OMG aakdievs cik labs!

(Reply to this) (Thread)

nē, es nevaru, es skatos vēlreiz.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

:))

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Paldies.

Es nevaru paspēt izlasīt subtitrus. Spāņi runā pārāk ātri. :(

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Tur galvenā ideja ir tāda, ka intervētāja jautā ārstam, kas notiek slimnīcā – mums taču ir 500 inficēti cilvēki dienā, un noteikti lietas atkal ir ļoti smagas un slimnīcās vairs nav vietu. Bet ārsts atbild, ka tagad atšķirībā no tā, kas bija no marta līdz maijam, slimnīcā nonāk tikai daži cilvēki un vairums gultu ir tukšas. No 300 gultām aizņemtas ir kādas 5 vai 6. Vairums cilvēku, kam tagad ir pozitīvs tests, slimnīcā nenonāk – viņi atbrauc ar mašīnu testa veikšanai un aizbrauc mājās.

Intervētāja ļoti neticīgi cenšas visādi pierādīt, ka viņam nav taisnība, bet saka, ka šobrīd tā ir pilnīga panika. Bet ārsts norāda, ka vairums ārstu tagad ir atvaļinājumā (augusts taču) un problēma vairāk ir bailēs, ko pat vakcīna neatrisinās.

Beigās pat pieslēdzas viens cits intervētājs, kurš atsakās piekrist ārsta teiktajam, sakot, ka esot staigājis pa ielām un redzējis slimos un mirušos. Ārsts jautā, vai viņš arī ir parakstījis miršanas apliecības? Uz ko žurnālists atbild, ka viņam nav bijusi šāda iespēja.

Vēl ārsts piemin, ka 50% cilvēku Spānijā ir Helicobacter pylori nēsātāji, kas izraisa ne tikai kuņģa čūlu, bet PVO atzinusi arī par kuņģa vēža izraisītāju. Ja mēs krītam panikā par koronavīrusu, tad mums vajadzētu krist panikā arī par šo slimību.

Tas tā īsumā, noteikti kaut ko palaidu garām, bet kopumā bija tā, ka intervijai bija sagatavots tradicionālais “baidies un krīti panikā” naratīvs, tikai ārsts tam nekādi nespēlēja līdzi.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Paldies par pakalpojumu, bet es šitos punktus aptuveni paspēju uztvert. Vobšem angažēti žurnālisti vs based doktors, kuram laikam nav pateikts ko viņam drīkst un nedrīkst teikt.
Mūsdienu žurnaļagas sāk ātri izvirzīties pirmajā vietā, pat virs politiķiem, kuriem derētu nopietns pēriens. Scummiest of all scum.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Vēl bija tas punkts par publicētajiem datiem, ko ārsts atzina par pareiziem, taču norāda, ka to analīze nav pareiza. Tajā brīdī žurnālisti jutās ļoti aizskarti, ka kaut kāds ārsts uzdrošinās apšaubīt viņu analīzi. Tur skaidrā teikstā no žurnālistiem nāca laukā – mēs visu zinām labāk, un ko te kaut kāds ārsts iedomājas, ka viņš zina situāciju slimnīcā labāk par mums. :D

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Komentos ir daljeejs transkripts:

Reporter 1: “We’ve just heard patients have been admitted to intensive care. We have invited Dr. Luis de Benito…. Are hospitals beginning to increase the number of beds? Can you confirm any of this?”

Doctor: “Ah, no. I don’t believe so…. It’s true we are seeing an increase in the number of admissions. But until last week, there were almost no admissions. Yesterday we had three admissions. Three people in a hospital with more than 100 beds…. Furthermore, regarding the most crowded hospital in Madrid (another hospital)….

Reporter 1: “That hospital cancelled all surgical interventions from its planning schedule, and postponed less-urgent external consultations…”

Doctor “Regarding that hospital, yesterday it was reported they had only 75 (COVID) admissions in a hospital with 1300 beds.”

Reporter 1: “That right, and 540 infected!”

Doctor: “Are these sick people or simply ‘positive cases?’ Because the data can deceive us and confuse us. In the health centers, we administer only PCR tests, so we will find many positives [even among people without any symptoms or active infection]. Furthermore, we are now hospitalizing [presumably asymptomatic] people tested in their vehicles. We classify these positive PCR tests as “COVID-19” even though they are only [healthy, asymptomatic] people who have just been tested in their cars. So we are creating confusion by announcing, “Covid-19 cases are increasing!” when in fact, it is not true. There is an increase, but not in patients who have pathology of Covid-19.” ...At present, we see an increase in ‘cases’ that are the simple result of an increase in PCR testing. And having a positive PCR test does not necessarily mean that the person is sick.”

Reporter 1: “Are doctors and hospital staff returning [in anticipation of a new surge]?

Doctor: “Why would they?… There is no emergency.”

Reporter: “… Okay, I repeat: 540 contagious admissions and 70 in intensive care, so that the numbers are clear…. Yesterday, all eyes were focused on vaccine news… vaccines arriving from Russia and Germany. Now it seems that the vaccines won’t be ready for the fall and that Pfizer’s vaccine appears to be more effective. What do you think?”

Doctor: “Well, of course, it’s always profitable to talk about a vaccine, especially after having inculcated the fear to believe it is necessary. Because they need to sell it. The question is, whether we need the vaccine. Also, is it safe, without danger, and is it effective? But first and foremost, is it necessary or not? If it’s true that the contagion has already affected a great mass of people, then why is it necessary to vaccinate the whole population? The first thing we need to do is to vaccinate against fear because of all the social panic we have created. We doctors are perplexed by this.”
..
Reporter: “What do you expect to happen [in the fall]? Are you optimistic?”

Doctor: “For us doctors, or at least the ones I’ve been in contact with, some 200 to 300 doctors and nurses in Spain, we understand that measures have been put in place to confine everyone in September by making them believe they have behaved irresponsibly during the summer. It’s an ‘interesting’ strategy because it’s more profitable [to the government] for people to not receive care in primary treatment centers… We don’t believe it’s right or practical from a medical point of view. Of course, we do NOT expect another wave…. Before the pandemic hit in March, you didn’t speak about it as you should have. But now that there is NO pandemic, you talk about it all the time! Sincerely, I don’t understand.”

Male reporter: “We’ve lost control, haven’t we?”

Reporter 1: “Your statements arouse controversy. My colleague in the studio will join us.”

..

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

+

(Reply to this) (Parent)