, why was it mainly targeting the elderly). Now, it's important that we continue to learn more about the vaccine and the encapsulating/coating ingredients (like Polysorbate 80 & Polyethylene glycol 2000 (please note that P.E.G. 2000 does not have the same molecular weight, nor is the same thing, as regular Miralax). In truth, there are no long-term studies yet with the Covid-19 vaccine. There are many doctors & researchers stating things that are contrary to the "It's perfectly safe" theory. Some of the info floating around there isn't proven (or just plain quackery), while other info is worth looking into.

[myoglobin, ASN, BSN, MSN]

15 minutes ago, toomuchbaloney said:

Sure.

Apparently you don't understand private business versus "town centers" either.  Social media is privately run for profit.  

I agree, but they benefit from being a virtual monopoly and operate in a manner similar to utilities. I believe they serve for many as our modern day "telephone system" and should thus be held to a higher standard. If they only allowed "straight people" or "all white people" few would find that legal or acceptable. In the same way I find their favoritism of only arguments that fit with the dominant ideology to be repulsive to a free people.  Right now it is "right of center" ideas that are repressed. However, the day may come when Trump (or someone well to the right of him) is in office and ideas "to the left of center" will be equally repressed.  Neither scenario is acceptable in a free society. Indeed, the only speech worth protecting is unpopular speech.  That which is accepted is hardly in need of protection.

[toomuchbaloney]

9 minutes ago, myoglobin said:

I agree, but they benefit from being a virtual monopoly and operate in a manner similar to utilities. I believe they serve for many as our modern day "telephone system" and should thus be held to a higher standard. If they only allowed "straight people" or "all white people" few would find that legal or acceptable. In the same way I find their favoritism of only arguments that fit with the dominant ideology to be repulsive to a free people.  Right now it is "right of center" ideas that are repressed. However, the day may come when Trump (or someone well to the right of him) is in office and ideas "to the left of center" will be equally repressed.  Neither scenario is acceptable in a free society. Indeed, the only speech worth protecting is unpopular speech.  That which is accepted is hardly in need of protection.

Right of center speech is "repressed" in social media when it breaks that private business's rules.  Are social conservatives special? Should they get to post content that violates TOS because they get upset or claim victimhood? And just for giggles, is right of center speech synonymous with dangerous election lies, covid misinformation or conspiracy theory?

[myoglobin, ASN, BSN, MSN]

8 minutes ago, toomuchbaloney said:

Right of center speech is "repressed" in social media when it breaks that private business's rules.  Are social conservatives special? Should they get to post content that violates TOS because they get upset or claim victimhood? And just for giggles, is right of center speech synonymous with dangerous election lies, covid misinformation or conspiracy theory?

What you call "lies" others (like 100's of my educated friends) view as the "likely reality".  Seen from the perspective of dominant "all controlling" media that also governs most of the so called "fact checkers" these opinions becomes a "lie". Much like the former Soviet Union those that disagree are called "agents of misinformation'" or even "mentally ill".   When the TOS rule out perspectives (such as saying that the Covid virus may have come from a lab) and then those standards are changed in a month or two we have arrived at a state of affairs not unlike that in Orwell's 1984 where Winston Smith would make unpopular people and opinion "disappear" from the news at the whims of the authority. 

[toomuchbaloney]

4 minutes ago, myoglobin said:

What you call "lies" others (like 100's of my educated friends) view as the "likely reality".  Seen from the perspective of dominant "all controlling" media that also governs most of the so called "fact checkers" these opinions becomes a "lie". Much like the former Soviet Union those that disagree are called "agents of misinformation'" or even "mentally ill".   When the TOS rule out perspectives (such as saying that the Covid virus may have come from a lab) and then those standards are changed in a month or two we have arrived at a state of affairs not unlike that in Orwell's 1984 where Winston Smith would make unpopular people and opinion "disappear" from the news at the whims of the authority. 

Nice try. 

Let's clear this up. There's always been the understanding that this virus could have escaped from a lab.  Containment breeches happen all too often.  Liars use that reality to paint conspiracy stories for those who sought to cloud the American thinking in this pandemic.  We might be further in knowing the answer to this question that haunts conservatives if Trump hadn't cut the scientific team that was in China.  You remember that, right? It was part of his undoing of all things Obama. 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-china-CDC-exclusiv-idUSKBN21C3N5

Besides, conservative voices weren't put in social media time out for saying the virus came from a lab, they were put there for saying it was a hoax and emulating Trump's attitude about mitigation...and for spreading election lies and propaganda from our geopolitical enemies.  

Be honest with yourself.

[Hannahbanana, BSN, MSN]

12 hours ago, myoglobin said:

Social media is the modern "town center' and gets the benefit of "monopoly like" powers and should have to protect freedom of expression for even perspectives with which they may disagree. 

Even if so, and I was with you up until the end of this quote, we know that freedom of speech (which is not what the 1A is about— it’s freedom to publish without governmental approval) is not unlimited and absolute.
How often have you had a patient who made decisions about how much to adhere (or not) to a medical or nursing plan of care based on completely bizarre stuff they read online? Or worse, makes decisions about their elderly relatives or children based on it? Or guzzled gallons of water and dropped their serum Na+ so far they got cerebral edema out of it because of some bogus water cure? 
I know I’m pissing into the wind here because your mind is made up, but for anyone else who is still weighing pros and cons, the availability of outright harmful nonsense makes the reasons for some kind of gate keeping clearer.
It’s not just that you can’t shout “Fire!” In a theater. It’s that you can’t quote bogus “research” that is demonstrably harmful and expect that a privately owned entity will abrogate  any of its responsibility for the public good as a “public utility,” shrug its virtual shoulders, and say “First amendment” as justification. 
People who want to post nonsense, harmfulness, or sedition have lots of choices. Just because FB is a ubiquitous quasi-public “utility” doesn’t mean it has to choose to be one of them. 

[myoglobin, ASN, BSN, MSN]

15 minutes ago, Hannahbanana said:

Even if so, and I was with you up until the end of this quote, we know that freedom of speech (which is not what the 1A is about— it’s freedom to publish without governmental approval) is not unlimited and absolute.
How often have you had a patient who made decisions about how much to adhere (or not) to a medical or nursing plan of care based on completely bizarre stuff they read online? Or worse, makes decisions about their elderly relatives or children based on it? Or guzzled gallons of water and dropped their serum Na+ so far they got cerebral edema out of it because of some bogus water cure? 
I know I’m pissing into the wind here because your mind is made up, but for anyone else who is still weighing pros and cons, the availability of outright harmful nonsense makes the reasons for some kind of gate keeping clearer.
It’s not just that you can’t shout “Fire!” In a theater. It’s that you can’t quote bogus “research” that is demonstrably harmful and expect that a privately owned entity will abrogate  any of its responsibility for the public good as a “public utility,” shrug its virtual shoulders, and say “First amendment” as justification. 
People who want to post nonsense, harmfulness, or sedition have lots of choices. Just because FB is a ubiquitous quasi-public “utility” doesn’t mean it has to choose to be one of them. 

I would argue that you "can" quote research that you believe to be "more true" than the mainstream opinion. It is up to others to demonstrate via reason and sources to change the minds if not of the person quoting but of others.  I may believe in UFO's, that JFK was killed by the Mob, that the Gulf of Tomkin was a pretext for getting us in to a war or that the Maine was blown up on purpose or by accident rather than by Spain in Havana's harbor. Some of these may be true and other's false but it should be the crucible of debate that changes peoples minds or guides their opinions rather than the "iron fist" of censorship. Now truly crying fire in a theatre saying things that you don't believe (that are not sincere) simply to create a panic and to cause harm is a different matter, that used to be the common standard. The standard of censorship has in my opinion gone towards the "repressive" side of the spectrum.

[GrumpyRN, NP]

7 minutes ago, myoglobin said:

I would argue that you "can" quote research that you believe to be "more true" than the mainstream opinion.

You do understand that research cannot by definition be "more true" or "less true." It is EITHER true or not true. Anything else is speculation.

 

Oh, and are you aware of how facebook algorithms work? Apparently not.

If you look at something then you are more likely to see something similar pop up. Therefore feeding your confirmation bias.

[myoglobin, ASN, BSN, MSN]

7 hours ago, GrumpyRN said:

You do understand that research cannot by definition be "more true" or "less true." It is EITHER true or not true. Anything else is speculation.

 

Oh, and are you aware of how facebook algorithms work? Apparently not.

If you look at something then you are more likely to see something similar pop up. Therefore feeding your confirmation bias.

Perhaps you miss my point. There are diverse perspectives on reality. For example at one time is was considered "wild conspiracy" to believe that UFO's had an objective reality. Now we have the US military essentially saying that there are objects that they cannot explain frequently in protected airspace. Thus, it is somewhat more mainstream (and has trended in that direction since the 2016 New York Times piece).  In a similar fashion it was considered  "wild conspiracy" to claim a couple of months ago that the Covid virus "escaped from the Wuhan lab" (even anti Chinese bordering on racist) now this has emerged essentially as "prevailing wisdom" as at least quite possible perhaps bordering on "most likely".   My point is that it is not only "okay" but just an proper for us to have perspectives that are radically different. You can point out how I am a "crank" and I can try to the best of my abilities explain why I feel as I do and how you may one day see it my way.  Censorship prevents that discussion and is less than optimal.  

[guest1163268]

1 hour ago, myoglobin said:

Perhaps you miss my point. There are diverse perspectives on reality. For example at one time is was considered "wild conspiracy" to believe that UFO's had an objective reality. Now we have the US military essentially saying that there are objects that they cannot explain frequently in protected airspace. Thus, it is somewhat more mainstream (and has trended in that direction since the 2016 New York Times piece).  In a similar fashion it was considered  "wild conspiracy" to claim a couple of months ago that the Covid virus "escaped from the Wuhan lab" (even anti Chinese bordering on racist) now this has emerged essentially as "prevailing wisdom" as at least quite possible perhaps bordering on "most likely".   My point is that it is not only "okay" but just an proper for us to have perspectives that are radically different. You can point out how I am a "crank" and I can try to the best of my abilities explain why I feel as I do and how you may one day see it my way.  Censorship prevents that discussion and is less than optimal.  

What's the motivation for the release of the files re UFOs? Could it be the proposed changes to funding or investigations? 

What about the origin of the virus? What would it accomplish to find the source and how would that be achieved? I fully imagine that it would be through investigations and hearings, the acknowledged process to finding out information and making plans to deal with future events! 

Just wondering for the Insurrection, that didn't happen that we all saw with our own eyes, why isn't such a commission not occurring? Could it be so that we wouldn't actually obtain the information re its instigation or participants or who should be held accountable? And why is it ONLY THE REPUBLICANS who are against it? 

[myoglobin, ASN, BSN, MSN]

12 minutes ago, Curious1997 said:

What's the motivation for the release of the files re UFOs? Could it be the proposed changes to funding or investigations? 

What about the origin of the virus? What would it accomplish to find the source and how would that be achieved? I fully imagine that it would be through investigations and hearings, the acknowledged process to finding out information and making plans to deal with future events! 

Just wondering for the Insurrection, that didn't happen that we all saw with our own eyes, why isn't such a commission not occurring? Could it be so that we wouldn't actually obtain the information re its instigation or participants or who should be held accountable? And why is it ONLY THE REPUBLICANS who are against it? 

Again we have different perspectives. I so a group of "mostly peaceful protestors" some of whom entered the capital grounds (by some accounts some were invited in) and others who behaved like hoodlums and one which was shot by a police officer who still remains unidentified. We also see the government holding on to hundreds (thousands) of hours of video footage (why?).  As a conservative Republican I wish they would investigate it as I believe that a fair hearing would show it being used as a  "Reichstag fire" like event as pretext to further encroach upon our civil liberties in the same way that Bush Jr used 911 as a pretext to spy upon us further and encroach upon civil rights (with things like detention without warrants and illegal infiltrations into mosques).  Again, we have different perspectives and that it okay. I should be able to make my arguments (on facebook an elsewhere) and you should be able to say "look you foolish baffoon" and shoot down my arguments if you believe them to be lacking. That is the way things are done in a free society.

[NRSKarenRN, BSN, RN]

Please take the political discussions to the breakroom Politics forum --for those interested in this topic.

AN desires this forum for general NURSING information.

Thanks!

[Hannahbanana, BSN, MSN]

Ah, the false-equivalency fallacy raises its confused head again. As a benign example: Kyrie Irving famously believes in the flat earth “theory.” He’s not alone in this, but that doesn’t mean it rates equivalent electronic column-inches in any reputable sources on geography or contributes to any crucible of debate. 
The availability of fact-checking, bolstered by video, makes a big difference here. Lies are still lies. Cf., a politician who says, “I never said / did that,” when there are clips of him saying / doing exactly that less than a year ago. It’s hard to deny time lapse material on, say, shrinking glaciers or expanding deserts. However, there are still people who believe the lunar landings were faked in a Pasadena back lot, too. 
I stand by my assertion that there’s a platform out there for pretty much any “theory” but FB doesn’t have to accept them all for promotion on the erroneous assumption that all debate is equally informative or constructive.