ewsieg

Noticed this on Twitter. Even Rogan says the clip is cringy. He goes on to post an article which indicates some studies which showed that specific to boys, myocarditis did appear to be increased, and it shows the UK still isn't allowing vaccines under 12. Now, i'm sure most on this forum believes that if the 'science' showed that the vaccine is worse for teenage boys, it wouldn't be approved. But many here talk about the greater good. If specific to pre-teen / teenage boys this does increase the chance of myocarditis, and already knowing the risk from Covid is nearly null, would you give the vaccine to your son? As a whole though, if you thought increasing the risk in teenage boys would result in less Covid for all, would you do it?

I don't think there is any easy answer. But I really do wish communities would push to use land/buildings already available. Even if they subsidize those, it saves from expanding the roads/sewers/electricity/etc to support the new buildings. It doesn't mean that heirs still can't sell their land, but rather they may only get what someone that wants to use the land to farm, hunt, or just has the cash for a big lot is willing to pay for it.

Nothing in there says he's distorting the death numbers, which are the most important numbers. The NYT link provided shows the reported numbers, which shows Michigan worse than Florida in deaths per 100k. What I posted earlier will add roughy 24 deaths per 100k to Michigan, widening that lead even further. The Columbia link says that DeSantis has publicly stated that he doesn't believe the death numbers that are being reported are accurate and that they are too high. They later accuse the state of underreporting the infection rate. Nothing to indicate he's distorting death numbers.

Pics or it didn’t happen.

If those audit numbers are correct, roughly add 24/100,000 to the numbers currently on the link (currently 301/100,000).

https://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/2022/01/14/michigan-covid-long-term-care-facilities/6527680001/ Remember the argument that Florida had a 'headstart' so the fact they are even close to Michigan when it comes to deaths per 100k, well, doesn't look like we're even close anymore. Running the numbers, looks like this bumps us up to 5th worse with Louisiana. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1109011/coronavirus-covid19-death-rates-us-by-state/ I'm listening to LeDuff right now talk about it. He's saying that this is the exact type of data that put Cuomo in hot water, the major difference was with Cuomo, he knew about it and lied about it. In Michigan, we simply chose not to put the resources in to get this data. For instance, depending on your size you didn't have to report to the state how many folks died of Covid, this report dug into those smaller sites.

Certainly no scientists, but my understanding was that the vaccine helped reduce (or eliminate in some people) the symptoms of the virus. Without sneezing, coughing, runny noses, etc the spread is limited. With the fact that the younger you are, the better the chance you'll have asympomatic Covid, in the grand scheme, how much is it really helping? Note, my response above is something that I think is a legitimate point, but my argument to Rogan would be the fact that the vaccine has proven to be safe and would lower that chance of spread even further, it's worth taking. IMO, for those that listen to Rogan and then see someone freak out and say Rogan is spreading horrible misinformation about Covid and point to that, they already heard Rogan's point and agree it's legitimate, but instead of hearing a rationalized response, they just see Rogan attacked and they dig in next to him. Luckily unlike what you'll see from MSM, Rogan than has folks like Zepps and Gupta on to make that argument. Gupta was specifically asked if he regretted going on the show as it didn't change Rogan's mind and he responded stating he felt Rogan was dug in already, but it gave him an opportunity to talk with his listeners.

Well, i'm sure we'll disagree about how partisan MM is. I just reviewed their points on what he spread about Covid and even some really 'shocking' claims they show he made, I can already envision the conversation and suspect things they jumped on. Just a few: Yup, he has. The evidence does point to the fact that individually, a healthy 21 year old should not be worried about Covid. I still disagree with Rogan as it helps with protection of all, but it's not like if you're 21 and listening to Rogan, he gave you a death sentence. Absolutely wrong as a whole. In a quick read about it, he was making the case that folks were done with shutdowns and that would just encourage gatherings inside. There is an argument about being smart about lockdowns. You can't convince me that California is better off by shutting down their beaches. MM then sources a USA today article that says this claim is partly-false and says it's technically not a microchip, but a different type of device that once injected can give the person information to determine if you have Covid. I'm not saying Ivermectin is a wonder drug, well, it is, but a wonder drug for Covid, but i'm starting to think that in a few years, it'll be known that it does benefit a user if they have Covid. Again, not saying something like the Pfizer treatment pill isn't better, but I wouldn't be surprised if Ivermectin is pretty close, but because no one could really make money on it, Pfizer and the other drug companies helped make it look silly and promoted their new patented drugs. As for it being potentially dangerous, that's the biggest media fallacy out there. I know you can make the argument that it's true, but than take a look at my wife, the Moderna shot (combined with the flu and auto-immune issues already) put her in anaphylaxis shock and hospitalized her for days. Shouldn't the media refer to it as a proven but potentially dangerous treatment for the disease? Ivermectin, when taken as a prescribed medicine, is no more dangerous than most drugs, when taken as a prescribed too. I've seen some articles say Abbott was wrong for saying this was happening. Yet at the time, Mexico was dealing with a surge. We had a surge of illegals flowing into the border and the media was ripping any republican politician they could find a picture of sitting at an outdoor restaurant saying they were the real reason covid was spreading. I'm not saying the summer surge in Texas was only due to illegal aliens, but you'll never convince me that it didn't play a part.

I disagree that he's a terrible host. In fact I think he's a great interviewer. I don't think he's right about a number of things, but that clip above is a quick segment. He'll interject at times, but he gives the host a lot of time to explain themselves too. I did listen to the Sanjay Gupta one and the clips you saw were all about Rogan going after CNN. Even Gupta came out and said that was only a small bit of the overall conversation. I rarely listen now, I just don't have the time, but it's not because he's a terrible host.

This is true. He turned down the option of buying these after already purchasing an option to buy quite a bit already, all before it was even approved for use. In short, the US took a gamble with several vaccines, with some not making it to market, at least not here (ie, Novavax). Was Trump's failure on Covid the fact that once vaccines were approved we didn't have any to get into the arms of folks?

My first was Bob Seeger in the mid-90's, first and only show at Pine Knob before I moved into the Metro Detroit area. The last show I saw there was also Seeger. There was a run in the late 90's of hair bands that still did well at Pine Knob and my boss had season tickets to the Piston's and was always given tickets to those shows and she would just pass them to me. If it was during the week, meet up at Big Buck, the bar area had a free mini buffet (maybe it was certain days), so for 5 bucks you'd get two beers, some food, and leave a 20% tip. Another beer at the venue and it made for a pretty cheap night and realized just how talented some of these bands I enjoyed, but also mocked, were.

For what it's worth, my brother (the health care administrator) has been told by the company lawyers that this mandate will be upheld.

I contend the vaccination rate is better if Trump is president. His base is leading him now in terms of 'anti-vax' and they boo him when he says he's vaxxed and boosted, but I think if he won, he would have been saying it's the "Trump's vaccine" and at that time, his folks follow him. While there would have been some dem hesitancy initially with the vax, I don't think they are as f'd up as the GOP, and come around and endorse it as well.

We only have Covid today because of Trumpers that don't want to get the vaccine. That's pretty much the story that I've heard since we first saw spikes last summer after the vaccine was available. I won't lie, I somewhat bought into it initially as well, but realized we weren't making any radical effort to vaccinate the world. Even with the initial idea that we would get the world to herd immunity, that was foolish thinking on my part. Guess I just assumed the efficacy would hold up as they were saying it was early on.

Maybe it was lost on me at the time, but to me, I thought everyone basically knew and agreed going into 1/6 that the GOP was going to put on a political stunt, look like a bunch of crybabies, and Biden would be officially named the president. Obviously no way of knowing, but I'm confident that sans maybe 2-3 of the GOP reps that voted against certifying the election, they expected that it would allow them to show solidarity to Trump and they would go home to a Biden presidency as well. Hannity apparently had the foresight to realize it not only wouldn't work, but it was dumb as well. I don't see anything in his pre 1/6 texts indicating he thought it would lead to violence. Then the day off, he's the one pointing out that this will hurt Trump's legacy.

Sounds like we both agree on much of this, but also disagree on the specific core of the issue, or at least what I may have been failing to properly speak to as to what I think is the core. I'm not asking to grade Fox on a curve. I'm stating that specific "journalists" on FoxNews are nothing but an extension of the GOP, conversely you have the same with MSNBC with the DNC. Then you simply have DC based journalists that 'play ball' in order to get access, guess you could call them 'beat writers' and you can question if they get to close to those they report on. I would categorize most of the Sunday morning shows along with the DC bureau's of most print media as the last one. I look at what Hannity did and I see it in an ethical grey area that his company is fine with because they 1) probably agreed with him and 2) when push came to shove, Hannity got in line and followed the company line. I see what Tapper's producer did and again, see it as a grey area too. My guess is CNN was fine with that because Tapper (or I guess his producer rather) managed to get good guests. I then see what Cuomo did and see that as borderline illegal and at the very least, I have to believe he broke company policy in using his resources in an attempt to squash and manipulate a national story. For the above reasons alone I think there is a difference on why Cuomo was fired and Hannity was not. In terms of the differences with the networks, I merely was adding the fact that Foxnews doesn't care if people call it biased. They actually probably love that as that allows them to play the victim card with their viewers. CNN, IMO, doesn't like being called fake news. They feel they are above that and care more about their perception. So adding that, it's a no brainer that Cuomo was fired and not really hypocritical that Hannity wasn't.

I understand using the importance of an issue as a factor, but I still am surprised that from a 'journalistic' viewpoint, no one seems to understand how it's not hypocritical that one was fired and the other wasn't. Let's say O'Donnell texts Klain about coming on his show and says that he really thinks Biden pushing to break the filibuster for election rights is a bad idea, then those texts leak. Now unrelated, a small town sports reporter gets a lead and finds corroborating evidence that the high school QB has sexually assaulted multiple girls. But this kid is his cousin, so he not only buries it, he turns over everything he has to others that want to protect this douchebag so if it does come up they can instantly attack the girls. Now you have the power to fire only one of them. Which one? The one that simply covered up a story that might have made headlines in some small town, or the guy that tried to persuade POTUS from saving America and protecting it's democracy?

You're likely correct, I envision Tapper just like Ron Burgandy. He has no idea what's going on, just gets his makeup done and reads off of the teleprompter.

Completely agreed. And note, I wasn't trying to say which one was worse. I initially was just speaking to the perceived bias that came with Hannity not being fired where Cuomo was. Ultimately 1 did something worse, but I was merely pointing out who they worked for could be a factor as well and conceding that fact.

Maybe he's not, but the leaked emails certainly, IMO, doesn't put him in good light. Maybe Tapper has no idea what's going on behind the scenes with his show and he's just the face of it, but in my experience watching Sunday morning news shows, a politician has no trouble getting the talking points that they want to out. The above indicates to me that Tapper's show is going out of their way to make it comfortable and to mutually assist in doing that. I'm not even going to say that's wrong, but it does raise an eyebrow, just like Hannity's text to Meadows. Which again, is way different than using your role/sources at a major media outlet to help squash and challenge allegations against your brother.

I'll put a FoxNews print article up against the equivalent with CNN or MSNBC any day and it'll stand up to them. The bias with their print articles isn't bias within the article, but bias about what they choose to cover. You start talking about their TV shows, and it's becoming harder and harder to find legitimate news on either Fox or MSNBC. I guess with where we are now, you're probably right. FoxNews goes away tomorrow, many of those viewers go to even worse organizations. They helped lead us to this point, which is probably the point the left are saying when they say Hannity should be fired.

She was referring to kids, the exact quote: "We have over 100,000 children, which we’ve never had before, in serious condition, and many on ventilators" https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/jan/07/sonia-sotomayor/fact-checking-sotomayor-kids-severe-covid-19/

I'm not saying Hannity is not bad. I'm simply saying that when you're talking about primetime hosts on any cable news station, you're talking about an extension of some political party. Hannity/Tucker, they are arms of the GOP. Do I think that's how news stations should handle themselves, no, but I understand that is what it is. So do I think FoxNews is a cancer that is hurting this country, yes. Do I think we'd be better off without FoxNews, yes. But when I look at what Hannity did there, he had access to the chief of staff of POTUS and just like everyone else, he was wondering WTF was going on and urging action. CNN proved they were fine with coziness with the DNC years ago. Rather wikileaks proved that when it showed that their hosts regularly were in contact with the DNC, even helped the DNC prop up Clinton over Sanders. Did Jake Tapper get fired when emails indicated that he allowed the DNC to dictate how a segment with him would go? He's still there today. When Donna Brazille (spelling?) leaked debate questions to Clinton, that was a step to far and she was suspended and if I remember she technically was not fired, they just let her resign once her contract came up.

Hasn't this always been the standard? (and not directed at just you, but rather everyone)

Her drunk day at the UofM game humanized her a bit for me, but I feel like she politicalized the flint investigation which ensured Snyder got off with at worst, a scratch. I still don't know if he's guilty, but after everything settles, many years from now, I'm pretty confident we will find out that Flood was preparing to indict Snyder for manslaughter. Plus if you really care about Flint, maybe don't spend two years fighting Flint in court about how much you're going to give them, work with your ally in the executive branch and get Flint what it needs without wasting administrative costs. While certainly not the brunt of it, she has some responsibility in the damn failures. Add in Oxford. Ok, offer your services, but we all know she what she was trying to do there. So when the district refuses, you attack them? Ridiculous. Her wanting in on that was no different than GOP wanting her to investigate nursing home deaths due to Covid. Neither want to find solutions or how to make them better, both just want a witch hunt.