RE: Covid 19 and those infected

RE: Covid 19 and those infected (Full Version)

All Forums >> [The Minnesota Vikings] >> Vikes Talk

Message

bohumm -> RE: Covid 19 and those infected (3/2/2021 9:52:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lynn G. Everyone I've heard of who has some kind of reaction to the shot has reported that it only lasted one day. So I guess it's not a bad idea to plan to take the day off after you get your vaccination, and, if you don't have any reaction - you still have a day off! Good idea if possible. I'm lucky with the way my schedule works at this point in time. Also, many people report the same kind of lethargy/fatigue for a couple of days after. Not insurmountable by any means for day-to-day stuff, but don't plan on being able to do a lot on top of your norm for the next couple of days.

JT2 -> RE: Covid 19 and those infected (3/13/2021 1:02:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bohumm quote: ORIGINAL: JT2 quote: ORIGINAL: bohumm quote: ORIGINAL: thebigo quote: ORIGINAL: Bruce Johnson We don't have objective journalism anymore. I don't know if we ever had honest debate in America. A long time ago, perhaps. Perhaps not. Well said. A simple truth, simply put. "Truth"? There is definitely objective journalism, and there is journalism with a slant, and there is sheer propaganda. This is like "both sides," "throw them all out," "the truth is in between," etc. Feels good to say, some merit to it, but mostly pablum. You have any names you are willing to assign as objective journalists? I ask because I think it's telling that I have to. "Journalism" today operates the same way most corporations do....profits first. Click bait, sensationalism, fear, conspiracy, death counts, villains and false heroes. Ethical journalism should not be a thing, like round circles. All journalism should be ethical. Who is doing that? Nice to see you, friend. Click bait, sensationalism, fear, conspiracy, death counts, villains and false heroes are definitely part of the landscape, but that's not all there is. I would say that it's not the journalists who are objective, it's the journalism (for the most part). The method fosters objectivity specifically because all individuals lack it. Of course there are slanted rags of various types in various formats to various degrees, but there are a lot of outlets, dailies especially, that are structured to deliver objective reporting (separate from editorials, of course). Even these might have a slight slant, mostly slightly to the left, both as a byproduct of our corporatist culture/society and as a reaction to it, but you can factor that in as you consume the news and still gain a better understanding of issues and events. The more slanted and the propagandists are where the trouble lies, particularly due to confirmation bias and the naïve, who are legion in 2021 in America. I consume the NYT, Washington Post, L.A. Times, CNN, MSNBC, Al Jazeera, Pro Publica (which is great), NPR, the New Yorker, the Atlantic Monthly, and stuff that links off of Twitter. I know that much of what I consume has a slight to very leftward slant, and I try to factor that in. MSNBC has a clear left POV. There is a slate of analogs to what I consume on the right. But reporters from most channels (with gross exceptions) are applying an objective method reinforced by an editorial structure that supports it. It isn't perfect, but it's not all the wild, wild west, either. Hey Bob, appreciate the thoughtful response. I was actually looking for individual names. Personally, I like Taibbi, Mate and Greenwald. Truth, integrity, ethics and pride in craft shine brightly in a dulled and diluted landscape. Republicans call them socialists. Democrats call them Trump-lovers. They're doing something right. Also, they write very well. All three have given up big pay days because they believe in the profession. Truth tellers. Objective. Curious. Skeptical. Fearless. Not beholden to the corporate powers that control most media.

Mark Anderson -> RE: Covid 19 and those infected (3/13/2021 9:09:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JT2 quote: ORIGINAL: bohumm quote: ORIGINAL: JT2 quote: ORIGINAL: bohumm quote: ORIGINAL: thebigo quote: ORIGINAL: Bruce Johnson We don't have objective journalism anymore. I don't know if we ever had honest debate in America. A long time ago, perhaps. Perhaps not. Well said. A simple truth, simply put. "Truth"? There is definitely objective journalism, and there is journalism with a slant, and there is sheer propaganda. This is like "both sides," "throw them all out," "the truth is in between," etc. Feels good to say, some merit to it, but mostly pablum. You have any names you are willing to assign as objective journalists? I ask because I think it's telling that I have to. "Journalism" today operates the same way most corporations do....profits first. Click bait, sensationalism, fear, conspiracy, death counts, villains and false heroes. Ethical journalism should not be a thing, like round circles. All journalism should be ethical. Who is doing that? Nice to see you, friend. Click bait, sensationalism, fear, conspiracy, death counts, villains and false heroes are definitely part of the landscape, but that's not all there is. I would say that it's not the journalists who are objective, it's the journalism (for the most part). The method fosters objectivity specifically because all individuals lack it. Of course there are slanted rags of various types in various formats to various degrees, but there are a lot of outlets, dailies especially, that are structured to deliver objective reporting (separate from editorials, of course). Even these might have a slight slant, mostly slightly to the left, both as a byproduct of our corporatist culture/society and as a reaction to it, but you can factor that in as you consume the news and still gain a better understanding of issues and events. The more slanted and the propagandists are where the trouble lies, particularly due to confirmation bias and the naïve, who are legion in 2021 in America. I consume the NYT, Washington Post, L.A. Times, CNN, MSNBC, Al Jazeera, Pro Publica (which is great), NPR, the New Yorker, the Atlantic Monthly, and stuff that links off of Twitter. I know that much of what I consume has a slight to very leftward slant, and I try to factor that in. MSNBC has a clear left POV. There is a slate of analogs to what I consume on the right. But reporters from most channels (with gross exceptions) are applying an objective method reinforced by an editorial structure that supports it. It isn't perfect, but it's not all the wild, wild west, either. Hey Bob, appreciate the thoughtful response. I was actually looking for individual names. Personally, I like Taibbi, Mate and Greenwald. Truth, integrity, ethics and pride in craft shine brightly in a dulled and diluted landscape. Republicans call them socialists. Democrats call them Trump-lovers. They're doing something right. Also, they write very well. All three have given up big pay days because they believe in the profession. Truth tellers. Objective. Curious. Skeptical. Fearless. Not beholden to the corporate powers that control most media. Greenwald just tells it like it is.

bohumm -> RE: Covid 19 and those infected (3/13/2021 11:12:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JT2 quote: ORIGINAL: bohumm quote: ORIGINAL: JT2 quote: ORIGINAL: bohumm quote: ORIGINAL: thebigo quote: ORIGINAL: Bruce Johnson We don't have objective journalism anymore. I don't know if we ever had honest debate in America. A long time ago, perhaps. Perhaps not. Well said. A simple truth, simply put. "Truth"? There is definitely objective journalism, and there is journalism with a slant, and there is sheer propaganda. This is like "both sides," "throw them all out," "the truth is in between," etc. Feels good to say, some merit to it, but mostly pablum. You have any names you are willing to assign as objective journalists? I ask because I think it's telling that I have to. "Journalism" today operates the same way most corporations do....profits first. Click bait, sensationalism, fear, conspiracy, death counts, villains and false heroes. Ethical journalism should not be a thing, like round circles. All journalism should be ethical. Who is doing that? Nice to see you, friend. Click bait, sensationalism, fear, conspiracy, death counts, villains and false heroes are definitely part of the landscape, but that's not all there is. I would say that it's not the journalists who are objective, it's the journalism (for the most part). The method fosters objectivity specifically because all individuals lack it. Of course there are slanted rags of various types in various formats to various degrees, but there are a lot of outlets, dailies especially, that are structured to deliver objective reporting (separate from editorials, of course). Even these might have a slight slant, mostly slightly to the left, both as a byproduct of our corporatist culture/society and as a reaction to it, but you can factor that in as you consume the news and still gain a better understanding of issues and events. The more slanted and the propagandists are where the trouble lies, particularly due to confirmation bias and the naïve, who are legion in 2021 in America. I consume the NYT, Washington Post, L.A. Times, CNN, MSNBC, Al Jazeera, Pro Publica (which is great), NPR, the New Yorker, the Atlantic Monthly, and stuff that links off of Twitter. I know that much of what I consume has a slight to very leftward slant, and I try to factor that in. MSNBC has a clear left POV. There is a slate of analogs to what I consume on the right. But reporters from most channels (with gross exceptions) are applying an objective method reinforced by an editorial structure that supports it. It isn't perfect, but it's not all the wild, wild west, either. Hey Bob, appreciate the thoughtful response. I was actually looking for individual names. Personally, I like Taibbi, Mate and Greenwald. Truth, integrity, ethics and pride in craft shine brightly in a dulled and diluted landscape. Republicans call them socialists. Democrats call them Trump-lovers. They're doing something right. Also, they write very well. All three have given up big pay days because they believe in the profession. Truth tellers. Objective. Curious. Skeptical. Fearless. Not beholden to the corporate powers that control most media. I honestly don't know what to make of the three guys you mention. I'm most familiar with Greenwald and especially Taibbi, and I share your instinct that their waywardness relative to the packs of media that dominate gives them some credibility, at least in appearance. But I've also found both to be weirdly shrill and anti-everything at times in ways that make me wonder if it's more about them seeming smart and uber-all, and I find myself wondering if there's good reason they're untethered and wandering the media-sphere like Cain in "Kung Fu." They seem to oscillate between prescient and unhinged in a way that makes them appear at once like the most credible and most dangerous, and each has a combative, self-exalting manner that again makes them seem like righteous warriors or people drifting publicly into the throes of destructive megalomania. I handle their missives like potentially hazardous material that may also yield great benefit. I will agree readily that media and money is a dangerous web, like medicine and money, education and money, public works/utilities and money, etc. I can see the upside in each, but we choose simultaneously to leave them unfettered by regulation and/or (especially) in the case of the media, with a lion's share of the public unable or unwilling to apply discerning analysis of what they're consuming. We are in dangerous times here and around the world because no matter who is in leadership or who is most prominently heard, the masses would rather bid on TV memorabilia on E-Bay or research mixology.

jbusse -> RE: Covid 19 and those infected (3/18/2021 8:03:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bohumm quote: ORIGINAL: JT2 quote: ORIGINAL: bohumm quote: ORIGINAL: JT2 quote: ORIGINAL: bohumm quote: ORIGINAL: thebigo quote: ORIGINAL: Bruce Johnson We don't have objective journalism anymore. I don't know if we ever had honest debate in America. A long time ago, perhaps. Perhaps not. Well said. A simple truth, simply put. "Truth"? There is definitely objective journalism, and there is journalism with a slant, and there is sheer propaganda. This is like "both sides," "throw them all out," "the truth is in between," etc. Feels good to say, some merit to it, but mostly pablum. You have any names you are willing to assign as objective journalists? I ask because I think it's telling that I have to. "Journalism" today operates the same way most corporations do....profits first. Click bait, sensationalism, fear, conspiracy, death counts, villains and false heroes. Ethical journalism should not be a thing, like round circles. All journalism should be ethical. Who is doing that? Nice to see you, friend. Click bait, sensationalism, fear, conspiracy, death counts, villains and false heroes are definitely part of the landscape, but that's not all there is. I would say that it's not the journalists who are objective, it's the journalism (for the most part). The method fosters objectivity specifically because all individuals lack it. Of course there are slanted rags of various types in various formats to various degrees, but there are a lot of outlets, dailies especially, that are structured to deliver objective reporting (separate from editorials, of course). Even these might have a slight slant, mostly slightly to the left, both as a byproduct of our corporatist culture/society and as a reaction to it, but you can factor that in as you consume the news and still gain a better understanding of issues and events. The more slanted and the propagandists are where the trouble lies, particularly due to confirmation bias and the naïve, who are legion in 2021 in America. I consume the NYT, Washington Post, L.A. Times, CNN, MSNBC, Al Jazeera, Pro Publica (which is great), NPR, the New Yorker, the Atlantic Monthly, and stuff that links off of Twitter. I know that much of what I consume has a slight to very leftward slant, and I try to factor that in. MSNBC has a clear left POV. There is a slate of analogs to what I consume on the right. But reporters from most channels (with gross exceptions) are applying an objective method reinforced by an editorial structure that supports it. It isn't perfect, but it's not all the wild, wild west, either. Hey Bob, appreciate the thoughtful response. I was actually looking for individual names. Personally, I like Taibbi, Mate and Greenwald. Truth, integrity, ethics and pride in craft shine brightly in a dulled and diluted landscape. Republicans call them socialists. Democrats call them Trump-lovers. They're doing something right. Also, they write very well. All three have given up big pay days because they believe in the profession. Truth tellers. Objective. Curious. Skeptical. Fearless. Not beholden to the corporate powers that control most media. I honestly don't know what to make of the three guys you mention. I'm most familiar with Greenwald and especially Taibbi, and I share your instinct that their waywardness relative to the packs of media that dominate gives them some credibility, at least in appearance. But I've also found both to be weirdly shrill and anti-everything at times in ways that make me wonder if it's more about them seeming smart and uber-all, and I find myself wondering if there's good reason they're untethered and wandering the media-sphere like Cain in "Kung Fu." They seem to oscillate between prescient and unhinged in a way that makes them appear at once like the most credible and most dangerous, and each has a combative, self-exalting manner that again makes them seem like righteous warriors or people drifting publicly into the throes of destructive megalomania. I handle their missives like potentially hazardous material that may also yield great benefit. I will agree readily that media and money is a dangerous web, like medicine and money, education and money, public works/utilities and money, etc. I can see the upside in each, but we choose simultaneously to leave them unfettered by regulation and/or (especially) in the case of the media, with a lion's share of the public unable or unwilling to apply discerning analysis of what they're consuming. We are in dangerous times here and around the world because no matter who is in leadership or who is most prominently heard, the masses would rather bid on TV memorabilia on E-Bay or research mixology. Journalists, Illustrating How They Operate, Yesterday Spread a Significant Lie All Over Twitter https://greenwald.substack.com/p/journalists-illustrating-how-they?token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjoxMzQ4OTgsInBvc3RfaWQiOjMzODM2OTk5LCJfIjoiRXpaQlkiLCJpYXQiOjE2MTYwMjU3NDMsImV4cCI6MTYxNjAyOTM0MywiaXNzIjoicHViLTEyODY2MiIsInN1YiI6InBvc3QtcmVhY3Rpb24ifQ.A_krPe_F87ATS4QZRofzTWlo2c2_Hn_tbpVaaHf96ZE

Daniel Lee Young -> RE: Covid 19 and those infected (3/18/2021 8:17:33 PM)
Some day the so called smart will learn basic html forum posting and magically, like the corona virus, fifteen column wide internet links to fn Twitter crapology will be a one word link to click... Nope.. not I’m my lifetime...

marty -> RE: Covid 19 and those infected (3/18/2021 9:24:16 PM)
90% of the time, I feel like it would be better to have nothing from someone else, we don't need the whole discussion repeated. Just choose a sentence or 2, the main point you were responding to, and put it in qoutes.

unome -> RE: Covid 19 and those infected (4/9/2021 1:59:39 PM)
Sad that we have so devolved as a society that putting people down personally is what passes as intellectual discourse. In a world full of bluster and putdowns instead of data or facts, a President Trump actually makes sense. These are facts that I think are worth sharing: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/04/06/us/variants-cases-spread.html?campaign_id=190&emc=edit_ufn_20210409&instance_id=29045&nl=updates-from-the-newsroom-®i_id=105663737&segment_id=55275&te=1&user_id=ccea8e59471db026cf19436b38d8089f Maybe as much as 75% of the new cases could be the new variant. I am trying to find a way to explain why this changes things without using a lot of words, but explaining pandemics is a bit more long-winded than what fits in a Tweet. Look at Israel. https://www.bing.com/search?q=israel+covid+numbers&cvid=f4f27bc738cc407c8807d69f8b11bf0b&aqs=edge..69i57.6892j0j1&pglt=299&FORM=ANNTA1&PC=U531 Israel had their worst numbers of the whole pandemic when their vaccination program started and now they are at 2-3% of the daily numbers they were at in January. It is really important that people get vaccinated. I waited until everyone was eligible so that people working in the public and people who are very concerned about the virus could get in line before me, but that has happened and now it is time. This virus and variants of it, like influenza, will never fully go away. So, it is time to call that clinic/medical provider and get in line for a vaccine, if you have not already done so. This pandemic will be over when enough of us get vaccinated. Get vaccinated and go Vikes!

Trekgeekscott -> RE: Covid 19 and those infected (4/9/2021 3:51:09 PM)
quote: This pandemic will be over when enough of us get vaccinated. Exactly. To everyone that is refusing or balking at getting a vaccine and are upset that we are not opening everything back up etc. YOU ARE DELAYING EVERYTHING GETTING BACK TO NORMAL BY AVOIDING THE VACCINE. DUMBASSES.

Bruce Johnson -> RE: Covid 19 and those infected (4/9/2021 4:08:21 PM)
My employer strongly encourage me to do so because I work with a lot of older clients. I thought it was good to get the vaccine just because I do care about my clients. My doctor encouraged me, even though he knew I probably had at least residual antibodies from having Covid last spring. Some of ,my friends discouraged me from doing it. I think they thought there was some risk involved with the vaccine, but I figured the way I reacted to the virus that I was more at risk from the disease than the vaccine. I did have a pretty strong reaction to the vaccine, by the way. I got pretty sick for about 48 hours with each dose. It felt a little like getting Covid again, so it was a bit scary. Nevertheless, I'm good now and vaccinated. I do believe in freedom, so in no way do I believe in mandated vaccination, particularly for young and healthy Americans. I think that each person should decide for himself what to do. I may be repeating myself with this, but I'm not a fan of folks wearing masks, even though my wife worked so hard to make them in the beginning of the pandemic. You won't see doctors wearing a non-medical mask in a hospital and I know for myself that I was wearing a mask when I got Covid. I wear them at work because they are required and I wear them when shopping for the same reason. I also wear them just for one day and then I wash it. That might have been my mistake from last spring, but I really don't think they do much good. I do believe that washing our hands and social distancing are more effective in preventing the spread of the disease. I really want the nation to return to normal as soon as possible. I guess we all do. I believe the damage from the lockdowns will be felt for generations- that the majority of the public is not aware yet how much it has hurt small businesses, students out of school, and even mental health.

Murph -> RE: Covid 19 and those infected (4/9/2021 4:42:01 PM)
I think employers should also have the freedom not to employ people that are not vaccinated or refuse to do so.

Bruce Johnson -> RE: Covid 19 and those infected (4/9/2021 4:54:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Murph I think employers should also have the freedom not to employ people that are not vaccinated or refuse to do so. I don't disagree with that. I have been surprised to hear some medical workers tell me that they declined to get the vaccine.

David F. -> RE: Covid 19 and those infected (4/9/2021 6:26:22 PM)
I think I should be free to drive my truck on sidewalks.

Bruce Johnson -> RE: Covid 19 and those infected (4/9/2021 8:34:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: David F. I think I should be free to drive my truck on sidewalks. Freedom comes with responsibility. If you hurt people or harm property than you can lose your freedom. I do believe in giving you the freedom to drive your truck. I trust you.

Bill Johanesen -> RE: Covid 19 and those infected (4/10/2021 8:15:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bruce Johnson quote: ORIGINAL: David F. I think I should be free to drive my truck on sidewalks. Freedom comes with responsibility. If you hurt people or harm property than you can lose your freedom. I do believe in giving you the freedom to drive your truck. I trust you. Exactly! Such as being vaccinated to help thwart a virus that caused a global deadly pandemic and reduce the possibility of deadlier mutations.

Bill Johanesen -> RE: Covid 19 and those infected (4/10/2021 8:20:53 AM)
"I do believe in freedom, so in no way do I believe in mandated vaccination,..." So much for responsibility. Later when people have had opportunities to vaccinate, I hope businesses exercise their freedom and keep the non-vaccinated away, government exercises its freedom to stop non-vaccinated people from entering government buildings, sports leagues exercise their freedom and bar the non-vaccinated from attending sporting events, flying, etc, etc.

Bill Johanesen -> RE: Covid 19 and those infected (4/10/2021 8:23:03 AM)
Oh, and hospitals exercise their freedom and turn the unvaccinated away. Freedom for our hospitals! None of this applies to people that cannot take the vaccine for medical reasons.

Bruce Johnson -> RE: Covid 19 and those infected (4/10/2021 11:14:32 AM)
I believe in freedom. You believe in using force on those whom you disagree with.

David F. -> RE: Covid 19 and those infected (4/10/2021 11:19:25 AM)
Willful ignorant bliss is also a type of force.

bohumm -> RE: Covid 19 and those infected (4/10/2021 12:56:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bill Johanesen Oh, and hospitals exercise their freedom and turn the unvaccinated away. Freedom for our hospitals! None of this applies to people that cannot take the vaccine for medical reasons. Can't actually do this, but sometimes wish we could. I have three patients today who got COVID and didn't die, but probably wish they had. Their lives will likely be lived out in a shitty bed in a shitty room in a shitty facility, trached and maybe on a ventilator. Get the vaccine.

thebigo -> RE: Covid 19 and those infected (4/10/2021 2:08:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: David F. Willful ignorant bliss is also a type of force. The force be with you.

bohumm -> RE: Covid 19 and those infected (4/10/2021 2:39:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bruce Johnson I believe in freedom. You believe in using force on those whom you disagree with. No need to use force, but if one chooses not to be vaccinated, their choices should be severely curtailed, and they have to wear masks in all public spaces. That's fair.

Bruce Johnson -> RE: Covid 19 and those infected (4/10/2021 2:46:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bohumm quote: ORIGINAL: Bill Johanesen Oh, and hospitals exercise their freedom and turn the unvaccinated away. Freedom for our hospitals! None of this applies to people that cannot take the vaccine for medical reasons. Can't actually do this, but sometimes wish we could. I have three patients today who got COVID and didn't die, but probably wish they had. Their lives will likely be lived out in a shitty bed in a shitty room in a shitty facility, trached and maybe on a ventilator. Get the vaccine. Again, just for the record I am vaccinated. Also, I want to say that I like your style. You are using persuasion (and you're good at it). It reminds me of the fable of the contest between the sun and the wind. They both wanted to get the coat off the man walking down the road. The wind tried to use force, but the harder he blew the more firmly the man clung to his coat. Then, when the sun shone warmly the man took off his own coat. Of course in the political discourse of today emotions run high, but when we get angry with someone it only leads them to be more stubborn with their viewpoint. (like the wind and the coat) I am thinking that the divisions that we have today are not acceptable- we are like immature children. The thing that can best change that, in my opinion is that we listen to each other better and the way to do that is to let the other person know that you understand what they are saying. (even to repeat the point back to them to show that you do understand) Part of the frustration of the whole scene is that we tend to repeat to each other ad nauseam our views because it feels like the other side is not listening. And then we also tend to interrupt each other instead of listening to what the other is saying. We are listening and thinking how to respond before allowing the other person to finish speaking. Then we really can't have constructive dialogue like that.

Todd M -> RE: Covid 19 and those infected (4/10/2021 5:16:17 PM)
Sun vs wind The sun...4.26 million metric tons per second of energy releasing gentle persuasion.

Bruce Johnson -> RE: Covid 19 and those infected (4/11/2021 7:17:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Todd M Sun vs wind The sun...4.26 million metric tons per second of energy releasing gentle persuasion. The sun is around 390 times farther away from the earth than the moon. Good thing. By the way, the moon once collided with the earth millions of years ago before it settled into it's current orbit. That's why there are two separate mantles below the surface of the earth. My son in law is largely responsible for that discovery. Also, I found this quote, but I forget who said it. It must have been a great person. Be respectful. We all bring unique perspectives. Seek first to understand and then share your positivity. I really like that.

Page: << < prev 61 62 [63] 64 65 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5.5 Unicode