• GarbageShoot [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      1 year ago

      North Korea was shut down anyway, it took a long time for them to have their first covid outbreak and I think when it finally did happen they did shut down.

      Also, I am glad you have come out so strongly in favor of the PRC approach, or so I must convlude.

      • Call me Lenny/Leni@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Being so close to China, North Korea couldn’t be in a position to escape being one of the first to suffer. Kim Jong-un spent the first part of it saying it didn’t exist. What’s worse is health in North Korea is poor, so there were more casualties. Any true response was too late.

            • Abracadaniel [he/him]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              The NPR article also has no evidence for an earlier outbreak. They just report what the North’s government stated, and add that the reader shouldn’t believe them.

              Sure they share a border with China, but China had COVID pretty well controlled for a significant portion of the pandemic. That combined with the DPRK’s survival strategy of self-reliance make it seem plausible to me that they were clear of it until the vastly more contagious variant became dominant.

              So far, there doesn’t seem to be any evidence to the contrary.

                • Abracadaniel [he/him]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  epistemology is a big topic and we’re clearly operating on some contradictory premises/priors but I’ll continue to engage in good faith.

                  I think I’d consider the following as evidence of an event: photos/video, eyewitness testimony, and measurement data; each provided with provenance/traceability through the entire chain of reporting. Each reporting agent’s credibility on the topic plays a role in weighing the evidence.

                  Finally the believability (another big term) of the claim itself plays a important role in how much evidence is necessary for me to believe it. Here’s where I put on my internet atheist hat and reference the “Sagan Standard”: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof and it’s corollary: a claim asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

                  • Call me Lenny/Leni@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    The reason I asked is an outbreak is usually “in the shadows” until the community of medical professionals confirm it. And it’s not this I intend to reference though, but the fact many would be quick to jump at one country falling under the definition but not another (as well as individual states, as different states handled it differently). However we define evidence (even witnesses are hard, many people will say people dying in front of you wouldn’t be proof unless indicated by professionals), we’d have to apply it universally; the time period between the first suspected patient zero to the first confirmed case to the last confirmed case should be treated by the same rules in both countries, and in all countries. Depending on the standard, either you have both countries faring well or both countries not faring well.

                    Given North Korea is more private, that makes the latter the heavier choice, at least if you ask me.

            • Egon [they/them]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              It’s always the same bullshit. If they are handling covid well “they’re lying about their numbers”. If they report high numbers it’s “evidence they’re incompetent.”
              What reason do I have to mistrust their numbers? They’re not the ones having lied to me for decades.
              And it’s not like the US wasn’t lying about its own numbers

              Why would I trust the US to be honest about theirs? Why would I trust the US media in their claims about North Korea lying about its numbers?
              The US had several whistleblowers like Rebekah Jones getting arrested/abused/harrased for their reporting on the state of the US obfuscating data.
              The american media has been shown to lie time and again, especially when it comes to foreign matters - Most famously about Iraq. What reason do I have to trust it?
              The United States has the largest prisoner population in the world and has a history of persecuting minorites and political dissidents like leaders of black lives matter. These dissidents are dissapeared at secret police blacksites where they are tortured. This prisoner population is used as slave labour, which is still legal.
              Why would I trust the lies peddled by this authoritarian regime about a country whose population they relentlessly bombed until they’d murdered 20% of it.

        • GarbageShoot [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          You’re gonna need a better source than Wikipedia, which has a ridiculous level of slant against the DPRK (look up “Propaganda village” if you need convincing)

          • Call me Lenny/Leni@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Wikipedia, the neutral website that also somehow happened to protest with a Reddit-style blackout when Donald Trump tried passing those internet bills, has a slant against the leader’s party? Alright, I’ll humor you.

            Also, completely unrelated question about that, how does one square someone having a slant against a political party, being on good terms with the political international that party is in, that party being in said political international, and that party being in a nation that works against anything about itself being publicized?