4 ms·

Why are you surprised? It’s the mainstream view, and people are looking for unity because the countermeasures that are being attempted rely on it to varying deg

by hyko 6y ago

Why are you surprised? It’s the mainstream view, and people are looking for unity because the countermeasures that are being attempted rely on it to varying degrees. No authority I’m aware of ever suggested this was a “doomsday” virus by the way, merely that it had the potential to overrun the healthcare systems of even highly developed nations, kills millions, trash the economy etc. I would say that everyone is entitled to an opinion, but you’ve got to recognise when you’re filing a minority report as well. Mainstream epidemiologists, virologists etc. are not just a bunch of schmucks who are having a go at analysis because they’ve got time on their hands: this is their life’s work. That’s not an argument from authority–we should still scrutinise their findings–but nor is it an automatic condemnation of it. This especially applies when distinguished scientists are commenting outside their own field of expertise (how many people wasted money on megadoses of vitamin C because it was endorsed by Linus Pauling?). Contrarian wisdom is always appealing, but it is not always right.

brenden2 6y ago
Believe me, I've been aware for my whole life that I'm a "contrarian" but not in the way that gets upvotes and likes on the internet. I guess that's why I have no friends and nobody wants to be associated with me. I used to think HN was a place where you could talk about the reality of the world, not the sensationalized or BS version. Maybe it once was, but it really isn't anymore. Nowadays YC uses HN as a way to shill their companies, and the average IQ of commenters seems to have reverted to the mean. At least there's lobste.rs, which is a much better community now.
- gnusty_gnurc 6y ago
  Agreed on lobste.rs! (yet here we are)
- hyko 6y ago
  Oh man. I feel strongly that you should be able to disagree with people and still be friends with them, so it sucks that you feel your views are isolating you. I guess I never thought of HN as a social network. You’ve got way higher karma than me, so many HNers are agreeing with what you have to say in general. Do you think you can’t talk about the real world anymore on HN? That’s not been my experience recently; I’ve made plenty of unpopular comments but people always seem willing to engage in debate. Never heard of lobste.rs, thanks for the link, I will check it out!
- Bendingo 6y ago
  > Maybe it once was, but it really isn't anymore > the average IQ of commenters seems to have reverted to the mean Absolutely (and sadly) 100% correct
lbeltrame 6y ago
> No authority I’m aware of ever suggested this was a “doomsday” virus You might want to look up some quotes by Italy's experts, who called this virus a "monster" (side note: I hate how the media turns "novel coronavirus" into "magic virus that transcends biology"), or so the press reported. The doom and gloom communication has always been the key point from the scientific committees here. > Mainstream epidemiologists, virologists etc. are not just a bunch of schmucks who are having a go at analysis because they’ve got time on their hands Disclaimer: the below part only applies to what I see first hand in my country (Italy) No, they're people, like everyone else. And unfortunately, they're bound to make mistakes like everyone else. Note, I'm not saying that they're wrong by default. But some did totally downplay the risk in February and now they act like they knew everything all along. Some of them even made questionable public statements on areas of research they know little about (investigation of thrombosis in lungs; convalescent plasma therapy). The fact that scientific research is very compartmentalized leads to interesting statements that sound like Murray Gell-Mann amnesia. Most of them talk about vaccines; few if any talk about the drugs in development (but in the interest of fairness, I'd probably do the opposite if I had to speak, as I'm far more trained in pharmacology than in virology). I reserve skepticism even if agree with their statements. They're bound to get many more things right than lay people in the subject matter, but that doesn't mean they're always right. In particular, one must be wary when some do statements on public policy that are not their subject matter.
- hyko 6y ago
  Describing SARS-CoV-2 as a “monster” virus is pretty far from describing it as a “doomsday” virus. Doomsday is typically understood to mean the destruction of all life, or in some contexts merely the end of human civilisation. No serious person has suggested that SARS-CoV-2 has the capacity to end civilisation (although it could plausibly be thought to increase the chance that civilisation will end in this century). Yes, there has been hyperbole and a great deal of FUD, but there is also a real health crisis taking place. I agree that some of the science communication needs to improve dramatically, and that we should be thinking critically about the papers that are published (or merely circulated, as is the current fashion). What I haven’t seen yet is someone dismantle the current policies and the modelling they are based on in a systematic way-probably because of the lack of data and the absence of a control population anywhere on the planet. Perhaps the latter will be overcome with some innovative experiment or observation; the former will come in time.

by hyko 6y ago

brenden2 6y ago

Believe me, I've been aware for my whole life that I'm a "contrarian" but not in the way that gets upvotes and likes on the internet. I guess that's why I have no friends and nobody wants to be associated with me. I used to think HN was a place where you could talk about the reality of the world, not the sensationalized or BS version. Maybe it once was, but it really isn't anymore. Nowadays YC uses HN as a way to shill their companies, and the average IQ of commenters seems to have reverted to the mean. At least there's lobste.rs, which is a much better community now.

gnusty_gnurc 6y ago
Agreed on lobste.rs! (yet here we are)
hyko 6y ago
Oh man. I feel strongly that you should be able to disagree with people and still be friends with them, so it sucks that you feel your views are isolating you. I guess I never thought of HN as a social network. You’ve got way higher karma than me, so many HNers are agreeing with what you have to say in general. Do you think you can’t talk about the real world anymore on HN? That’s not been my experience recently; I’ve made plenty of unpopular comments but people always seem willing to engage in debate. Never heard of lobste.rs, thanks for the link, I will check it out!
Bendingo 6y ago
> Maybe it once was, but it really isn't anymore > the average IQ of commenters seems to have reverted to the mean Absolutely (and sadly) 100% correct

lbeltrame 6y ago

> No authority I’m aware of ever suggested this was a “doomsday” virus You might want to look up some quotes by Italy's experts, who called this virus a "monster" (side note: I hate how the media turns "novel coronavirus" into "magic virus that transcends biology"), or so the press reported. The doom and gloom communication has always been the key point from the scientific committees here. > Mainstream epidemiologists, virologists etc. are not just a bunch of schmucks who are having a go at analysis because they’ve got time on their hands Disclaimer: the below part only applies to what I see first hand in my country (Italy) No, they're people, like everyone else. And unfortunately, they're bound to make mistakes like everyone else. Note, I'm not saying that they're wrong by default. But some did totally downplay the risk in February and now they act like they knew everything all along. Some of them even made questionable public statements on areas of research they know little about (investigation of thrombosis in lungs; convalescent plasma therapy). The fact that scientific research is very compartmentalized leads to interesting statements that sound like Murray Gell-Mann amnesia. Most of them talk about vaccines; few if any talk about the drugs in development (but in the interest of fairness, I'd probably do the opposite if I had to speak, as I'm far more trained in pharmacology than in virology). I reserve skepticism even if agree with their statements. They're bound to get many more things right than lay people in the subject matter, but that doesn't mean they're always right. In particular, one must be wary when some do statements on public policy that are not their subject matter.

hyko 6y ago
Describing SARS-CoV-2 as a “monster” virus is pretty far from describing it as a “doomsday” virus. Doomsday is typically understood to mean the destruction of all life, or in some contexts merely the end of human civilisation. No serious person has suggested that SARS-CoV-2 has the capacity to end civilisation (although it could plausibly be thought to increase the chance that civilisation will end in this century). Yes, there has been hyperbole and a great deal of FUD, but there is also a real health crisis taking place. I agree that some of the science communication needs to improve dramatically, and that we should be thinking critically about the papers that are published (or merely circulated, as is the current fashion). What I haven’t seen yet is someone dismantle the current policies and the modelling they are based on in a systematic way-probably because of the lack of data and the absence of a control population anywhere on the planet. Perhaps the latter will be overcome with some innovative experiment or observation; the former will come in time.