Big Blue Huddle

I think "cautiously optimistic" on a relative basis is a reasonable stance to have at this point. That does not mean anyone is popping corks, or saying this is "over", or suggesting that there won't be more difficult periods in the future. Nor is it drawing any "conclusion", preliminary or otherwise. It's a merely an acknowledgment that omicron seems significantly less virulent than other strains (as demonstrated by numerous other countries) combined with some initial hope that this strain may help with immunity against others'. I don't think it's jumping to conclusions nor is it a green light to go out and take silly risks.

I have seen much of this, and I will say that I am cautiously optimistic about the medium to longer term trajectory of this whole crisis from where we are today.

Of course, on the other hand, if the government of a country or those elite few who control social media go too far to suppress the flow of information, you can end up like this:

https://twitter.com/BNODesk/status/1477373810189996033

Quote from: LennG on January 01, 2022, 12:18:38 PM
I voted BAD as I do not use social media.
I am not on Facebook, Instagram, or whatever else is out there.

Why maybe it's what I have seen from others. Yes, it can keep you close to family, but, for the most part, it's mostly about people needing a spotlight on themselves, what they do all day, what they eat all day, ability to push agendas without ever really having to reveal themselves.
Do I really care what half the world ate for breakfast, bought at the supermarket, experiences at the beauty parlor, you get what I mean.

I just see it as a platform for people to say this is ME. Is THAT a good thing?

I completely agree that social media is lame and a waste of time when people use it entirely for narcissistic reasons (like thinking large numbers of people care what they had for breakfast that morning). I have a twitter account, and I avoid following individuals who engage in this sort of thing, even if some of their other tweets are useful to me. The narcissistic, self-absorbed stuff definitely turns me off.

However, I do like to follow accounts that put out interesting or useful information with a reasonably high frequency. And there are a handful I also follow because they amuse me. I feel if you curate your list of accounts you follow carefully and update it frequently (both by removing non-performing accounts and adding new potentially good ones), you can end up with a pretty decent overall feed that can be worthwhile to peruse from time to time.

Do I think this replaces more traditional consumption of news, like consistently reading articles from reputable publications? Absolutely not. Do I think even a carefully curated twitter list will still split out plenty of junk? Yes I do. Do I think overuse of it and constantly being on it is a good thing? No, I certainly do not. But I do think it is a supplementary info source that can be useful and entertaining.

Quote from: MightyGiants on January 01, 2022, 07:18:50 AM
So based on the times of the videos, none of what you posted would qualify as "misinformation" especially as it relates to actual misinformation like the blog Bob posted

MG,

My own take on these videos was not that there was any sort of ill intent on the part of those speaking. "Misinformation" tends to imply that there was such ill intent (although it doesn't have to mean that), so perhaps it wasn't the absolute best word choice. Maybe "inaccurate information" or "falsehoods" would have been better. And as far as these statements being "true at the time", I have two thoughts on that:

(1) They could be stated differently. "Current research suggests that" or "From what we can tell right now" type qualifiers could have been used. Just saying "if you get the vaccine you are at a very, very low risk of getting covid" is a clumsily matter of fact way of putting it. In fact, I'm not even sure that was "true at the time." I don't recall scientists or the drug companies saying if you take the vaccine you are highly unlikely to get covid. Even back in the early days of the vaccine, we talked about percentage of effectiveness, but that was not the same as saying you almost definitely won't get it if you're vaccinated. I certainly never thought that getting the vaccine meant I would not get covid. So Biden's words in his video seem particularly false and misinformed, which is less than ideal when you're the POTUS managing a national and global crisis. Trump was heavily criticized for exactly this sort of thing, and very rightfully so, so Biden should not get a full pass just because he's not Trump.

(2) You said yourself that there was an element of fibbing on the part of the government with the "lose the mask" advice. So, in fact, to a certain extent they actually were being manipulative and deliberately deceptive. Unfortunately, being lied to or even fibbed to by leaders seldom rubs people the right way, even if the ultimate intentions are good.

The bottom line in my opinion is that when people hear things from leadership stated in a matter of fact, "this is how it is" sort of way, and then these statements later turn out to be false or are gone back on, that tends to lead to mistrust or at least a loss of confidence in the validity of information people are hearing. The "well it was true at the time" bit isn't going to resonate with large swaths of this country as a legitimate excuse. Nor is that even wholly true when it comes to the Biden remarks in that video.

My own personal take is that its capabilities allow for a fast spread of information which can be incredibly useful and valuable. It also allows you to focus specifically on certain individuals and filter others out (in the way that you acquire information). And obviously it allows you to keep in touch with people well. I voted "good thing", because I would certainly rather have it than not have it. I'm not a big Instagram or TikTok person, but Twitter is incredibly useful, and so are others like LinkedIn etc.

Where I think it can become destructive is the overuse of it, which is definitely an issue in this country. That can lead to all sorts of problems, depression being one. It is also no substitute for human interaction in the flesh. And obviously any misuse of it with bad intentions is also a problem and can be very damaging.

Quote from: MightyGiants on January 01, 2022, 10:50:40 AM
One of the underappreciated dangers of social media is that it can lead to depression.   One of the truisms I learned in life is that the key to unhappiness is to always compare one's self and one's lot in life to others.  There are always going to be people who seem to have it better than you in at least one aspect of life.  Yet despite that being true, it's human nature to naturally compare.

This is where social media can become dangerous.    Many people on social media either knowingly or unknowingly try to create fictions where their lives appear better than they really are.   They are careful in what and how they share things to try and create this image that they are leading great lives.    That in itself is harmless and not even a bad thing.  If anything, it's simply not complaining about the bad in life.  Yet for many people, as they browse through all the posts of wonderful homes, great relationships, wonderful family gatherings, rewarding jobs, and awesome vacations start to feel like their own lives are poor by comparison.  This can often lead to depression

Excellent point. This is especially true on Instagram. It is commonplace now for people to post all kinds of fake pictures or old pictures that are misleading and trying to make their lives look much more exciting or well funded than they are. I hadn't really considered that this could make others depressed. I always felt this untruthfulness showed a lack of confidence or possibly depression on the part of the poster. Interesting point that it can also make others depressed.

Quote from: MightyGiants on January 01, 2022, 10:25:16 AM
I think this sort of question is akin to asking if a hammer is a good or bad thing.   I mean a hammer could be used as a weapon or it can build a wonderful home.   To a large degree it depends on the intentions of the users.

I get your point, but I think it's a bit more complicated than that in the case of social media. Social media has an addictive aspect to it that a hammer does not. It also has an unintended consequences aspect to it. People can get involved in it with perfectly good intentions only to find it is hurting their lives in multiple ways. They can also make an honest mistake on social media only to suffer substantial consequences.

What are your overall thoughts on social media? Do you see it as a positive or negative in society?

These are good examples for sure. I knew Fauci misspoke on a couple of occasions (wasn't sure if he was whom you meant as "leadership") but I forgot about that Biden one. I do get your point about the impact of misinformation from people who have that big of a platform.

To be fair, if we're talking about leadership, nobody high profile spread more misinformation about covid since the start of this whole event than Trump. And in his case it often seemed deliberate. Considering that much/most of the anti-vax movement is concentrated among his base, it is hard to blame their unwillingness to take the vax on someone else's supposed claim that the vax stopped the spread of covid. Their leader is the one who initially planted the idea in their minds that covid was no big deal and that it would disappear very soon, as he repeatedly did in early/mid 2020 when it first became a massive national and global crisis. I know Trump has publicly supported the vax since then, but if we're looking to blame leadership for anything, I would argue that Trump's initial downplaying of this virus and other unhelpful messaging (like mocking people for wearing masks) was a key factor in driving the resistance to the vaccine and other protective measures.

Quote from: Ed Vette on December 30, 2021, 08:08:50 PM
So let

Quote from: Bob In PA on December 30, 2021, 12:20:59 PM
Dave: How can you prove there are not 70/30, etc., in the debate when the "outliers" as you call them are being canceled by social media sites?  Bob

That is a fair question, and the truth is that I cannot "prove" what the exact numbers are. However, I read enough articles, including in non left-leaning publications like the WSJ, where I feel I have a reasonable broad sense of the breakdown. I have also spent a significant amount of time speaking to doctors I know, including both my own doctors (all of whom I trust greatly) as well as other doctors I respect that I just happen to know, and the views on the vaccine from them have been totally unanimous. If there were really a loud voice coming from the medical community that was against vaxing, I believe I would be aware of it. Big Tech can only snuff people out so much when they're large in numbers. I agree it's not hard for them to do that to a small number of individuals though.

Although this next part doesn't directly answer your question, I would add that I am also overwhelmingly convinced by all the data on the impact of the vaccine on those who get covid, and I monitor the data fairly closely on an ongoing basis. So that, coupled with my own direct gatherings from doctors I know are (1) excellent and (2) benevolent, is good enough for me.

I have two initial thoughts on this:

(1) This guy appears to be wanting to build his brand. On the very page where he talks about his beliefs, he then says he's available (for hire obviously) for speaking engagements and what not. So, whether he wholly believes what he is saying or not, he is clearly looking to convert it into cash. Most great doctors I know are not motivated by money. A great surgeon has the talent and brainpower to have pursued any number of more lucrative careers. So my guard always goes up a little bit when I see a doctor who is out there doing a lot of self-promotion, public appearances, and clear solicitations for paid appearances. That alone doesn't mean he's wrong or lying, but let's face it, there's a clear market in this country for anyone with a doctor label who sides with non-vaxers. At the very least we should be aware of that reality.

(2) Even if his intentions are completely legitimate, he is in a tiny, tiny, tiny minority of bona fide doctors who feel the way he does. There are pretty much always going to be outliers in any large number of things are people. So even if his intentions are 100% altruistic, I am personally not inclined to be swayed all that much by just one or two doctors versus millions all around the developed world. If it were more of a 70/30, 80/20, or even 90/10 type debate, I would be much more inclined to take their point of view more seriously. It's not anything close to that though.

Just my two cents.

Quote from: MightyGiants on December 23, 2021, 10:20:43 AM
DB,

I will say this.  While I am not at a point of saying anything with proper certainty.   The general trend in terms of information coming in is really positive.   I am feeling better in the longer term (say a month or two out) than I have been since Omicron reared its head.

I think I share the cautious optimism.