Mediaboss Marketing

Candace Owens, political commentator and host of the TV show "Candace," tweeted that the CDC ... [+] actually put together a document to discuss putting high risk people into camps to shield low risk people from them. (Photo by Jason Davis/Getty Images)

Well, heres a campy interpretation of what the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) posted on its website last year. On Monday, political commentator Candace Owens tweeted that the CDC actually put together a document to discuss putting high risk people into camps to shield low risk people from them. In case you were wondering whether this was a joke, the next sentence in Owens tweet was, No this is not a joke, and yes, every single person who has made a reference to 1930s Germany is vindicated. Really? Every single person who has compared Covid-19 precautions to what the Nazis did in Germany in the 1930s is vindicated?

And perhaps to put some emphasis, she began the whole tweet with a phrase that rhymed with Goalie Brad Pitt but wasnt the kind of thing that you might utter in super polite company. Heres her tweet in all its glory, well, most of it with the expletive scratched out:

From Twitter

As you can see, Owens included a link to the CDC website that she was tweeting about, the one that supposedly discussed putting high risk people into camps to shield low risk people from them.

Owens wasnt the only one on social media to spread such an interpretation of the CDC website. For example:

From Twitter

And according to Jessica McDonald writing for FactCheck.org, the Epoch Times posted on Instagram the following: The Centers for Disease Control & Prevention detailed in a July 26 report the options for creating camps to isolate Americans amid the COVID-19 outbreak, along with a headline, CDC Virus Camps?

Putting people in camps, assuming that theyre not band camps or circus camps, doesnt sound good. It may evoke images of what the U.S. government did during the Second World War, throwing innocent Japanese Americans into internment camps just because of their racial background.

But theres one itty-bitty problem with Owenss claim. The CDC document that Owens referenced did not say anything about putting people in camps. Not even close.

When claiming that a document supports what you are claiming, its kind of important to actually read the document carefully. Otherwise, it can be like citing the Polices Every Breath Your Take and saying to your love interest, see this song shows how I really feel about you. You may want to take a closer look at what Sting was actually singing about before suggesting in any way that, every move you make, every step you take, Ill be watching you.

Similarly, the CDC website entitled Interim Operational Considerations for Implementing the Shielding Approach to Prevent COVID-19 Infections in Humanitarian Settings starts off by saying that it presents considerations from the perspective of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC) for implementing the shielding approach in humanitarian settings as outlined in guidance documents focused on camps, displaced populations and low-resource settings. Thats the very first bleeping sentence. If you are going make claims about what a document indicates, at the least read the first sentence.

Just because a document mentions the word camp doesnt mean that its about putting you in one. For example, an article about Anna Camp wouldnt necessarily be about putting people in a camp. Anna Camp is not a camp, unless she started a camp, which would then be Anna Camps camp. Anna Camp is an actress who starred in the movie Pitch Perfect, which by the way wasnt about baseball.

Similarly, the CDC website did not mention any CDC Virus Camps, as the Epoch Times suggested. No, this was a document specifically covering a potential strategy for humanitarian settings. Now a humantitarian setting is not the same as a vegetarian place setting. According to a November 2019 publication in the journal BMC Conflict and Health, a humanitarian setting is one in which an event or series of events has resulted in a critical threat to health, safety, security or well-being of a community or other large group of people. So this can be a situation where a substantial number of people are hiding from or fleeing political oppression, mass poverty, a natural disaster, a disease outbreak, or some other threat to their health. Such settings tend to be crowded with few luxuries. They arent exactly a bank, an exclusive club in Florida, or anything else that may rhyme with the phrase marry cargo.

The website discussed the shielding approach as a possible way to reduce the number of severe Covid-19 cases by limiting contact between individuals at higher risk of developing severe disease (high-risk) and the general population ( low-risk). This would involve temporarily re-locating such high-risk individuals to safe or what they call green zones. For example, in a refugee camp, this green zone could be a place that has only entry point to minimize the chances that an infectious individual may enter the zone. There can be a meeting area where those staying in the green zone can interact with visitors while practicing physical distancing and staying at least two meters apart.

So this CDC website is more about one possible way to protect people at higher risk for severe Covid-19 than shielding lower risk people from them. So this is not quite like the Japanese American internment camps from World War II. And it certainly isnt close to what the Nazis did during the 1930s.

In case anyone says, oh the CDC has since changed the website, the same website and content has apparently been up since July 26, 2020, over a year before Owens and the Epoch Times had posted about it.

In general, its a good idea to double-check the actual content of any websites or documents being shared on social media. Thats especially true if you are the one who first shares the websites or documents on social media.

Original post:
Did CDC Propose Putting High Risk People Into Covid-19 Camps? Heres What They Actually Said - Forbes

Kim Kardashian West has told how she was left in tears after being compared with Kate Middleton while she was pregnant with her first child North.

The Keeping Up With The Kardashians star and the Duchess of Cambridge both gave birth in summer 2013, and Kim says media comparisons between herself and the royal knocked her confidence.

We need your consent to load this Instagram contentWe use Instagram to manage extra content that can set cookies on your device and collect data about your activity. Please review their details and accept them to load the content.Manage Preferences

"It was really, really crazy," Kardashian West said during an appearance on the We Are Supported By podcast. "They would always compare me to Kate Middleton so it would say Kate the waif and Kim the whale, the waif versus the whale.

"It was so nasty. I dont think that would really fly today, but it killed my self-esteem. I really cant believe that this was acceptable and that this was OK."

Kardashian West, who said she was diagnosed with pre-eclampsia while pregnant, leading to swelling in her face and feet, was upset by the comparisons made by others but we often do it to ourselves, too.

We need your consent to load this Instagram contentWe use Instagram to manage extra content that can set cookies on your device and collect data about your activity. Please review their details and accept them to load the content.Manage Preferences

In the age of social media, comparison culture aka our compulsion to compare our lives to those around us is all too easy to do on a daily basis, but it can have a damaging impact on our wellbeing.

With experts warning that it can contribute to a range of mental health problems like anxiety and depression, here are some reasons to keep the urge to compare under control

1. It damages your sense of identity

Our little quirks and idiosyncrasies are what make us unique and special. Experts say that attempting to mimic someone elses life, whether copying their clothing or replicating their career, will only lead to self-doubt and an unhealthy sense of identity.

Bea Arthur, CEO of therapy platform The Difference, has a TEDx Talk on the subject called The Culture Of Comparison, which has been watched over 52,000 times. In the talk, she explains: "The culture of comparison causes you to grade your choices against the choices of others.

"I can tell you that nothing else in this world will make you more confused and paralysed than basing your own opinions and choices on those of other people."

2. It can make you feel like youre failing

Constantly comparing yourself to others lives, their social circles, their outfits and even where they go on holiday can all contribute to feelings of underachievement, says David Brud, CEO and co-founder of mental wellbeing and self-development platform Remente.

"This is because of the tremendous pressure individuals can feel about the way that others see them," he says.

"Inherently, we all have a critical voice which tells us to improve, to strive for better things and to achieve. While this voice is normal, and even healthy, when fuelled by social media it can spiral out of control."

Brud says that while we want others to see us in the best possible light, we should take social media with a pinch of salt. "What we fail to realise is that the images we see from others are all the end result of the same manipulations and the same impulse towards perfection. The constant comparison will inevitably lead to feelings of underachievement."

3. It wont help you to achieve your goals

Its really easy to get stuck in a cycle of questioning why you havent achieved the same things as your peers, without stopping to really ask yourself if its what you really want.

The concern about whether youre doing life wrong can quickly derail you from focusing on achieving your authentic goals, whether thats travelling the world or settling down to have a family.

"Browsing websites like Facebook and Instagram and observing other peoples lives can trigger feelings of exclusion and loneliness, or FOMO," explains Brud.

"Seeing images of people doing fun activities, going on business trips or going to parties can make individuals ask questions like Why am I not doing this? Why am I not achieving the same things? All of which can then lead to a negative perception of your life and unnecessary feelings of guilt."

Unplugging from the anxiety

If you want to beat comparison culture for good, Brud recommends taking a social media hiatus.

"Try deleting apps from your phone and see if that will decrease the amount of negative thoughts that you have. Instead of checking social media and comparing your life to those of others, try taking physical control go for a walk, grab a book or even distract yourself with a game on your phone.

"Additionally, try spending less time on your posts," he adds. "You dont need to dedicate hours to changing filters or re-phrasing a tweet, when instead you could be living your life to the full. Use social media on a reward basis, only posting something once youve achieved all of your tasks for the day."

Lastly, he says to keep things in perspective. "Your Facebook or Instagram feed only shows the highlights of someones life, not the full reality. No one wants to share bad photos of themselves, or write a post about a missed deadline at work. What you see is carefully chosen and curated, not reflective of reality. "

Read the original post:
Here's why you should never compare yourself to anyone else Living - RTE.ie

At the opening of this weeks New South Wales parliamentary committee hearing into the governments response to the Covid-19 pandemic, Labors Penny Sharpe put a simple question to the states chief health officer.

On what date, she asked Dr Kerry Chant, did the states public health team start preparing advice in relation to locking down parts of Sydney?

Its just one of the many questions that continue to bubble about how NSW, the state so often lauded as the gold standard of Covid management in Australia, mishandled an outbreak so badly.

NSW premier Gladys Berejiklian may be more focused on the path out of lockdown with promises of eased restrictions in September and October for the vaccinated, but her government continues to be dogged by questions about how they lost control of the outbreak.

Many of those questions spring from what happened in the days between the first recorded case of the Delta strain in Sydneys eastern suburbs, on 16 June, and the decision to lock down seven local government areas 10 days later. In those critical early days of the outbreak, were there missed warning signs and could the government have done more to avoid what has become a daily horror show of growing case numbers, more deaths and new outbreaks across regional areas?

When the committee met on Tuesday, NSW marked its worst day of the pandemic, with 356 new cases. By the end of the week it had beaten that mark: the 390 new cases on Friday meant the state had recorded more than 1,700 cases in a five-day period.

The number of deaths linked to the outbreak also grew to 38, including two men aged in their 20s and 30s. The list of regional cities and towns subject to lockdowns also continued to grow, with particular concern around outbreaks in Dubbo and Walgett, where local health authorities said on Friday the vast majority of cases were Indigenous.

At the same time, premier Gladys Berejiklians suggestion that restrictions could begin to ease once vaccine rates reached just 50% or 60% prompted a furious response from other premiers who have clung to the notion of keeping the virus entirely out of the community.

The Western Australian premier, Mark McGowan, who has staked his political reputation on keeping his state entirely free of the virus, accused NSW of risking the lives of their citizens [and] everyone else. The state, he said, did not have the backbone to do what is required.

Whether McGowans insistence on a Covid-zero approach is helpful or even grounded in reality, the questions about whether NSW missed opportunities to quash the outbreak early on remain unanswered.

In the hearing this week, both Chant, the chief medical officer, and health minister Brad Hazzard explained that in the days following the outbreak they had discussed the feasibility of a localised lockdown in the citys eastern suburbs, a tactic which had worked in controlling the Northern Beaches outbreak in December last year.

What they had not factored in, Chant said, was that a party in West Hoxton, in the citys western suburbs, had turned into a seeding event which would mark the beginning of the end for NSWs control of the outbreak: on 29 June, more than a week after cases linked to the party were discovered, NSW Health announced that about 10 more people than initially believed had been at the event.

It was thought that cluster had actually been identified very early but there were issues around containment of that which were not appreciated, Chant told the hearing.

Obviously, with the benefit of hindsight, there are different decisions that can be made, but just be reassured that we were looking very closely at all elements of the response in terms of the recommendations to government about the controls at the time.

And yet, the question of when health authorities first recommended the state enter lockdown remained unanswered. In response to Sharpes question, Chant first rattled off a list of things the government had done in the days after the first case was recorded.

Then this: [the advice] would have been on the ... I would haver to check when they it would have been around the government acted quickly when we recommended those actions to the government on the days described.

When Sharpe asked again, Hazzard, interrupted: You have an expectation that some document appears, he told Sharpe. No, it doesnt. Its a moving feast.

And Dr Chant is expressing the concerns raised by her public health team, its not just her, she has another 12 public health teams so theres a constant discussion going on about what is happening as cases are rolling in.

Quite what the states public health teams, and Chant, were telling the government in those 10 days remains unclear, but multiple sources have told Guardian Australia that the option of an earlier lockdown was at least canvassed among the public health officials who report to Chant.

While the committee eventually learned from Chant that the first formal, written advice to plunge Sydney into lockdown came on the same day the announcement was made 25 June both she and Hazzard were less forthcoming about what those daily discussions might have looked like.

We were talking about all options right through it is not a case of, Well, today is the day we are going to talk about lockdown, Hazzard said on Tuesday.

All Chant would offer was that there would have been a range of discussions with [Hazzard].

In the hearing, Hazzard was asked whether the state budget, released before the lockdown on 22 June, had been a factor in delaying the announcement, a belief that has been the subject of rampant speculation even among some Coalition MPs.

In the middle of that 10-day period the state budget was handed down, it was considered to be a celebration that New South Wales had been exceptional in not locking down. Was the messaging around the budget any part of the thinking in not ordering a lockdown in that period? committee chair David Shoebridge, a Greens MP, asked.

No, never, Hazzard responded. I can give you a 2,000% guarantee on that. We do not think about those things.

In any case, the pressure on NSW will continue to mount both internally and from outside the closed-up borders. Ahead of a national cabinet meeting on Friday the ACT chief minister, Andrew Barr, was asked about Berejiklians ambitions to begin easing elements of the restrictions once vaccination markers were hit at around 50% or 60%.

As the ACT grapples with its first cases of Covid-19 since July last year, Barr said that while he was comforted by Berejiklians reassurances that those relaxations would only be minor, he was troubled by media reports suggesting the state would take a more aggressive stance on living with the virus before widespread vaccination.

It worries me that there is this speculation and suggestion in the media that thats whats going on, thats got to come from somewhere theres someone backgrounding and its really, really concerning and alarming, he said.

With the benefit of hindsight I would hope it would have been a different approach but it is what it is now and its really what happens now that is the most important thing.

Read the original:
The missing 10 days: did NSW squander the chance to head off its Delta nightmare? - The Guardian Australia

O, Canada: Penn will acquire one of Canadas biggest sports betting platforms theScore in a $2 ... [+] billion deal.

Penn National Gaming will acquire Toronto-based Score Media and Gaming, which runs sports betting platform theScore, for $2 billion.

Penn National, which announced the deal on Thursday, will pay Score Media shareholders $34 per share in a mix of stock and cash. Score Media shareholders will receive $17 in cash per share and 0.2398 shares of Penn National common stock for each Score share. Once the transaction is complete, Penn National will own approximately 93% of Score Media and Gamings outstanding shares while Score shareholders will keep 7%.

Jay Snowden, president and chief executive of Penn National, says theScore will complement the companys investments in sports betting. In January 2020, Penn bought a 36% stake in sports media publisher Barstool Sports for $163 million and it has since spun out a Barstool Sportsbook betting app in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Illinois. Through the acquisition of theScore, Penn will get the companys 4 million daily active users, one third of which are in Canada, where sports betting is limited to parlay bets, and two thirds of theScores users are in the U.S. across Colorado, Indiana, Iowa and New Jersey.

Score Media, unlike Penn, has developed all of its gaming platform technology in-house. Snowden said that in-house technology is the missing piece for Penn to be operating at what he describes as industry-leading margins because it will be able to terminate its contracts with third party technology platforms.

Importantly, the transaction provides us with a path to full control of our own tech stack, says Snowden. TheScore has developed a state-of-the-art player account management system and is finalizing the development of an in-house managed risk and trading service platform.

The transaction has been unanimously approved by the boards of directors of both companies and is currently expected to close in the first quarter of 2022.

Penns stock is up over 9% today and Score Media and Gamings stock price is up a whopping 80%.

Penn National said it will fund half of the transaction$1 billionthrough cash on its balance sheet.

Score Media was started by its chief executive, John Levy, in 2012 after he sold his cable TV channel for $131 million to Rogers Communications. Levys son, Benjie, is the companys COO. The older Levy, according to public filings, owns approximately 18% of the companys shares, which are worth more than $300 million, according to terms of the transaction with Penn. The Levy family will continue to operate theScore.

Chad Beynon, an analyst at Macquarie Capital, says its a good deal for Penn.

I think what Penn is buying is a pretty solid front-row ticket to be a major player in Canada, says Beynon.

Beynon adds that Penn is also getting a sizable user base in the U.S., although theScore only has about 1% of the market in each of the four states in which it is currently operating.

But in mobile gambling, customer acquisition is key. It costs roughly $500 to acquire one customer and if a platform can retain them for six months, itll start turning a profit on each user.

You do that mathPenn essentially paid market rates for these customers, and on top of that, they got the technology synergies and a Canadian beachhead, Beynon says.

Excerpt from:
Penn National To Acquire Score Media And Gaming For $2 Billion - Forbes

Ebrahim Raisi was sworn into office as Irans new president on Thursday, consolidating the power of conservatives who now control all branches of the Islamic Republics government and are set to pursue a harder line in foreign and domestic policies.

Mr. Raisi, 60, a protg of Irans supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, won a low-turnout election in June that had been orchestrated to prevent any credible opponent particularly any moderate from running. He is seen as Mr. Khameneis choice to succeed him as supreme leader in a system where a small group of Shiite clerics, not elected officials, hold the ultimate power.

The inauguration ceremony, at the Parliament in Tehran, took place amid very heavy security and ample pomp, with more than 100 foreign dignitaries arriving in luxury cars, a military band playing the national anthem and the capital city shut down.

Irans backing of militant groups around the Middle East and its support of the Syrian government have been a point of contention with neighbors and Western powers. Yet Mr. Raisi struck a defiant tone, praising Irans regional policies as a stabilizing force in the region and condemning foreign intervention in Iranian affairs.

The policy of pressure and sanctions will not make the Iranian people give up on their rights, including the right to development, Mr. Raisi said. The sanctions must be lifted. We will support any diplomatic plan that supports this goal.

He pledged to get international sanctions lifted, improve ties with neighboring countries and unite his countrys political factions. But Mr. Raisi has not offered a concrete plan to resolve such problems.

After six rounds of talks in Vienna with world powers that were aimed at reviving the 2015 accord that restricted Irans nuclear program, the negotiations are now at a standstill and it is not clear when they might resume.

Saudi Arabia, Irans regional nemesis, shunned an invitation to attend the inauguration, and prominent figures from rival reformist and centrist political parties were absent from the ceremony as well.

As Mr. Raisi, a former chief of the Iranian judiciary, sets out to engage with the world, accusations of human rights violations will shadow him.

International rights groups say that he was part of a four-person committee that ordered the execution of 5,000 political dissidents in 1988. Critics of Irans government, including opposition figures and human rights activists, have called for the international community to shun him.

But diplomacy with Iran is not off the table, both the United States and the European Union have said, because the Biden administration and European leaders say that reviving the 2015 nuclear deal remains the best option for curbing Irans nuclear ambitions.

After President Donald J. Trump exited the agreement in 2018, Iran has ramped up its uranium enrichment, fueling fears that it could develop a nuclear weapon. The 2015 deal had been reached under Mr. Raisis predecessor, Hassan Rouhani, a more moderate politician who defeated Mr. Raisi in the 2017 election, and it is not yet clear if the change in government will mean a shift in Tehrans negotiating stance.

The European Union sent a senior delegation to the inauguration that included Enrique Mora, one of the coordinators of the nuclear talks. Senior officials from Russia, South Korea, Turkey, Oman, Armenia and the Vatican were also in attendance, as were leaders of the Palestinian militant group Hamas and Lebanons Hezbollah. Some used the opportunity to hold talks with Iranian officials on the sidelines of the ceremony.

Mr. Raisi has not officially announced the names of cabinet ministers, but a list leaked to local media indicates that key posts like the foreign, defense, intelligence and interior ministries will be offered to men with deep ties to the intelligence and security apparatus and affiliations with the elite Revolutionary Guards Corps. Mr. Raisi said he would submit his proposed list to Parliament after the inauguration; the Parliament speaker said it would be approved by early next week.

Raisis presidency is very much the rise and dominance of the military and security branch of the Islamic Republic and the retreat of the technocrats and moderate voices, said Nader Hashemi, the director of the Center for Middle East Studies at the University of Denver.

Mr. Raisis most immediate crisis involves tensions with Israel. An Israeli-managed oil tanker was attacked by drones last Friday, killing two crew members, and an attempt was made on Monday to hijack another tanker in the Sea of Oman. Israel, the United States and Britain have accused Iran of being behind the incidents, which Iran has denied.

Mr. Raisi also must contend with the deep discontent of many Iranians who sat out the election and did not vote out of frustration with the status quo and lack of hope for reform. Mr. Raisis rise to the presidency was largely viewed as engineered by the conservative religious establishment, particularly Mr. Khamenei.

In the weeks leading to the inauguration, anger over a water shortage in the southern province of Khuzestan led to anti-government protests in multiple cities. Crowds of men and women chanted for the fall of the Islamic Republic and the removal of its top leaders from power. Security forces dispersed crowds with gunfire and tear gas, killing several people, according to rights groups, and made hundreds of arrests.

Iranian activists have warned that given Mr. Raisis track record in the judiciary, which has jailed and executed dissidents, journalists and lawyers, they expect more state oppression under his administration. That includes passage of a bill that would severely restrict access to the internet and block popular social media apps like Instagram and WhatsApp.

View post:
A New President Takes Office in Iran, Solidifying Hard-Line Control - The New York Times