A Sense of Doubt blog post #1897 - The Weekly Rebecca Watson - Fox News is wrong (go figure), Dr. Drew, Herd Immunity, and Women Leaders
Here we are again with more content from the amazing Rebecca Watson, who I have previously featured in these entries:
A Sense of Doubt blog post #1843 - Myths, Pseudoscience, Racism, and do not drink bleach
A Sense of Doubt blog post #1873 - How to Spot Bad Science about COVID-19: Rebecca Watson
and
A Sense of Doubt blog post #1880 - Covid-19 overdiagnosed? WRONG and that 5G nonsense Rebecca Watson
Watson founded Skepchick and has a Patreon to support her work making these excellent videos.
https://skepchick.org/
https://www.patreon.com/rebecca
I will direct my students to this page because Watson is currently a case study in how to use critical thinking in regards to the news (which maybe is always her jam) and how to detect bias, fake news, and bad interpretation of science or even actual dismissal of science to address real issues that we're all living through.
I have collected FOUR of Watson's recent videos here for your viewing and reading pleasure (as I included the transcript with each video).
The first video uncovers the misinformation spread by Fox News, clarifying that COVID-19 has surely killed more people than reported. Great stuff.
The second video looks at women leaders throughout the world and what we can learn from them as well as targeting the misogynistic society we live in and how women are not respected as leaders if they are even able to be elected into leadership positions.
The third video, and following transcript, targets former radio celebrity, supposedly noted Psychologist, and now Fox News pundit Dr. Drew Pinsky using his platform on the propaganda network (Fox) to spread not just misinformation about COVID-19 but a profound lack of knowledge and understanding, such as the mistaken belief that the disease is called COVID-19 because there have been 18 previous versions of the virus. Not true. COVID-19 is named for being discovered in 2019, that's what the 19 represents. In the end, "what you now know about Dr. Drew: he’s a moron who shouldn’t be trusted to speak on any subject, probably not even the one he actually studied in college."
And lastly, a fourth video because as I was getting ready to publish, Watson released more, so why not? And even so, I skipped a couple. In the last video I am sharing here, Watson responds to the bizarre claim that people in California have herd immunity to COVID-19, an outrageous claim that she dismisses immediately as it is absolutely false. California residents (in fact no one anywhere) do not have herd immunity to COVID-19. But oh my!! MISINFORMATION! So then she explains and analyzes the misinformation. In fact, Watson's analysis reveals that the article about the supposed herd immunity is not just misinformation, it's fantasy fiction. There's no basis in reality for the claim about herd immunity, the study isn't making any claim about herd immunity at all. Watson's video reveals that we need to be more scrupulous than ever in verifying the information that we're receiving, especially when a supposedly legitimate news organization like San Francisco bay area station KSBW.
Beware everyone. It's an information mine field out there.
Fox News is Wrong: COVID-19 has Killed Many More People Than Reported
Transcript:
Two weeks ago I reported that there was a conservative talking point making the rounds claiming that COVID-19 is being overdiagnosed. Here’s what I said:
“What I discovered is that commentators like Brit Hume are amplifying a claim that people who doctors say are dying of COVID-19 are actually dying of other things, but they happened to test positive for COVID-19 and so they become part of the statistic, inflating the actual number of people dying. So for instance, if you have COVID-19 and you get in a car accident and die on the way to the hospital, you’d be considered a COVID-19 death.
“That’s why we won’t actually know the true mortality of COVID-19 for another few years. You can’t just look at the death certificates and come up with a number, which is what we’re doing now because that’s pretty much all you can do in the midst of a pandemic. I actually tried to get the total number of all-cause deaths for various states for March of 2020 but that data is very hard to access, as it should be because we really don’t need more armchair epidemiologists making our lives miserable. But one thing actual scientists can do in the future is look at, for instance, how many people died in New York in March of 2017, 2018, and 2019 and compare it to March of 2020. Then we’ll know the impact COVID-19 had.”
Well, it’s now been another few years (in quarantine time) -- normally it would take literal years to get this data but due to the pandemic many countries are hustling to make this data available as soon as possible. So journalists at the New York Times have been able to look at those early numbers for March. And guess what?
“At least 28,000 more people have died during the coronavirus pandemic over the last month than the official Covid-19 death counts report.
“The totals include deaths from Covid-19 as well as those from other causes, likely including people who could not be treated as hospitals became overwhelmed.”
Reporters took the historical average number of deaths for March from the past several years of data and compared it to the total number of people reported to have died in several different countries in March of 2020. What they found was that, for instance, Spain had 66% more deaths than usual. That means nearly 20,000 more people died than in previous years, but there were only 12,401 deaths attributed to COVID-19. That’s 7,300 Spaniards who died in March who wouldn’t have died in a non-pandemic. That is a huge number. That’s not within any error bars. It’s not like in March 2015 there were an extra 9,000 dead people but in March of 2018 there were 5,000 fewer dead people, so 7,000 extra dead people is just the standard deviation. Look at this fucking chart.
And they didn’t just find this result in other countries -- they found it here in the US, and much, much worse. In New York City, this past March saw an increase in deaths of 298%. 17,200 more people died than in past years, but only 13,240 were counted as COVID-19 deaths. That’s 4,000 people who died who probably wouldn’t have died if there wasn’t a pandemic.
The New York Times takes pains to say what I said in my previous video: it’s still early and these numbers are not perfectly accurate portrayals of what is happening. “If anything,” the New York Times reports, “excess deaths are underestimated because not all deaths have been reported.” And the undercounting of COVID-19 deaths probably isn’t intentional -- people die outside of hospitals, or without accurate testing, and often without any testing at all because why waste precious tests on the dead when there are living people who need them?
But the facts are extremely clear at this point: conservatives are wrong. COVID-19 is not being overly diagnosed, it’s being severely underrepresented as a cause of death. And the longer they continue to parrot that particular talking point, the more blood is going to be on their hands as dim-witted Americans take to the streets to protest shelter-in-place orders.
I’ve been fighting pseudoscience for more than a decade now, and while I’ve always understood that misinformation has a real, often deadly cost, I have to say that I’m stunned to see something as deadly as this misinformation happening in real time. This actually eclipses anti-vaccination nonsense in terms of so directly causing harm in such a short time period. Usually the misinformation travels out there into the ether and years later we see the disease outbreaks anti-vaxxers caused, or the flooding and severe storms that global warming denialists indirectly cause. In this case, we have Dr. Drew on Fox News today, and thousands dead in New York tomorrow. It’s truly horrifying.
I know I’m mostly preaching to the choir here so I want to thank you, the viewer and supporter of science and critical thought, for believing the experts, staying inside, and keeping yourself and those around you healthy.
What Can We Learn from Female World Leaders?
Transcript:
Writing for Forbes, Avivah Wittenberg-Cox says that the female leaders of Iceland, Taiwan, Germany, New Zealand, Finland, Iceland, and Denmark had the best responses to COVID-19. She says that these female leaders can teach us something that male leaders can’t. There are four lessons she calls out, and I think you’ll agree that all of these are unique to women, and women only: truth, decisiveness, tech, and love. Indeed, that is what little girls are made of. Sorry boys, only our half of the population gets love. You can have another emotion, like, I don’t know, schadenfreude.
Wittenberg-Cox points out that Germany’s female leader displayed “truth” by admitting publicly that the virus was “serious” and would infect up to 70% of the population. I mean, okay? There were other nations helmed by men who lied and obfuscated, notably China and the United States, but those seem to be the outliers. I think pretty much everybody who isn’t an idiot fascist was openly saying “oh shit.”
Wittenberg-Cox next says that “decisiveness” is illustrated with Taiwan, who she says acted early. Taiwan actually suffered a bit because they failed to ban mass gatherings or restrict travel to and from Wuhan as Singapore did. They did manage to get their shit together, but there was a delay so I’m not positive why this was considered decisive while, say, South Korea isn’t. South Korea was hit by a religious cult passing the disease around with the collection plate, but they jumped on it so quickly with extensive testing that they flattened the curve before most countries outside Asia had decided whether or not to start hoarding toilet paper. But, South Korea’s prime minister is a man, sadly, so let’s just forget they exist.
Speaking of South Korea, Wittenberg-Cox points out that Iceland’s female leader demonstrated “tech” by testing five times more people than them. That’s true: Iceland is testing loads of people, and that’s great. However, they can’t test everyone -- there aren’t enough tests or personnel to run those tests sooner than a year out. So while the extensive testing has helped possibly flatten their curve, some experts are still critical of them for not closing schools or stopping tourists from entering the country, and for taking until the end of March to ban social gatherings.
Note that I’m not pointing out these problems to say that any of these leaders had a bad response to this. It’s a (hopefully?) once-in-a-lifetime pandemic, and there isn’t going to be a perfect response. All these leaders listened to their expert advisors and made the choices they thought were best, and the only way we can really criticize them is in retrospect.
Wittenberg-Cox’s final trait is “love,” which she illustrates with the female Prime Minister of Norway, who held a talk just to explain the virus to children. That was an awesome idea, I agree! She writes, “Generally, the empathy and care which all of these female leaders have communicated seems to come from an alternate universe than the one we have gotten used to. It’s like their arms are coming out of their videos to hold you close in a heart-felt and loving embrace. Who knew leaders could sound like this? Now we do.”
Jesus fucking Christ, this drives me nuts. You may have noticed I haven’t actually said the name of any of the women mentioned in Wittenberg-Cox’s article. That’s to make a point: it’s fine to make a list of powerful women, of awesome women, of successful women, whatever, but when you tie their worth to the fact that they’re women, you erase their identity in favor of focusing on the fact that they’re women and that’s why they’re successful, powerful, or awesome. And that’s garbage.
Look, I agree that toxic masculinity is a problem. As a society, we reward boys for aggression and forgive their anger, and we tend to reward girls for their empathy and forgive their weakness. This results in a world where men tend to have more trouble accessing the breadth of their emotions without mockery, and a world in which women tend to have more trouble showing assertiveness and power without being beaten down.
But it does not mean that women’s power is being heartfelt and loving. It means that the entire problem is that we can only see women as heartfelt and loving. All our problems wouldn’t be solved if every nation was led by a woman. Women are half of the fucking population. There are 4 billion of us. That means at least a few billion of us are assholes, just like men.
For instance, let’s take a look at Bangladesh’s response to COVID-19. Instead of declaring a national emergency, they declared a holiday. They placed an emphasis on religious response, holding mass gatherings for prayer. No one even knows how many people are infected. Instead of decent social policies and education they activated the military against the poor. Who made those choices? The person in charge is Sheik Hasina, a woman. Because some women suck! Margaret Thatcher sucked! Theresa May sucked! Aung San Suu Kyi sucks! The governor of Alabama sucks -- her own Lt. Governor said her response to the pandemic was shit. South Dakota’s female governor opposed the stay-at-home order and now is dealing with a serious outbreak. She sucks!
And even if a leader doesn’t outright suck, they’re still human. They can make mistakes. Wittenberg-Cox didn’t mention Singapore’s Halimah Yacob despite the fact that Singapore got a lot of praise for preventing COVID-19 from getting too bad there. But then they decided to open the country back up, and immediately saw a spike in cases. Yacob isn’t the messiah. She didn’t react well at first because she’s a woman and then suddenly become too manly and screw things up.
I’m all for pointing out that some great leaders are women, because I do live in a country where more people wanted Donald Trump as a president than basically any woman. Well, that’s not exactly true, Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, but it’s true that, in general, a mediocre man will make it much further in politics than an accomplished woman. The deck is stacked. But these successful female leaders are great because of their individual actions and motivations, not (just) because they’re women. Diversity is great because people’s backgrounds do play into how they think and act, but you can’t just say that 4 billion people share a particular trait that is good or bad for being a world leader. That’s infantilizing bullshit. Saying that we should elect women to be world leaders because they “love” more than men is just more gendered nonsense that will lead people to criticize any female candidate who comes across as too cold or bossy. It’s like “Wow, in that debate last night Elizabeth Warren sure had some great ideas for how to eliminate big money from politics, but I just didn’t feel like her arms are coming out of the video to hold me close in a heart-felt and loving embrace. I guess I’ll vote for the white dude.”
I guess all this annoys me because I’ve spent more than a decade arguing against ideas like “women’s intuition.” Women aren’t magical fairies here to improve the world. We’re human beings with logic and emotions and good and evil in our hearts just like men. It does no one any good to fight the patriarchy with magical thinking, or one day we’re going to elect the female Hitler because she made us feel cozy.
We can celebrate awesome women for succeeding in a misogynistic society, but let’s not credit their success to their chromosomes, their sex, or their personal identity. Those world leaders are doing a great job because they’re smart and determined and compassionate, just like their male colleagues.
Dr. Drew Issues DMCAs so You Won't Know He Spread Misinformation about COVID-19
Transcript:
Today’s video has everything: pandemics, misinformation, libel lawsuit threats, those tiny skateboards you ride with your fingers, Dr. Drew Pinsky speaking words out of his actual asshole on national television, you’re gonna love it.
As I’ve covered extensively in previous videos, there’s this weird push to politicize COVID-19, which is a virus that doesn’t actually care whether you are a Democrat, Republican, or filthy commie scum. All it cares about is making its way to your lungs where it can reproduce in the hopes that you will then hock out a loogie, which COVID-19 will ride like it’s the #51 express bus directly into someone else’s mouth. And yet, for some reason it has become a part of conservative’s identity to downplay the danger of this virus, even as it became clear to anyone with a brain that this was going to be an honest-to-god pandemic. I’m still not sure why they chose that path but I assume after years of pretending scientists are wrong about climate change they just have a kneejerk reaction to anyone with real expertise warning them that they’re going to die.
Enter Dr. Drew Pinsky, who has had a really interesting career trajectory in the past few decades. Back in high school I used to lie in bed listening to Loveline with him and Adam Carolla, during which time I assumed his degree was in psychology or relationships or something since that was the crux of the call-in advice show, but nope! He actually was an internist and specialized in addiction, which I learned when he moved on to do the show Celebrity Rehab.
So it wasn’t surprising that in the years that followed he would often speak about things he knew nothing about. And in recent years he’s become a frequent guest on Fox News, where he weighs in on topics like homelessness. Because he’s an addiction doctor and...sometimes people with addictions are homeless I guess? Sure, whatever. Let’s also go to him to learn about the college admissions scandal, toxic masculinity, and the “genetic heritage of mass shooters” what the actual fuck, the genetic heritage of mass shooters seems to be “white as fuck” but apparently “Dr. Drew believes the vast majority of mass shootings have mental health issues, and feels we need to look into the genetics of the shooters because 60% of our behavior is related to our genetics.” I...what? That’s not how genetics works Dr. Drew, and you should know that because you were an addiction specialist and that has a lot of the same letters as “geneticist.”
Anyway once COVID-19 started tearing through China, Drew used his platform on Fox News as well as his own podcast, “Dose of Dr. Drew,” to constantly downplay the danger of the virus. He did it so often that someone going by the hilarious username of Dr Droops made a supercut. It goes from Dr. Drew encouraging people to get a flu shot -- which is totally fair, you should get a flu shot because the flu is fucking serious -- to him saying you’re more likely to GET HIT BY AN ASTEROID, which is apparently 1 in 1.6 million. There are currently about 2 million known cases of COVID-19, which with about 8 billion people in the world that would mean your chances of getting it is about 1 in 4,000. Yep, it’s apparently “total BS” that hospitals are running out of ventilators, and don’t miss him agreeing with a caller that since it’s called COVID-19 there must have been 18 others before it, the same way we know that there were 75 even shittier basketball teams in Philadelphia before they got the 76ers.
Drew responded to the video by actually apologizing and saying he was wrong, and it’s really an indictment of our current society that I was impressed a public figure actually admitted he was wrong in the face of damning incontrovertible recorded proof of what he said and the contradictory reality. Like, wow, he admitted it instead of just throwing a smoke bomb at America’s feet and running away. What a treasure.
Except that he then immediately fucked up again by issuing copyright claims on the video, convincing Twitter to remove it and also apparently briefly getting YouTube to do the same. He even Tweeted, “Infringing copywrite laws is a crime. Hang onto your retweets. Or erase to be safe.”
See, this is why we gotta stop telling guys like Dr. Drew that they’re smart enough to speak on any subject without consulting an expert. I happen to be an expert on this particular topic, since I was a copywriter for a decade. Meaning, I wrote copy for advertising purposes. And as a copywriter, I can tell you that he actually meant “copyright,” which is the restriction placed upon the rights to reproduce a particular creative work, which Dr. Drew does not actually own in many of the clips used in the supercut. Of those he does own, actual copyright lawyers seem to agree that the video more than qualifies as “fair use,” the ability to legally use certain creative works in order to comment on them. In this case, the comment is “Look at this dumb asshole who has no idea what he’s talking about and is helping conservatives make sure as many Americans die of COVID-19 as possible.”
Luckily, the video is still up on YouTube and like many attempts by celebrities and other rich people to silence critics with legal threats, this is only resulting in more people seeing Dr. Drew show his entire ass. So please go view the video in full on Dr. Droops’ channel and then share what you now know about Dr. Drew: he’s a moron who shouldn’t be trusted to speak on any subject, probably not even the one he actually studied in college.
"No, California Doesn't Have "Herd Immunity" to COVID-19"
Transcript:
A few years ago...wait, sorry, hours? Days. I think it was a few weeks ago that a friend sent me an article headlined “New study investigates California’s possible herd immunity to COVID-19.” Before I go any further I’m going to say that California does NOT have herd immunity to COVID-19. Absolutely no. For a number of reasons. I’m putting that up front because in the beforetimes I recall that people are less likely to believe misinformation if you start with the actual facts before you discuss the misinformation. So before I go any further, I’m going to need you to tell me you understand that California does not have herd immunity to COVID-19 and the disease has not been here since the fall.
Just kidding, I can’t hear you. This is a video. It’s fine, we’re all going a little crazy in quarantine.
Anyway, this article got me very excited at first because the article, from local news station KSBW, stated that “Researchers at Stanford Medicine are working to find out what proportion of Californians have already had COVID-19. The team tested 3,200 people at three Bay Area locations on Saturday using an antibody test for COVID-19 and expect to release results in the coming weeks. The data could help to prove COVID-19 arrived undetected in California much earlier than previously thought.
““Something is going on that we haven't quite found out yet," said Victor Davis Hanson a senior fellow with Stanford's Hoover Institute.
“Hanson said he thinks it is possible COVID-19 has been spreading among Californians since the fall when doctors reported an early flu season in the state. During that same time, California was welcoming as many as 8,000 Chinese nationals daily into our airports. Some of those visitors even arriving on direct flights from Wuhan, the epicenter of the coronavirus outbreak in China.
“"When you add it all up it would be naïve to think that California did not have some exposure," said Hanson.”
My friend sent it to me because she got sick with a respiratory disease in December and then gave it to me, and I was a mess over Christmas. Maybe that was COVID-19! Maybe we already had it, and are now immune to it! What a huge stress relief that would be!
Because even though I’m relatively young and healthy with none of the common comorbidities of COVID-19, I have dreaded the idea of getting sick. Dreaded it. I was basically sick on and off from October through the end of January, getting something seemingly new every time I got stressed out or traveled. It sucked. And then COVID-19 hit and I thought, “Well, here we go again. BLARG.”
So I’ve had all these anxiety spikes that even my anti-anxiety meds have been having trouble dealing with, and anxiety leads to my immune system failing, and also to acid reflux which causes me to have a sore throat, and that leads to more anxiety, and...yeah, you get it. It’s been a rough time for my mental health.
I was so excited about the Stanford study that I emailed Dr. Seema Yasmin, a doctor at Stanford who has appeared on my live comedy show Quiz-o-Tron. She said she had only just heard of the study as well and would let me know if she heard they were looking for new subjects to test. I wasn’t optimistic about getting into any follow-up study but I was optimistic that maybe I had nothing to worry about when it came to actually getting sick.
But then I thought, oh, but it’s odd that this study could also easily be turned into a conservative Republican talking point. I’ve spent a lot of time -- way, way too much time -- reading up on how conservatives are able to justify their actions during a rapidly worsening situation, and I realized that California’s huge success at flattening the curve (particularly the Bay Area’s) is a really bad data point for them. While other states refused to shelter in place and saw insane numbers of people hospitalized and dying, our hospitals remain well-functioning and we’re just not seeing the death totals of those other states. Conservatives who insist that California overreacted are going to have a bad time when they compare, say, Michigan to California COVID-19 deaths.
Part of that is their ridiculous claim that COVID-19 is overly diagnosed, which I debunked last week. But I realized they can now also argue that California only saw a better result because we had herd immunity -- we were exposed to the disease very early and built up that immunity. But hey, it doesn’t matter! The science is the science, right? You can’t argue against it just because it may support some future conservative talking point, right?
Only, it’s not science. I am blown away by how misleading that article was. Remember the first Stanford researcher the article quoted, Victor Davis Hanson? He had nothing to do with the study. At all. He’s with the conservative think tank the Hoover Institution, while the actual scientists who did the study told Slate “Our research does not suggest that the virus was here that early.” Despite that, the KSBW mentioned Hanson early on, said he was with Stanford which would obviously cause people to assume he was one of the Stanford researchers who performed the study, gave him space for several quotes that are blatantly incorrect, and only later mention the “the study's co-lead Eran Bendavid,” which by saying co-lead obviously people will assume the other co-lead is Hanson, since he had so much attention for the bulk of the article.
What the study actually found was that many more people had antibodies for COVID-19 than expected -- they tested 3,300 people and found that 1 in every 66 tested positive for antibodies, suggesting that they had had the disease whether they knew it or not.
That news alone has a lot of conservatives very excited, because it suggests that the mortality rate for COVID-19 isn’t as bad as we thought. I continue to be baffled at their focus on this, because while it’s important for scientists to figure out the mortality rate, all we normal people need to worry about is how many total people are being hospitalized and dying, stressing our hospitals and possible causing other deaths due to a lack of resources. Like, if there’s a disease that only kills 1 in a million people that might not seem very scary unless you have a 90% chance of getting it. Then that would mean 7 million people are going to die. Those are made-up numbers, by the way, not actual COVID-19 numbers! Just illustrating a point. People don’t naturally understand statistics and relative risk, so honestly you are better off just not worrying about whether COVID-19 has a mortality rate of .7, 1.7, or 6.7. Just worry about staying safe and healthy.
That said, this does not mean that COVID-19 is less deadly than scientists originally thought. It seems like a perfectly good study, but it hasn’t been peer-reviewed, they haven’t made all the data public so no one can check their work or replicate their results, and the biggest problem is that the antibody tests aren’t necessarily accurate. There’s a huge problem right now with getting enough tests for what the US needs, and that has led to the market flooding with frankly shitty tests with loads of false positives.
I’m really glad this research is being done, regardless of those problems, provided they take those problems into account. The big issue here is with the media screwing up the reporting. And in the case of KSBW’s article, I have trouble believing that that amount of shadiness was an accident. For the life of me I cannot imagine being a reporter who gets word of this study and instead of writing a straightforward piece that quotes from an interview with the actual scientists involved, finding a Trump-supporting neo-conservative with ties to the same university with a PhD in CLASSICAL STUDIES instead of, you know, epidemiology, to talk for paragraphs about his own theory of how everyone in the Bay Area already got COVID-19 because of Chinese nationals invading our shores last autumn. Like, the more I think about it the angrier I get.
KSBW did edit their article, changing the headline from “New study investigates California's possible herd immunity to COVID-19” to “New California antibody study could point to possible herd immunity to COVID-19,” which is still fucking wrong because the study had nothing to do with herd immunity, which you generally don’t get to enjoy unless 80 to 90% of people have antibodies, as opposed to less than 5%, fuck you very much. They also added the line, “Hanson is not affiliated with the study” after his first quote, but they still left in the other quotes. It’s nowhere near enough. The reporter, Caitlin Conrad, should honestly be fired. That’s not journalism. The only possible way to explain this article without assuming Conrad is actually a propaganda-spewing piece of trash would be to assume that she’s merely a moron who was fooled by some expertly crafted press release from Hanson or the Hoover Institution. It’s insane.
Anyway, the point is that it’s neither good news nor bad news. It’s not even news. It’s just scientists working on learning more, and the media should stop reporting on their research until we have a closer understanding of what is real and what is a statistical blip.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
- Bloggery committed by chris tower - 2004.28 - 10:10
- Days ago = 1760 days ago
- New note - On 1807.06, I ceased daily transmission of my Hey Mom feature after three years of daily conversations. I plan to continue Hey Mom posts at least twice per week but will continue to post the days since ("Days Ago") count on my blog each day. The blog entry numbering in the title has changed to reflect total Sense of Doubt posts since I began the blog on 0705.04, which include Hey Mom posts, Daily Bowie posts, and Sense of Doubt posts. Hey Mom posts will still be numbered sequentially. New Hey Mom posts will use the same format as all the other Hey Mom posts; all other posts will feature this format seen here.
No comments:
Post a Comment