8 ms·

Covid-19: politicisation, “corruption,” and suppression of science [pdf]

83 points by rq1 6y ago

bigbob2 6y ago
> Covid-19 has unleashed state corruption on a grand scale, and it is harmful to public health. Well, I think state corruption was already prevalent before COVID-19, but point taken.
- eyelidlessness 6y ago
  It’s very rare that something is unleashed that wasn’t previously extant and leashed.
  - a1369209993 6y ago
    It wasn't 'leashed'; people were just more oblivious to it when mainstream media preferred to politely ignore it rather than tell people it was happening.
madengr 6y ago
Hydroxychloroquine bad because orange man took it, and orange man bad. Never mind other countries are using it successfully if given early, not the near-death application used to ban it. Ivermectin has been shown to work much better, but that will become banned too. If the government gave a damn, they'd be recommending everyone take 5000 IU vitamin D.
timr 6y ago
Setting aside the issue of government suppression, social media (Facebook, Reddit, Twitter all being specific examples) have been terrible with censorship this year. It has become impossible to discuss any scientific question for which there is a political angle without being censored. I've seen peer-reviewed publications on Facebook and Twitter, hidden behind "misinformation" flags. Questioning orthodox views (even with well-sourced, rational scientific arguments) is enough to get you banned or blocked on the major social media platforms. We're in a dark place that I didn't think I'd ever see in my lifetime. If you cannot question science, it isn't science.
- neolog 6y ago
  What criteria should be used to determine which sources to promote?
  - timr 6y ago
    None. Twitter and Facebook and Reddit should not be promoting a viewpoint or source. It is unfortunate that some people will use freedom of speech to share misinformation, but the alternative -- convincing the public that any form of skepticism is bad, and only the "consensus" is correct -- is unthinkable. Virtually every scientific theory of any impact has been opposed by the "consensus" at one point or another.
    - freedomben 6y ago
      I saw a pretty powerful "joke" tweet the other day where "Galileo" tweets about thinking maybe the sun is the center of the solar system instead of the earth, and it gets slapped with a "learn more about how experts agree on the geocentric model." Pretty funny, but also eerily relevant. https://twitter.com/marcorandazza/status/1327263962799480832?s=21 https://twitter.com/marcorandazza/status/1327263962799480832...
      - timr 6y ago
        Yeah, I've seen that. It's sadly accurate.
  - function_seven 6y ago
    No matter the answer, it will fall short in some scenario. So I'd say kill the premise instead. Facebook and Twitter should show me things that my friends posted. That's it. If I don't follow someone—or search directly for something—then I don't see it. There, now you don't need to make tough choices on how to tune your algorithm. There is no algorithm! Of course, this will reduce engagement and DAU and whatever other metrics they track. But that's a fundamental conflict: earnings vs. neutrality. You can't maximize both.
choward 6y ago
> Politicians often claim to follow the science, but that is a misleading oversimplification. Science is rarely absolute. It rarely applies to every setting or every population. It doesn’t make sense to slavishly follow science or evidence. You can pretty much find a study or experiment that validates whatever opinion you have. It's not common for our society to immediately react to the result of one study or very few studies by applying them directly to the real world. Science takes time. Yet here we are. Somehow we went from "masks for the general public are ineffective against fighting covid and most other diseases" to "any piece of garbage you put over your face is effective" almost instantly. I tried finding studies that proved that covid transmission is reduced when people put any piece of material over their face. I couldn't find any and still have yet to find one. They all show that things that may imply masks are effective but not of them show masks are actually effective. They all seem to be based on the effectiveness of blocking droplets. To the best of my understanding we don't even know if it's airborne yet. Also, why aren't there any older studies? Droplets and masks have been around forever. Why did it take a few new studies to figure this out? There are also so many other variables that are completely neglected such as the way people handle and wear their masks, how the masks fit, the material used (some studies cover multiple materials but are far from comprehensive), the social aspects like not being able to read someones expression, etc. Cloth masks are all the rage these days but when you go to buy one none are approved by the FDA and say "not for medical use". Yet we are mandating that people where these things for medical use even though they haven't been proved by the FDA. They have been approved by this magical thing called "science" though. Why even have these government regulatory agencies if we can just bypass them in certain circumstances? > Governments and industry must also stop announcing critical science policy by press release. Such ill judged moves leave science, the media, and stock markets vulnerable to manipulation. Clear, open, and advance publication of the scientific basis for policy, procurements, and wonder drugs is a fundamental requirement They way covid policies are communicated is awful. When they change policies they always site science but never link to exact studies. They imply that this is the science they used is the "real" science and that all that matters. I live in California and we have a site dedicated to covid (like I'm sure most other places do). A couple months ago they put up a "blueprint for reopening" that was supposedly based on science. There are arbitrary tiers that counties go through to determine what's banned. However, just recently, Newsom introduced a 10pm "curfew" and threatened another stay at home order. That wasn't part of the "blueprint". Where is the science for that?
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
dkdk8283 6y ago
I value my personal liberty over all else, even if science says it increases my risk of contracting a serious virus. I’m all about choice. If you want to stay home, please do. Unbiased advice coupled with freedom of movement is really the only thing I can accept. Help me be smart, but don’t tell me what to do under the premise of civil fines.
- renewiltord 6y ago
  I think that's fair, but using the No Harm Principle as a guide, I think you should be liable for all the illness you cause should you infect anyone. You should be able to, of course, collect from anyone who could have infected you. FWIW I also value personal liberty above restrictions but I do value internalizing externalities concurrently.
  - henrikschroder 6y ago
    > I think you should be liable for all the illness you cause should you infect anyone. I don't know of any society that has had a social contract or laws to this effect, unless a person is maliciously, intentionally, spreading a disease. The US is also full of people who literally cannot afford to take sick days, which creates a culture of people going to work sick and toughing it out. Even in middle-class and upper middle-class jobs there's a prevalent fear of having to be seen in the office at all cost to avoid being fired. What you are suggesting is the exact opposite of this, with the addition of being extra cruel against people who are not privileged enough to have a cushy job that allows them to work from home.
    - renewiltord 6y ago
      > I don't know of any society that has had a social contract or laws to this effect, unless a person is maliciously, intentionally, spreading a disease. It isn't much of a leap, honestly. Few societies permit me to drive drunk for instance, even if I genuinely intend to kill no one. And I assure I don't want to kill anyone ever. I'm a lover not a killer.
pdonis 6y ago
It would be nice if an article complaining about not following the science would give some science to back up its central claim that the things it complains about have actually killed people. The article offers no evidence at all that rates of infection or death from COVID-19 were affected by any of the things it talks about.

83 points by rq1 6y ago

> Covid-19 has unleashed state corruption on a grand scale, and it is harmful to public health. Well, I think state corruption was already prevalent before COVID-19, but point taken.

eyelidlessness 6y ago
It’s very rare that something is unleashed that wasn’t previously extant and leashed.
- a1369209993 6y ago
  It wasn't 'leashed'; people were just more oblivious to it when mainstream media preferred to politely ignore it rather than tell people it was happening.

madengr 6y ago

Hydroxychloroquine bad because orange man took it, and orange man bad. Never mind other countries are using it successfully if given early, not the near-death application used to ban it. Ivermectin has been shown to work much better, but that will become banned too. If the government gave a damn, they'd be recommending everyone take 5000 IU vitamin D.

timr 6y ago

Setting aside the issue of government suppression, social media (Facebook, Reddit, Twitter all being specific examples) have been terrible with censorship this year. It has become impossible to discuss any scientific question for which there is a political angle without being censored. I've seen peer-reviewed publications on Facebook and Twitter, hidden behind "misinformation" flags. Questioning orthodox views (even with well-sourced, rational scientific arguments) is enough to get you banned or blocked on the major social media platforms. We're in a dark place that I didn't think I'd ever see in my lifetime. If you cannot question science, it isn't science.

neolog 6y ago
What criteria should be used to determine which sources to promote?
- timr 6y ago
  None. Twitter and Facebook and Reddit should not be promoting a viewpoint or source. It is unfortunate that some people will use freedom of speech to share misinformation, but the alternative -- convincing the public that any form of skepticism is bad, and only the "consensus" is correct -- is unthinkable. Virtually every scientific theory of any impact has been opposed by the "consensus" at one point or another.
  - freedomben 6y ago
    I saw a pretty powerful "joke" tweet the other day where "Galileo" tweets about thinking maybe the sun is the center of the solar system instead of the earth, and it gets slapped with a "learn more about how experts agree on the geocentric model." Pretty funny, but also eerily relevant. https://twitter.com/marcorandazza/status/1327263962799480832?s=21 https://twitter.com/marcorandazza/status/1327263962799480832...
    - timr 6y ago
      Yeah, I've seen that. It's sadly accurate.
- function_seven 6y ago
  No matter the answer, it will fall short in some scenario. So I'd say kill the premise instead. Facebook and Twitter should show me things that my friends posted. That's it. If I don't follow someone—or search directly for something—then I don't see it. There, now you don't need to make tough choices on how to tune your algorithm. There is no algorithm! Of course, this will reduce engagement and DAU and whatever other metrics they track. But that's a fundamental conflict: earnings vs. neutrality. You can't maximize both.

choward 6y ago

> Politicians often claim to follow the science, but that is a misleading oversimplification. Science is rarely absolute. It rarely applies to every setting or every population. It doesn’t make sense to slavishly follow science or evidence. You can pretty much find a study or experiment that validates whatever opinion you have. It's not common for our society to immediately react to the result of one study or very few studies by applying them directly to the real world. Science takes time. Yet here we are. Somehow we went from "masks for the general public are ineffective against fighting covid and most other diseases" to "any piece of garbage you put over your face is effective" almost instantly. I tried finding studies that proved that covid transmission is reduced when people put any piece of material over their face. I couldn't find any and still have yet to find one. They all show that things that may imply masks are effective but not of them show masks are actually effective. They all seem to be based on the effectiveness of blocking droplets. To the best of my understanding we don't even know if it's airborne yet. Also, why aren't there any older studies? Droplets and masks have been around forever. Why did it take a few new studies to figure this out? There are also so many other variables that are completely neglected such as the way people handle and wear their masks, how the masks fit, the material used (some studies cover multiple materials but are far from comprehensive), the social aspects like not being able to read someones expression, etc. Cloth masks are all the rage these days but when you go to buy one none are approved by the FDA and say "not for medical use". Yet we are mandating that people where these things for medical use even though they haven't been proved by the FDA. They have been approved by this magical thing called "science" though. Why even have these government regulatory agencies if we can just bypass them in certain circumstances? > Governments and industry must also stop announcing critical science policy by press release. Such ill judged moves leave science, the media, and stock markets vulnerable to manipulation. Clear, open, and advance publication of the scientific basis for policy, procurements, and wonder drugs is a fundamental requirement They way covid policies are communicated is awful. When they change policies they always site science but never link to exact studies. They imply that this is the science they used is the "real" science and that all that matters. I live in California and we have a site dedicated to covid (like I'm sure most other places do). A couple months ago they put up a "blueprint for reopening" that was supposedly based on science. There are arbitrary tiers that counties go through to determine what's banned. However, just recently, Newsom introduced a 10pm "curfew" and threatened another stay at home order. That wasn't part of the "blueprint". Where is the science for that?

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

dkdk8283 6y ago

I value my personal liberty over all else, even if science says it increases my risk of contracting a serious virus. I’m all about choice. If you want to stay home, please do. Unbiased advice coupled with freedom of movement is really the only thing I can accept. Help me be smart, but don’t tell me what to do under the premise of civil fines.

renewiltord 6y ago
I think that's fair, but using the No Harm Principle as a guide, I think you should be liable for all the illness you cause should you infect anyone. You should be able to, of course, collect from anyone who could have infected you. FWIW I also value personal liberty above restrictions but I do value internalizing externalities concurrently.
- henrikschroder 6y ago
  > I think you should be liable for all the illness you cause should you infect anyone. I don't know of any society that has had a social contract or laws to this effect, unless a person is maliciously, intentionally, spreading a disease. The US is also full of people who literally cannot afford to take sick days, which creates a culture of people going to work sick and toughing it out. Even in middle-class and upper middle-class jobs there's a prevalent fear of having to be seen in the office at all cost to avoid being fired. What you are suggesting is the exact opposite of this, with the addition of being extra cruel against people who are not privileged enough to have a cushy job that allows them to work from home.
  - renewiltord 6y ago
    > I don't know of any society that has had a social contract or laws to this effect, unless a person is maliciously, intentionally, spreading a disease. It isn't much of a leap, honestly. Few societies permit me to drive drunk for instance, even if I genuinely intend to kill no one. And I assure I don't want to kill anyone ever. I'm a lover not a killer.

pdonis 6y ago

It would be nice if an article complaining about not following the science would give some science to back up its central claim that the things it complains about have actually killed people. The article offers no evidence at all that rates of infection or death from COVID-19 were affected by any of the things it talks about.