 |
|
| node: | Re[3]: timeline of chinese lies |
| template: | 4 |
| parent: | Re[2]: timeline of chinese lies |
| owner: | ddd |
| viewed by: | |
| created: | 26.03.2020 - 13:34:50 |
| updated: | 26.03.2020 - 13:35:20 |
|
cwbe coordinatez: 101 8333809 8837211 8703087 8730739 8730757 8730952 8730957 8730995 ABSOLUT KYBERIA |
| permissions | |
| you: | r, |
| system: | public |
| net: | yes |
total descendants::4
total children::1
4 ❤️
vela americkych zdrojov ma teraz brutalny bias lebo potrebuju mlzit kedze to kolosalne poj***ali.
Vacsinou necitam clanok ked uz v prvej veci klame/brutalne manipuluje, ale nahodne som skusil este jedno:
"Sometime in “Late December”: Wuhan hospitals notice “an exponential increase” in the number of cases that cannot be linked back to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market, according to the New England Journal of Medicine."
Co hovori New England Journal of Medicine:
"The majority of the earliest cases included reported exposure to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market, but there was an exponential increase in the number of nonlinked cases beginning in late December."
Cize zase totalna manipulacia, v takomto clanku je rozdiel medzi "was" a "notice" uplne klucovy.
Pointa je, ze cely ten narativ ako za to moze cina a who je uplne nahlavu - veci, co naozaj boli chybou a vieme ich potvrdit je relativne malo a boli to veci, co celkovo nemali na vyvoj veci prakticky ziadny vplyv - napr. ten virus sa siri rovnako, aj ked niekoho zatknes alebo mu zmazes whatsapp alebo co.
zo zopar dalsich chyb sa daju podozrievat, ale vacsinou nie su zdroje aby sme to vedeli rozhodnut - napr. ten pacient z 1. decembra, o ktorom sa pise v mojom predchadzajucom prispevku, tak sa afaik (verejne) nevie, kedy mu laboratorne potvrdili nCov. A ked nemas taketo informacie, nevies, ake informacie v dany cas mala exekutiva a teda sa neda hodnotit, ci ich rozhodnutie bolo primerane, alebo nie.
Bottom line je, ze to, co pise napr. WSJ v perexe: "China’s errors, dating back to the very first patients, were compounded by political leaders who dragged their feet to inform the public of the risks and to take decisive control measures." je uplny joke ked si porovnas co spravila cina a zapad.
Vacsinou necitam clanok ked uz v prvej veci klame/brutalne manipuluje, ale nahodne som skusil este jedno:
"Sometime in “Late December”: Wuhan hospitals notice “an exponential increase” in the number of cases that cannot be linked back to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market, according to the New England Journal of Medicine."
Co hovori New England Journal of Medicine:
"The majority of the earliest cases included reported exposure to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market, but there was an exponential increase in the number of nonlinked cases beginning in late December."
Cize zase totalna manipulacia, v takomto clanku je rozdiel medzi "was" a "notice" uplne klucovy.
Pointa je, ze cely ten narativ ako za to moze cina a who je uplne nahlavu - veci, co naozaj boli chybou a vieme ich potvrdit je relativne malo a boli to veci, co celkovo nemali na vyvoj veci prakticky ziadny vplyv - napr. ten virus sa siri rovnako, aj ked niekoho zatknes alebo mu zmazes whatsapp alebo co.
zo zopar dalsich chyb sa daju podozrievat, ale vacsinou nie su zdroje aby sme to vedeli rozhodnut - napr. ten pacient z 1. decembra, o ktorom sa pise v mojom predchadzajucom prispevku, tak sa afaik (verejne) nevie, kedy mu laboratorne potvrdili nCov. A ked nemas taketo informacie, nevies, ake informacie v dany cas mala exekutiva a teda sa neda hodnotit, ci ich rozhodnutie bolo primerane, alebo nie.
Bottom line je, ze to, co pise napr. WSJ v perexe: "China’s errors, dating back to the very first patients, were compounded by political leaders who dragged their feet to inform the public of the risks and to take decisive control measures." je uplny joke ked si porovnas co spravila cina a zapad.