My challenge here is that every time I see “The Atlantic” or “The New York Times”, I can’t shake the feeling that it’s got to be a paid advertisement or some influence piece by a special interest group. I am not sure what to make of the articles that appear in those places anymore.

▲

t0lo 6 days ago | parent | next [-]

They are the mouthpiece of the empire- but they aren't promoting products- they're promoting the dissolution of social and communal values and trying to erase the idea of intellectualism- the nyt casually, the atlantic explicitly, and the new yorker very covertly- it shows the powers that really run america have a deep ambivalence towards it and will likely hop to the next centre of prosperity when they get bored. The american experiment is over because they decided it to be. How weak and sad your country has become.

And yeah I've seen they are the first to jump on ai anti intellectualism, for the reasons i've stated

▲

epohs 6 days ago | parent [-]

Which social and communal values, specifically, do you think The NY Times and the New Yorker are promoting the dissolution of?

	▲	estearum 5 days ago \| parent [-]
		You can't expect reactionaries to have any specific thoughts or for their beliefs to be founded on any particular facts or (real) historical events, like the COVID discussion below. It's vibes all the way down.

▲

cruffle_duffle 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I stopped trusting any of those rags after the pushed the hysterical “4% kill rate for Covid” fear mongering nonsense well after it was shown to be multiple orders of magnitude less fatal. All forms of critical thinking went out the window thanks to their misinformation.

▲

estearum 6 days ago | parent | next [-]

That's crazy because NYT never reported that. I haven't checked The Atlantic, but I suppose it's much the same story.

NYT reported the WHO's early (and high) estimate of 3.4% CFR (way way below the 4% IFR that you claim) in March 2020 [1] but even in that same article noted that this was probably a high over-estimate.

> Is 3.4 percent a misleading number? We spoke to a number of experts in epidemiology, and they all agreed that 1 percent was probably more realistic (the W.H.O. has also said the number would probably fall)

The real CFR ended up being somewhere between 0.5% and 1%, which is way closer to both the 1% CFR the NYT reported and to the 3.4% CFR the WHO reported than your alleged 4% IFR. Which... again... was never reported by the NYTimes.

Neither the WHO's 3.4% nor NYTimes' 1% estimates are "multiple orders of magnitude" above 0.5% - 1%.

It seems like you lost trust in reputable institutions because you've been lied to incessantly on the Internet about what they said when. It might be worth reconsidering the trust you place in whatever pulled your trust away from these institutions!

[1]: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/03/07/upshot/how-de...

---

Just for context of how insanely made-up your 4% figure is, in March 2020 when NYTimes was reporting "probably close to 1% CFR," our testing infrastructure was extremely lacking. It would be reasonable to estimate less than 25% of cases were detected. If so, a 4% IFR would imply a CFR of at least 16%. But yeah, as mentioned, the NYTimes was reporting a CFR of 1%. Which is pretty close to what it ended up being.

	▲	6 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		[deleted]
	▲	6 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		[deleted]

▲

ausssssie 6 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Covid kill rate is not a number. It's a function. Inputs include isolation levels, respirator availability, vaccinations, etc.

▲

ipnon 6 days ago | parent | prev [-]

They are the party mouthpieces of the Democrats. It’s not useful as an empirical analysis or philosophical exercise. But it is useful as a declaration of belief for a certain cohort of American elites. So the revealed news is really that the Democrats will add “we must weaken or break up Big Token to increase youth employment” to their midterm and presidential platform. Whether this is sound macroeconomic policy is beside the point.