Cyprus-Forum.com

[cyprusgrump]

...
For me the total death numbers are vastly more 'hard' than any numbers relating specifically to the virus. My initial gut reaction when there are discrepancies therefore is that the chances are the total death ones are more a reflection of reality.

I am afraid to me that sounds like a classic case of:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

[Cap]

I don't think it's a case of confirmation bias. Too little time since the advent.
More a gut confirmation.
Shi* just not adding up. Too many inconsistencies, fake news, numbers off the wall.
something aint right. And the media is feeding the fear.

I'm with Erol on this one.

[Tim Drayton]

Preliminary results from government lab experiments -marked for official use only and obtained by Yahoo News, show that the coronavirus does not survive long in high temperatures and high humidity, and is quickly destroyed by sunlight.

The results are contained in a briefing by the DHS science and technology directorate, which describes experiments conducted by the National Biodefense Analysis and Countermeasures Center, a lab created after the 9/11 terrorist attacks to address biological threats.

If the virus is quickly destroyed by sunlight – and it is basic scientific knowledge that “ultraviolet light destroys the molecular bonds that hold together the DNA of viruses and bacteria” https://www.insider.com/does-uv-light-kill-germs – then why are we being kept home under house arrest on sunny days? Could it perhaps be that big pharma does not wish for the virus to be destroyed in the natural way and for us to boost our immune systems in the sunlight otherwise it will lose that market for seven billion vaccines it is slavering over?

[erolz66]

Really the two 'things' I have 'pushed' here are about me trying to understand in the sea of noise that is out there. Neither of them are 'MSM'.

1. there is 'the chart' system that RW originally posted that for me is still the best and easiest way to 'see' all be it with some lag, how countries compare in terms of 'flattening' the infection curve based on the john hopkins numbers. Paphitis looked at this, thought it was all about explaining 'exponential' to dummies and declared he 'understood it already' and then promptly went of to seek other sources, analysis that fitted his confirmation bias and showed the opposite of what 'the chart' analysis shows. And still does. FOr example when I look at say Singapore using this tool ( https://aatishb.com/covidtrends/) it just leaves me dumbfounded when people are still holding it up as an 'exemplar' nation.

2. The source ONS weekly data for total deaths. For the reasons explained.

Here is how one MSM outlet is reporting the latest figures btw

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52361519

[erolz66]

Could it perhaps be that big pharma does not wish for the virus to be destroyed in the natural way and for us to boost our immune systems in the sunlight otherwise it will lose that market for seven billion vaccines it is slavering over?

Or could it be that transfer via surfaces is not the only way ti can be transferred ? If you have it and are shedding , going out in the sun will not stop that as I understand it ? Transmission via water droplets in breath is one vector is it not. By person to person contact. Is this not an 'cams razor' thing going on here ?

[B25]

Preliminary results from government lab experiments -marked for official use only and obtained by Yahoo News, show that the coronavirus does not survive long in high temperatures and high humidity, and is quickly destroyed by sunlight.

The results are contained in a briefing by the DHS science and technology directorate, which describes experiments conducted by the National Biodefense Analysis and Countermeasures Center, a lab created after the 9/11 terrorist attacks to address biological threats.

If the virus is quickly destroyed by sunlight – and it is basic scientific knowledge that “ultraviolet light destroys the molecular bonds that hold together the DNA of viruses and bacteria” https://www.insider.com/does-uv-light-kill-germs – then why are we being kept home under house arrest on sunny days? Could it perhaps be that big pharma does not wish for the virus to be destroyed in the natural way and for us to boost our immune systems in the sunlight otherwise it will lose that market for seven billion vaccines it is slavering over?

Too many reports flying around about this. The last one I read said that they did lab tests on what temp actually killed the virus and it reached, from memory, 90 DegC. The report concluded that they realise it was in a lab, but if in a lab it takes this level of temp to kill it, why not out of the lab.

I don't have the link, because I would need to hoard hundreds of links, i read them and move on trying to formulate a picture of what is going on.

[Get Real!]

Seems like we’re stuck with this virus until we all get it at least once… and if we survive that’s great and if not too bad!

I don’t expect any vaccines… not now and not next year, because it’s pretty obvious to me that this is no natural virus that abides by rules that were successfully used in the past to deal with natural viruses.

When you fuck with nature it turns around and bites you on the bum…

[Tim Drayton]

At the risk of being accused of confirmation bias, I thought I would post a link to another interview about the coronavirus crisis, this time with Professor Johan Giesecke, one of the world’s most senior epidemiologists, advisor to the Swedish Government, the first Chief Scientist of the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, and an advisor to the director general of the WHO, which I found to be rational and informative:

https://theduran.com/swedish-expert-why ... -the-post/

About that confirmation bias. Somebody out there please help me. I would be happy to listen to any interview or read any article by an eminent health professional qualified in the field who says that media coverage of the coronavirus epidemic is balanced, non-sensational and scientifically based and that the measures being taken to counter it are correct. So, can you please provide me any links to help counteract this bias. Thanks.

Can anybody also explain why none of the highly-recognized, highly-qualified academics in such fields as epidemiology and virology such as the above professor or John Ioannides or Knut Wittkowski, interviews with whom I have linked to above, can gain access to the major broadcasting outlets in the world, and their interviews are only available on alternative media sites that are hard to find. At a time of crisis, shouldn’t there be discussion programmes with experts in the field as guests so that we can hear serious debate of the issues? This is what you used to get on serious broadcasters like the BBC. Isn’t this another kind of bias that we are witnessing?

[erolz66]

At the risk of being accused of confirmation bias, I thought I would post a link to another interview about the coronavirus crisis, this time with Professor Johan Giesecke, one of the world’s most senior epidemiologists, advisor to the Swedish Government, the first Chief Scientist of the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, and an advisor to the director general of the WHO, which I found to be rational and informative:

https://theduran.com/swedish-expert-why ... -the-post/

This time I will admit up front I have not watched your link. Bizarrely I am actually quite busy right now. Re Sweden and using first and foremost the 'data' that I can understand , namely 'the chart' or RW's chart for want of better names, for me the jury is still out as to if their call on SD is right or wrong but I lean towards wrong - based on the chart. Run it for Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Finland for example and Sweden does not compare well. They are definitely one country I am watching though.

About that confirmation bias. Somebody out there please help me. I would be happy to listen to any interview or read any article by an eminent health professional qualified in the field who says that media coverage of the coronavirus epidemic is balanced, non-sensational and scientifically based and that the measures being taken to counter it are correct. So, can you please provide me any links to help counteract this bias. Thanks.

I think you have the wrong end of the stick. Yes the media sensationalise. Yes it can be unbalanced. Yes it can be far from 'science based'. If you think I have accused you of 'confirmation bias' because you believe these things then you have fundamentally misunderstood me. The media in many ways and to a large degree is a 'mirror' of us. Now if you say that you believe the fact that the media sensationalises is evidence that they are doing so with a specific intent to trick us into believing some thing that some shadowy 'entity' (like big pharma) has instructed them to do, then I start to see degrees of confirmation bias, when compared to the much simpler explanation that in the main the media sensationalise because such sells better than not doing so. The primary fault for that lies with US and not the media. With the choices we ourselves have total control over. To me choosing to believe it is done because 'big pharma' (or bill gates, or bilderberg group, or the iliuminati,) directly order it to be so, strikes me as a cop out. Such belief means I do not have to take any responsibility. I do not have to make any effort. I do not have to worry at all about the thing I have total control over, myself, because its all the fault and problem of 'them'. It is a great way of absolving ourselves imo. Imo if you want change re something like media sensationalism, then the place to start is to ask yourself 'to what degree do I buy sensationalism with the choices I make'. If you ask that question and come up with an answer of none, then I suggest there is a very high chance you are kidding yourself in one way or another.It is like everyone believing that only other people are affecting by advertising but not them.

Can anybody also explain why none of the highly-recognized, highly-qualified academics in such fields as epidemiology and virology such as the above professor or John Ioannides or Knut Wittkowski, interviews with whom I have linked to above, can gain access to the major broadcasting outlets in the world, and their interviews are only available on alternative media sites that are hard to find. At a time of crisis, shouldn’t there be discussion programmes with experts in the field as guests so that we can hear serious debate of the issues? This is what you used to get on serious broadcasters like the BBC. Isn’t this another kind of bias that we are witnessing?

Really? Have you tried a google news search on John Ioannides or Knut Wittkowski. I think we are getting back in to confirmation bias and ocams razor territory here myself.

[Kikapu]

Too many reports flying around about this. The last one I read said that they did lab tests on what temp actually killed the virus and it reached, from memory, 90 DegC. The report concluded that they realise it was in a lab, but if in a lab it takes this level of temp to kill it, why not out of the lab.

I don't have the link, because I would need to hoard hundreds of links, i read them and move on trying to formulate a picture of what is going on.

B25, How can we achieve 90*C outside a lab to kill the virus? That is almost boiling point for water. Even in Death Valley, getting 50*C is not very common.