3 ms·

Outdated? It was published on the 19th March, the data is from the 2nd of March. The virus hasn't changed since then. Look, you keep moving the goalposts. Fir

Outdated? It was published on the 19th March, the data is from the 2nd of March. The virus hasn't changed since then. Look, you keep moving the goalposts. First you were sure Twitter should take down links to the page because it was "nonsense". Your own hot take on Coronaviruses was so vastly superior you were convinced censorship was justified. After it was pointed out you were arguing with medical professionals and researchers, your position became "experts are only experts if peer reviewed". That's clearly wrong but whatever. After you were given a bunch of medical professionals and researchers who were peer reviewed and saying the exact same thing, now you write them off because their paper is a few weeks old? Peer review fundamentally introduces latency, so you've set up a Kafka-esque "heads I win, tails you lose" situation there. Either you're not peer reviewed and thus not an expert, or you are and thus your paper is outdated. Come on, knock it off. You've gone full Orwell in the space of about 3 posts - under your preferred regime there'd be literally no way anyone could ever speak if they disagreed with you regardless of who they were or their background. You'd just constantly redefine "expert" to exclude them. This thread is a textbook example of why platforms should not be censoring information on COVID-19 under any circumstances.

kazinator 7y ago
Yes, predictions made from March 2 data about the COVID-19 are objectively outdated, because it's a rapidly changing situation. By March 2, 4000 died around the world. Today, more than 1200 residents of just Queens, New York have died. Lots of leaders around the world made the wrong guess with overly optimistic thinking, like what is in that paper. > Look, you keep moving the goalposts. Based on the March 2 view of the situation, what it says is not without justification. The paper doesn't claim to be asserting unvarnished truths. It makes some forward looking statements that are in the rational range, based on what was known. The arguments in that paper do not hold today; it is not appropriate to wield that paper due to its connection to expertise. It's like referring to last month's weather forecasts in the middle of a hurricane.
- thu2111 7y ago
  So, I don't agree at all that the paper is wrong. The results are about the virus itself, which would scale up. You seem to be arguing their data was totally wrong but haven't explained why, other than it's a month old, although the virus had been around for three months by then. But the core argument here isn't actually about the virus. It's epistemological. You have been arguing for censorship on an exceptionally weak basis and haven't acknowledged that. Every criteria you've put forward for deciding what experts should be allowed to speak is invalid or unusable. That's more relevant than this specific paper, which was simply an example to disprove your position.
  - kazinator 7y ago
    I don't agree with censorship (of which a private sector site deleting some article or post is not an example, by the way). The example paper should continue to be available. In fact, it is important that it be available; it has historical interest going forward. > Every criteria you've put forward for deciding what experts should be allowed to speak is invalid or unusable. That's hardly the case.

kazinator 7y ago

Yes, predictions made from March 2 data about the COVID-19 are objectively outdated, because it's a rapidly changing situation. By March 2, 4000 died around the world. Today, more than 1200 residents of just Queens, New York have died. Lots of leaders around the world made the wrong guess with overly optimistic thinking, like what is in that paper. > Look, you keep moving the goalposts. Based on the March 2 view of the situation, what it says is not without justification. The paper doesn't claim to be asserting unvarnished truths. It makes some forward looking statements that are in the rational range, based on what was known. The arguments in that paper do not hold today; it is not appropriate to wield that paper due to its connection to expertise. It's like referring to last month's weather forecasts in the middle of a hurricane.

thu2111 7y ago
So, I don't agree at all that the paper is wrong. The results are about the virus itself, which would scale up. You seem to be arguing their data was totally wrong but haven't explained why, other than it's a month old, although the virus had been around for three months by then. But the core argument here isn't actually about the virus. It's epistemological. You have been arguing for censorship on an exceptionally weak basis and haven't acknowledged that. Every criteria you've put forward for deciding what experts should be allowed to speak is invalid or unusable. That's more relevant than this specific paper, which was simply an example to disprove your position.
- kazinator 7y ago
  I don't agree with censorship (of which a private sector site deleting some article or post is not an example, by the way). The example paper should continue to be available. In fact, it is important that it be available; it has historical interest going forward. > Every criteria you've put forward for deciding what experts should be allowed to speak is invalid or unusable. That's hardly the case.