4 ms·

Official sources are continuing to mess up, and causing more destruction than this book ever could. The Lancet is about as official as it gets: https://www.thel

Official sources are continuing to mess up, and causing more destruction than this book ever could. The Lancet is about as official as it gets: https://www.thelancet.com/lancet/article/s0140673620313246 https://www.thelancet.com/lancet/article/s0140673620313246

misiti3780 6y ago
I'm generally confused why you are being downvoted for pointing this out.
- lol139189 6y ago
  Are you new here?
- briefcomment 6y ago
  HN should really get rid of downvotes. They only play one role: To alter how others perceive a post I am unfortunately immediately biased against a post that is greyed out. Greyed posts are increasingly just a different political view rather than an objectively wrong statement. If a post is truly problematic, there is a flag option. Let the cream rise to the top, but don't tell people how to think.
  - em-bee 6y ago
    having seen to many unreasonable downvotes, i have the opposite reaction. when i see a gray post i tend to expect the downvotes to be unreasonable. frequently it is something that i don't agree with but feel is a comment made in good faith that doesn't deserve to be downvoted. rarely it is something unacceptable that deserved its downvotes. (like this comment is made in good faith but off topic...)
    - briefcomment 6y ago
      My comment was definitely off topic, but the message never gets traction when it's on its own.
  - Karunamon 6y ago
    I tend to agree. If we're going to go meta, use downvotes as a sorting mechanism so the stuff the community thinks is most valuable winds up at the top, but remove the greying.
    - briefcomment 6y ago
      Agreed. I think downvoting is an ugly thing. Most of the time, low stakes condemnation is a cowardly overreaction. That being said, as a sorting mechanism, it's not much worse than an upvote
  - pnako 6y ago
    The only effect of downvotes is that I have to highlight text to be able to read it. I'm not sure what the point of the system is.
reaperducer 6y ago
Official sources are continuing to mess up It's a new disease. That's why it has the word "novel" in its name. People are working on it. Mistakes will always happen when dealing with unknowns, until they're known. The difference is that The Lancet will be fixed, and isn't making mistakes maliciously. causing more destruction than this book ever could Not provable hyperbole.
- guscost 6y ago
  It is ridiculous to assume that one group making mistakes is always operating in good faith, while another group making mistakes is always operating in bad faith. It is even more ridiculous to censor one group because of this assumption.
- zarkov99 6y ago
  No one is expecting perfection, as you say its a novel virus. But the implication is also that official sources cannot be trusted to the point where they get to censor the discussion around the virus. It would be wrong to do that even if they were competent, which they are not.
0xy 6y ago
I eagerly await the retractions from the mainstream media outlets who had wall-to-wall coverage of this debunked study.
- messick 6y ago
  A much better study came out the same day as the retraction saying pretty much the same thing, so don’t hold your breath.
  - 0xy 6y ago
    So reporting based on studies shouldn't be retracted based on faulty data as long as there's a brand new study which has not been vetted to the same standard as the first study which says "pretty much the same thing"? That kind of viewpoint allows the media to peddle lies 24/7 and never be held accountable for them. Not that it'd stop them anyway, mainstream media is built upon lies (whether outright fabrications or lying by omission). Studies are not facts. They are a mechanism by which decisions can be guided. That's why on all major issues there are hundreds of peer-reviewed studies on either side saying opposite things.

misiti3780 6y ago

I'm generally confused why you are being downvoted for pointing this out.

lol139189 6y ago
Are you new here?
briefcomment 6y ago
HN should really get rid of downvotes. They only play one role: To alter how others perceive a post I am unfortunately immediately biased against a post that is greyed out. Greyed posts are increasingly just a different political view rather than an objectively wrong statement. If a post is truly problematic, there is a flag option. Let the cream rise to the top, but don't tell people how to think.
- em-bee 6y ago
  having seen to many unreasonable downvotes, i have the opposite reaction. when i see a gray post i tend to expect the downvotes to be unreasonable. frequently it is something that i don't agree with but feel is a comment made in good faith that doesn't deserve to be downvoted. rarely it is something unacceptable that deserved its downvotes. (like this comment is made in good faith but off topic...)
  - briefcomment 6y ago
    My comment was definitely off topic, but the message never gets traction when it's on its own.
- Karunamon 6y ago
  I tend to agree. If we're going to go meta, use downvotes as a sorting mechanism so the stuff the community thinks is most valuable winds up at the top, but remove the greying.
  - briefcomment 6y ago
    Agreed. I think downvoting is an ugly thing. Most of the time, low stakes condemnation is a cowardly overreaction. That being said, as a sorting mechanism, it's not much worse than an upvote
- pnako 6y ago
  The only effect of downvotes is that I have to highlight text to be able to read it. I'm not sure what the point of the system is.

reaperducer 6y ago

Official sources are continuing to mess up It's a new disease. That's why it has the word "novel" in its name. People are working on it. Mistakes will always happen when dealing with unknowns, until they're known. The difference is that The Lancet will be fixed, and isn't making mistakes maliciously. causing more destruction than this book ever could Not provable hyperbole.

guscost 6y ago
It is ridiculous to assume that one group making mistakes is always operating in good faith, while another group making mistakes is always operating in bad faith. It is even more ridiculous to censor one group because of this assumption.
zarkov99 6y ago
No one is expecting perfection, as you say its a novel virus. But the implication is also that official sources cannot be trusted to the point where they get to censor the discussion around the virus. It would be wrong to do that even if they were competent, which they are not.

0xy 6y ago

I eagerly await the retractions from the mainstream media outlets who had wall-to-wall coverage of this debunked study.

messick 6y ago
A much better study came out the same day as the retraction saying pretty much the same thing, so don’t hold your breath.
- 0xy 6y ago
  So reporting based on studies shouldn't be retracted based on faulty data as long as there's a brand new study which has not been vetted to the same standard as the first study which says "pretty much the same thing"? That kind of viewpoint allows the media to peddle lies 24/7 and never be held accountable for them. Not that it'd stop them anyway, mainstream media is built upon lies (whether outright fabrications or lying by omission). Studies are not facts. They are a mechanism by which decisions can be guided. That's why on all major issues there are hundreds of peer-reviewed studies on either side saying opposite things.