Stromberg wrote on 18.01.2022 at 16:05
Do I see differently, have already read some, mostly after watching the video o reading the article, and find it extremely important for classification
No question, these fact checkers should of course also check the news of the leading media.
Otherwise, it is but just because of such things as written above by royal important
He suggests, I think unintentionally in this case, the court has said something, but which obviously does not come from the court and the masses believe that because too lazy to research...
Because the average facebooknutzer is perhaps not in the position the fact check correctly to classify, which is chewed to him in umpteen Youtube videos and from any graphics "underpinned" he is then probably also not in the position neutrally to seize
No question. There is also a lot of misinformation on the net
Therefore, I refer mainly to data from original sources
Nevertheless, the fact checkers are not neutral information evaluators but fulfill a propagandistic mission. The fact that there are also sometimes true fact checks with the many false information on the net is not evidence to the contrary
However, their task is to support the government narrative and not to get as close as possible to "the truth"
And that makes the word fact checker alone completely arbitrary. What is a fact checker supposed to be and what qualifies these people to evaluate "facts"? How can any person from outside the field judge whether an epidemiologist who has taught at the university for 30 years says something wrong or something right?
Falcon wrote on 01/18/2022 at 16:19
No question about it. There is also a lot of misinformation on the net
Therefore, I mainly refer to data from original sources
Nevertheless, the fact checkers are not neutral information evaluators but fulfill a propagandistic mission. The fact that there are also sometimes true fact checks with the many false information on the net is not evidence to the contrary
However, their task is to support the government narrative and not to get as close as possible to "the truth"
And that makes the word fact checker alone completely arbitrary. What is a fact checker supposed to be and what qualifies these people to evaluate "facts"? How can any person from outside the field judge whether an epidemiologist who has taught at the university for 30 years says something wrong or something right?
I say so, that's why it is called fact checker and not opinion checker. Because facts are normally verifiable.
For example, if I deliberately use certain graphs, deliberately selected time periods, compare apples with pears, etc. to support a thesis, then it is good if someone looks at the big picture and classifies the statement.
With ingredients taken out of context
With plain lies anyway
You don't have to be overly skilled to do this, often a little research is enough
Certainly, there are also facts that are also based on facts, but cannot be grasped so easily without explicit knowledge
Stromberg wrote on 18.01.2022 at 16:31
I'll say this, maybe that's why it's called fact checker and not opinion checker. Because facts are verifiable in the normal case.
For example, if I deliberately take certain graphs,deliberately selected time periods, compare apples to oranges, etc. to support a thesis, then it's good to have someone look at the big picture and classify the statement.
With ingredients taken out of context
With plain lies anyway
You don't have to be overly skilled to do this, often a little research is enough
Certainly, there are also facts that are also based on facts, but cannot be grasped so easily without explicit knowledge
Alright, you and I will do the fact check in the evening. You watch the video segment and I read through the fact check and then we both discuss what is correct or not, based on the facts.
Because you've already addressed the problem correctly. You make opinion instead of evaluating facts.
Stromberg wrote on 18.01.2022 at 15:10
Maybe then we will both discover one or the other point, which we did not consider so before...
https://correctiv.org/faktencheck/2021/09/20/das-video-die-pandemie-in-rohdaten-laesst-kontext-aus-und-fuehrt-so-in-die-irre/
Correct: The Corona pandemic in Germany is hardly visible in the death figures in 2020, if you look at the whole year. However, there was a period of strong excess mortality at the end of the year.
- Strong excess mortality in the winter months is not unusual. Moreover, variations from previous years are also possible.
December 2014 - 81,122 deaths (page 124)
December 2006 - 70,413 deaths (page 128)
An increase of 15.20%
Correct (...) PCR tests detect infections with SARS-CoV-2 - used to track the spread of the virus so that containment measures can be taken.
- It is negligent, in my opinion, for measures to be based on this Unreliable test. In the meantime this has changed.
From the ÖR:
In brief: The hit rate for a corona PCR is 98 percent.
https://www.quarks.de/gesundheit/medizin/corona-test-wie-funktioniert-der-test/
- The accuracy of a PCR test ranges from 71% - 98%. A systematic review that screened 957 negative individuals by repeat smear found a rate of initial false-negative results between 2% and 29% in the 5 individual studies. This corresponds to an "effective" sensitivity of the tests between 71% and 98%
https://www.aerzteblatt.de/archiv/214370/PCR-Tests-auf-SARS-CoV-2-Ergebnisse-richtig-interpretieren
In addition, there are other factors that must be taken into account in the PCR test. Both my source mentioned and "Quarks" point to this. The Correctiv does not do this. It is striking that the ÖR often uses the highest hypothetical value. Both with the PCR tests, as well as with the vaccines.
In fact, the Federal Statistical Office sees here effects of the pandemic: It has issued in July 2021 a press release for the period 2018 to 2020, in which it is explained that the life expectancy for newborns and older people in Germany almost stagnate. The main reason, it said, was the "exceptionally high number of deaths at the end of 2020 in the wake of the second wave of the Corona pandemic
https://www-genesis.destatis.de/genesis/online?sequenz=tabelleErgebnis&selectionname=12621-0002&zeitscheiben=16&sachmerkmal=ALT577&sachschluessel=ALTVOLL000,ALTVOLL020,ALTVOLL040,ALTVOLL060,ALTVOLL065,ALTVOLL080#abreadcrumb
- That life expectancy sometimes stagnates is also normal. In the linked source of Correctiv it stagnated with male newborns 2009/11 (77,72) 2010/12 (77,72)
- For female newborns, it stagnated in 2012/14 (83,05) - 2013/15 (83,06). It also stagnated and even slightly decreased in the following years 2014/16 ( 83,20) - 2015/17 (83,18).
Study calculates excess mortality in Germany, Sweden and Spain They concluded that there was little excess mortality in Germany in 2020 overall according to both models.
- This is, of course, correct. Nevertheless, Correctiv insists in the previous examples mentioned another variable which one must include, namely the life expectancy - According to the Correctiv a three-country comparison would have no significance, one must include much more countries. I see this exactly the same way.
Intermediate conclusion: The fact that the pandemic in Germany is hardly visible in the death figures for the whole year and that there was no strong excess mortality over the whole year does not mean that there is no pandemic. It simply means that Germany was not hit as hard by the pandemic. One possible explanation is the measures taken to contain the coronavirus, which, according to the RKI, also led to a strikingly shortened 2020 flu season.
- A possible explanation would also be that the virus is not a scary killer virus and that the virus does not pose a Risk worth mentioning for people under 60 years of age.
https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/1104173/umfrage/todesfaelle-aufgrund-des-coronavirus-in-deutschland-nach-geschlecht/
Incidentally, between May and June 2020, the numbers of infections as well as deaths stagnated. In addition to the winter months, death rates peaked during the First Lockdown in April. The First Lockdown ended on 8/5/2020 and the measures (wear mask, keep distance) are quite sufficient. All the "G" rules (vaccinated/genetically/) do not serve their purpose.
No evidence that thousands of ICU beds have been "cut"
In fact, the Divi curve shows a decline in vacant beds starting in November 2020, as B. claims. Divi spokeswoman Meckel explains this decline as follows: "In November, December 2020 just itself many employees were infected or in quarantine."
- Here is an article as well as a statement from the DIVI from October 2020 https://www.aerzteblatt.de/nachrichten/128476/Intensivmediziner-4-000-Intensivbetten-weniger-seit-Jahresbeginn "Already recently, the DIVI had reported that 22,207 intensive care beds were currently reported as operable, compared to 26,475 at the beginning of the year"
There was no inquiry by Correctiv.
No evidence that hospitals were over-reporting utilization in order to receive funding
(...)A similar claim then surfaced again in June 2021 when the Federal Accounting Office criticized the system of hospital compensation payments, writing that it could create disincentives. However, there is no evidence that hospitals actually provided incorrect figures .
- Why did the Federal Audit Office criticize this and why is there no evidence? Here the Correctiv should have compellingly made inquiries! Instead the Correctiv bases itself on statements of those, which obviously cheated!
The "Divi gate" is hardly not brought up for discussion. For the suspicion of the Federal Audit Office there are some references.
One more small addendum. My previously used quotes from the court as well as the lawyer, also apply to this fact check
Of course, the Correctiv has also published good as well as correct facts. In addition, I am also anything but omniscient, so that I may interpret some facts differently than someone else. In addition, I am not entitled to millions or personnel, as is the case with Correctiv.
Kopfkino wrote on 18.01.2022 at 19:10
welt.de/politik/deutschland/article236323765/RKI-twice-vaccinated-are-not-regarded-as-fully-vaccinated.html
The comments are the best ! Germany seems not yet completely dumbed down.
This is already really crazy. I have the feeling it is only a matter of time until 3x vaccinated also no longer apply as fully vaccinated. And so on and so forth.
I am only 2x vaccinated, but will also soon boosters. But at some point it's over for me too.
MasterChiefKief wrote on 01/18/2022 at 7:17 PM
This is really crazy. I have a feeling it's only a matter of time before 3x vaccinated are also no longer considered fully vaccinated. And so on and so forth...
I am only 2x vaccinated, but I will also boost soon. But at some point it's over for me too.
Then put an end to it now. It is and remains of course your decision. But the government will not stop with it. In Israel, the fourth vaccination is already administered and in Austria, a vaccination obligation is introduced where the people then have to appear for the sting every 3-4 months to be allowed to go shopping or to the restaurant.
The more people participate now, the more difficult it will be later to stop the whole thing. As soon as it has become common practice that you have to go every month to get basic rights, how do you want to stop it?
Whoever gets three stitches will also get the fourth and fifth. And the sixth and seventh doesn't matter and so on.
And if people take this seriously, we will never have freedom again. Then politics knows that it can do anything with the people.
And it is planned an EU-wide vaccination obligation where Austria is the testing ground as the people react to it. Brave new world
I'm inserting here an episode of today's Tim Kellner Tagesschau edition. Maybe one or the other likes this format, which does not know the channel yet.
Chatterbox
Nobody has liked this post so far
No question. There is also a lot of misinformation on the net
Therefore, I refer mainly to data from original sources
Nevertheless, the fact checkers are not neutral information evaluators but fulfill a propagandistic mission. The fact that there are also sometimes true fact checks with the many false information on the net is not evidence to the contrary
However, their task is to support the government narrative and not to get as close as possible to "the truth"
And that makes the word fact checker alone completely arbitrary. What is a fact checker supposed to be and what qualifies these people to evaluate "facts"? How can any person from outside the field judge whether an epidemiologist who has taught at the university for 30 years says something wrong or something right?
This post has been translated automatically
Chatterbox
Nobody has liked this post so far
I say so, that's why it is called fact checker and not opinion checker. Because facts are normally verifiable.
For example, if I deliberately use certain graphs, deliberately selected time periods, compare apples with pears, etc. to support a thesis, then it is good if someone looks at the big picture and classifies the statement.
With ingredients taken out of context
With plain lies anyway
You don't have to be overly skilled to do this, often a little research is enough
Certainly, there are also facts that are also based on facts, but cannot be grasped so easily without explicit knowledge
This post has been translated automatically
Chatterbox
Nobody has liked this post so far
Are fundamental rights a privilege?
This post has been translated automatically
Chatterbox
Nobody has liked this post so far
Alright, you and I will do the fact check in the evening. You watch the video segment and I read through the fact check and then we both discuss what is correct or not, based on the facts.
Because you've already addressed the problem correctly. You make opinion instead of evaluating facts.
This post has been translated automatically
Chatterbox
Liked this post:
Saphira
Correct: The Corona pandemic in Germany is hardly visible in the death figures in 2020, if you look at the whole year. However, there was a period of strong excess mortality at the end of the year.
- Strong excess mortality in the winter months is not unusual. Moreover, variations from previous years are also possible.
https://www.destatis.de/DE/Themen/Gesellschaft-Umwelt/Bevoelkerung/Sterbefaelle-Lebenserwartung/Tabellen/sonderauswertung-sterbefaelle-pdf.pdf?__blob=publicationFile
December 2014 - 81,122 deaths (page 124)
December 2006 - 70,413 deaths (page 128)
An increase of 15.20%
Correct (...) PCR tests detect infections with SARS-CoV-2 - used to track the spread of the virus so that containment measures can be taken.
- It is negligent, in my opinion, for measures to be based on this Unreliable test. In the meantime this has changed.
From the ÖR:
In brief: The hit rate for a corona PCR is 98 percent.
https://www.quarks.de/gesundheit/medizin/corona-test-wie-funktioniert-der-test/
- The accuracy of a PCR test ranges from 71% - 98%.
A systematic review that screened 957 negative individuals by repeat smear found a rate of initial false-negative results between 2% and 29% in the 5 individual studies. This corresponds to an "effective" sensitivity of the tests between 71% and 98%
https://www.aerzteblatt.de/archiv/214370/PCR-Tests-auf-SARS-CoV-2-Ergebnisse-richtig-interpretieren
In addition, there are other factors that must be taken into account in the PCR test. Both my source mentioned and "Quarks" point to this. The Correctiv does not do this. It is striking that the ÖR often uses the highest hypothetical value. Both with the PCR tests, as well as with the vaccines.
In fact, the Federal Statistical Office sees here effects of the pandemic: It has issued in July 2021 a press release for the period 2018 to 2020, in which it is explained that the life expectancy for newborns and older people in Germany almost stagnate. The main reason, it said, was the "exceptionally high number of deaths at the end of 2020 in the wake of the second wave of the Corona pandemic
https://www-genesis.destatis.de/genesis/online?sequenz=tabelleErgebnis&selectionname=12621-0002&zeitscheiben=16&sachmerkmal=ALT577&sachschluessel=ALTVOLL000,ALTVOLL020,ALTVOLL040,ALTVOLL060,ALTVOLL065,ALTVOLL080#abreadcrumb
- That life expectancy sometimes stagnates is also normal. In the linked source of Correctiv it stagnated with male newborns 2009/11 (77,72) 2010/12 (77,72)
- For female newborns, it stagnated in 2012/14 (83,05) - 2013/15 (83,06). It also stagnated and even slightly decreased in the following years 2014/16 ( 83,20) - 2015/17 (83,18).
Study calculates excess mortality in Germany, Sweden and Spain
They concluded that there was little excess mortality in Germany in 2020 overall according to both models.
- This is, of course, correct. Nevertheless, Correctiv insists in the previous examples mentioned another variable which one must include, namely the life expectancy
- According to the Correctiv a three-country comparison would have no significance, one must include much more countries. I see this exactly the same way.
Intermediate conclusion: The fact that the pandemic in Germany is hardly visible in the death figures for the whole year and that there was no strong excess mortality over the whole year does not mean that there is no pandemic. It simply means that Germany was not hit as hard by the pandemic. One possible explanation is the measures taken to contain the coronavirus, which, according to the RKI, also led to a strikingly shortened 2020 flu season.
- A possible explanation would also be that the virus is not a scary killer virus and that the virus does not pose a Risk worth mentioning for people under 60 years of age.
https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/1104173/umfrage/todesfaelle-aufgrund-des-coronavirus-in-deutschland-nach-geschlecht/
Incidentally, between May and June 2020, the numbers of infections as well as deaths stagnated. In addition to the winter months, death rates peaked during the First Lockdown in April. The First Lockdown ended on 8/5/2020 and the measures (wear mask, keep distance) are quite sufficient. All the "G" rules (vaccinated/genetically/) do not serve their purpose.
No evidence that thousands of ICU beds have been "cut"
In fact, the Divi curve shows a decline in vacant beds starting in November 2020, as B. claims. Divi spokeswoman Meckel explains this decline as follows: "In November, December 2020 just itself many employees were infected or in quarantine."
- Here is an article as well as a statement from the DIVI from October 2020
https://www.aerzteblatt.de/nachrichten/128476/Intensivmediziner-4-000-Intensivbetten-weniger-seit-Jahresbeginn
"Already recently, the DIVI had reported that 22,207 intensive care beds were currently reported as operable, compared to 26,475 at the beginning of the year"
There was no inquiry by Correctiv.
No evidence that hospitals were over-reporting utilization in order to receive funding
(...)A similar claim then surfaced again in June 2021 when the Federal Accounting Office criticized the system of hospital compensation payments, writing that it could create disincentives. However, there is no evidence that hospitals actually provided incorrect figures .
- Why did the Federal Audit Office criticize this and why is there no evidence? Here the Correctiv should have compellingly made inquiries! Instead the Correctiv bases itself on statements of those, which obviously cheated!
The "Divi gate" is hardly not brought up for discussion. For the suspicion of the Federal Audit Office there are some references.
https://www.mdr.de/nachrichten/deutschland/politik/corona-intensivbetten-betrugsverdacht-divigate-100.html
This post has been translated automatically
Chatterbox
Nobody has liked this post so far
One more small addendum. My previously used quotes from the court as well as the lawyer, also apply to this fact check
Of course, the Correctiv has also published good as well as correct facts. In addition, I am also anything but omniscient, so that I may interpret some facts differently than someone else. In addition, I am not entitled to millions or personnel, as is the case with Correctiv.
This post has been translated automatically
Chatterbox
Liked this post: Anonym
welt.de/politik/deutschland/article236323765/RKI-Ziffach-Geimpfungte-gelten-nicht-laenger- als-vollvollendig-geimpft.html
The comments are the best ! Germany seems not yet completely dumbed down
This post has been translated automatically
Chatterbox
Liked this post:
Saphira
This is already really crazy. I have the feeling it is only a matter of time until 3x vaccinated also no longer apply as fully vaccinated. And so on and so forth.
I am only 2x vaccinated, but will also soon boosters. But at some point it's over for me too.
This post has been translated automatically
Chatterbox
Liked this post:
MasterChiefKief, 
Saphira
Then put an end to it now. It is and remains of course your decision. But the government will not stop with it. In Israel, the fourth vaccination is already administered and in Austria, a vaccination obligation is introduced where the people then have to appear for the sting every 3-4 months to be allowed to go shopping or to the restaurant.
The more people participate now, the more difficult it will be later to stop the whole thing. As soon as it has become common practice that you have to go every month to get basic rights, how do you want to stop it?
Whoever gets three stitches will also get the fourth and fifth. And the sixth and seventh doesn't matter and so on.
And if people take this seriously, we will never have freedom again. Then politics knows that it can do anything with the people.
And it is planned an EU-wide vaccination obligation where Austria is the testing ground as the people react to it. Brave new world
This post has been translated automatically
Chatterbox
Liked this post: Anonym,
Saphira
This post has been translated automatically