Problems with our information ecology blog.

[Danioover9000]

   This is the video from the blog:

   After watching that video, I felt a bit off with the parts that covered the pandemic, like they have had 2-3 years of a gap, and while they get say what they want to say, pro to anti vax points, at the  end of it, I felt like what they're missing was the shear urgency to vaccinate against a very infectious virus that has a 50/50 chance of killing you through lung damage and heart failure, at a time in that 3-6 month period, where we really didn't know the full dangers of such a virus, and how truly dangerous it is getting it in your system. So to me, vaccination against it was non-negotiable, as I'm lucky enough to perceive it's danger. I don't know why they would beat around the bush, when it's clearly obvious to me the greater evil is the refusal to vaccinate at least once against this virus, especially at a time when we had little info to exactly how bad the virus is, the decision to make vaccines on it, and to get vaccinated, was a no brainer, at least to me. Am I wrong or am I missing something here, like due to information partiality we still have to make decisions, right?

   The later parts I think and feel a bit better, covers information ecology and ways of misinformation. Again, to relate this to the pandemic, there was a bit misinformation from China it the start, the cover up, and a little bit from the USA side, with Trump down playing the potential danger of this virus.

   What are your guys thoughts about this podcast?

[Leo Gura]

Yes, they give way too much credence to anti-vax. They have an anti-mainstream angle a bit. Which is why I said it's not about the first 1/3rd.