Coronavirus - The human cost of misinformation



It's utterly grim and a big issue for public health.

There'll be hundreds of thousands more stories since that was published.
The drug itself is a horse dewormer. He can consider all he wants, it's a fact.
It's only used in oral form in humans here for deworming and adjunctive treatment of crusted scabies with topical medication.
 
It's utterly grim and a big issue for public health.

There'll be hundreds of thousands more stories since that was published.

The drug itself is a horse dewormer. He can consider all he wants, it's a fact.
It's only used in oral form in humans here for deworming and adjunctive treatment of crusted scabies with topical medication.


He did not take a horse dewormer whatsoever for gods sake.
 
That's certainly a crackers worldwide list of cracker jackery. It's an old article but I can only see one suggestion in the article that makes sense to me.
 
The Ivermectin is a dewormer used in animals and humans. That is a fact. The preparation he took wouldn't have been a cattle product.
Much the same as me saying I take a dog anti anxiety drug for pain. Same drug, different doses.

Can’t be arsed mate. You clearly haven’t even bothered yourself to hear Rogan’s own account and the research his doctor provided him.
 
BBC News - Coronavirus: The human cost of virus misinformation
I find the self awarness staggering here given you have literally provided a platform for a select group of idiots to peddle 18 months worth of:

•anti vax craic
•anti mask craic
•covid denial
•boasting of flouting restrictions which is a massive kick in the •••• to those who have made sacrifices for so long

Christ @SAFCOldie was even been talking up fake vaccine passports last week! “Easily obtained”

But as long as they remain polite, No ban. It beats me.
 
a small group of individuals have been allowed to spread misinformation on here over the past 18 months

I think efforts to tackle disinformation have improved recently. @Mackem DJ is right on one point when he says that their politeness masked their disinformation though.

The likes of Oldie and Gelan sounded nicey nice but the content of their posts was certainly adding to the disinformation on here, IMO.

Same for another handful of now lesser-seen posters.

At one point we were seeing a new sign up come on here every week to tell us COVID is a hoax or vaccines will kill your children or whatever nonsense they wanted to post.

Also a marked decrease in people posting “research” from scientific figures on the fringes of COVID scepticism.

Definitely has got better.
 
Exactly. Even when forum members have died of Covid, our resident nutters have been tolerated by mods.
because its better to allow people to speak and show themselves to be ill informed and then allowed the debate than to censor.

Look at the early day of the vaccine, UK said for a few weeks it was rubbish that the EU was banning AZ over clotted as they was no risk, it became little risk that's been looked into that then turned it to no under 40's using it.

So someone, day one of the early info being out saying AZ could cause clots would have been spreading misinformation?

Censorship is always bad, hiding the problem never works, we have to deal with it head on and educate, use common sense to change peoples minds, use the data the facts to prove our points, banning someone or censoring them, gives them a strong platform, "I got banned because I was right" "its a cover up" etc etc
 
Last edited:
because its better to allow people to speak and show themselves to be ill informed and then allowed the debate than to censor.

Look at the early day of the vaccine, UK said for a few weeks it was rubbish that the EU was banning AZ over clotted as they was no risk, it became little risk that's been looked into that then turned it to no under 40's using it.

So someone, day one of the early info being out saying AZ could cause clots would have been spreading misinformation?

Censorship is always bad, hiding the problem never works, we have to deal with it head on and educate, use common sense to change peoples minds, use the data the facts to prove our points, banning someone or censoring them, gives them a strong platform, "I got banned because I was right" "its a cover up" etc etc
Censoring it might stop a thick person from believing it and dying mate.

It should absolutely be censored. Prison should be used as a deterrent for misinformation in times of crisis.
 
because its better to allow people to speak and show themselves to be ill informed and then allowed the debate than to censor.

Look at the early day of the vaccine, UK said for a few weeks it was rubbish that the EU was banning AZ over clotted as they was no risk, it became little risk that's been looked into that then turned it to no under 40's using it.

So someone, day one of the early info being out saying AZ could cause clots would have been spreading misinformation?

Censorship is always bad, hiding the problem never works, we have to deal with it head on and educate, use common sense to change peoples minds, use the data the facts to prove our points, banning someone or censoring them, gives them a strong platform, "I got banned because I was right" "its a cover up" etc etc
Absolutely agree. I wouldn’t trust anyone who advocates it and I certainly wouldn’t trust politicians to use it wisely.
 
Censoring it might stop a thick person from believing it and dying mate.

It should absolutely be censored. Prison should be used as a deterrent for misinformation in times of crisis.
I disagree, if someone is on the edge unsure of which way to go debate and solid facts is likely better than oh poster got banned, as that can feed into the fears.

Look at this forum, some of the more "out there claims" have been quickly and well debated and facts produced showing that the person was ill informed, its why I like the stat thread so much, good solid facts that in my view shows the risk to reward is a no contest to get jabbed, it brings it home how tiny the risk of vaccine is compared to the virus in adults.

I remember a time when the BNP ( i think it was them ) Nick griffin I think was the leader at the time, weren't allowed a platform to speak in the mainstream, they had growing support and then they allowed the leader on the telly and it was a massive own goal for them, once the guy started talking it really did damage them. Same with Ukip, they had one good speaker and when they started to gain support more and more of them ended up on TV and it was disastrous for them, showed them up to be what they were and that was that.

But some people cant be convinced, we have to accept that, we shouldn't stop trying, but they tend to live in an echo chamber anyway, on forums or media that reinforces the belief, kind of a bit cultish imo.
 

Back
Top