User Controls
Science: Lower cognitive ability linked to non-compliance with social distancing
-
2020-07-13 at 3:36 PM UTCThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2020-07-13 at 3:41 PM UTC
-
2020-07-13 at 3:42 PM UTCits very hard for me to avoid assuming and labeling.
-
2020-07-13 at 4:53 PM UTC
-
2020-07-13 at 5:07 PM UTC
-
2020-07-13 at 5:50 PM UTC
-
2020-07-13 at 9:08 PM UTC
-
2020-07-13 at 10:15 PM UTC
-
2020-07-13 at 10:16 PM UTCLol eat shit
Originally posted by ORACLE https://medical.mit.edu/faqs/COVID-19#faq-9
Is a person with COVID-19 contagious before symptoms appear?
Yes, evidence indicates that people who are infected with 2019-nCoV may be at their most contagious in the 48–72 hours before symptoms are noticeable. In addition, it is now estimated that up to 25 percent of infected individuals remain asymptomatic and may unwittingly infect others. For that reason, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is now recommending that individuals wear non-medical-grade, cloth face coverings in public settings where it may be difficult to maintain social distancing, such as grocery stores. If everyone wears masks, this might help prevent those who are unknowingly infected from spreading the illness.
-
2020-07-13 at 10:44 PM UTC
Originally posted by ORACLE Literally saying MIT is lying and wrong ^
MIT takes billions from the bag guys. Sorry, even their documentation can't be trusted, much less their "good word" with no documentation. I didn't just fall off the turnip truck last night, kid. Give me evidence from a source that isn't already conflicted and compromised and I'll be only too happy to accept it. -
2020-07-13 at 10:51 PM UTC
Originally posted by -SpectraL MIT takes billions from the bag guys. Sorry, even their documentation can't be trusted, much less their "good word" with no documentation. I didn't just fall off the turnip truck last night, kid.
Baseless claim to discredit respected authority ^Give me evidence from a source that isn't already conflicted and compromised and I'll be only too happy to accept it.
Every source that doesn't support your stupid opinion is conflicted.
Folks as you can see, SpectraL has lower cognitive abilities. This proves the opening post without doubt. -
2020-07-13 at 11:05 PM UTC
Originally posted by ORACLE Baseless claim to discredit respected authority ^
Every source that doesn't support your stupid opinion is conflicted.
Folks as you can see, SpectraL has lower cognitive abilities. This proves the opening post without doubt.
No, the source simply needs to have no financial ties to the government or political parties. Simple. No conflicts of interest. You don't think I'm stupid enough to accept compromised materials as fact, do you? Give me a neutral party with no financial or political gain attached and their sources and I'll be only too happy to accept it. And that's fair and sensible, you know? -
2020-07-13 at 11:09 PM UTC
Originally posted by -SpectraL No, the source simply needs to have no financial ties to the government or political parties. Simple. No conflicts of interest. You don't think I'm stupid enough to accept compromised materials as fact, do you? Give me a neutral party with no financial or political gain attached and their sources and I'll be only too happy to accept it. And that's fair and sensible, you know?
But you'd believe it if it was written in the mothership zeta version of da bible wouldn't ya hoss -
2020-07-13 at 11:10 PM UTC
Originally posted by -SpectraL No, the source simply needs to have no financial ties to the government or political parties. Simple. No conflicts of interest. You don't think I'm stupid enough to accept compromised materials as fact, do you? Give me a neutral party with no financial or political gain attached and their sources and I'll be only too happy to accept it. And that's fair and sensible, you know?
Do you have some type of list of these reputable sources? I mean, just say what they are so we can know what you approve of and what we dont. It saves us a lot of silly dilly dallying. -
2020-07-13 at 11:11 PM UTC
-
2020-07-13 at 11:13 PM UTC
Originally posted by mmQ Do you have some type of list of these reputable sources? I mean, just say what they are so we can know what you approve of and what we dont. It saves us a lot of silly dilly dallying.
You don't need to take it from me. You can do it yourself in three easy steps.
1. Identify the source
2. Trace the source
3. Research the source.
If the source has any ties at all to either a financial conflict or a political conflict, that is not a trustworthy source. -
2020-07-13 at 11:15 PM UTC
Originally posted by -SpectraL You don't need to take it from me. You can do it yourself in three easy steps.
1. Identify the source
2. Trace the source
3. Research the source.
If the source has any ties at all to either a financial conflict or a political conflict, that is not a trustworthy source.
What about sensationalist content creators on YouTube trying to pull in traffic? Hmm? Hmmm? -
2020-07-13 at 11:16 PM UTC
Originally posted by -SpectraL You don't need to take it from me. You can do it yourself in three easy steps.
1. Identify the source
2. Trace the source
3. Research the source.
If the source has any ties at all to either a financial conflict or a political conflict, that is not a trustworthy source.
Of course. I understand that. I'm just asking you to name a few sources that you've found reputable and unbiased and not "bought" by anyone else. -
2020-07-13 at 11:18 PM UTC
Originally posted by -SpectraL No, the source simply needs to have no financial ties to the government or political parties. Simple. No conflicts of interest. You don't think I'm stupid enough to accept compromised materials as fact, do you? Give me a neutral party with no financial or political gain attached and their sources and I'll be only too happy to accept it. And that's fair and sensible, you know?
I.e. any university with public funding or any public health body is disqualified over the opinion of Specturd i.e. pretty much over 99% of scientific bodies. -
2020-07-13 at 11:24 PM UTC
Originally posted by larrylegend8383 What about sensationalist content creators on YouTube trying to pull in traffic? Hmm? Hmmm?
Well, in that case you can still do intensive research on the source, find out what the source has said before and how it panned out, research the reliability and accuracy of the source from past history, check for associations, etc.. It's not as if clickbait can't be identified, if it is indeed clickbait.
Originally posted by mmQ Of course. I understand that. I'm just asking you to name a few sources that you've found reputable and unbiased and not "bought" by anyone else.
John Solomon produces very accurate information and evidence. He's not affiliated with any particular political party, and he has no financial ties to the government or any political party. Del Bigtree is another. There are many, many credible and reliable sources out there, without having to go to cesspits like MIT, the WHO and the CDC.
