witpqs
Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
|
Replying to two at once.
This:
quote:
ORIGINAL: warspite1
quote:
ORIGINAL: obvert
quote:
ORIGINAL: Canoerebel
When this is over, the scientists and mathematicians and statisticians will re-analyze the data in an effort to incorporate those overlooked, as was done in past outbreaks of things. It's likely they'll find many more cases. I think the final death rate may be lower than the current 1% widely used today. There was, in fact, a post in here a four or five days back re-calculating to a 0.66% rate.
As for GWTW, I disagree with a fair bit of that and don't wish for silence to suggest acquiesence. I understand it's good points and bad, know where people are coming from, and have written on the topic many times (including, by coincidence, two days ago and again yesterday morning).
I saw your post and thought it was a good comment. This wasn't written in response to you, so no need for disagreement, acquiescence or understanding on your part really.
This was a reference to Warspite's comment about the response; "Who would object to a picture of the wonderful Mammy?"
If we're going to ask those questions I feel it's appropriate that they should be answered.
warspite1
I have to say that question was more directed to people on this thread.
Sadly of course, there will always be those who refuse to move on, who are keen to keep raking up the wrongs of the past. What does one do? Ban GWTW from ever being shown again? Just think about it. You ban GWTW then you ban literally thousands of films because someone, somewhere is going to object to portrayals of people of colour, people of a different sexual orientation, wars fought with those we now fear insulting - and so the list goes on. So GWTW in some cases may distort history (hardly surprising given it was made in 1939 in a very different America) but what, it can only be re-made with Mammy (and all slaves) now portrayed as some sort of heroic resistance fighters?? So we swap one set of distortion for another to suit the time the film is made.... please*.
But this is a hugely emotive, sad and frustrating subject, so I'll comment no more.
* And for the avoidance of doubt, I am not suggesting these are your thoughts obvert.
And this:
quote:
ORIGINAL: Cap Mandrake
quote:
ORIGINAL: obvert
No. You're very intelligent and the last thing I want to seem is condescending, but you are simply neglecting the obvious that we don't have to use a place name for this virus, and if we do it could cause harm to others.
By listing these other diseases with specific place names I know that you know they're a totally different category that have no implication of pointing to a vulnerable population in our societies that may in fact be targeted by those who, for instance, link Chinese (or Asian) people with this current pandemic. I know you know this, but it seems, (and I'm just guessing here) that you just don't like the current trend toward more PC language, less inflammatory humour, etc.
Partly I object to the intrusion of political correctness into EVERYTHING, yes, but this is irrational and inconsistent. The WHO picked the name "Middle East Respiratory Syndrome" in 2003. They picked this because the disease seemed to pop-up in several places in the Middle East and the exact location of origin could not be identified. The naming helped people across disciplines easily recognize what was being discussed. I don't recall any Arabs being singled out for creating MERS. MERS is also a Coronavirus. They might have picked "Wuhan Respiratory Syndrome" if they wanted to have rationality and consistency. Then there is the decades long naming convention for influenza approved by the WHO which, by convention, includes geographic names for first place of isolation. Take "bird flu" (a layman's term)...the actual official WHO name is "A/Hong Kong/156/97 (H5N1)"
Influenza type A
Isolated in Hong Kong
Clade 156
Year 1997
Hemagglutinin and Neuraminidase (viral protein) mutations
Perfectly rational..the human brain can remember place names better than numbers..et voila!
Now take COVID-19 (Coronavirus Disease 2019). All that is true but it completely lacks specificity. It doesn't mention geographic origin, species of origin, taxonomy etc. etc. The Coronaviridae cause disease in dozens, perhaps thousands of species. What happened? The CCP sent a stooge to the WHO meeting at a fancy hotel and over fois gras and steak tartare he made them an offer they could not refuse. This was the CCP trying to buff out the damage.
Here is a perfectly sedate scientifically sound, toxonomically accurate proposal for naming newly discovered Coronaviridae
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41564-020-0695-z
Within the last couple of years I listened to one of the Audible 'Great Courses', IIRC it was titled "The Other Side of History", and was about the lives of ordinary people in ancient times (Roman, etc.). The professor/lecturer did the reading himself I think. The content was very good, as was the delivery but for one very bad, very frequent occurrence. At various points the lecturer would interject how sorry he was to be telling the listeners about something or other. Didn't want to trigger anybody with terrible things about how people were often treated. "Oh, sorry, sorry, Oh...". It really detracted from the course and made it clear that listeners were expected to be permanently immature and glass-fragile. That presentation would even be bad for young children, because it would teach them that is how they are expected to be (better to tell them such treatment was wrong and that they just being told history or what actually happened).
In the current subject matter, PC "sensitivity" is just being used as one more propaganda weapon, to aid a cover-up by some people, for political advantage by others.
_____________________________
|
Printable Version
RE: OT: Corona virus - 
<facepalm> 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread