Based on that article, it appears they worked independently:
So no, I don't see any epidemiologists listed. As I said, you can find experts to prove any narrative. But who do you trust with your life?
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
Bongino
- Thread starter wadio
- Start date
Based on that article, it appears they worked independently:
So no, I don't see any epidemiologists listed. As I said, you can find experts to prove any narrative. But who do you trust with your life?
Yes, I've been seeing that "Johns Hopkins says the 'lockdowns' only decreased the death toll by 0.2 percent so we should have done absolutely nothing and let Covid spread like wildfire in March 2020. The old and immunocompromised needed to die for the economy" Lives vs. The Bottom Line have been under discussion since the start. My contention has always been a strategy of "let 'er rip" would have had devastating economic consequences as well. "But so what if the death toll was 4 million, eveybody who wasn't sick or dead would have still been shopping, packing stadiums, concerts, restaurants, we'd be working in person and so what if we killed a quarter of the workforce (or disabled them). Seems if you were to eliminate everyone who has high blood pressure from the workforce, the economy would notice but what do I know?
Last edited:
Radio which still ostensively has a legal obligation to serve the public interest, convenience and necessity, not the interests of one political party or the anti-public health contingent
The very convincing argument is that "interest" can mean anything from hip-hop to classical, from right wing talk to live congressional hearings. The strength of the public interest and necessity weakens with each additional signal that comes to a market and, now, with each streaming audio and video source.
Each radio station can not serve all the people all the time. So specific segments are targeted, and each of us will find most of them unappealing. Add in the need of commercial stations to appeal to advertiser goals and non-coms to attract contributors and you have a spectrum of the good, the bad and the unlistenable.
That opens yet another door.
Commercials for FDA approved medications require "full disclosure" and that is why we get those thin-paper 24" by 36" inserts printed in 5 point type with many prescription meds, but products like those containing CBD have no disclosures, warnings or disclaimers whatsoever.
Unappealing isn't the issue. Rock and rap music are unappealing to some. But we're at a point where several talk show hosts have died because they believed certain things. Who knows how many people in their audience have died for the same reason? That's a bit worse than simply being unappealing.
There are several articles analyzing the aforementioned Johns Hopkins study. Here's one that questions the methodology:
www.salon.com
As we've discussed, conservative talk radio and Fox News have promoted the study, but haven't questioned any of the conclusions. The study promotes their narrative, so it must be right.
More scientific analysis from the medical community:
Fox News guests use questionable lockdown study to attack effective mask and vaccine policies
Conservatives wrongly think study casting doubt on lockdowns proves they're right about vaccines and masks.
www.salon.com
As we've discussed, conservative talk radio and Fox News have promoted the study, but haven't questioned any of the conclusions. The study promotes their narrative, so it must be right.
More scientific analysis from the medical community:
It used to be that you could trust news channels to present both sides of the story. It makes it more difficult for the public to understand the truth. The Salon story presents both sides. The Fox News story does not.
We have a large, loud percentage of the population that believes we should do nothing but allow unlimited spread, and believed that way in March 2020. Our very county mayor was telling us we have a constitutional right to infect people working at bars and retail stores
To what Fox News story do you refer?
This one:
Johns Hopkins study reignites COVID lockdown debate
A recent controversial Johns Hopkins metanalysis reignites a discussion about the adverse consequences of lockdowns after finding they had no significant mortality benefit during the first wave of the 2020 pandemic in the United States and Europe
They make it sound as though this is a medical study. It isn't. The report does not come from Johns Hopkins Hospital or Medical School.
Here's a fact check of the study from Snopes,com:
Here's What We Know About 'Johns Hopkins Study' on Lockdowns
It's a non-peer reviewed working paper that has not been endorsed by the university.
www.snopes.com
Last edited:
A huge issue is the adherence to both-siderism and the claims that somehow anti-science, counter-factual idiocy is a legitimate “side.”
Healthiest & Unhealthiest Cities in America in 2026
Healthiest & Unhealthiest Cities in America in 2026
Here is the source where the Wallethub study that sparked the controversy on Bongino's show. In the study of Healthiest cities in the USA San Francisco is on top of the list. Umm?? Bongino and Fox News are offended that none of the MAGA cities are on the list.
Bottom of the list for healthy cities in the study.
Did you read the article?This one:
Johns Hopkins study reignites COVID lockdown debate
A recent controversial Johns Hopkins metanalysis reignites a discussion about the adverse consequences of lockdowns after finding they had no significant mortality benefit during the first wave of the 2020 pandemic in the United States and Europewww.foxnews.com
They make it sound as though this is a medical study. It isn't. The report does not come from Johns Hopkins Hospital or Medical School.
It's actually quite balanced, beginning with, "A recent controversial Johns Hopkins meta-analysis reignites a discussion about the adverse consequences of lockdowns ... " Later it quotes differing studies.
Snopes is not exactly an unbiased arbiter of the truth. It's interesting to get their perspective but I wouldn't bet on it.Here's a fact check of the study from Snopes,com:
Here's What We Know About 'Johns Hopkins Study' on Lockdowns
It's a non-peer reviewed working paper that has not been endorsed by the university.
I did. It didn't question any aspects of the report. The main thing it focused on was the adverse affects of lockdowns. With no questions asked about who wrote the study or what research was done. Just quoting the conclusion as fact. It only "reignites a discussion" among their viewers who agree with the conclusion. I don't see any health or medical people reignited about it.
The Fox report correctly quotes Jen Psaki, who says that this administration is not promoting lockdowns. They were mainly done during the previous administration, before the vaccine. So "reigniting the discussion" doesn't serve much purpose.
What errors did you find in their fact check?
Last edited:
I didn't read it. That's just my impression from previous experiences.
It's a very good analysis and said this about the author of the report:
Its always useful to look at the background of the person presenting the research.
And said this about the study in general:
The only organizations promoting this study are those whose audiences agree with the conclusions, such as Fox News.
Therefore it falls into a category of research done to advance a narrative rather than one done to find the truth. My feeling is we should be looking for truth. Don't you?
Snopes though, cites their sources. I've yet to ever see somebody debunk a Snopes article by going through the source material one by one. All I see is Snopes is automatically wrong, therefore my conservative meme is automatically right.
- Status