Conservatives pull Google into their plans and kill people

The Great Barrington Declaration is the latest fringe evidence used by conservatives to reinforce the argument that they need to accept infection with covid-19. On Tuesday, the New York Times reported that when White House officials spoke to reporters, they were now quoting a declaration calling for a brutal form of herd immunity. And before we get the chance to deal with this enthusiastic madness, right-wing experts have already shifted their focus to the cry of censorship.

The imposingly named Declaration is the product of a conference held by the American Institute of Economic Research, a libertarian think tank, at least partially funded by Charles Koch in the past. The document claims that blockades and school closures have “catastrophic effects on short-term and long-term public health,” and rebranded herd immunity as what the authors call “focused protection.” Insist. This prioritizes the isolation of “vulnerable” groups such as the elderly, and aims to build immunity to the virus “through natural infections”, allowing “minimum risk of death” groups to live. Encourage.

The petition was first notified last week and presented as signed by 15,000 scientists and practitioners. The lead author is involved in epidemiology at a prestigious university. Sky News later said that many of these signatories were “Dr. Pseudonyms” and “Dr. Johnny Bananas.” But even if the names weren’t fake, the list of medical professionals included massage and hypnotherapy. Includes experts in areas such as. According to Sky News, a doctor, a British general practitioner named Harold Shipman, “killed more than 200 patients before being arrested in 1998.”

Thousands of people from the general public also signed the petition, which became a conservative circle cause celebrity who didn’t want to do anything to stop the spread of the virus anyway. Recently, many conservative blogosphere experts have published articles claiming that Google is curbing links to the Great Barrington Declaration. It provides a link to the blog, but there is no reason to make it easier to click. Just run the search term “Google is censoring the Great Barrington Declaration” on Google and everything will be displayed at the top. These articles are from a conservative bottom feeder, but this morning Ben Shapiro tweeted a link heading “Why did you censor the Great Barrington Declaration?”

Shapiro comment “Social media censorship in the Great Barrington Declaration is just proof that many of our supposed cultural bosses aren’t interested in scientific discussions. They’re interested in clam down.” Shapiro Although a conservative bottom feeder, his show has a huge audience and 3.2 million Twitter followers. The man has influence.

However, when I try to search for a petition, its main home page is either the first result or one of the top three results. I have tried this using incognito mode in various browsers. Results vary from test to test, but the petition website itself has always been a top-ranked option. We also claimed that the problem was in an English country other than the United States, so we asked Google to see if we had taken steps to lower the rank of the petition or to see the results of the game. A spokesperson for the company said the search results in this case were not the result of a particular policy, but “it will take some time for the automated system to learn enough about these new pages and move up the ranks. That could be the case. Regarding related terms. ”A spokeswoman noted the fact that it took a long time for Joe Biden’s website to appear on the first page of results, saying: I am. Navigation query. “

The black-box approach to Google’s algorithms probably won’t reassure critics, but it can be said that there is no clear censorship currently underway.

This brings us to the second major accusation of experts: Google is crowding petition search results with links to negative articles about it.

Most of the articles written about the Declaration present it in a negative way, or with information that most experts in epidemiology and viral diseases generally disagree with the herd immunity approach, in the letter itself. Many of the claims are similar. I won’t go into all the details, as many others cover why the petition is wrong or wrong. However, the turmoil about this has forced WHO Director General Tedros Adhanom Gebreyes to tell reporters at a press conference on Monday that herd immunity strategies are “scientifically and ethically problematic.” Point out that it is gone.

“Herd immunity is achieved not by exposure to the virus, but by protecting people from the virus,” said the Secretary-General. “In the history of public health, herd immunity has never been used as a strategy to respond to outbreaks.”

Conservative operatives want people to believe that you have the power to not want them to read your petition yourself. However, in reality, phantom censorship complaints obscure detailed reading while aiming to make the information in the document look like forbidden knowledge. The same scenario has evolved in the last few hours as the New York Post’s report on drug trafficking, created by Rudolf Gilliani, has rapidly changed to: Facebook censorship..

The point of these complaints is not to discuss the strengths or weaknesses of the blockade. It is to hide the argument behind the victim’s claim. And some trolls on social media aren’t a big deal unless they’re in perfect agreement with the President of the United States.

Researchers at Cornell University recently summarized findings that President Trump is “the greatest driver of false information around Covid.” Returning to the track of the campaign, Trump is said to have recovered from the covid-19 diagnosis that landed him in the best hospital with the best treatment available to mankind. His doctor says he is not contagious, but withholding their information has destroyed their trust. And with recovery, Trump has seen many people could be re-infected with the virus, but has repeatedly said that he is now “immunized” to covid-19.

It’s clear that the Trump administration doesn’t want to take the virus seriously, which has killed more than 216,000 people in the United States and nearly 1.1 million people worldwide. What is more apparent is that the government actually wants people to get infected. The sooner the attitude seems to be better. And they point out the idea of ​​”focused protection” as fig leaves, hiding our goal of killing “weak” (people without a lot of money and state-of-the-art health care). The richest of them are even richer.

The petition raises several points about the trade-off with the blockade, including the potential for adverse effects on children’s learning development. No one knows if these trade-offs are worth it, but blockades and social distances are the clearest way to prevent the deaths we currently have. The petition does not provide a viable plan to isolate the most vulnerable from the rest of the horde of licking puddles that need to be infected. Why should we believe that there is a targeted way to achieve this fantastic approach when the White House can’t even protect itself from the outbreak of Superspreader?

Conservatives pull Google into their plans and kill people

Source link Conservatives pull Google into their plans and kill people

Back to top button