Linked from this site (again):

https://softwaredevelopmentperestroika.wordpress.com/

https://brownstone.org/articles/for-whom-do-the-covid-fact-checkers-really-work/

When it comes to the former group, we know with confidence, the chance they get re-infected and severely ill is very very low, and far lower than people who have not yet had and recovered from COVID19 (this is called natural immunity). The data in support of this is massive, and quite certain. Antibody data is beside the point— we care about the thing in itself getting sick.

So here is what blows my mind: We are living in a world where the CDC director can say something that is false, made-up and no institution will say otherwise. At the same time, major, venerable fact checking institutions are literally asserting as fact something which is at best unproven.

No matter how you feel about these issues; these are dangerous times. Truth and falsehood is not a matter of science but cultural power— the ability to proclaim and define the truth. If this continues, dark times lie ahead. Someday soon, we may not like who defines the truth.

This points out what I have been wondering on this forum.  How do we get to "facts" that we can agree are truly facts?  When Mike quotes from NPR and businessinsider and brennancenter - or any of the network media, and I quote from theconservativetreehouse and armstrongeconomics, we just talk past each other.  (This is why I keep coming back to the "market solution" of looking at who benefits, who is afraid of what, why there is such massive resistance to something, etc.)

And, importantly, where does this lead us?