Like the rest of the world, I've been concerned about the COVID-19 pandemic sweeping across the world and gaining steam in every country. I've read everything I can find on the virus, the extent of the danger to the world, likely progression of events, and what is being done to fight it. What I've tried hard to avoid are the politics, the guessing game, finger-pointing, and competition sparked by dwindling resources.
As we reach the middle of 2020, more and more countries are reaching their peak in terms of both number of infections and number of deaths. The crisis is by no means nearing an end, and many more will die from the virus. The economic damage will be felt for many years to come as well and we have no way yet to even attempt to predict the full ramifications of the economic decisions made.
Instead of continuing to engage those on social media I find misinformed or intentionally spreading false stories and messages, I'd like to engage in a civil manner, those who would like to discuss the issue. I look forward to getting this going. Cheers!
An article written in The Atlantic by Ed Yong on September 13, 2020, is the subject worth discussing. It is a piece which can fairly be considered an analysis of COVID-19 and the U.S. Trump Administration's response, in the comfortable position of the Monday Morning Quaterback. Though it is heavily critical of the Trump Administration, this can easily be stomached as a norm in media in 2020, what cannot be stomached is the blatant fallacies and inaccuracies.
As is the case in most U.S. journalism, sources are cited which support the argument without any desire to cite any equally qualified alternative source of information. Of course, it makes perfect sense to support your argument. But, only if you and your media outlet are clearly and unapologetically biased in your coverage. The Atlantic is obviously speaking to a specific liberal audience which will not question its content which aligns with their views.
Keep in mind this article was written in mid-September. With this being said, I'll take a look at what I can decipher as accurate and fair, and what is obviously opinion based on ... nothing. As well as complete falsehood which I found throughout the article. So, let me jump into this article and try to decipher what the writer intends to convey and what is just fluff.
Army Ants metaphor - The writer thinks the current response to COVID-19 is somehow comparable to ants walking in endless circles until they die. Sorry, just don't get it.
The death rate of COVID-19 is 0.03% according to the writers numbers. (Those who died versus those who tested positive) Probably accurate at the time of writing.
From the very beginning we were told the death rate would be around 0.034%, so this is still the predicted result.
The writer says many Americans grabbed onto anything and were guilty of "magical thinking" in terms of how long the pandemic would last, or when we would return to normal. Not really. From pretty early on, we knew COVID-19 would most likely never go away, like the flu. We were hit from all sides with conflicting information from the CDC, WHO, and others.
The writer says the proper approach would be to take many actions at once. Which is exactly what was done! Here is the timeline of actions taken by the Trump Administration. https://www.donaldjtrump.com/media/timeline-the-trump-administrations-decisive-actions-to-combat-the-coronavirus/
The writer quotes idiots with a scientific title saying basically we don't seem to have to capacity to do more than one thing at a time, when obviously there were many actions being done at the same time. Pure disingenuous falsehood and intentionally misleading.
Blatant lie #1. "For months, President Donald Trump touted hydroxychloroquine as a COVID-19 cure." It was mentioned as a prophylactic, not a cure. Even Dr. Drew in response to Trump talking about hydroxychloroquine, "everything he said was absolutely accurate." Probably his last invitation to local Fox 11 Los Angeles.
The writer says even if some safety measure which may only have minimal effectiveness such as wearing a mask, it should still be done. Agree.
To Be Continued
https://bit.ly/30PEy6Z