I fell behind in looking up information on these "mysterious" pneumonias, only to eventually reach the same conclusion you did that it appears to be similar seasonal pathogens. In this case, it's somewhat argued that immunity debt may be at play here for some of these illnesses. What's curious is the use of "mysterious" as a descriptor because things are only as mysterious as one makes it out to be. The fact that many outlets are using that to push for clickbait is rather alarming, although I'm seeing all sorts of conspiracies popping up in regards to these illnesses.
This flies in the face of the reports from China (which so far as I am aware are not contradicted by either Denmark or The Netherlands) which state the pneumonia cases are from known pathogens.
I remember seeing the first SARS-CoV-2 reports coming out of China at the end of December 2019, when the concern was a "pneumonia of unknown etiology". The parallels to the original SARS were obvious, but also obvious was the acknowledgment by China's doctors that the pathogen was a new one not previously encountered. I have not seen ANY reporting that is even remotely similar on these recent pneumonia cases.
Most of this is likely the fault of media outlets and journalists not knowing anything about the topics they are covering, so they just repeat one another in their proclamations of a "mysterious pneumonia" or make a comment about "white lungs" with sound both scary and ambiguous, so it creates a perfect scenario for hysteria sans any actual evidence. It's pretty funny because some of the pneumonia was eventually described as walking pneumonia which I actually had as a child and that kind of made me realize that there's probably a lot of clickbait masquerading as journalism going on.
Whether intentional gaslighting or journalistic incompetence, the end result is still the same: reporting that is long on narrative and short on facts.
Unfortunately the media, and quite frankly a lot of independent journalists care more that it got you to click on the article. Whether they provide well-researched articles or something written in under half an hour if they got someone to click and incur ad revenue then the end result is the same.
What I do find interesting is that I like to look at various news outlets to see how they cover studies. I meant to cover this study prior to Thanksgiving since it seemed like a rather interesting study but I got wrapped up in researching the enzyme (aldehyde dehydrogenase) and never got to writing the article.
It's really a very basic study and not much to "wine" over, but it does raise some interesting ideas and possible routes of experimentation, but even this very basic study was reported weirdly by the media which misreported on the concept around this enzyme.
I've noticed this often when it comes to dissemination of science where some outlets just end up misinterpreting findings or ideas around a study quite often because they have no grasp of what they are even writing about.
Too true. Comprehension is less valuable than clicks, it seems. And not just in healthcare topics--it's astounding and more than a little scary how much economic data is simply ignored on all sides.
It's everywhere and tends to go unnoticed because people don't have time to fact-check everything they come across, so they fall back onto heuristics and appeals to authority which makes it easy to misinform and deceive. It's a shame that there aren't as many curious people out there than we would hope there to be.
Gaslighting certainly, although they have a long way to go to recreate the full Pandemic Panic Narrative of 2020.
The Pandemic Panic Narrative relied on the presentation of SARS-CoV-2 as a "novel" pathogen (a problematic description as coronoviruses have been well known for decades). So far there has not been any substantive reporting which even attempts to lay that foundation.
I think the path to create a large disruption is now much shorter than it was in 2020. Fear has already been instilled in much of the population who are already re-masking on their own (the Masktards). It’s as if the fear was a raging fire that never went totally out. It’s smoldering waiting to be re-stoked. I’m sure there must be some brain chemistry behind this phenomenon, and that suggests the possibility that planting this permanent seed of fear in the populace may have been intentional.
I agree. Just remember Twain’s admonition: “It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.” Or, better yet, Frank Zappa’s observation: “The universe consists of 5% protons, 5% neutrons, 5% electrons and 85% morons.” Keep ‘em coming!
I fell behind in looking up information on these "mysterious" pneumonias, only to eventually reach the same conclusion you did that it appears to be similar seasonal pathogens. In this case, it's somewhat argued that immunity debt may be at play here for some of these illnesses. What's curious is the use of "mysterious" as a descriptor because things are only as mysterious as one makes it out to be. The fact that many outlets are using that to push for clickbait is rather alarming, although I'm seeing all sorts of conspiracies popping up in regards to these illnesses.
What is striking is that earlier today I came across an article in The Mirror which outright referred to the "outbreak" as a "mystery disease".
https://substack.com/@allfactsmatter/note/c-44753403
This flies in the face of the reports from China (which so far as I am aware are not contradicted by either Denmark or The Netherlands) which state the pneumonia cases are from known pathogens.
I remember seeing the first SARS-CoV-2 reports coming out of China at the end of December 2019, when the concern was a "pneumonia of unknown etiology". The parallels to the original SARS were obvious, but also obvious was the acknowledgment by China's doctors that the pathogen was a new one not previously encountered. I have not seen ANY reporting that is even remotely similar on these recent pneumonia cases.
Most of this is likely the fault of media outlets and journalists not knowing anything about the topics they are covering, so they just repeat one another in their proclamations of a "mysterious pneumonia" or make a comment about "white lungs" with sound both scary and ambiguous, so it creates a perfect scenario for hysteria sans any actual evidence. It's pretty funny because some of the pneumonia was eventually described as walking pneumonia which I actually had as a child and that kind of made me realize that there's probably a lot of clickbait masquerading as journalism going on.
Whether intentional gaslighting or journalistic incompetence, the end result is still the same: reporting that is long on narrative and short on facts.
Unfortunately the media, and quite frankly a lot of independent journalists care more that it got you to click on the article. Whether they provide well-researched articles or something written in under half an hour if they got someone to click and incur ad revenue then the end result is the same.
What I do find interesting is that I like to look at various news outlets to see how they cover studies. I meant to cover this study prior to Thanksgiving since it seemed like a rather interesting study but I got wrapped up in researching the enzyme (aldehyde dehydrogenase) and never got to writing the article.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-46203-y
It's really a very basic study and not much to "wine" over, but it does raise some interesting ideas and possible routes of experimentation, but even this very basic study was reported weirdly by the media which misreported on the concept around this enzyme.
I've noticed this often when it comes to dissemination of science where some outlets just end up misinterpreting findings or ideas around a study quite often because they have no grasp of what they are even writing about.
Too true. Comprehension is less valuable than clicks, it seems. And not just in healthcare topics--it's astounding and more than a little scary how much economic data is simply ignored on all sides.
It's everywhere and tends to go unnoticed because people don't have time to fact-check everything they come across, so they fall back onto heuristics and appeals to authority which makes it easy to misinform and deceive. It's a shame that there aren't as many curious people out there than we would hope there to be.
The 2024 elections are on the horizon and the gaslighting for the main event has started.
Gaslighting certainly, although they have a long way to go to recreate the full Pandemic Panic Narrative of 2020.
The Pandemic Panic Narrative relied on the presentation of SARS-CoV-2 as a "novel" pathogen (a problematic description as coronoviruses have been well known for decades). So far there has not been any substantive reporting which even attempts to lay that foundation.
I think the path to create a large disruption is now much shorter than it was in 2020. Fear has already been instilled in much of the population who are already re-masking on their own (the Masktards). It’s as if the fear was a raging fire that never went totally out. It’s smoldering waiting to be re-stoked. I’m sure there must be some brain chemistry behind this phenomenon, and that suggests the possibility that planting this permanent seed of fear in the populace may have been intentional.
There are those who are conditioned to mask up.
However, the majority of people, especially in so-called "flyover country" are not down with the shots.
https://emersoncollegepolling.com/majority-of-residents-in-american-heartland-do-not-plan-to-get-latest-covid-vaccine/
So there is clearly a measure of disconnect and disbelief regarding the Pandemic Panic Narrative out there, and it's larger than one might suspect.
All the more reason to keep highlighting the facts, the data, and the evidence, and seeking to engage people's thinking brains as much as possible.
I agree. Just remember Twain’s admonition: “It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.” Or, better yet, Frank Zappa’s observation: “The universe consists of 5% protons, 5% neutrons, 5% electrons and 85% morons.” Keep ‘em coming!
Heinlein's observation seems fitting here: "Certainly the game is rigged. Don't let that stop you; if you don't bet you can't win."
We have to play the game if we want any hope of a good outcome. The alternative is surrender, and I am not a big fan of surrendering.
"Trust nothing. Verify everything."
Exactly correct now more than ever. Will let you know when this changes, but, it won't.