New! Dark mode!

Browsing Pinside at night? Getting tired of all the white? Switch to dark mode using the button in the top right (or CTRL-B)!

(Topic ID: 264520)

The official Coronavirus containment thread


By Daditude

8 months ago



Topic Stats

  • 20,409 posts
  • 513 Pinsiders participating
  • Latest reply 8 hours ago by hAbO
  • Topic is favorited by 82 Pinsiders

You

Topic Gallery

There have been 2,956 images uploaded to this topic. (View topic image gallery).

4d47c15b495a3f52ac9efa311b034e704517eec2 (resized).jpg
IMG_20201124_211514 (resized).jpg
Screenshot_20201120-162243~3 (resized).png
2020-11-22MarylandCOVIDNYTimesMoreSeparation (resized).jpg
NewCovidMaskAlternatives (resized).jpg
Screenshot_20201120-162341~2 (resized).png
1F596522-388A-4553-9A98-299D1DEF9258 (resized).jpeg
dino nirvana (resized).png
126199045scream meme nirvana (resized).jpg
63C73249-E784-4F7F-9CEA-433DB6D525C9.jpeg
pasted_image (resized).png
9F3A2EE0-8076-4E18-A267-2F7FA9F7F36F (resized).jpeg
FB_IMG_1605631865882 (resized).jpg
it's a unicorn (resized).jpg
pasted_image (resized).png
Spanish flu (resized).png

Topic index (key posts)

136 key posts have been marked in this topic, showing the first 10 items. (Show topic index)

There are 20412 posts in this topic. You are on page 165 of 409.
#8201 7 months ago
Quoted from Tubes:

I don't think it's medically ethical to have a hypothesis like "this drug can save the lives of the ill" and also have a control group.

Then it would be unethical to blindly throw pills down a participants throat and hope for the best and act like it is a legitimate treatment.
I have to edit this. That is a very stupid assertion. How in the hell are you supposed to know if the drug works or not?!!? Seriously. That is like saying give the patient a sugar pill or Abilify and say we shouldn't have anything to compare it to. Dude, seriously?

17
#8202 7 months ago
Quoted from Tubes:

I don't think it's medically ethical to have a hypothesis like "this drug can save the lives of the ill" and also have a control group.

That’s actually exactly how drugs are vetted and approved. It’s ethical.

-7
#8203 7 months ago

Then it's immoral, and morality trumps ethics. 699 patients treated, 699 survived. You're arguing for him to withhold the treatment from some of those 699. Just so he can have answers that have more scientific validity? Science is an arbitrary construct. Ethics is more real, and morality certainly moreso.

#8204 7 months ago
Quoted from Tubes:

Then it's immoral, and morality trumps ethics. 699 patients treated, 699 survived. You're arguing for him to withhold the treatment from some of those 699. Just so he can have answers that have more scientific validity? Science is an arbitrary construct. Ethics is more real, and morality certainly moreso.

Oh, pivot your argument very nice. Cite your sources. Otherwise your are just peddling nonsense.

16
#8205 7 months ago
Quoted from Tubes:

Science is an arbitrary construct.

-11
#8206 7 months ago

What are you going to cite to prove me wrong, Snopes and their assertion that it can't be proven true at this time? Or the 100 credible articles I have to sort through to guess which ones you'll accept as credible—perhaps you'll cite the 9 out of 10 that you won't accept as part of your entrapment? Moral relativism for you.

#8207 7 months ago
Quoted from Tubes:

What are you going to cite to prove me wrong, Snopes and their assertion that it can't be proven true at this time? Or the 100 credible articles I have to sort through to guess which ones you'll accept as credible, perhaps you'll cite the 9 out of 10 that you won't accept as part of your entrapment? Moral relativism for you.

What does "moral relativism" have to do with the quality of the articles/studies you're citing?

-5
#8208 7 months ago

What about people being their own moral compasses causing problems do you fail to see about a horde arguing that science is more important than saving lives?

#8209 7 months ago

Yup, you've got nothing! I've read drinking beer cures coronavirus! I've also heard sniffing your own farts does the same thing too! Find a source that proves me wrong.

-1
#8210 7 months ago

No I will not fall into your trap, you'll have to get me banned for standing up against using people as medical experiments hoping they'll die to give you more accurate scientific numbers—not for posting Fake News.

#8211 7 months ago
Quoted from Swainer80:

Yup, you've got nothing! I've read drinking beer cures coronavirus! I've also heard sniffing your own farts does the same thing too! Find a source that proves me wrong.

Quoted from Tubes:

No I will not fall into your trap, you'll have to get me banned for standing up against using people as medical experiments hoping they'll die to give you more accurate scientific numbers—not for posting Fake News.

Take it to PM

27
#8212 7 months ago

Interesting exchange but to answer the question, it isn't unethical to have a control group because it is not proven or even apparent at this point that hydroxycholoroquine even works. The initial study from France was a very small amount of patients and another group in France has tried to replicate that study's findings and failed. The hydroxychloroquine patients didn't do any better than the others in the follow up study5.

Any trial you set up now isn't really going to be a double blinded, placebo controlled trial; there just isn't time for that. But let's say you set up a trial where you compared patients who got hydroxychloroquine with some who didn't. If it was apparent that the drug was making a massive difference then yes, you would stop the trial and give everyone the drug. The problem is there hasn't been any such trial, at least not one of a decent size. Furthermore, if this drug really was that effective and caused every patient or even a significant majority to miraculously recover, it would have been easily apparent by now. So far all I've heard is a couple of doctors going onto fringe websites or Fox News and saying it cures every patient while the rest of us in the medical world have mixed results.

I've seen several critical care docs saying that some patients do seem to respond and others don't. What the differences are between the two groups isn't clear. That's why more study is needed, and yes you have to compare patients who get the drug with those who don't. It's not unethical at all.

24
#8213 7 months ago
Quoted from Pinball_Gizzard:

Interesting exchange but to answer the question, it isn't unethical to have a control group because it is not proven or even apparent at this point that hydroxycholoroquine even works. The initial study from France was a very small amount of patients and another group in France has tried to replicate that study's findings and failed. The hydroxychloroquine patients didn't do any better than the others in the follow up study5.
Any trial you set up now isn't really going to be a double blinded, placebo controlled trial; there just isn't time for that. But let's say you set up a trial where you compared patients who got hydroxychloroquine with some who didn't. If it was apparent that the drug was making a massive difference then yes, you would stop the trial and give everyone the drug. The problem is there hasn't been any such trial, at least not one of a decent size. Furthermore, if this drug really was that effective and caused every patient or even a significant majority to miraculously recover, it would have been easily apparent by now. So far all I've heard is a couple of doctors going onto fringe websites or Fox News and saying it cures every patient while the rest of us in the medical world have mixed results.
I've seen several critical care docs saying that some patients do seem to respond and others don't. What the differences are between the two groups isn't clear. That's why more study is needed, and yes you have to compare patients who get the drug with those who don't. It's not unethical at all.

Sorry doc, Tubes said science is an arbitrary construct. Your logic and reasoning are no good in this battle; you gotta hit him with a meme or something.

#8214 7 months ago
Quoted from Pinball_Gizzard:

I hope that hydroxychloroquine turns out to be helpful but I can't figure out why there are a small number of doctors seeking out news outlets to tout this drug. I suspect it's being used in most hospitals across the nation right now in a compassionate use allowance. I can say for a fact it is being used in hospitals here in Texas for COVID-19 patients.
If it was a miracle drug and cured everyone like these people are saying the word would be out by now. Maybe it will be shown to help some patients but usually doctors are very reluctant to jump on a drug without good data to back them up.
I just don't get it.

I thought the same thing about the possibility of it being a miracle drug, that if true, everyone would know for sure by now. All I’ve been able to find are a few “success” stories with small sample size studies that don’t hold up under scrutiny, or worse yet, no study at all. One was just a quick read about a “doctor” who claims a 100% cure rate of everyone he treated with hydroxychloroquine in some far away village. ”Were the patients men or women? How old were they? Did they have any co-morbid conditions?“ You scratch a little below the surface and it doesn’t hold up.

Apparently a lot of large scale controlled studies are underway so we should know soon enough (with verifiable peer reviewed data) what the verdict is. Maybe this point has already been brought up but if the drug is already used by people with autoimmune disorders like Lupus then wouldn’t they be the only demographic on the planet not getting sick from Coronavirus? I haven’t heard that to be the case. My guess is it can help some patients a little but I’m not buying the miracle cure. Whole countries are shut down, people are suffering and the best minds in science are looking for a solution. I can’t believe this is it, sorry. If someone tells you something that doesn’t make sense it isn’t true.

#8215 7 months ago
Quoted from Tubes:

What about people being their own moral compasses causing problems do you fail to see about a horde arguing that science is more important than saving lives?

So in the rabbit hole, science and saving lives are competing ideals. Got it.

#8216 7 months ago
Quoted from Swainer80:

Then it would be unethical to blindly throw pills down a participants throat and hope for the best and act like it is a legitimate treatment.
I have to edit this. That is a very stupid assertion. How in the hell are you supposed to know if the drug works or not?!!? Seriously. That is like saying give the patient a sugar pill or Abilify and say we shouldn't have anything to compare it to. Dude, seriously?

All I know is if I had Covid19 and was hospitalized, I would want and request the three drug cocktail being discussed. Maybe it wouldn't and doesn't work for some but I think the potential upside outweighs the risk for many. Let's just say in a randomized, placebo controlled study, I'd pray I'm in the arm that gets the actual treatment.

I already have a cabinet full.of cold- eze zinc lozenges just in case. I always take it when I get cold symptoms to shorten the duration anyway. The common cold is also (albeit a more benign) coronavirus so maybe there is something to zinc, etc.

#8217 7 months ago
Quoted from BShing:

I thought the same thing about the possibility of it being a miracle drug, that if true, everyone would know for sure by now. All I’ve been able to find are a few “success” stories with small sample size studies that don’t hold up under scrutiny, or worse yet, no study at all. One was just a quick read about a “doctor” who claims a 100% cure rate of everyone he treated with hydroxychloroquine in some far away village. ”Were the patients men or women? How old were they? Did they have any co-morbid conditions?“ You scratch a little below the surface and it doesn’t hold up.
Apparently a lot of large scale controlled studies are underway so we should know soon enough (with verifiable peer reviewed data) what the verdict is. Maybe this point has already been brought up but if the drug is already used by people with autoimmune disorders like Lupus then wouldn’t they be the only demographic on the planet not getting sick from Coronavirus? I haven’t heard that to be the case. My guess is it can help some patients a little but I’m not buying the miracle cure. Whole countries are shut down, people are suffering and the best minds in science are looking for a solution. I can’t believe this is it, sorry. If someone tells you something that doesn’t make sense it isn’t true.

Like a lot of drugs, I think it will show to help some patients but certainly not everyone. As has already been pointed out here, if it was the magical silver bullet, I don't think we'd be seeing daily death tolls as high as they are right now.

#8218 7 months ago
Quoted from Utesichiban:

All I know is if I had Covid19 and was hospitalized, I would want and request the three drug cocktail being discussed. Maybe it wouldn't and doesn't work for some but I think the potential upside outweighs the risk for many. Let's just say in a randomized, placebo controlled study, I'd pray I'm in the arm that gets the actual treatment.
I already have a cabinet full.of cold- eze zinc lozenges just in case. I always take it when I get cold symptoms to shorten the duration anyway. The common cold is also (albeit a more benign) coronavirus so maybe there is something to zinc, etc.

I understand that too, if one was infected and struggling with covid-19, who wouldn't want the kitchen sink thrown at it? There is a cost to that too though. With the infection rate is high as it is, the supply of that drug will dry up.The folks who need the drug that it has been proven effective for, malaria, lupus, and arthritis will be unable to get it. My biggest concern is that a resource is being spent where it will have a negligible effect but it's touted as a miracle drug, offering false hope while shortchanging others who will truly benefit from it. It already is happening.

#8219 7 months ago

I'm somewhat bound in the range of my response, but collectively I can use science to point to the correct term for ethical research referred to above being "research studies" (comparing data already gathered rather than doing potential harm in a time-critical situation), while in these circumstances having a control group cannot be ethical (and this is why there was none).

#8220 7 months ago
Quoted from Swainer80:

I understand that too, if one was infected and struggling with covid-19, who wouldn't want the kitchen sink thrown at it? There is a cost to that too though. With the infection rate is high as it is, the supply of that drug will dry up.The folks who need the drug that it has been proven effective for, malaria, lupus, and arthritis will be unable to get it. My biggest concern is that a resource is being spent where it will have a negligible effect but it's touted as a miracle drug, offering false hope while shortchanging others who will truly benefit from it. It already is happening.

The shortages are strange, this is a drug that's in such plentiful supply worldwide that it's over-the-counter in Africa and is 4 cents US per dose, or pack, or some form of unit there. The fish tank chemical proves it's able to be synthesized readily in large batches, and there's no patent restricting intellectual property. Pretty sure you can use chemicals from the hardware store to add an OH- functional group to the fish tank stuff, but they're watched by the DEA. That would be pretty funny actually, setting off that alarm and they find a guy in a trailer cooking up a big batch of malaria medicine.

#8221 7 months ago
Quoted from Tubes:

The shortages are strange, this is a drug that's in such plentiful supply worldwide that it's over-the-counter in Africa and is 4 cents US per dose, or pack, or some form of unit there. The fish tank chemical proves it's able to be synthesized readily in large batches, and there's no patent restricting intellectual property. Pretty sure you can use chemicals from the hardware store to add an OH- functional group to the fish tank stuff, but they're watched by the DEA. That would be pretty funny actually, setting off that alarm and they find a guy in a trailer cooking up a big batch of malaria medicine.

You do not reply to me in PM, I will no longer reply to you in this forum.

#8222 7 months ago
Quoted from Swainer80:

You do not reply to me in PM, I will no longer reply to you in this forum.

What sort of ruse is this, once again I have to question these bait-and-switch tactics as you PMed me and I just got done responding. Will I now suffer consequence for explaining myself? For failing to read your mind while I was responding to the communication you initiated?

Since I was responding to an idea rather than a person, I'll further clarify that the malaria / lupus antiviral shortage seems more like a supply chain thing. Not seeing soap on the shelves doesn't mean it's hard to make soap.

25
#8223 7 months ago
Quoted from Tubes:

Then it's immoral, and morality trumps ethics.

I can comment on the way clinical trials are done as I work on preclinical studies (on cancer, not on coronavirus).

There is nearly always the need for a control group - these patients will get the best known treatment, the others the molecule X of unknown efficacy. So if there is a treatment, it would be totally unethical not to give anything.

These studies are often "double-blind": neither the patient or medical staff know if you receive X, or the traditional (currently available, approved) treatment, or a placebo (if there is no current treatment, or if the disease is not severe). The reason is to avoid what we call a placebo effect - the patient's psychology does play an important role in his/her fight against the disease. It's also meant to avoid an unconscious bias from the staff (paying more attention to the patients who received compound X). But of course someone is keeping a record of who receives what!

The two groups are randomized and made as close as possible to each other (same age range, risk factors, initial severity of the disease). For cancer trials, patient enrolled have generally experienced prior treatment protocols, tumor relapses and are already weakened. You don't try a new drug on a recently discovered tumor, especially if there are existing treatments that provide a benefit for the patient. You tend to select patients for which not many options are left. The protocol is different when you are setting up a trial against a minor affliction or against ebola for example !

Patients are voluntary and give explicit consent - you spend time explaining the protocol, make sure they know the risks, potential secondary effects and potential benefits of the compound. You also explain what to expect if they do not enter the clinical trial. As a patient, I would definitely try to enter a trial if my current chances of survival are close to zero. May be not if the existing treatment offers me real chances.

Clinical trials are generally organized in Phase I, II, III... In phase I you try to determine the dose to be used, keeping toxicity at acceptable levels ("acceptable" has a different meaning when dealing with a life-threatening pathology) and do escalating doses - for cancer you will tend to select the maximal tolerated dose.

For Covid-19 trials, as chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine are already FDA-approved against other pathologies, you have a good idea of what dose to use, what side effects to expect and which patients are at a greater risk of experiencing them (so, at least initially, you will tend to avoid including them in the study, as the risk/benefit ratio is not as good. If compound X is later shown to be a miracle drug, you may reconsider but will pay special attention to these patients). Given the emergency, you want to test as soon as possible if the dose is effective or not.

It generally takes months (if not years in the case of solid tumors) to get a reliable result, but there are two notable exceptions:
1) compound is highly toxic and you observe severe side effects or deaths. Trial stops immediately. Results are forwarded to all other places in which similar trials are about to start or just started.
2) compound is so effective that there is a clear obvious benefit for the patients who receive compound X. In this case (which is unfortunately rare) the control group is immediately stopped and you start giving them compound X as well. It would then become unethical to continue treating them with a protocol now known to be inferior (but of course you did not know that when the trial started).

Otherwise you will keep an objective record of all events during the trial, trying to be as objective as possible (survival, tumor size, virus titer, weight, blood constants, etc...). Even side effects are classified with an objective I-IV scale depending on severity.

If the benefit of treatment X is modest, you will need a larger sample size (and again be sure the two groups are properly matched) to get confident results.

For chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine we know it's not 1) and if 2) is true we should know very, very soon.

In other words, in medicine, science does NOT trump ethics. Doctors (M.D.) do their best to save patients and mitigate risk/benefits. Clinical trials are not made by mad scientists !

-1
#8224 7 months ago

Thank you for speaking to the importance of ethics over science, and showing how this is so, while my passions forced me to skip over to morality. There's a reason that the "mad scientist" who values scientific advances over ethics has been with us in art, film, literature, whatever, all the way back to Prometheus and his Modern counterpart—and a reason he's always the bad guy.

#8226 7 months ago
Quoted from cait001:

It's probably fair to note that TheBlaze is not a Wikipedia-deemed reliable news source and anything there should be taken with deep scientific skepticism.
I want it to be true but anecdotal evidence won't be enough to make it a real medical solution.
EDIT: what pinball_gizzard said!

The Blaze is Glenn Beck's baby.

13
#8227 7 months ago
Quoted from Tubes:

Science is an arbitrary construct.

Science is a process of finding correct answers. Nothing more, nothing less. It is not an arbitrary construct

#8228 7 months ago
Quoted from cait001:

It's probably fair to note that TheBlaze is not a Wikipedia-deemed reliable news source and anything there should be taken with deep scientific skepticism.
I want it to be true but anecdotal evidence won't be enough to make it a real medical solution.
EDIT: what pinball_gizzard said!

We could all argue over what’s deemed a reliable news or try to discredit any news because of his or her own political preference until we all get ejected. If you haven’t noticed I post from all news sources. Even threw in some satire for comic relief.

#8229 7 months ago
Quoted from arcademojo:

We could all argue over what’s deemed a reliable news or try to discredit any news because of his or her own political preference until we all get ejected. If you haven’t noticed I post from all news sources. Even through in some satire for comic relief.

Folks may get bothered by how their preferred news source falls on here but a nonprofit rates stories for bias and charts the news source here. It’s a good general guideline for quality and differentiating opinion disguised as news for fact based reporting.

The biggest gap in news right now is that there isn’t a lot of fact based reporting that skews right. You really only have the WSJ and The Dispatch (a new online publication from the folks at the now defunct Weekly Standard).

https://www.adfontesmedia.com/?v=402f03a963ba

#8230 7 months ago
Quoted from Utesichiban:

All I know is if I had Covid19 and was hospitalized, I would want and request the three drug cocktail being discussed. Maybe it wouldn't and doesn't work for some but I think the potential upside outweighs the risk for many.

This is exactly why the President’s obsessive cheerleading is harmful.

I would want and request the best treatment possible as determined by my doctor and medical team and I don’t want them to waste valuable time telling me why an unproven crapshoot is most likely not a logical treatment option. What the President, Navarro and others don’t ever point out are the very serious side effects possible with the doses involved. The potential upside may indeed outweigh the risk for some but to claim “many” is simply wishful thinking at this point.

-32
#8231 7 months ago
Quoted from Luckydogg420:

Science is a process of finding correct answers. Nothing more, nothing less. It is not an arbitrary construct

Science, like history, is a lie agreed upon.

#8232 7 months ago

My buddy in china sent me this article today. Its front a chinese news source describing how different news outlets lie to you.

It's in english.

https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/myQn0D0IdeROBe42kFUVkg

10
#8233 7 months ago
Quoted from Luckydogg420:

My buddy in china sent me this article today. Its front a chinese news source describing how different news outlets lie to you.
It's in english.
https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/myQn0D0IdeROBe42kFUVkg

I LOVE hearing from China about truth in media. They have such a history of allowing Freedom of the Press.

12
#8234 7 months ago
Quoted from Tubes:

Science, like history, is a lie agreed upon.

No, it's really not.

If you are trying to get from point A to point B theory wise, science is nothing more than the arrow between them. It's the logical mechanism you use to test hypothesis.

#8235 7 months ago

From my previous link

Why lie? (a brief history)

Sometime in the 1960s the Networks realized that over 60% of their profits came from news. Growing up, I had believed that "News" and "Entertainment" were separate things. The truth, it seems has been that "news" is a form of entertainment. It is also a 

tool used to control what facts and information people have access to. More importantly, it is a profit generating mechanism for media moguls like Rupert Murdoc. 

In the 70s and 80s competition between news networks became more intense and eventually lead to sensationalism and spin to reach more of an audience and sway opinions in a general direction. Instead of just reporting facts, it was found that by 

emotionally charging an argument, they could increase viewership.

Types of Lies

There are a number of ways in which media lies to you. Sometimes directly, other times indirectly.

Truth by Repitition - This kind of lie is when something is repeated enough times, particularly a headline, so that the actual truth becomes irrelevant. This can be attributed to a human flaw known as "confirmation bias". If a "fact" is confirmed enough times by enough sources it becomes subjectively true. In this case, one cannot blame the media directly, except for their own eagerness to "get the story out". Remember, they are in the business of making money. After you read the first story, subsequent stories will likely only get a "headline" view

Lie by Deflection - This is when media sources deliberately report on information that is not relevant or attempt to distract from factual information by creating an emotional spin on it. This happens when the people in charge want to push their opinion on their readers and form an "Us against them" with their readers. Watch out for the next lie, because it often is found in the same agency, and next to the deflection.

Lie by Omission - This is when important and relevant facts are deliberately removed from an article to focus on the agenda the reporting agency has in mind. Support this candidate, hate this person, or even buy this product, amongst other things, are all agendas networks and news have pushed.

Focus on Opinion - is a lie where the media repeats its news and offers no dissenting views, particularly when it comes to reporting on an opinion piece. The objective here is to isolate people whose ideas differ from the reporting agency and magnify the representation of ideas they want to go through. Liberal news talks with liberal supporters to show how many people support liberal ideas. As does conservative news. This lie is often followed up with "Truth by Repetition". Together, they create an environment that the reader may be in a minority opinion group, and thus more willing to "go with the flow" of the majority.

Distortion of Fact - is when the media reports heavily on facts as though they are far more important than they actually are.

Misrepresentation of Facts - this is classic "taking out of context" to purposefully or inadvertently change the meaning of factual

Sensationalism - is when the news reported has wording meant to excite its reader. 

Spin - is when the "direction" of the news is turned towards something else. An example might be that, instead of focusing on a particular fault of their own, a company may redirect attention to the shortcomings of a competitor.

Truth and Fiction - The best lies are told with a grain of truth. This is when news presents some factual information with added information that is not true. Usually it serves the purpose of guiding the viewer into having a particular opinion about the subject. The factual information lends credibility to the fictional information. In the end, people tend to forget information and remember more of a feeling about something. Therefore, once this information is proven false, most people are still left with the original impression the article gave them, thereby distorting their opinion of the subject unfairly.

Lies through "Trolling" and Commentary - Modern media has had the onslaught of people able to express their opinions and views on reported information. If you think these are all honest individuals you are mistaken. If you think they're just people with a sick sense of humor, you are also wrong. Here are some reference articles that talk about it:

https://www.cracked.com/blog/6-things-you-learn-getting-paid-to-troll-peopleonline/

http://politicalomnivore.blogspot.com/2012/02/how-do-i-get-paid-to-be-on-linetroll.html

I would like to note at the end of the second link's article, the author personally does not feel paid trolling is an extensive business. As I'm inclined to agree, I would still like to point out that in some cases I also believe there have been incidents. Here is a link to an article on Snopes.com (link below) that asserts protestors received money, but were not "paid".

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/paid-protesters-kavanaugh-hearings/

While this kind of thing may be rare, it still occurs. Furthermore, as the posters are not really held accountable for expressing their opinions or "facts", it is often dismissed. Regardless, it does have an impact on a reader's interpretation of an article. 

The main point here is that there are many ways in which the media either deliberately or inadvertently lies to

What is the Problem exactly?

Much of the problem with all this lies in a relaxing of Ethics in Journalism by governing bodies. After all, if journalism is a category of entertainment, there is no need to legislate or control what is actually said. As media moguls are in private business to turn profit, they are free to report on whatever they wish and in the manner they see will turn that profit. Ethics in Journalism ceases to exist because it's just another private business. Asking the government to handle journalism isn't a solution either as thegovernment is seen as having its own agenda to push. There needs to be a clear distinction between news and entertainment and the articles presented as news should aptly reflect the same ethical standards of teachers and reference materials (such as old school encyclopedias). The articles that are presented for entertainment need to be clearly labeled as such and recognized as an unreliable source of information. Facts need to be presented without bias, without emotional language, and without spin or other forms of misdirection.

Here is a list from the Ethical Journalism Network (EJN) on what ethical journalism is:

1) Truth and Accuracy

2) Independence

3) Fairness and Impartiality

4) Humanity

5) Accountability

You can read the full article here: 

https://ethicaljournalismnetwork.org/who-we-are/5-principles-of-journali

What Can I Do About It?

As modern journalism seems to further lack standards, let alone ethics it becomes important that readers in general take up some fact-checking on their own. Here are some strategies to confirm factual information from fictional accounts.

No.1

Read articles from conflicting sources. That is, find any two articles on a topic from two sources whose motivation is opposed. Perhaps an article from Fox and CNN about the same event. The truth will be on the shared information they agree on. Everything else is garbage meant to cater to the reader's sense of right or wrong. The more articles you read on a particular story, from differing sources, the more you'll be able to find the "common thread" connection. Those are likely the facts. It's been argued recently about where COVID-19 started. However, what every source agrees on is that the first known outbreak started in Wuhan China. No one disagrees about that. As you explore this, you will find, little by little, what is actually known and what is speculation. 

No.2

Look for articles that post their references and sources. Check on those sources. Most writers know you aren't likely to read twenty articles to fact check them or their interpretation of an article they read. Yet that is exactly what you need to do. Why is this source credible? How does the author make that particular statement? Why does the author say this? 

No.3

Shared opinions doesn't equal a fact. Realize the difference between subjective reality and objective reality. Sharing a subjective reality can make you feel connected but it won't do anything to help you find the truth. Unfortunately, too many people enjoy living in a bubble reality where everyone agrees with them and they don't have to support their statements. Too many people don't like to have their beliefs challenged and go into cognitive dissonance when they are presented with facts that don't match their reality. Don't be among them. Keep an open mind.

No.4

Learn more about critical thinking. Openly challenge ideas and information until you can prove it to yourself. Know what it will take to prove something to you. Set your own standard, but do so earnestly. If information presented qualifies your pre-set condition 

of proof, then accept you were wrong. Neil deGrasse Tyson tells a story in his MasterClass (available on the website: Masterclass.com) about a man that wanted proof of the moon landing. Neil asked him what he would need to prove the moon landing. The man said he would need a photograph. When Mr. Tyson presented the evidence, it was still not enough. The point of this is, there is no way to prove something to someone that wants to believe otherwise. Incidentally, I highly recommend Mr. Tyson's "Scientific Teaching" masterclass.

No.5

Eye-witness testimony is worthless unless it's your own or been documented via video where you can also see and evaluate what happened.Understand however, even videos can be subject to the above "Lies" and misrepresentation.

No.6

Ask yourself, why is this news and what is the article's agenda? Are they honestly trying to share information with me or is it geared towards a particular opinion? How many adjectives are used in this article and for what purpose? Yes, adjectives indicate subjective truth, and in the case of factual information, irrelevant: does it matter what race or color the man who robbed the bank was? However, it might make a difference when reporting that a suspect is wanted for questioning and in giving a description so as to track them down.

About the Author:

I am not a reporter. I am not a journalist. I am a freelance writer. I write under the pen-name Victor. I do not have a "rosey-view" of the world as has been suggested by some commentators, but I do believe in the better nature and logic of mankind. People do what they do for a purpose, usually to meet some need they have that is lacking otherwise. Before you judge someone, consider where they have been and what they have learned in their lives. Conflict is resolved by understanding, not accusing or judging. Likewise, I am not perfect. I'm just another person wandering this road and trying to make sense of it.

#8236 7 months ago
Quoted from Luckydogg420:

From my previous link

Why lie? (a brief history).

Calling any news a “Lie” is unnecessarily inflammatory. Bias. Yes. Lying. No.

-10
#8237 7 months ago
Quoted from Wolfmarsh:

No, it's really not.
If you are trying to get from point A to point B theory wise, science is nothing more than the arrow between them. It's the logical mechanism you use to test hypothesis.

It's the same thing you're saying presented in a mysterious way. Science is a method, we made it up, it changes. One day you excavate Troy. One day you want 5 duplicated results instead of 3 to call something science. But the process of arguing is how the agreement forms, and in this our notions of science and history form.

#8238 7 months ago

Maryland Coronavirus Report 4-7

Went back into work yesterday (office) and things are a bit different. They've got everyone spread out, but many people are still using leave instead of showing up. I'm not hot desking anymore, and people are now sporadically wearing masks at work. I am just happy that I have not missed any paychecks since this started.

Went to Target yesterday. Still no TP, hand sanitizer, or wipes, but most things were there. The only new notable absences at Target were... Jigsaw Puzzles.

Our money is fully back in the stock Market as of Monday morning. Everytime I have lost big dollars in the market it has been from underestimating what the government would do to keep the market up, and I felt like I was about to step into that trap again. My speculative bets on Cracker Barrel and Red Robin were up big time yesterday (like 20% each) so now I'm only marginally losing money on them.

Kids are back doing regular homeschooling, but this weekend will be "spring break". When we come back there will be online learning.

I am noticing more long term cultural changes in the way things are done at the businesses still open. Yesterday, I went to taco-bell (always a bad decision) and they held out the card reader for me so I never actually handed them my card. There are sneeze guards at grocery stores now.

I also have a few masks coming in the mail thanks to a fellow pinsider (thanks random internet stranger).

I am looking forward to picking up my TSPP from a fellow pinsider sometime in May (deposit down) and look forward to the next real pinball show. I'm debating springing for some nicer used backglasses to put on my wall. If I had choice I'm thinking B/W Spiderman, Paragon, DE Simpsons, and a few more space themed goodies.

Stay safe everyone!

#8240 7 months ago

COBOL programmers needed in NJ to help with their decades-old unemployment insurance systems.

https://qz.com/1832988/covid-19-results-in-new-jersey-desperately-needing-cobol-coders/

Note that with legacy systems like this, the barrier just isn't typically the language itself, but the maze of all the decades of businesses/tax rules implemented within the systems. Once change could lead to unexpected/undesirable results.

#8241 7 months ago
Quoted from ForceFlow:

COBOL programmers needed in NJ to help with their decades-old unemployment insurance systems.
https://qz.com/1832988/covid-19-results-in-new-jersey-desperately-needing-cobol-coders/

Saw that yesterday. I don't think you could pay me enough to program COBOL (or go to NJ).

#8242 7 months ago
Quoted from sataneatscheese:

The only new notable absences at Target were... Jigsaw Puzzles.

I wish I would have anticipated the great jigsaw puzzle bubble of 2020. I dug this one out of the closet that I bought in 2014 and never opened. Somebody bought it yesterday. With shipping and tax, they paid $82. Just unreal.

puzzle (resized).jpg
#8243 7 months ago
Quoted from loneacer:

Saw that yesterday. I don't think you could pay me enough to program COBOL (or go to NJ).

They might not be paying at all--they're looking for "volunteers".

Good, experienced COBOL programmers can be quite expensive.

#8244 7 months ago
Quoted from ForceFlow:

They might not be paying at all--they're looking for "volunteers".
Good, experienced COBOL programmers can be quite expensive.

My first employer out of college was a COBOL shop. I thought I was going to have to use it, so I read COBOL for dummies. I got there and they put me on a new team writing web applications.

#8245 7 months ago
Quoted from loneacer:

Saw that yesterday. I don't think you could pay me enough to program COBOL (or go to NJ).

Real Programmers can write FORTRAN programs in any language

https://web.mit.edu/humor/Computers/real.programmers

#8246 7 months ago
Quoted from Tuukka:

Real Programmers can write FORTRAN programs in any language
https://web.mit.edu/humor/Computers/real.programmers

I had a semester of Fortran my first year in college. Don't remember much about it other than the giant printouts that were our program results we had to turn in.

#8247 7 months ago
Quoted from loneacer:

I wish I would have anticipated the great jigsaw puzzle bubble of 2020. I dug this one out of the closet that I bought in 2014 and never opened. Somebody bought it yesterday. With shipping and tax, they paid $82. Just unreal.[quoted image]

Damn. Just when I donated about 50 puzzles to my library last fall after nobody would pay $.25 a puzzle at my last yard sale of the season.

#8248 7 months ago

I slump in my chair every time I read/hear a news article and they quote the information coming from "a reliable source". I read similar versions of that often on Pinside concerning game rumors etc. It's irritating.

#8249 7 months ago
Quoted from CrazyLevi:

They need to put padlocks on these church doors, just like they did with bathhouses during the AIDS crisis.

https://www.ktvu.com/news/landlord-changes-locks-on-california-church-after-pastor-said-hed-continue-to-hold-services

#8250 7 months ago
Quoted from Mr68:

I slump in my chair every time I read a news article and they quote the information coming from "a reliable source". I read similar versions of that often on Pinside concerning game rumors etc. It's irritating.

It really depends on the publication. There’s a real need to have unnamed sources, especially if there’s a chance of retribution for speaking out. The true news sources have a strict process for how they determine if they’re going to go with an unnamed source. It’s not something the Wall Street Journal or New York Times does lightly.

Promoted items from the Pinside Marketplace
From: $ 140.00
$ 24.25
Playfield - Toys/Add-ons
The MOD Couple
$ 20.00
Cabinet - Other
Filament Printing
From: $ 125.00
Playfield - Plastics
Ramp-O-Matic
$ 48.00
Cabinet - Other
ModFather Pinball Mods
$ 10.00
Playfield - Decals
Mods for your pinballs
$ 369.00
Cabinet - Decals
Mircoplayfields
$ 21.00
Electronics
Yorktown Arcade Supply
$ 125.00
Cabinet - Toppers
Sparky Pinball
$ 29.00
Playfield - Toys/Add-ons
The MOD Couple
$ 42.00
Playfield - Toys/Add-ons
ModFather Pinball Mods
$ 76.95
Cabinet - Shooter Rods
Super Skill Shot Shop
$ 8,999.99
Pinball Machine
Music City Pinball
$ 19.99
Eproms
Matt's Basement Arcade
$ 239.00
Cabinet - Toppers
Tilttopper
From: $ 150.00
Cabinet Parts
Maple Street Sign Shop
$ 15.00
$ 29.95
Playfield - Toys/Add-ons
ULEKstore
$ 76.95
Cabinet - Shooter Rods
Super Skill Shot Shop
$ 40.00
Gameroom - Decorations
Arcade Arts
From: $ 42.00
Cabinet - Shooter Rods
ModFather Pinball Mods
$ 7,599.00
Pinball Machine
Classic Game Rooms
$ 10.00
Cabinet - Decals
Docquest Pinball Mods
$ 30.00
$ 96.95
Cabinet - Shooter Rods
Super Skill Shot Shop
$ 45.99
Eproms
Matt's Basement Arcade
$ 139.00
Playfield - Toys/Add-ons
Sparky Pinball
$ 89.00
Playfield - Toys/Add-ons
The MOD Couple
$ 110.00
Boards
AMCO
$ 139.00
Playfield - Toys/Add-ons
Sparky Pinball
There are 20412 posts in this topic. You are on page 165 of 409.

Hey there! Got a moment?

Great to see you're enjoying Pinside! Did you know Pinside is able to run thanks to donations from our visitors? Please donate to Pinside, support the site and get anext to your username to show for it! Donate to Pinside