5 ms·

So far as I can tell, your extremely confident, categorical interpretations of your own citations are basically mistaken, across the board. As I read [0] it is

So far as I can tell, your extremely confident, categorical interpretations of your own citations are basically mistaken, across the board. As I read [0] it is not, in fact, a blanket declaration about transmissibility. As I read [1] it is not in any way an inaccurate statement (see [3]). When read [2] it's clear that it is not a blanket declaration not to wear masks. Meanwhile Youtube is going to take down videos claiming 5g caused the coronavirus, which are obviously wrong and obviously causing harm. And instead of looking at cases of obvious misinformation the policy targets, you would rather we go down a rabbit hole of idiosyncratic disputes about the the meaning of WHO statements, all while keeping up blatantly inaccurate misinformation. Tying ourselves up in that frivolous debate would let misinformation flourish. [3] https://www.vox.com/2020/1/23/21078325/wuhan-china-coronavirus-travel-ban https://www.vox.com/2020/1/23/21078325/wuhan-china-coronavir...

freehunter 7y ago
Is it appropriate to flag HN comments that are so blatantly wrong like the one you replied to? If YouTube is taking down misinformation, is HN doing the same?
- knzhou 7y ago
  There's an endless flood of these bad comments. I'm just going through them (a new one posted every 2 minutes) and making the same rebuttal. People are stupid -- especially people who think they're smart contrarians.
  - ColanR 7y ago
    > I'm just going through them and making the same rebuttal. > People are stupid -- especially people who think they're smart contrarians. Speak for yourself.
    - knzhou 7y ago
      I'm being completely earnest here. You might not believe this, but some "contrarians" are so braindead that they get their news from 4chan. It's a serious problem.
      - ColanR 7y ago
        As I mentioned in a few posts elsewhere in this page, 4chan was a better source of information than the WHO back in January. You might be in earnest, but you're behaving like a contrarian who thinks they know more than they do. "You have become the very thing you sought to destroy."
      - dependenttypes 7y ago
        That does not seem much worse than using NYT for example.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- stevebmark 7y ago
  I've never seen anyone be consistent in their kneejerk cries of "but free speech!" They still want moderation, banning, and silencing, especially of their critics. They want ideas removed from the spotlight they don't agree with. They say that the moderation that every platform needs to thrive is a "slippery slope" while already sliding down it
  - dependenttypes 7y ago
    > I've never seen anyone be consistent in their kneejerk cries of "but free speech!" You are not looking hard enough then.
missosoup 7y ago
How you read them is irrelevant. What's relevant is that hundreds of thousands of people read the first one, took it at face value, and decided that the coronavirus is not a threat. The WHO definitely misled people with that first one, the only thing up for debate is whether it was deliberately or due to incompetent messaging. GP comment is a bit too categorical but it's not even a contested fact that WHO initially downplayed the epidemic, put out recommendations to keep borders open, and still continues to spread disinformation e.g. about not needing to wear masks. I won't even say anything about the string of corruption allegations and ties to China. And then the fact that WHO basically pretended Taiwan doesn't exist[1] and is clearly aligned with Chinese political interests over even its primary mission. Giving absolute authority over 'truth' to an entity with such a shitty track record is insane. [1]: https://twitter.com/studioincendo/status/1243909358133473285 https://twitter.com/studioincendo/status/1243909358133473285
- joshuamorton 7y ago
  Can you explain how the WHO is given "absolute authority"? The WHO has a list of medical guidance. I've yet to see anyone in this thread complain about any of the medical guidance the WHO has provided. The most relevant is likely this page: https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/advice-for-public/myth-busters https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2.... None of this is controversial. > put out recommendations to keep borders open This is incorrect. The WHO recommended against banning travel from certain parts of the world. Completely closing you borders (to non-citizens) was not covered. You can read the WHO's actual statement[1], and it's well reasoned. The value of unrestricted travel for emergency equipment and personnel outweighs the value of restricted travel from certain areas. But short term restrictions are alright if necessary to build up infrastructure (iow, to flatten the curve temporarily). > about not needing to wear masks. They recommend against random everyday people using medical masks. Given the PPE shortage, this is not unreasonable advice. They defer to local authorities for more stringent recommendations. > And then the fact that WHO basically pretended Taiwan doesn't exist Does this impact their medical advice? [1]: https://www.who.int/news-room/articles-detail/updated-who-recommendations-for-international-traffic-in-relation-to-covid-19-outbreak https://www.who.int/news-room/articles-detail/updated-who-re...
specialist 7y ago
Further.... Geeks, more than most, should be savvy about scientific progress. Coronavirus is still very new. We're learning new things every day. eg Today it's risks from blood clots. I'd only be worried if the experts (WHO, CDC) failed to update their position over time. Aside: Retric's comment earlier about AIDS killing 770k every year reminded me how long it took to understand anything about HIV, much less cope. And all the senseless unnecessary misinformation and backlash which thwarted progress.
yellowapple 7y ago
> As I read [0] it is not, in fact, a blanket declaration about transmissibility. It's still misinformation, and it's specifically misinformation that makes the WHO complicit in 187,420 deaths and counting. There had been plenty of indications by that point that - even if human-to-human transmission had not yet been confirmed - it was still evidently spreading beyond people at ground zero. That is, I ain't sure how you're able to read it as anything but a blanket declaration. The WHO outright said that there's no evidence of human-to-human transmission; this is an outright lie, given that the sheer number of people by that point who were hospitalized with the virus without ever having visited the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market would be, I would argue, evidence. > When read [2] it's clear that it is not a blanket declaration not to wear masks. No, but it's advice that - if followed - would make any asymptomatic carrier dangerous. The point of wearing masks is not to prevent yourself from being infected (no mask is sufficient for that), but rather to minimize the risk of you spreading SARS-CoV-2 to other people by breathing on them. The WHO seems to have a chronic pattern of being one or more weeks behind the curve on its assessment of COVID-19 and the mitigation thereof. Needless to say, I trust them about as far as I can throw them (which is 0 meters, given the impossibility of throwing an entire organization), and that YouTube is putting them on any kind of authoritative pedestal despite these blatant missteps is ignorant of that behavioral pattern.
- La1n 7y ago
  >this is an outright lie, given that the sheer number of people by that point who were hospitalized with the virus without ever having visited the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market would be, I would argue, evidence. Oh yes, the random programmer who know public health better than actual public health experts. You have not done the research, you were not there. You can argue it's evidence, but arguing something is, is not enough. There are many different ways of transmission, secondly the Huanan Seafood Market was suspected as a source of the virus but it could have come from somewhere else too.
  - yellowapple 7y ago
    > Oh yes, the random programmer who know public health better than actual public health experts. Apparently yes, given that it's a bit of a smoking gun. Namely because: > the Huanan Seafood Market was suspected as a source of the virus but it could have come from somewhere else too. It was (to my knowledge) the only suspected source for quite a while (up until the later discovery that the currently-known "patient zero" had no connection to it, and even then it's still considered ground zero for the outbreak). If there was any indication that "it could have come from somewhere else", and that "somewhere else" is evidently a place where even fewer patients in common visited ("evidently" because if it was a common factor it would've been mentioned instead of or alongside the seafood market, and yet... no such location was mentioned), then that serves as even stronger evidence that it's somehow spreading between humans, even if the mechanism is unknown. If even a "random programmer" on Hacker News can point this out, then I strongly suspect there were a number of doctors and nurses and other personnel on the front lines who could have and did point this out, too. Plus, China knew as early as 31 December that the "novel coronavirus" was related to SARS (leaking that info is what got Dr. Li Wenliang in trouble), which was already known to spread human-to-human. Seems like "it looks like SARS and probably has similar spreading mechanisms" would be a reasonable assumption when information is limited: better safe than sorry (and in this case, 180,000+ deaths later, "sorry" indeed). I obviously don't blame the WHO for the entirety of that (or even necessarily China; my government dragged its feet, too, like most governments), but the WHO is certainly not blameless, either, and that it continues to spread misinformation like how not everyone should be wearing masks doesn't leave a whole lot of room for me to give them the benefit of the doubt.

freehunter 7y ago

Is it appropriate to flag HN comments that are so blatantly wrong like the one you replied to? If YouTube is taking down misinformation, is HN doing the same?

knzhou 7y ago
There's an endless flood of these bad comments. I'm just going through them (a new one posted every 2 minutes) and making the same rebuttal. People are stupid -- especially people who think they're smart contrarians.
- ColanR 7y ago
  > I'm just going through them and making the same rebuttal. > People are stupid -- especially people who think they're smart contrarians. Speak for yourself.
  - knzhou 7y ago
    I'm being completely earnest here. You might not believe this, but some "contrarians" are so braindead that they get their news from 4chan. It's a serious problem.
    - ColanR 7y ago
      As I mentioned in a few posts elsewhere in this page, 4chan was a better source of information than the WHO back in January. You might be in earnest, but you're behaving like a contrarian who thinks they know more than they do. "You have become the very thing you sought to destroy."
    - dependenttypes 7y ago
      That does not seem much worse than using NYT for example.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
stevebmark 7y ago
I've never seen anyone be consistent in their kneejerk cries of "but free speech!" They still want moderation, banning, and silencing, especially of their critics. They want ideas removed from the spotlight they don't agree with. They say that the moderation that every platform needs to thrive is a "slippery slope" while already sliding down it
- dependenttypes 7y ago
  > I've never seen anyone be consistent in their kneejerk cries of "but free speech!" You are not looking hard enough then.

missosoup 7y ago

How you read them is irrelevant. What's relevant is that hundreds of thousands of people read the first one, took it at face value, and decided that the coronavirus is not a threat. The WHO definitely misled people with that first one, the only thing up for debate is whether it was deliberately or due to incompetent messaging. GP comment is a bit too categorical but it's not even a contested fact that WHO initially downplayed the epidemic, put out recommendations to keep borders open, and still continues to spread disinformation e.g. about not needing to wear masks. I won't even say anything about the string of corruption allegations and ties to China. And then the fact that WHO basically pretended Taiwan doesn't exist[1] and is clearly aligned with Chinese political interests over even its primary mission. Giving absolute authority over 'truth' to an entity with such a shitty track record is insane. [1]: https://twitter.com/studioincendo/status/1243909358133473285 https://twitter.com/studioincendo/status/1243909358133473285

joshuamorton 7y ago
Can you explain how the WHO is given "absolute authority"? The WHO has a list of medical guidance. I've yet to see anyone in this thread complain about any of the medical guidance the WHO has provided. The most relevant is likely this page: https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/advice-for-public/myth-busters https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2.... None of this is controversial. > put out recommendations to keep borders open This is incorrect. The WHO recommended against banning travel from certain parts of the world. Completely closing you borders (to non-citizens) was not covered. You can read the WHO's actual statement[1], and it's well reasoned. The value of unrestricted travel for emergency equipment and personnel outweighs the value of restricted travel from certain areas. But short term restrictions are alright if necessary to build up infrastructure (iow, to flatten the curve temporarily). > about not needing to wear masks. They recommend against random everyday people using medical masks. Given the PPE shortage, this is not unreasonable advice. They defer to local authorities for more stringent recommendations. > And then the fact that WHO basically pretended Taiwan doesn't exist Does this impact their medical advice? [1]: https://www.who.int/news-room/articles-detail/updated-who-recommendations-for-international-traffic-in-relation-to-covid-19-outbreak https://www.who.int/news-room/articles-detail/updated-who-re...

specialist 7y ago

Further.... Geeks, more than most, should be savvy about scientific progress. Coronavirus is still very new. We're learning new things every day. eg Today it's risks from blood clots. I'd only be worried if the experts (WHO, CDC) failed to update their position over time. Aside: Retric's comment earlier about AIDS killing 770k every year reminded me how long it took to understand anything about HIV, much less cope. And all the senseless unnecessary misinformation and backlash which thwarted progress.

yellowapple 7y ago

> As I read [0] it is not, in fact, a blanket declaration about transmissibility. It's still misinformation, and it's specifically misinformation that makes the WHO complicit in 187,420 deaths and counting. There had been plenty of indications by that point that - even if human-to-human transmission had not yet been confirmed - it was still evidently spreading beyond people at ground zero. That is, I ain't sure how you're able to read it as anything but a blanket declaration. The WHO outright said that there's no evidence of human-to-human transmission; this is an outright lie, given that the sheer number of people by that point who were hospitalized with the virus without ever having visited the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market would be, I would argue, evidence. > When read [2] it's clear that it is not a blanket declaration not to wear masks. No, but it's advice that - if followed - would make any asymptomatic carrier dangerous. The point of wearing masks is not to prevent yourself from being infected (no mask is sufficient for that), but rather to minimize the risk of you spreading SARS-CoV-2 to other people by breathing on them. The WHO seems to have a chronic pattern of being one or more weeks behind the curve on its assessment of COVID-19 and the mitigation thereof. Needless to say, I trust them about as far as I can throw them (which is 0 meters, given the impossibility of throwing an entire organization), and that YouTube is putting them on any kind of authoritative pedestal despite these blatant missteps is ignorant of that behavioral pattern.

La1n 7y ago
>this is an outright lie, given that the sheer number of people by that point who were hospitalized with the virus without ever having visited the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market would be, I would argue, evidence. Oh yes, the random programmer who know public health better than actual public health experts. You have not done the research, you were not there. You can argue it's evidence, but arguing something is, is not enough. There are many different ways of transmission, secondly the Huanan Seafood Market was suspected as a source of the virus but it could have come from somewhere else too.
- yellowapple 7y ago
  > Oh yes, the random programmer who know public health better than actual public health experts. Apparently yes, given that it's a bit of a smoking gun. Namely because: > the Huanan Seafood Market was suspected as a source of the virus but it could have come from somewhere else too. It was (to my knowledge) the only suspected source for quite a while (up until the later discovery that the currently-known "patient zero" had no connection to it, and even then it's still considered ground zero for the outbreak). If there was any indication that "it could have come from somewhere else", and that "somewhere else" is evidently a place where even fewer patients in common visited ("evidently" because if it was a common factor it would've been mentioned instead of or alongside the seafood market, and yet... no such location was mentioned), then that serves as even stronger evidence that it's somehow spreading between humans, even if the mechanism is unknown. If even a "random programmer" on Hacker News can point this out, then I strongly suspect there were a number of doctors and nurses and other personnel on the front lines who could have and did point this out, too. Plus, China knew as early as 31 December that the "novel coronavirus" was related to SARS (leaking that info is what got Dr. Li Wenliang in trouble), which was already known to spread human-to-human. Seems like "it looks like SARS and probably has similar spreading mechanisms" would be a reasonable assumption when information is limited: better safe than sorry (and in this case, 180,000+ deaths later, "sorry" indeed). I obviously don't blame the WHO for the entirety of that (or even necessarily China; my government dragged its feet, too, like most governments), but the WHO is certainly not blameless, either, and that it continues to spread misinformation like how not everyone should be wearing masks doesn't leave a whole lot of room for me to give them the benefit of the doubt.