Are we not taking Covid-19 seriously

[Nick Pacific]

Originally Posted by Discraft Dad

I can relate to this. I would hate walking out to my car after leaving Walmart, Target, etc. and seeing a shopping cart near my car after the person that was parked beside me decided to just leave it there instead of walking about 40 feet and putting it in the corral.

https://scoop.upworthy.com/viral-sho...oral-character

[Emoney]

Originally Posted by DG_player

If I disowned every family or friend of mine that had drastically differing opinions on politics or science I wouldn't have very many family or friends left.

Yup. Keeping ppl with opposing views around you is healthy. It builds your character and understanding.

Having only like minded ppl in your circle is what pushes ppl to the extremes.

Usually if you can avoid politics and religion discussions with anyone you meet... You can get along happily.

Only ppl that i push away are the ones that feel like they HAVE to talk about those 2 things.

Story time....

An ex from years ago (the one that got away) decided to find me on facebook around 5 months into covid. Things started off great and there was a real possibility of getting back together....

Well....

The more we talked, the more she forced in politics and conspiracies. I kept trying to change the subject but she started constantly bringing it up. How much she loved the orange guy, how dems will make us socialist, covid denial, Q (which i never heard of until then....but OMG)....ect

So i decided to let her go. She had become "Karen". As much as that sucked to let the chance slip away, i prefer to focus on the happy things in life. Im very grateful for being alive. Very grateful for the little things like having food and shelter (which are a luxury we take for granted).

I dont mind open minded discussions about politics and religion but if you feel the need to "teach" me about those things when we talk.....you can move along to the next person that wants to hear it.

Its a balance, yes you can have vastly diff views but how you prioritize and discuss them is key to having a good friendship. We will always have more in common as humans , than not.

[DavidSauls]

Covid's a bit harder to "agree to disagree" on than, say, economic policy.

[BogeyNoMore]

Originally Posted by Emoney

Yup. Keeping ppl with opposing views around you is healthy. It builds your character and understanding.

Having only like minded ppl in your circle is what pushes ppl to the extremes.

There's more than a bit of truth to this, especially the 2nd part. Associating with too many like minded people can kinda generate group-think, and you start to feel more comfortable with ideas you might not really adopt if left to your own devices.

I'm not saying you should hold staunchly on to your beliefs. Learning and growing are good. I'm all for seeing things from a different perspective, and adjusting your mindset based on that.

Just make sure your arriving at that decision soundly, and that you're not jumping off the cliff following a bunch of lemmings.*


*Yeah, I know it's a misconception, but you catch my drift.

[Jay Dub]

Just to clarify, my question was about COVID-19 not any little disagreement you might have with friends or family.

[DG_player]

Originally Posted by DavidSauls

Covid's a bit harder to "agree to disagree" on than, say, economic policy.

You say that, but the reporting can be drastically different.

I read 2 articles the other day dealing with the same subject material. One was in the NYT and one was in Fox News. They both came to drastically different conclusions. The gist of the NYT article was that Governors were copping out by blaming private gatherings and not taking stronger action against restaurants, etc. which were a much larger contributor to outbreaks. The Fox News article was the opposite, private gatherings were the main contributors and restaurants who had worked hard to be Covid compliant should be left open.

Both articles had snippets of factual information from contact tracing that supported their case, without any links or means of verifying or putting the information in context. What did the only 2% of cases being linked to private gatherings in the NYT article mean? Was it 2% of total cases, and 95% were untraceable, or 2% of traced cases? Is tracing even effective enough at this point to draw any reasonable conclusions about spread? What about the Fox article that said 10% were restaurants and 50% were private gatherings? Is it because you're much more likely to identity a positive at a private gathering and unlikely to identify a positive stranger at a restaurant? How is it possible that both of these facts and conclusions are true? My guess is that if either had actually talked to an expert who was familiar with the data and collection, they would have been told that the limitations are too great to definitively support either conclusion. However as a reader, you have no way of knowing this or even evaluating the snippets of information yourself, and your opinion on the science is going to be driven by which article you read and which source you trust, when the the truth is probably somewhere in the middle.

Both articles were clearly arrived at in the same manner, much the way most of our journalism is nowadays. They have a target audience, a pre-formed opinion, and then sift for facts to support it. Neither of them did real journalism and presented information in a meaningful unbiased fashion.

I personally think they were both vastly irresponsible given the current situation. The NYT article gives a false sense of security about attending private gatherings over the holidays at a very bad time. On the other hand the Fox article is giving a false sense of security about going out to eat.

[Jay Dub]

cdc.com seems to have all the info needed.

No doubt, as said earlier, people are trying to make this a political issue.

[ru4por]

Originally Posted by Jay Dub

Just to clarify, my question was about COVID-19 not any little disagreement you might have with friends or family.

People who completely disagree with me over COVID, are dangerous. They represent a very real threat to me and my family. They ARE extremists in my opinion. Flattening the curve is not only a nice thing to do, it is the RIGHT thing to do. Allowing people in my life that cannot discern right from wrong is not likely to happen. Allow those who simply refuse to chose right over wrong are not going to be part of my life. This is not a new idea to my life. It is part of what defines my definition of friendship.

I am going to have to walk away from a league. This weekend was a debacle. They were a COVID nightmare. They continue to play mob golf and pose a real threat to keeping the courses open. It pains me, because they are good guys. It pains me, because the minimal social interaction disc golf provides, is taken away. It pains me, because I understand the number of people they could get sick, the damage they can actually do.

[DG_player]

Originally Posted by BogeyNoMore

There's more than a bit of truth to this, especially the 2nd part. Associating with too many like minded people can kinda generate group-think, and you start to feel more comfortable with ideas you might not really adopt if left to your own devices.

I'm not saying you should hold staunchly on to your beliefs. Learning and growing are good. I'm all for seeing things from a different perspective, and adjusting your mindset based on that.

Just make sure your arriving at that decision soundly, and that you're not jumping off the cliff following a bunch of lemmings.*


*Yeah, I know it's a misconception, but you catch my drift.

I read an article awhile back that somewhere around 50% of the population did not have a friend that was voting for the opposite candidate for president.

I find it scary that half of the population is that isolated from anyone having different opinions than themselves, especially given the fact that those same people are likely the ones getting their news from one of the many echo chamber sources.

[DavidSauls]

Originally Posted by DG_player

You say that, but the reporting can be drastically different.

I read 2 articles the other day dealing with the same subject material. One was in the NYT and one was in Fox News. They both came to drastically different conclusions. The gist of the NYT article was that Governors were copping out by blaming private gatherings and not taking stronger action against restaurants, etc. which were a much larger contributor to outbreaks. The Fox News article was the opposite, private gatherings were the main contributors and restaurants who had worked hard to be Covid compliant should be left open.

Both articles had snippets of factual information from contact tracing that supported their case, without any links or means of verifying or putting the information in context. What did the only 2% of cases being linked to private gatherings in the NYT article mean? Was it 2% of total cases, and 95% were untraceable, or 2% of traced cases? Is tracing even effective enough at this point to draw any reasonable conclusions about spread? What about the Fox article that said 10% were restaurants and 50% were private gatherings? Is it because you're much more likely to identity a positive at a private gathering and unlikely to identify a positive stranger at a restaurant? How is it possible that both of these facts and conclusions are true? My guess is that if either had actually talked to an expert who was familiar with the data and collection, they would have been told that the limitations are too great to definitively support either conclusion. However as a reader, you have no way of knowing this or even evaluating the snippets of information yourself, and your opinion on the science is going to be driven by which article you read and which source you trust, when the the truth is probably somewhere in the middle.

Both articles were clearly arrived at in the same manner, much the way most of our journalism is nowadays. They have a target audience, a pre-formed opinion, and then sift for facts to support it. Neither of them did real journalism and presented information in a meaningful unbiased fashion.

I personally think they were both vastly irresponsible given the current situation. The NYT article gives a false sense of security about attending private gatherings over the holidays at a very bad time. On the other hand the Fox article is giving a false sense of security about going out to eat.

That's not the sort of disagreement I was thinking of.

I'm talking about the "Covid isn't real" or "Masks don't work and are harmful" or "It's just the flu" contingents.

I've got a friend who repeatedly says the death numbers are fake, and posts how proudly he goes into stores without a mask. It's tough. He's still my friend, but I'm not standing close to hiim.