Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Reuters)   Italian doctor cautiously says COVID-19 cases are dwindling in his home country, giving more ammos to conspiracy theorists   (uk.reuters.com) divider line
    More: Spiffy  
•       •       •

1715 clicks; posted to Main » on 01 Jun 2020 at 2:30 AM (6 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



39 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2020-06-01 2:34:46 AM  
It's going to disappear. One day - it's like a miracle - it will disappear.
 
2020-06-01 2:35:15 AM  
Well sure, when half your country has already had the virus, the cases are going to decrease.

*actually RTFA*

That's not what the article says at all.
 
2020-06-01 2:38:02 AM  
When he says it's losing it's potency I think it has mutated to something less deadly. But TFA does not day that. Sounds like something was lost in translation. Is he really trying to say less people have the rona?
Time to go back to bed
 
2020-06-01 2:41:10 AM  

SanityIsAFullTimeJob: It's going to disappear. One day - it's like a miracle - it will disappear.


Hopefully, sometime in January 2021...
 
2020-06-01 2:47:35 AM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-06-01 3:15:59 AM  
Ammos?

/yeah, I'm being that guy
 
2020-06-01 3:19:09 AM  
You know that time when Homer Simpson pulled a prediction out of his ass that an asteroid heading to Springfield "will burn up in our atmosphere, and whatever's left will be no bigger than a chihuahua's head"? And he turned out to be exactly right?

Sure looks like Trump called Covid-19 right on several counts. First he said the NYC was way over-estimating how many ventilators they'd need, turns out he was right. Then he said that the virus lockdown was basically a hoax in Democratic states, most of the states that opened up have shown that to be true too. And he said the virus would miraculously go away when the weather got hot. Guess what's happening.
 
2020-06-01 3:29:44 AM  
I'd absolutely believe the virus is mutating to be less deadly*, but from context it sounds like he's just saying that fewer people have it and there are fewer severe cases.

*Viruses have no interest in killing off or even putting their hosts on bed rest, since at that point they stop spreading the virus. Most human coronaviruses have found their evolutionary optimum is just to be a common cold; SARS-CoV-2 would be exceptional not to wind up as the same.
 
2020-06-01 3:41:40 AM  
Maybe it has attenuated in the Italian mutation. But there's enough breeding opportunities world wide for a more virulent mutation to occur.

/Keep it out of NZ
//10 Days, no new cases
///!000 mile moat
 
2020-06-01 4:00:35 AM  

pkjun: I'd absolutely believe the virus is mutating to be less deadly*, but from context it sounds like he's just saying that fewer people have it and there are fewer severe cases.

*Viruses have no interest in killing off or even putting their hosts on bed rest, since at that point they stop spreading the virus. Most human coronaviruses have found their evolutionary optimum is just to be a common cold; SARS-CoV-2 would be exceptional not to wind up as the same.


Counterpoint:

thumbs.gfycat.comView Full Size
 
2020-06-01 4:04:24 AM  

stevesporn2000: You know that time when Homer Simpson pulled a prediction out of his ass that an asteroid heading to Springfield "will burn up in our atmosphere, and whatever's left will be no bigger than a chihuahua's head"? And he turned out to be exactly right?

Sure looks like Trump called Covid-19 right on several counts. First he said the NYC was way over-estimating how many ventilators they'd need, turns out he was right. Then he said that the virus lockdown was basically a hoax in Democratic states, most of the states that opened up have shown that to be true too. And he said the virus would miraculously go away when the weather got hot. Guess what's happening.


I don't think we're getting rid of COVID so easily. It'll be around for a while in the US.

However, to your point, I just looked this up.

This is what the WHO director said on March 3 trying to distinguish COVID from influenza:

"First, COVID-19 does not transmit as efficiently as influenza, from the data we have so far.
With influenza, people who are infected but not yet sick are major drivers of transmission, which does not appear to be the case for COVID-19.
Evidence from China is that only 1% of reported cases do not have symptoms, and most of those cases develop symptoms within 2 days.... Globally, about 3.4% of reported COVID-19 cases have died. By comparison, seasonal flu generally kills far fewer than 1% of those infected."
https://www.who.int/dg/speeches/detai​l​/who-director-general-s-opening-remark​s-at-the-media-briefing-on-covid-19---​3-march-2020

"Trump challenged that number. "Well, I think the 3.4% is really a false number," Trump said in a telephone interview March 4 with Fox News' Sean Hannity.
The problem, the president said, was that many people with mild cases of coronavirus simply weren't being counted, resulting in a deceptively high figure for the percentage who have died."
"The actual mortality rate, Trump said, "is way under 1%."

https://www.factcheck.org/2020/03/tru​m​p-and-the-coronavirus-death-rate/

What we know now is that the WHO director was full of shiat.  COVID is more infectious that influenza. People seem to be more infectious right before they start getting symptoms. Way more than 1% are asymptomatic and seem to be infectious.

And while he may have been technically right about the 3.4% CFR at the time, when he compared it to influenza, even the technicality loses its legitimacy.

When Trump said he thought the mortality rate was less than 1% because of all the less sympathetic cases, people scoffed. But that turned out to actually be a more realistic take than what the WHO director was saying.
 
2020-06-01 4:05:04 AM  

stevesporn2000: You know that time when Homer Simpson pulled a prediction out of his ass that an asteroid heading to Springfield "will burn up in our atmosphere, and whatever's left will be no bigger than a chihuahua's head"? And he turned out to be exactly right?

Sure looks like Trump called Covid-19 right on several counts. First he said the NYC was way over-estimating how many ventilators they'd need, turns out he was right. Then he said that the virus lockdown was basically a hoax in Democratic states, most of the states that opened up have shown that to be true too. And he said the virus would miraculously go away when the weather got hot. Guess what's happening.


If I believed you believed any of that I might waste time explaining some things.
 
2020-06-01 5:45:45 AM  

doosh: Ammos?

/yeah, I'm being that guy


When you go hunting deers or mooses.
 
2020-06-01 6:11:32 AM  

pkjun: SARS-CoV-2 would be exceptional not to wind up as the same.


Given time and enough surviving hosts for it to evolve, it probably will. That's the big question at this point.
Assuming the bat story is to be believed then this thing jumped from an animal where it was in balance to one that had no defenses and where the virus was able to run wild. They took the fire from a furnace and tossed it into a barn full of dry straw.
This gives us a mixed bag of results where some people die while most barely feel it, because the moistness of the straw in each individual barn has a big impact. At this point we're still waiting to see if it turns into long term immunity or just delaying the inevitable.

This aside I think the powers that be have either learned something or just moved past the fear because it's such a quietly spreading disease.  All these politicians are marching hand in hand with giant crowds while wearing non-protective masks like it's no longer a big deal.
We have to hope that the "nice" version of covid is what's out there or it'll be another shiatshow in a week.

/if nothing happens then we have a lot more questions to ask.
 
2020-06-01 6:34:37 AM  

SanityIsAFullTimeJob: What we know now is that the WHO director was full of shiat.


Or maybe he was just wrong, with the benefit of hindsight? As far as COVID-19 knowledge goes, 3rd March was centuries ago, and accusing someone of being "full of shiat" because science was still trying to work out what the hell was going on is unnecessarily rude.
 
2020-06-01 7:27:47 AM  
And now the Fark revisionists are trying to rewrite history to make the idiocy that Trump has been spouting all along into the truth.
Hilarious.
Two facts. kiddies: One - NOBODY has been right in any sweeping predictions about COVID.
Two: It isn't even close to being over yet, and we have no idea how bad it is actually going to be, or what is going to happen, and those making firm prediction remain fools.
The correct, intelligent, adult strategy is to hope for the best, and expect and prepare for the worst.
And the ideal outcome, if we do all the right things, is for those fools to be able to say "Look - it was nothing! We were right all along!"
So that is what I hope for.
Good luck, fools!
 
2020-06-01 7:42:01 AM  

orbister: SanityIsAFullTimeJob: What we know now is that the WHO director was full of shiat.

Or maybe he was just wrong, with the benefit of hindsight? As far as COVID-19 knowledge goes, 3rd March was centuries ago, and accusing someone of being "full of shiat" because science was still trying to work out what the hell was going on is unnecessarily rude.


I didn't mean that to necessarily mean purposeful deception. Just that most of what he said was wrong. And he really should have known better than to make that CFR comparison with the flu. It was all too incautious for the head of the top health org.
 
2020-06-01 7:56:09 AM  

PreMortem: doosh: Ammos?

/yeah, I'm being that guy

When you go hunting deers or mooses.


Make sure to take some clips.
 
2020-06-01 8:44:04 AM  

SanityIsAFullTimeJob: stevesporn2000: You know that time when Homer Simpson pulled a prediction out of his ass that an asteroid heading to Springfield "will burn up in our atmosphere, and whatever's left will be no bigger than a chihuahua's head"? And he turned out to be exactly right?

Sure looks like Trump called Covid-19 right on several counts. First he said the NYC was way over-estimating how many ventilators they'd need, turns out he was right. Then he said that the virus lockdown was basically a hoax in Democratic states, most of the states that opened up have shown that to be true too. And he said the virus would miraculously go away when the weather got hot. Guess what's happening.

I don't think we're getting rid of COVID so easily. It'll be around for a while in the US.

However, to your point, I just looked this up.

This is what the WHO director said on March 3 trying to distinguish COVID from influenza:

"First, COVID-19 does not transmit as efficiently as influenza, from the data we have so far.
With influenza, people who are infected but not yet sick are major drivers of transmission, which does not appear to be the case for COVID-19.
Evidence from China is that only 1% of reported cases do not have symptoms, and most of those cases develop symptoms within 2 days.... Globally, about 3.4% of reported COVID-19 cases have died. By comparison, seasonal flu generally kills far fewer than 1% of those infected."
https://www.who.int/dg/speeches/detail​/who-director-general-s-opening-remark​s-at-the-media-briefing-on-covid-19---​3-march-2020

"Trump challenged that number. "Well, I think the 3.4% is really a false number," Trump said in a telephone interview March 4 with Fox News' Sean Hannity.
The problem, the president said, was that many people with mild cases of coronavirus simply weren't being counted, resulting in a deceptively high figure for the percentage who have died."
"The actual mortality rate, Trump said, "is way under 1%."

https://www.factcheck.org/2020/03/trum​p-and-the-coronavirus-death-rate/

What we know now is that the WHO director was full of shiat.  COVID is more infectious that influenza. People seem to be more infectious right before they start getting symptoms. Way more than 1% are asymptomatic and seem to be infectious.

And while he may have been technically right about the 3.4% CFR at the time, when he compared it to influenza, even the technicality loses its legitimacy.

When Trump said he thought the mortality rate was less than 1% because of all the less sympathetic cases, people scoffed. But that turned out to actually be a more realistic take than what the WHO director was saying.


Yeah,
I'll take my medical advice and leadership from the guy who lives by bankruptcy and not paying taxes.
Pass the Hydroxychloroquine ya'll - I'm headed to the faith healer church to hear some Journey music..
 
2020-06-01 8:46:18 AM  
That's-a spicy theory!
 
2020-06-01 8:48:28 AM  

SanityIsAFullTimeJob: This is what the WHO director said on March 3 trying to distinguish COVID from influenza:


Citing data from March 3, ignoring the results of almost two whole months of research?

Lying.
 
2020-06-01 9:00:52 AM  

I hereby demand that I be given a Fark account: SanityIsAFullTimeJob: This is what the WHO director said on March 3 trying to distinguish COVID from influenza:

Citing data from March 3, ignoring the results of almost two whole months of research?

Lying.


My point (in response to the guy I quoted) was that Trump had a better take on that aspect of the virus than the WHO director at the beginning of March.
 
2020-06-01 9:12:24 AM  
Well, there is ONE prediction that turned out to be right: When liberals and progressives predicted that America would be plunged into disaster if Donald Trump was elected.
That one has come true in spades, clubs, and hearts.
And the hilarious thing is that the right-wingers who we WARNED that this would happen, and who persisted anyway, are still trying to tell US that WE are the big dummies.
They are like a five year old with chocolate smeared all over his little face emphatically insisting he hasn't been in the cookie jar.
And about as believable.
 
2020-06-01 10:29:49 AM  

jso2897: Well, there is ONE prediction that turned out to be right: When liberals and progressives predicted that America would be plunged into disaster if Donald Trump was elected.
That one has come true in spades, clubs, and hearts.
And the hilarious thing is that the right-wingers who we WARNED that this would happen, and who persisted anyway, are still trying to tell US that WE are the big dummies.
They are like a five year old with chocolate smeared all over his little face emphatically insisting he hasn't been in the cookie jar.
And about as believable.


I'm really unsure what part of America plunging into disaster can be blamed on Trump?  I know lots of people complained about his response to COVID but it really looks like most of the damage from COVID was shutting down the economy and everyone was calling for that.  And as far as all the protests and riots, I find it hard to lay a lot of blame on Trump for that.  That's the result of decades or bad decisions by all our political leaders.  Maybe there is some other disaster you are referring to, but the two big ones I can think probably wouldn't be much different with Hillary.
 
2020-06-01 12:49:24 PM  
Has Italy had its second wave of the 'rona yet?
 
2020-06-01 12:57:53 PM  

Steakzilla: jso2897: Well, there is ONE prediction that turned out to be right: When liberals and progressives predicted that America would be plunged into disaster if Donald Trump was elected.
That one has come true in spades, clubs, and hearts.
And the hilarious thing is that the right-wingers who we WARNED that this would happen, and who persisted anyway, are still trying to tell US that WE are the big dummies.
They are like a five year old with chocolate smeared all over his little face emphatically insisting he hasn't been in the cookie jar.
And about as believable.

I'm really unsure what part of America plunging into disaster can be blamed on Trump?  I know lots of people complained about his response to COVID but it really looks like most of the damage from COVID was shutting down the economy and everyone was calling for that.  And as far as all the protests and riots, I find it hard to lay a lot of blame on Trump for that.  That's the result of decades or bad decisions by all our political leaders.  Maybe there is some other disaster you are referring to, but the two big ones I can think probably wouldn't be much different with Hillary.


Fancy words to deny the obvious fact that exactly what we told you would happened.
Saying that it would have happened anyway is a reverse tiger preventing rock argument.
You can say it, but you have no evidence to support it - and never could.
 
2020-06-01 1:09:27 PM  

jso2897: Steakzilla: jso2897: Well, there is ONE prediction that turned out to be right: When liberals and progressives predicted that America would be plunged into disaster if Donald Trump was elected.
That one has come true in spades, clubs, and hearts.
And the hilarious thing is that the right-wingers who we WARNED that this would happen, and who persisted anyway, are still trying to tell US that WE are the big dummies.
They are like a five year old with chocolate smeared all over his little face emphatically insisting he hasn't been in the cookie jar.
And about as believable.

I'm really unsure what part of America plunging into disaster can be blamed on Trump?  I know lots of people complained about his response to COVID but it really looks like most of the damage from COVID was shutting down the economy and everyone was calling for that.  And as far as all the protests and riots, I find it hard to lay a lot of blame on Trump for that.  That's the result of decades or bad decisions by all our political leaders.  Maybe there is some other disaster you are referring to, but the two big ones I can think probably wouldn't be much different with Hillary.

Fancy words to deny the obvious fact that exactly what we told you would happened.
Saying that it would have happened anyway is a reverse tiger preventing rock argument.
You can say it, but you have no evidence to support it - and never could.


I mean how about some evidence that him being president helped plunge the country into disaster.  You can say it, but you have no evidence to support it - and never could.
 
2020-06-01 1:29:14 PM  

Madman drummers bummers: Well sure, when half your country has already had the virus, the cases are going to decrease.

*actually RTFA*

That's not what the article says at all.


Except afaik, there still isn't evidence that having had the disease gives you immunity to it.
 
2020-06-01 1:33:11 PM  
Steakzilla:

I'm really unsure what part of America plunging into disaster can be blamed on Trump?  I know lots of people complained about his response to COVID but it really looks like most of the damage from COVID was shutting down the economy and everyone was calling for that.  And as far as all the protests and riots, I find it hard to lay a lot of blame on Trump for that.  That's the result of decades or bad decisions by all our political leaders.  Maybe there is some other disaster you are referring to, but the two big ones I can think probably wouldn't be much different with Hillary.

I think whoever became President in 2016 would have been destined to a single term once COVID hit.  If in an alternate universe, where a President Clinton reacted early and aggressively against COVID19 and say... had only 15,000 confirmed deaths, the right wing would simultaneously argue that Hillary had wrecked the economy by shutting down over nothing, AND that 15K is a severe undercount (which would still likely be right) and that it's really more like 30,000, which makes her the worst President of all time because that's ten 9/11's!

The Republicans would feel justified and the Democrats would doubt their cause enough to have the 2020 Republican nominee sail to victory.  We were guaranteed to have a Republican president in either 2016 or 2020.  A Trump 45 or Trump 46 presidency may have been unavoidable.
 
2020-06-01 1:41:33 PM  
 
2020-06-01 1:46:39 PM  
Zangrillo said some experts were too alarmist about the prospect of a second wave of infections and politicians needed to take into account the new reality. "We've got to get back to being a normal country," he said. "Someone has to take responsibility for terrorizing the country."

Two doctors, not scientists, at least one of whom seems has a strong political bias and a penchant for exaggeration, and neither of whom quantify or are even clear about their gut feelings. Lots of doctors are kooks. The daily number of confirmed new cases has fallen below 10 per 1 million people, which is good, but everyone knows that; what are they trying to add to the discussion?

One referred to the viral load of "the swabs" being "infinitesimal" compared to two months ago, the other referred to the "strength of the virus". From what they said, they could be measuring the concentration of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in patients who have been clear of the "live" virus for two months. Results from standard RT-PCR nasopharyngeal swab tests don't distinguish between active and inactive virus samples, and former COVID-19 patients can test positive for months afterward. If they do have quantitative evidence of a change in Italy that's been overlooked by epidemiologists and infectious disease researchers, they should spend the time to construct a meaningful sentence describing their evidence.

Fark user imageView Full Size

Source: Our World in Data
 
2020-06-01 1:57:23 PM  

Kit Fister: Madman drummers bummers: Well sure, when half your country has already had the virus, the cases are going to decrease.

*actually RTFA*

That's not what the article says at all.

Except afaik, there still isn't evidence that having had the disease gives you immunity to it.


This right here is an example of scientists and experts being alarmists.

It would be highly unusual if a person DOESN'T gain immunity from having a coronavirus.

Not to mention it would be a huge waste of time and money by all the people looking for a vaccine.

The evidence that you gain immunity is that literally every other similar virus leads to immunity once a person has it.

You'd need evidence to the contrary to even bring that up as a topic, which scientists and experts should know.  But then, gotta keep ppl scared to stay relevant.
 
2020-06-01 1:59:13 PM  

Hoobajube: Steakzilla:

I'm really unsure what part of America plunging into disaster can be blamed on Trump?  I know lots of people complained about his response to COVID but it really looks like most of the damage from COVID was shutting down the economy and everyone was calling for that.  And as far as all the protests and riots, I find it hard to lay a lot of blame on Trump for that.  That's the result of decades or bad decisions by all our political leaders.  Maybe there is some other disaster you are referring to, but the two big ones I can think probably wouldn't be much different with Hillary.

I think whoever became President in 2016 would have been destined to a single term once COVID hit.  If in an alternate universe, where a President Clinton reacted early and aggressively against COVID19 and say... had only 15,000 confirmed deaths, the right wing would simultaneously argue that Hillary had wrecked the economy by shutting down over nothing, AND that 15K is a severe undercount (which would still likely be right) and that it's really more like 30,000, which makes her the worst President of all time because that's ten 9/11's!

The Republicans would feel justified and the Democrats would doubt their cause enough to have the 2020 Republican nominee sail to victory.  We were guaranteed to have a Republican president in either 2016 or 2020.  A Trump 45 or Trump 46 presidency may have been unavoidable.


For sure, Hillary telling a bunch of gun toting rednecks to stay inside to stop the spread would have gone way better than Trump doing it.
 
2020-06-01 2:02:01 PM  

GrizzlyPouch: Kit Fister: Madman drummers bummers: Well sure, when half your country has already had the virus, the cases are going to decrease.

*actually RTFA*

That's not what the article says at all.

Except afaik, there still isn't evidence that having had the disease gives you immunity to it.

This right here is an example of scientists and experts being alarmists.

It would be highly unusual if a person DOESN'T gain immunity from having a coronavirus.

Not to mention it would be a huge waste of time and money by all the people looking for a vaccine.

The evidence that you gain immunity is that literally every other similar virus leads to immunity once a person has it.

You'd need evidence to the contrary to even bring that up as a topic, which scientists and experts should know.  But then, gotta keep ppl scared to stay relevant.


Well, there are some viruses that never really leave your body.  Take my herpes for example.  Other people totally not me have breakouts occasionally for life.  Maybe COVID stays all dormant in your body and turns up every time there is a first date or job interview.
 
2020-06-01 2:42:55 PM  

GrizzlyPouch: Kit Fister: Madman drummers bummers: Well sure, when half your country has already had the virus, the cases are going to decrease.

*actually RTFA*

That's not what the article says at all.

Except afaik, there still isn't evidence that having had the disease gives you immunity to it.

This right here is an example of scientists and experts being alarmists.

It would be highly unusual if a person DOESN'T gain immunity from having a coronavirus.

Not to mention it would be a huge waste of time and money by all the people looking for a vaccine.

The evidence that you gain immunity is that literally every other similar virus leads to immunity once a person has it.

You'd need evidence to the contrary to even bring that up as a topic, which scientists and experts should know.  But then, gotta keep ppl scared to stay relevant.


Except other types of corona viruses are such that you don't gain immunity from having them.

Either way, i don't know. I'm simply pointing out that there is evidence to suggest that you can still catch the virus again after having had it.
 
2020-06-01 3:19:46 PM  

Kit Fister: GrizzlyPouch: Kit Fister: Madman drummers bummers: <...snip...>

Either way, i don't know. I'm simply pointing out that there is evidence to suggest that you can still catch the virus again after having had it.


If you're referring to people who test positive for the virus, then test negative, then test positive, that is not evidence suggesting that you are susceptible to the disease again, it's just evidence that the test detects traces of the viral RNA, which can extend for months after someone is clear of any detectable traces of *active* virus. It doesn't add any weight to either side of the question of reinfection. In detailed analysis of samples from multiple sources in recovered patients, nasal swabs were less consistent than other sources, like fecal samples, so they can go negative one week and positive the next, but scientists trying to culture those samples found that the virus was inactive in recovered patients. None of the people they did serious tests on showed signs of reinfection. There haven't been enough studies to rule out short term reinfection completely, the lack of a counterexample to date makes it seem increasingly unlikely.
 
2020-06-01 4:28:51 PM  

T Baggins: Kit Fister: GrizzlyPouch: Kit Fister: Madman drummers bummers: <...snip...>

Either way, i don't know. I'm simply pointing out that there is evidence to suggest that you can still catch the virus again after having had it.

If you're referring to people who test positive for the virus, then test negative, then test positive, that is not evidence suggesting that you are susceptible to the disease again, it's just evidence that the test detects traces of the viral RNA, which can extend for months after someone is clear of any detectable traces of *active* virus. It doesn't add any weight to either side of the question of reinfection. In detailed analysis of samples from multiple sources in recovered patients, nasal swabs were less consistent than other sources, like fecal samples, so they can go negative one week and positive the next, but scientists trying to culture those samples found that the virus was inactive in recovered patients. None of the people they did serious tests on showed signs of reinfection. There haven't been enough studies to rule out short term reinfection completely, the lack of a counterexample to date makes it seem increasingly unlikely.


If there's actual scientific data to support this, then great. Happy to hear it. So far I haven't heard that.
 
2020-06-01 8:34:05 PM  

Kit Fister: <snip>
If there's actual scientific data to support this, then great. Happy to hear it. So far I haven't heard that.


Very limited data: https://www.sciencenews.org/art​icle/co​ronavirus-covid19-reinfection-immune-r​esponse
 
2020-06-01 8:36:41 PM  

T Baggins: Kit Fister: <snip>
If there's actual scientific data to support this, then great. Happy to hear it. So far I haven't heard that.

Very limited data: https://www.sciencenews.org/arti​cle/coronavirus-covid19-reinfection-im​mune-response


hopeful, but they said the same thing about reinfection. I'm terrified of the virus either way.
 
Displayed 39 of 39 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter




In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.