‘Editorial style’ is not saying the government is faking COVID statistics. Laughable you can say ‘isnt science the authority here’ while dismissing blatant fear mongering and misinformation as ‘editorial style’, lmfao and you expect people to take you seriously
These also look well sourced at a glance, and editorialized.
The issues of excess deaths and wastewater testing contracts have been discussed by plenty of other outlets if you want to see their opinions on the matter. She isn’t making all of this up on the spot.
But no science journalist is an authority. We should always be reading their sources/data to see for ourselves, which was my point. At the same time, meaningful criticisms of science journalists come from those who read them and challenge them on the basis of their sources.
Maybe you want to fact-check Jessica for us? Like I said I’m not a follower, so if she has some grift or incompetency that is not well-known, then you’d be doing us all a favor. But skipping the science and throwing out the baby with the bath water isn’t helping anyone.
lmfao and you expect people to take you seriously
You think I would openly present as a doomer if I cared about internet strangers taking me seriously? Funny logic you’ve got there - you’ve even got me laughing!
deleted by creator
It’s not a loaded question to ask “who are you and why should I trust you?”
deleted by creator
Ok, Doomer
deleted by creator
Nice.
deleted by creator
‘Editorial style’ is not saying the government is faking COVID statistics. Laughable you can say ‘isnt science the authority here’ while dismissing blatant fear mongering and misinformation as ‘editorial style’, lmfao and you expect people to take you seriously
Are you referring to this or this?
These also look well sourced at a glance, and editorialized.
The issues of excess deaths and wastewater testing contracts have been discussed by plenty of other outlets if you want to see their opinions on the matter. She isn’t making all of this up on the spot.
But no science journalist is an authority. We should always be reading their sources/data to see for ourselves, which was my point. At the same time, meaningful criticisms of science journalists come from those who read them and challenge them on the basis of their sources.
Maybe you want to fact-check Jessica for us? Like I said I’m not a follower, so if she has some grift or incompetency that is not well-known, then you’d be doing us all a favor. But skipping the science and throwing out the baby with the bath water isn’t helping anyone.
You think I would openly present as a doomer if I cared about internet strangers taking me seriously? Funny logic you’ve got there - you’ve even got me laughing!
Yeah I’m laughing alright