I BACK OFF
A friend with a strong background in journalism emailed me with regard to the ProPublica article that I linked in the penultimate post (consonance!). My friend offered this considered opinion regarding that article:
I read the ProPublica piece and found it very compelling at first but on reflection it didn't make journalistic sense. No one has previously described details like this of what it's like to suffer from this coronavirus. Thus, if true it would constitute a very important story; so why wouldn't the author at least get one medical professional to go on the record to describe symptoms no one has yet described? Why would there be retaliation? It's not like the healthcare industry is loaded with pro-Trump professionals; or that the admin itself would seek to target a facility treating patients. If the details are accurate, it would make for a very sound plea for more attention to the illness, for more resources detailed in particular to this specific facility. And yet, she withholds not only the name of the medical professional but the facility itself, in spite of the fact that there are nearly a dozen hospitals in NOLA area. Further, if the account is true it would easy to match it for anyone who was there, so the point of concealing it is not clear. I may ask her on twitter, but wanted to run it by you first to see what you thought.
Last night Titan 28 questioned not so much the medical veracity of the article as the journalistic credibility, hinting that it may have been a fictional account even if medically accurate. Titan can correct me if I'm mistaken in that assessment.
On reflection I recognized the validity of Titan's concerns, so I'm glad to be able to offer my friend's analysis.
In future I'll strive for a greater degree of detachment. I am now 70, and to have commenters suggesting openly that the likes of me would be better off dying is, well, let's just call it aggravating.