Virus Schmirus

[D-train]

A enlightening report on the latest deaths out of New York

https://www.redstate.com/elizabeth-vaug ... k-to-work/

Fact 1:

The recent Stanford University antibody study concluded the death rate to be between 0.1 to 0.2 percent, in other words, right in line with the seasonal flu.

Initial projected death rates from the World Health Organization “were 20 to 30 times higher.”

Please take a look at the following statistics from New York City:

Death Rate:

Under 18 years old: zero and (0 per 100,000 in the population)

18 to 45 years old: 0.01 percent (11 per 100,000 in the population)

75 and over: 0.80 percent (death rate is 80 times that of 18 to 45 years old)

Of all fatal cases in New York State:

Over 70 years of age: 2/3 of all deaths

Over 50 years of age: 95 percent

Underlying illness: 90 percent

Of 6,570 confirmed COVID-19 deaths fully investigated for underlying conditions to date:

6,520, or 99.2 percent, had an underlying illness.
Dr. Atlas concludes that “if you do not already have an underlying chronic condition, your chances of dying are small, regardless of age. And young adults and children in normal health have almost no risk of any serious illness from COVID-19.

Dems and lib media now embracing the talking point that Trump is directly responsible for all 50k deaths. Scum.

[Coeurd’Alene J]

This started out as China’s virus.... we flattened the curve.......IF we fail to get this country restarted and soon....there is going to be hell to pay

[Moe Gibbs]

The scientist who published this study was an absolute Rock Star for Libtards everywhere to worship whenever he had scientific studies that promoted their beliefs. Now that he has data to show the death rates published by our News Media were [deliberately] hyped, the Trump Haters refuse to let go their grip on an issue that they are running with in order to unseat Trump.
Instead of criticising the methods used in this study ....why don't the Trump Hating Liberals who dislike the Stanford Study show the rest of us how it's done..... and do so under the most vigorous and rigorous scrutiny.
The "DoD study" I spent 5 minutes doing at my desk 2 weeks ago reveals a closer look at what the true, positively verified death rate is due to COVID 19....it was only 5 personnel out of 3.36 million employees..and this news came on the day that death number 5 was being announced to the press.
BTW..do any of you recall ALL the press coverage that the DoD's announcement got..?
Me neither.

[gil]

A enlightening report on the latest deaths out of New York

https://www.redstate.com/elizabeth-vaug ... k-to-work/

Fact 1:

The recent Stanford University antibody study concluded the death rate to be between 0.1 to 0.2 percent, in other words, right in line with the seasonal flu.

Initial projected death rates from the World Health Organization “were 20 to 30 times higher.”

Please take a look at the following statistics from New York City:

Death Rate:

Under 18 years old: zero and (0 per 100,000 in the population)

18 to 45 years old: 0.01 percent (11 per 100,000 in the population)

75 and over: 0.80 percent (death rate is 80 times that of 18 to 45 years old)

Of all fatal cases in New York State:

Over 70 years of age: 2/3 of all deaths

Over 50 years of age: 95 percent

Underlying illness: 90 percent

Of 6,570 confirmed COVID-19 deaths fully investigated for underlying conditions to date:

6,520, or 99.2 percent, had an underlying illness.
Dr. Atlas concludes that “if you do not already have an underlying chronic condition, your chances of dying are small, regardless of age. And young adults and children in normal health have almost no risk of any serious illness from COVID-19.

Dems and lib media now embracing the talking point that Trump is directly responsible for all 50k deaths. Scum.

I just finished browsing my favorite liberal media, you know: NYT, WaPost, and CNN. I did not see this talking point one single time. So I appreciate the heads up! I like to know what I should be saying on Zoom happy hours.

More constructively, this is an interesting (long) article that contrasts the ways in which Seattle/Washington and New York/New York handled the outbreak. Both had their first cases at appositely the same time, and we know the results have been quite different. (Seattle's leaders let scientists take the lead. New York's did not." https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020 ... ks-did-not

Then again, if the only people we have to worry about are my Mom with CoPD or my sister with RA, maybe the whole point is moot. It's "just" people with underlying conditions. Nothing to worry about, right?

[Coeurd’Alene J]

For the argument that we saved everybody from this by shutting Down


https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/0 ... -docs-say/

[Moe Gibbs]

For a comprehensive look at how the "useless" drug [that has been ridiculed as medieval "junk science" by the Globalist owned Mass Media] actually works.....https://youtu.be/dLSYRqcg0wo

[Moe Gibbs]

Gil are you really saying that Trump is not being blamed by our mass media for the COVID 19 death toll.....?

[gil]

Gil are you really saying that Trump is not being blamed by our mass media for the COVID 19 death toll.....?

Of course I have seen *some* people say something like this, but I don't think it is accurate that "our mass media blames the President" because of these individual opinions.

[Moe Gibbs]

Gil are you really saying that Trump is not being blamed by our mass media for the COVID 19 death toll.....?

Of course I have seen *some* people say something like this, but I don't think it is accurate that "our mass media blames the President" because of these individual opinions.

If we held a contest to see which side could submit the most PRO TRUMP or ANTI TRUMP related message traffic in the MSM... you don't think we would find any bias...?

[gil]

Gil are you really saying that Trump is not being blamed by our mass media for the COVID 19 death toll.....?

Of course I have seen *some* people say something like this, but I don't think it is accurate that "our mass media blames the President" because of these individual opinions.

If we held a contest to see which side could submit the most PRO TRUMP or ANTI TRUMP related message traffic in the MSM... you don't think we would find any bias...?

Moe, that's an interesting question. I think it starts with who gets included in MSM, and I assume you mean the usual suspects like NYT, WaPost, and CNN. I also assume you don't mean Fox News (which obviously is huge and popular and only is outside the mainstream by ... well, different topic.)

CNN: clearly anti-Trump. No argument there. And a pet peeve of mine is that when I go to the CNN website, they don't clearly identify what is straight up reporting/news and what is opinion. But I think their street up reporting leans toward covering topics that are unfavorable to President Trump.

WaPost and NYT: Unlike CNN, I think they are pretty clear on what is reporting on and what is opinion. I think that for both, the opinion writers/columnists lean anti-Trump. But interestingly (to me at least) I think that both the WaPost and NYT were split pretty much 50-50 liberal-conservative as recently as 2015. Maybe they still are, but people I used to think of as conservative at the WaPost (Jennifer Rubin, Max Boot, George Will) write opinions against Trump's policies. David Brooks and Ross Douthat at NYT are two of my favorite conservative writers and don't care for Trump's policies. Thomas Friedman is pro-business and I always assumed a Republican, but doesn't like Trump's policies (or Bernie Sanders's policies for that matter). Bret Stephens clearly is conservative (he has written columns skeptical of aspects of climate science and against the current nation-wide lockdown, for example), but he seems to dislike many of Trump's policies almost as much as he dislikes Bernie's.

Now on the news/reporting side of the WaPost and NYT, I see them as pretty neutral. There are things that could be construed as anti-Trump (he is skeptical of much scientific advice, or he stated that he didn't say something when he did) or be construed as pro-Trump (stock market performance, ban on Travel from China, and then Europe). But as to your question, is there a BIAS? I don't really see it in the news/reporting. Even if there are more stories that could be considered anti-Trump, it's not necessarily bias if it's factual reporting.