Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
Forums
Other Stuff
The Clubhouse Bar
[COVID-19] General Discussion
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Which Tyler" data-source="post: 1016265" data-attributes="member: 73592"><p>[URL unfurl="true"]https://www.covidfaq.co/[/URL]</p><p></p><p>The Covid-19 pandemic has brought with it an avalanche of misinformation. A number of myths have persisted that suggest Covid isn't particularly dangerous, or that governments shouldn't try to contain the virus with lockdowns and other distancing measures.</p><p></p><p>We call the people who promulgate these myths even after they have been disproved "Covid Sceptics". This isn't to say that they're necessarily sceptical of the <em>existence</em> of the coronavirus - but they are often sceptical about its effects. Some have claimed that the number of infections is much lower than it really has been, or that health systems were under less strain than they really were, or that the fatality rate and number of deaths were lower than they have been in reality. Some have been sceptical that a population-wide policy response to this virus is needed. Some Covid Sceptics have tended to promote one or two of the common myths; some have promoted them all.</p><p></p><p>"Sceptics" might be seen as a flattering term: scepticism is often a good thing. But as we detail below, many of the people featured here have made persistently inaccurate forecasts, repeated long-disproven claims, or engaged in faulty reasoning. Indeed, those we discuss have arguably <em>not been sceptical enough</em> about the claims of alternative "experts" who have underestimated the risks of Covid.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Which Tyler, post: 1016265, member: 73592"] [URL unfurl="true"]https://www.covidfaq.co/[/URL] The Covid-19 pandemic has brought with it an avalanche of misinformation. A number of myths have persisted that suggest Covid isn't particularly dangerous, or that governments shouldn't try to contain the virus with lockdowns and other distancing measures. We call the people who promulgate these myths even after they have been disproved "Covid Sceptics". This isn't to say that they're necessarily sceptical of the [I]existence[/I] of the coronavirus - but they are often sceptical about its effects. Some have claimed that the number of infections is much lower than it really has been, or that health systems were under less strain than they really were, or that the fatality rate and number of deaths were lower than they have been in reality. Some have been sceptical that a population-wide policy response to this virus is needed. Some Covid Sceptics have tended to promote one or two of the common myths; some have promoted them all. "Sceptics" might be seen as a flattering term: scepticism is often a good thing. But as we detail below, many of the people featured here have made persistently inaccurate forecasts, repeated long-disproven claims, or engaged in faulty reasoning. Indeed, those we discuss have arguably [I]not been sceptical enough[/I] about the claims of alternative "experts" who have underestimated the risks of Covid. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Other Stuff
The Clubhouse Bar
[COVID-19] General Discussion
Top