In his latest opinion republished in companion site Biznews, Politicsweb editor James Myburgh revisits coronavirus data and is less optimistic than before.
After his previous layman's opinion (see my response here) where he compared South Africa's infections trajectory to Australia's and New Zealand's relatively low rates and not similar to America's or Europe's exponential, and thereby it's not as bad as "coronavirus proselytes" (Krzysztof Wojciechowicz in BN last week) fear, I became even more sceptical than I already was about his and PW's overall agenda and especially that concerns about the pandemic "hoax" were exaggerated. I stopped reading PW; I had had enough.
As I wrote before, putting aside his and the right's standpoint of the economy/business before people and lives, it's premature to draw conclusions about the nature of the virus and its transmission - it's still largely unknown. It's not as if the public, at least those who've been following the story, don't know this already. And as experts and officials said and we know, SA's overall public health circumstances and how the virus is spreading here is different to elsewhere; in fact, each country presents differently unlike the approach of the Myburghs and Wojciechowiczs who minimise it.
Myburgh's article tells us what we know: that infections in SA are rising and Western Cape is the country's epicentre. So what is his point? Remember, from the outset he, IRR et al were adamant the lockdown was too drastic, if not unnecessary - a "bazooka to the economy" they called it. They minimised the virus' potential impact in SA.
As I wrote before, putting aside his and the right's standpoint of the economy/business before people and lives, it's premature to draw conclusions about the nature of the virus and its transmission - it's still largely unknown. It's not as if the public, at least those who've been following the story, don't know this already. And as experts and officials said and we know, SA's overall public health circumstances and how the virus is spreading here is different to elsewhere; in fact, each country presents differently unlike the approach of the Myburghs and Wojciechowiczs who minimise it.
Myburgh's article tells us what we know: that infections in SA are rising and Western Cape is the country's epicentre. So what is his point? Remember, from the outset he, IRR et al were adamant the lockdown was too drastic, if not unnecessary - a "bazooka to the economy" they called it. They minimised the virus' potential impact in SA.
Now that the data says what scientists reliably predicted based on the evidence, he's walking back his previous premature and questionable opinion, which I said at the time one must take with a Dead Sea's worth of salt.
The situation is fluid, literally changing daily. Of course experts know. It's common cause that only with testing and tracing will a more accurate picture be obtained. The lockdown almost certainly slowed down the infections rate (they ignore the prevention paradox), but like most western countries, SA's reaction and testing and tracing got off to a slow start (but better than the worse) and are not nearly at the levels to give a detail account of community infections.
The health minister said they are expecting a "deluge" of cases and expect a peak in September. Last week I spoke to a medical practitioner (his daughter is a Groote Schuur Hospital specialist) who dismissed opinions that concerns about it were exaggerated. He showed a graph (I don't know the source) that indicated a sharply rising SA infections rate. His expression was grim. We all hope it will not be as bad as expected.
I've wondered what conspiracy theorists, or those with alternative theories that don't mach the evidence, do when the evidence slaps them in the face - like Trump do they lie and/or continue as before, or do they attempt to walk back what they said and pretend they never said what they did, also like Trump?
Myburgh ends with graphs that show natural deaths. What relevance is this to coronavirus? Well, none really. It's blowing smoke. Context is everything. Nothing about the pandemic is "natural" in the normal scheme of things. One cannot catch a heart attack or whatever from another person. If unchecked, coronavirus/Covid-19 potentially could infect 70% or more of the world's population with 3% (even that varies) fatalities - 200 million people - in a very short time. And there's no evidence at this stage people who were infected cannot get it again.
The pandemic is extraordinary, a once in one hundred year event. But their ilk treat it and the deaths like it was part of the natural cycle of natural deaths and death by misadventure. B comparison they - the right - don't consider farmer murders, an unfortunately typical part of the country's high crime rate, but "genocide" of whites, an unusual departure from the pattern because it suits their narrative just as considering the pandemic is exaggerated suits theirs here.
By raising the non sequitur - natural deaths in an article about the coronavirus - Myburgh, despite walking back his earlier glib position, reveals he hasn't really changed his core narrative.
The situation is fluid, literally changing daily. Of course experts know. It's common cause that only with testing and tracing will a more accurate picture be obtained. The lockdown almost certainly slowed down the infections rate (they ignore the prevention paradox), but like most western countries, SA's reaction and testing and tracing got off to a slow start (but better than the worse) and are not nearly at the levels to give a detail account of community infections.
The health minister said they are expecting a "deluge" of cases and expect a peak in September. Last week I spoke to a medical practitioner (his daughter is a Groote Schuur Hospital specialist) who dismissed opinions that concerns about it were exaggerated. He showed a graph (I don't know the source) that indicated a sharply rising SA infections rate. His expression was grim. We all hope it will not be as bad as expected.
I've wondered what conspiracy theorists, or those with alternative theories that don't mach the evidence, do when the evidence slaps them in the face - like Trump do they lie and/or continue as before, or do they attempt to walk back what they said and pretend they never said what they did, also like Trump?
Myburgh ends with graphs that show natural deaths. What relevance is this to coronavirus? Well, none really. It's blowing smoke. Context is everything. Nothing about the pandemic is "natural" in the normal scheme of things. One cannot catch a heart attack or whatever from another person. If unchecked, coronavirus/Covid-19 potentially could infect 70% or more of the world's population with 3% (even that varies) fatalities - 200 million people - in a very short time. And there's no evidence at this stage people who were infected cannot get it again.
The pandemic is extraordinary, a once in one hundred year event. But their ilk treat it and the deaths like it was part of the natural cycle of natural deaths and death by misadventure. B comparison they - the right - don't consider farmer murders, an unfortunately typical part of the country's high crime rate, but "genocide" of whites, an unusual departure from the pattern because it suits their narrative just as considering the pandemic is exaggerated suits theirs here.
By raising the non sequitur - natural deaths in an article about the coronavirus - Myburgh, despite walking back his earlier glib position, reveals he hasn't really changed his core narrative.
PS It's ironic and disingenuous PW, as the right often do, quotes Orwell when their narratives are what Orwell warned about. In fact, they're misusing the quote, presenting themselves as victims of the lies and misinformation they are spreading, as if alt-facts and fake news are "freedom of the press" and the "right to criticise".
Comments
Post a Comment