danlb_2000
Premium Member
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Coronavirus and Walt Disney World general discussion
- Thread starter Parker in NYC
- Start date
-
- Tags
- coronavirus covid covid-19
- Status
Chi84
Premium Member
There's a huge difference between being on the lookout for (and reporting) allergic reactions and the kind of sensationalism I described. All that does is make people needlessly fear the vaccine.
Jrb1979
Well-Known Member
True. Its why I only watch my local news as there is far less sensationalism going on. I find it's the national news that does it the most
LittleBuford
Well-Known Member
Since Sweden has popped up from time to time in this thread:
Coronavirus: Swedish King Carl XVI Gustaf says coronavirus approach 'has failed'
Sweden has been criticised for its more relaxed approach to handling the pandemic.
www.bbc.co.uk
oceanbreeze77
Well-Known Member
Even with the backlog its record breaking. Those backlog cases are still from this week. We can't handle a surge of 35000-40000 cases a day.
oceanbreeze77
Well-Known Member
Once Moderna is approved, does anyone know how distribution works between the 2??? Who gets what?
_caleb
Well-Known Member
I’d love to see an example of the sort of sensationalism you’re talking about. Obviously news outlets want people to tune in and stay tuned in, but sometimes, the “sensationalism” is a good thing because it boosts the signal on important reporting.
carolina_yankee
Well-Known Member
Wow. Constitutional monarchs aren't supposed to say critical things! This must be serious.Since Sweden has popped up from time to time in this thread:
Coronavirus: Swedish King Carl XVI Gustaf says coronavirus approach 'has failed'
Sweden has been criticised for its more relaxed approach to handling the pandemic.www.bbc.co.uk
LittleBuford
Well-Known Member
I was thinking the same thing. Perhaps things are different in Sweden, but as a Brit, I was really taken aback by this.
GoofGoof
Premium Member
I think in a lot of cases it’s the headlines that are sensationalized but the actual story is more balanced. At the end of the day we all knew there would be adverse reactions to the vaccine. One thing that would be helpful is if the media compared this to on a percentage basis to annual flu shots. So what percent of people who have gotten the vaccine already had a severe allergic reaction and how does that compare to the flu shot or some other well known vaccine. Then people have the context to see that although it happened it’s expected and not a reason not to get the vaccine.
GoofGoof
Premium Member
Agreed. Imagine if FL had that kind of number in a day, even half that number to adjust for population size, people would be melting down right now here. DLR wasn’t going to open any time soon and this certainly doesn’t help that cause.
hopemax
Well-Known Member
This was an example that came across the Twitter of the local media guy I have been following. The story was supposed to be: "Yay! Vaccines are here." But protesters showed up and then the coverage became about the protesters and why they were there (vaccines are dangerous). Whether intended or not, the local media provided legitimacy to the idea that vaccines are dangerous, because that's what they spent their time talking about.
Anti-vaccination movement gets traction in unlikely source: Local news
From California to Maine, local news stations have been giving anti-vaccination activists a platform to spread misinformation.
www.nbcnews.com
But with our local media, which I don't normally watch, they do things like, "THIS THING IS DANGEROUS!!!! TUNE IN TO FIND OUT WHAT YOU NEED TO DO TO STAY SAFE!!!" Then they spend the whole newscast using it as their teaser to keep watching, and in the last 5 minutes of the show they mention some vague study. As a viewer, if something is really dangerous, don't use it for your promo to "stay tuned." Get the info out, right after the Top Story (if the danger isn't the Top Story). Otherwise, I think you are fear-mongering for ratings and I don't watch.
Disstevefan1
Well-Known Member
Who knows.... Its all “educated” guess work.... I feel there are more folk rooting for COVID deaths then against COVID deaths. The real sad thing is, dead is dead, when it’s your family, it doesn’t matter how, it hurts just as bad.... Is it fair that we lose people we love if it’s even remotely related to COVID? Of course not! Is it fair to lose some one killed by a drunk driver? Of course not!
I lost my dad years before COVID, it doesn’t matter how. He was the most happiest and positive person in the world; always smiling and whistling, everyone who knew him said he was always happy.
Dad taught me many things in life and he even taught me something in his death..
Life is not fair.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
“Educated” says so much...
LittleBuford
Well-Known Member
What does this even mean?
_caleb
Well-Known Member
Yeah, it seems like that local news station allows their coverage to be co-opted.This was an example that came across the Twitter of the local media guy I have been following. The story was supposed to be: "Yay! Vaccines are here." But protesters showed up and then the coverage became about the protesters and why they were there (vaccines are dangerous). Whether intended or not, the local media provided legitimacy to the idea that vaccines are dangerous, because that's what they spent their time talking about.
Anti-vaccination movement gets traction in unlikely source: Local news
From California to Maine, local news stations have been giving anti-vaccination activists a platform to spread misinformation.
But with our local media, which I don't normally watch, they do things like, "THIS THING IS DANGEROUS!!!! TUNE IN TO FIND OUT WHAT YOU NEED TO DO TO STAY SAFE!!!" Then they spend the whole newscast using it as their teaser to keep watching, and in the last 5 minutes of the show they mention some vague study. As a viewer, if something is really dangerous, don't use it for your promo to "stay tuned." Get the info out, right after the Top Story (if the danger isn't the Top Story). Otherwise, I think you are fear-mongering for ratings and I don't watch.
Who is rooting for COVID deaths?
Also, I’m really glad to see you’ve come around to the idea that those who aren’t following mitigation protocols are as reckless as drunk drivers. Avoidable deaths caused by others are the worst kind of losses.
Last edited:
Jrb1979
Well-Known Member
A death is a death. It is hard when you lose a family member. My wife lost her grandmother Monday due to Covid. I don't think people are so much rooting for Covid deaths. For me it's not wanting more deaths, I'm hoping people will start to take this more seriously. Over 3000 deaths a day is nothing to scoff at. Yet you hear more people complaining about "measures" and gathering with family.
Life isn't fair but we all could do more to make things better. Its time we stop downplaying Covid and stop with 99% junk.
It's his administration official making the statements in multiple emails over many days to the groups responsible for taking actions. It's his picture because he's in charge of the administration. It's a fair thing.
It could be that this official was out of sync with the goals of the administration as a whole. In which case, it should have been caught and then aligned with the overall consistent goals. That it wasn't, or wasn't aligned fast enough is poor management.
It could be that the administration doesn't have a unified goal, but independent actors with conflicting messages. This is poor management too. This leads to lots of problems as people try to figure out who to listen too.
It could be that the administration has a habit of making one set of statements in public announcements and a different one in implementation communications. From the outside this feels like poor management, but it could be brilliant. If the goal it look like one thing but do something different, then this structure is completely appropriate. But, then it's also completely correct for reports to call them on the differences between public announcements and implementation messages.
In any case, he's the leader of the administration and it's fair to use his picture when describing administration actions. No matter what's said publicly, those are still the actions of the administration as a whole.
This is still wrong, and there's still more tools that can be used instead of only the hammer of restrictions. It's a choice to not use anything besides restrictions for control. Obviously, if we're going to "do nothing", then cases will go up. That's wasting implementing other actions when spread is at a low enough level for them to be effective.
It would have required millions of deaths. What he's saying is that he's fine with millions of dead people as the solution. If millions sounds like exaggeration, then he was fine with hundreds of thousands of deaths. It's not really any better.
Isolate the infectious has always been the correct answer. There's less of them than any other group. Bonus, the better job done isolating them, they'll go down in numbers. The problem has always been how to find them faster than they change. The general restrictions have always been the same broad based untargeted way to reduce all interactions by isolating everyone to catch the unknown infectious subgroup. It's a good plan when community spread is high, since there's a ton of unknown infectious people. It's a poor solution as the number is reduced.
hopemax
Well-Known Member
I get so confused. One day we're getting berated for hiding in our basements and expecting everyone else to also stay locked up until cases/deaths go to zero... the next day, it's "rooting for deaths." I wish someone would make up their mind. Are we trying to prevent all the deaths or are we rooting for deaths?
- Status