5 ms·

What are you talking about?! Don’t blame social media, the biggest and loudest source of COVID-related misinformation have been institutions like the WHO. Ther

by tomp 6y ago

What are you talking about?! Don’t blame social media, the biggest and loudest source of COVID-related misinformation have been institutions like the WHO. There is very little science (we don’t yet have enough data, and not enough time has passed), so all we have to go on is “broscience” (smartly connecting anecdotal facts and whatever little data we have, and drawing sensible conclusions). By designating one opinion as “officially correct science”, YouTube is seriously damaging humanity.

maxehmookau 6y ago
> Don’t blame social media, the biggest and loudest source of COVID-related misinformation have been institutions like the WHO. This is demonstrably untrue. There is measurably more bullshit on Facebook groups than there is coming from the WHO and other institutions.
- mopsi 6y ago
  The WHO had far more influence than a Facebook group.
  - maxehmookau 6y ago
    I'm not sure that's true, amongst some demographics at least.
owlbynight 6y ago
COVID-19 is a novel virus. All information is misinformation until it isn't. I could say that the reason that some people are asymptomatic is that the virus is lying dormant in them like herpes. Can anyone credibly refute that? Logic would dictate that a novel virus -- novel in that we don't know everything about it -- is a threat to the survival of our species as a whole until disproven otherwise and that we should collectively do everything that we can to minimize its spread. What I know to be true is that to curb the infection rate, we should stop spitting in each other's mouths. Yes, there is science at the base of that assertion, but mostly it's just common fucking sense. If you can tell me how basic common sense is being subverted on a massive scale without the use of a platform of social manipulation, I'm willing to hear you out.
- tomp 6y ago
  Why do you want to curb the infection rate? What’s the end goal? I’m strongly on the Swedish/Trump side here. We know that the virus is practically harmless for youth and young adults. If immunity persists, we should let them get infected ASAP while protecting the old/vulnerable. If immunity fades, then waiting for the vaccine is pointless anyways. As a young person, I won’t be taking the vaccine anytime soon anyways, not because I have anything against vaccines, but because I have many doubts about barely tested drugs in general (I’ll take it after it’s been tested for a few years). But hey, say this on YouTube and I’ll be banned!
  - owlbynight 6y ago
    How do we know it's harmless for youth and young adults? You know what you've seen. Again, this is a novel virus. It's new. It could be setting up shop in your brain, heart, kidney, liver, semen -- wherever. It could be invisibly weakening your lungs just enough that a flu can come through and kill you. I would suggest a deep dive on mercury poisoning, radiation poisoning, lead poisoning, asbestos, and whatever other reminders you may find throughout history that assuming you know what nature is up to without the benefit of lengthy scientific review never turns out well for the cocksure.
    - justinlink 6y ago
      It is a coronavirus though, it's not an entirely new type of virus that we have never seen before. It has limitations.
    - tomp 6y ago
      Well we won’t know what it’s long term effects are for the next 70 years... hell we’re even now figuring out that Herpes virus might have something to do with dementia... And say we get a vaccine next year. Don’t you worry that if we relax lockdowns, we’re just gonna trigger the next devastating virus? Let’s face it, life is a risk, and we accept a certain amount of elevated risk in exchange for comfort/utility (e.g. unprotected sex, industry-produced food, driving). This virus seems in line (at least for young adults). So the only real risk here, is government repression.
hef19898 6y ago
The WHO, and all other western CDC-like orgs, made one mistake regarding masks early on during the pandemic. One. A mistake they corrected since. And because of that, you and other see them as totally discredited. On the other hand, the "alternative" sources suggest bleach, un-proofed and not working medication, global conspiracies involving chips and 5G and what not. Seriously, get a grip.
- tomp 6y ago
  No, they also protested banning of flights (e.g. when Trump banned flights from China and later from the EU), praised China on their pandemic response, ... most recently, they only came out against lockdowns just now, even though others (e.g. Trump, Sweden, ...) were promoting this policy for months already.
  - hef19898 6y ago
    China, more local authorities, screwed up the early days. Then they got this thing nder control quite fast, with harsh measures. It is still not possible to tell whther the Swedish way was the bast way or not. Lockdowns worked in the early days, the goal was to avoid overloading hospitals. Stuff like SARS and MERS didn't spread by planes to a large extent, did they? So not banning them kind of made sense, until people learned more and their opinion changed. Lockdowns helped halt the spread when the virus wasn't already everywehere, at least much better then they would now where the virus has spread across the globe, more or less. And just yesterday, Germany and France reinstituted lockdowns. Things change, and I'd rather listen to people who change their minds with changed facts instead of broken clocks that a right twice per day.
  - nl 6y ago
    The WHO hasn't come out against lockdowns and only one person is saying they have. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/brucelee/2020/10/13/who-warning-about-covid-19-coronavirus-lockdowns-is-taken-out-of-context/amp/ https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/brucelee/2...
- AlchemistCamp 6y ago

by tomp 6y ago

maxehmookau 6y ago

> Don’t blame social media, the biggest and loudest source of COVID-related misinformation have been institutions like the WHO. This is demonstrably untrue. There is measurably more bullshit on Facebook groups than there is coming from the WHO and other institutions.

mopsi 6y ago
The WHO had far more influence than a Facebook group.
- maxehmookau 6y ago
  I'm not sure that's true, amongst some demographics at least.

owlbynight 6y ago

COVID-19 is a novel virus. All information is misinformation until it isn't. I could say that the reason that some people are asymptomatic is that the virus is lying dormant in them like herpes. Can anyone credibly refute that? Logic would dictate that a novel virus -- novel in that we don't know everything about it -- is a threat to the survival of our species as a whole until disproven otherwise and that we should collectively do everything that we can to minimize its spread. What I know to be true is that to curb the infection rate, we should stop spitting in each other's mouths. Yes, there is science at the base of that assertion, but mostly it's just common fucking sense. If you can tell me how basic common sense is being subverted on a massive scale without the use of a platform of social manipulation, I'm willing to hear you out.

tomp 6y ago
Why do you want to curb the infection rate? What’s the end goal? I’m strongly on the Swedish/Trump side here. We know that the virus is practically harmless for youth and young adults. If immunity persists, we should let them get infected ASAP while protecting the old/vulnerable. If immunity fades, then waiting for the vaccine is pointless anyways. As a young person, I won’t be taking the vaccine anytime soon anyways, not because I have anything against vaccines, but because I have many doubts about barely tested drugs in general (I’ll take it after it’s been tested for a few years). But hey, say this on YouTube and I’ll be banned!
- owlbynight 6y ago
  How do we know it's harmless for youth and young adults? You know what you've seen. Again, this is a novel virus. It's new. It could be setting up shop in your brain, heart, kidney, liver, semen -- wherever. It could be invisibly weakening your lungs just enough that a flu can come through and kill you. I would suggest a deep dive on mercury poisoning, radiation poisoning, lead poisoning, asbestos, and whatever other reminders you may find throughout history that assuming you know what nature is up to without the benefit of lengthy scientific review never turns out well for the cocksure.
  - justinlink 6y ago
    It is a coronavirus though, it's not an entirely new type of virus that we have never seen before. It has limitations.
  - tomp 6y ago
    Well we won’t know what it’s long term effects are for the next 70 years... hell we’re even now figuring out that Herpes virus might have something to do with dementia... And say we get a vaccine next year. Don’t you worry that if we relax lockdowns, we’re just gonna trigger the next devastating virus? Let’s face it, life is a risk, and we accept a certain amount of elevated risk in exchange for comfort/utility (e.g. unprotected sex, industry-produced food, driving). This virus seems in line (at least for young adults). So the only real risk here, is government repression.

hef19898 6y ago

The WHO, and all other western CDC-like orgs, made one mistake regarding masks early on during the pandemic. One. A mistake they corrected since. And because of that, you and other see them as totally discredited. On the other hand, the "alternative" sources suggest bleach, un-proofed and not working medication, global conspiracies involving chips and 5G and what not. Seriously, get a grip.

tomp 6y ago
No, they also protested banning of flights (e.g. when Trump banned flights from China and later from the EU), praised China on their pandemic response, ... most recently, they only came out against lockdowns just now, even though others (e.g. Trump, Sweden, ...) were promoting this policy for months already.
- hef19898 6y ago
  China, more local authorities, screwed up the early days. Then they got this thing nder control quite fast, with harsh measures. It is still not possible to tell whther the Swedish way was the bast way or not. Lockdowns worked in the early days, the goal was to avoid overloading hospitals. Stuff like SARS and MERS didn't spread by planes to a large extent, did they? So not banning them kind of made sense, until people learned more and their opinion changed. Lockdowns helped halt the spread when the virus wasn't already everywehere, at least much better then they would now where the virus has spread across the globe, more or less. And just yesterday, Germany and France reinstituted lockdowns. Things change, and I'd rather listen to people who change their minds with changed facts instead of broken clocks that a right twice per day.
- nl 6y ago
  The WHO hasn't come out against lockdowns and only one person is saying they have. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/brucelee/2020/10/13/who-warning-about-covid-19-coronavirus-lockdowns-is-taken-out-of-context/amp/ https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/brucelee/2...
AlchemistCamp 6y ago