4 ms·

no one is deleteing anything...they are simply learning, as science does, and noting that prior knowledge was incorrect. That is fundamentally different from p

by avs733 5y ago

no one is deleteing anything...they are simply learning, as science does, and noting that prior knowledge was incorrect. That is fundamentally different from people screaming without evidence. A broken clock is right twice a day, but it is not an accurate clock at any point.

guscost 5y ago
It was a bit tongue-in-cheek, and note the word “attempts”. This one is much too big/high profile to delete, thankfully. The “this is just how to do science” defense is cute, but a lot people died and will die over it, and in general the conduct we have seen from formerly-trusted authorities is inexcusable. Most people are not going to let that gang of narrow-minded bullies “do science” to them ever again.
- avs733 5y ago
  a gang of narrow minded bullies? This is what we are calling the field that ended polio and smallpox.
  - guscost 5y ago
    Sure it is still the same field, but far too many “experts” today are charlatans operating on inherited credibility, in all the fields.
vadansky 5y ago
I'm sorry no, this is not "they are simply learning, as science does" People were against this emotionally since Trump suggested it first and no one wanted to be seen agreeing with him on something, even though a broken clock can be right twice a day
- guscost 5y ago
  In my opinion you are completely right, but calling this out makes a lot of people very mad.
  - avs733 5y ago
    I'm not mad, I just have been taught that retcon'ing evidence to fit a narrative is not the same thing as science. It doesn't matter how well it fits or evidence, it should be rejected because the base structure of the argument fails. These people aren't 'right' in the sense that they figured something out, they screamed about something without evidence. Whatever happens next cannot change that fact. Its notable that what is happening is the evidence is getting constantly substituted to fit an explanation not the explanation emerging from the available evidence. It's the boy who cried wolf...
- whydoibother 5y ago
  Stop trying to tie it to your politics. Some people want real evidence before they scream about things like you do. It had little to do with Trump.
  - vadansky 5y ago
    Wrong because the alternative had no real evidence either.
  - throwawaysea 5y ago
    It absolutely had everything to do with Trump. He was slated to be the clear winner until two events (COVID-19 and George Floyd) presented political opportunities. In an election year, everything becomes about the election. People wanted to attack Trump at every turn, even when he suggested reasonable measures like controlling travel, and equally they wanted to ensure all blame was directed at Trump rather than the Chinese government or state governments or elsewhere. To address your claim more directly, there was never any justification to dismiss the lab leak theory, or claim it was debunked (as many news outlets did), or censor conversations about it online. This isn't about believing it is the only possibility, but that it is a likely possibility that deserves serious attention. The reason it was instead cloaked in dogmatic terms like "conspiracy theory" and shutdown outright, is purely because of politics. There was no "real evidence" to dismiss it as it was. And guess what - that dismissal also allowed the Chinese government to avoid a site visit for months, and even when the WHO visit happened, it was under the terms of the Chinese government with an untrustworthy outcome. Those who shutdown the lab leak theory and other such claims aren't interested in evidence. They're interested in political opportunism.
    - whydoibother 5y ago
      > there was never any justification to dismiss the lab leak theory that isn't how this works. extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. there is zero evidence of a lab leak besides circumstantial. > censor conversations about it online they did a poor job of that then, considering all the very vocal people I had to hear keep talking about it for the last year. >He was slated to be the clear winner until two events (COVID-19 and George Floyd) weird how that works, huh? when you handle crises poorly -- or downright negligently -- people will hate you and not vote for you. strange.
- toast0 5y ago
  > People were against this emotionally since Trump suggested it first and no one wanted to be seen agreeing with him on something, even though a broken clock can be right twice a day Trump wanted to use some inappropriate names for the disease and wanted to ban travel for people holding PRC passports. Neither of those things make sense to do from a disease control standpoint. If you wanted to ban travel for people who had been in the area of exposure, that might make sense, but nation of passport isn't the way; and after not a whole lot of time, the disease had spread widely enough that there weren't really many places that should have been whitelisted.
  - throwawaysea 5y ago
    We very regularly associate things with their origin. We did so almost this entire last year when we talked about variants of COVID-19. And in the early days of COVID-19, in China, in their airports, the virus was called "Wuhan virus" on signage. Those names were also used in news reports regularly. I agree that something like "kung flu" is inappropriate, but I don't agree that "China virus" or "Wuhan virus" are inappropriate, and don't think they were controversial until they were deemed as such for what seems like political reasons. > wanted to ban travel for people holding PRC passports Banning by passport makes some sense. We can't prevent US citizens from returning to their homes. But we can prevent others from traveling to the US. It might make sense to ban all passports except the US for flights originating from China, but then you end up dragging in connecting flights through China from other countries. In terms of a quick, easy to implement measure, that will at least reduce the number of imported cases, banning travel based on PRC passports seems logical. > the disease had spread widely enough that there weren't really many places that should have been whitelisted Surely, given that we do care about just controlling the numbers even if it is not perfect (like with "flatten the curve"), it makes some sense to focus on the epicenter.
    - jcranmer 5y ago
      > We can't prevent US citizens from returning to their homes. SCOTUS has ruled that the US does have quarantine powers for medical emergencies, even for its own citizens. Maybe a complete ban if poorly orchestrated might run afoul of the Constitution, but a policy like "all travelers [US citizen or not] from X region must present at <specific port of entry>, whereupon they will be transferred to a quarantine facility for 14 days" would totally be fine. Note, for example, the way that the quarantine on dogs because of rabies is being handled. > But we can prevent others from traveling to the US. It might make sense to ban all passports except the US for flights originating from China, but then you end up dragging in connecting flights through China from other countries. Why should you exempt people whose only presence was via connecting flights? This generally involves long layovers inside of airports, where a large enough fraction is potentially susceptible to already be concerned about (due to local people making their flights), and you're likely to be spending a decent period of time on the plane with such people as well, too.
- avs733 5y ago
  I would argue, philosophically, the broken clock isn't right twice a day. That clock is simply saying the same thing as people who are right. It's claim about what time it is has no credibility. I have a friend who's Toddler knows that things have colors but only knows one color - Blue. If the child calls everything Blue it isn't showing understanding of the concept, even if the kid responds 'Blue' when asked what color the sky is. To claim that is 'right' is projecting my beliefs and knowledge onto the childs.

by avs733 5y ago

guscost 5y ago

It was a bit tongue-in-cheek, and note the word “attempts”. This one is much too big/high profile to delete, thankfully. The “this is just how to do science” defense is cute, but a lot people died and will die over it, and in general the conduct we have seen from formerly-trusted authorities is inexcusable. Most people are not going to let that gang of narrow-minded bullies “do science” to them ever again.

avs733 5y ago
a gang of narrow minded bullies? This is what we are calling the field that ended polio and smallpox.
- guscost 5y ago
  Sure it is still the same field, but far too many “experts” today are charlatans operating on inherited credibility, in all the fields.

vadansky 5y ago

I'm sorry no, this is not "they are simply learning, as science does" People were against this emotionally since Trump suggested it first and no one wanted to be seen agreeing with him on something, even though a broken clock can be right twice a day

guscost 5y ago
In my opinion you are completely right, but calling this out makes a lot of people very mad.
- avs733 5y ago
  I'm not mad, I just have been taught that retcon'ing evidence to fit a narrative is not the same thing as science. It doesn't matter how well it fits or evidence, it should be rejected because the base structure of the argument fails. These people aren't 'right' in the sense that they figured something out, they screamed about something without evidence. Whatever happens next cannot change that fact. Its notable that what is happening is the evidence is getting constantly substituted to fit an explanation not the explanation emerging from the available evidence. It's the boy who cried wolf...
whydoibother 5y ago
Stop trying to tie it to your politics. Some people want real evidence before they scream about things like you do. It had little to do with Trump.
- vadansky 5y ago
  Wrong because the alternative had no real evidence either.
- throwawaysea 5y ago
  It absolutely had everything to do with Trump. He was slated to be the clear winner until two events (COVID-19 and George Floyd) presented political opportunities. In an election year, everything becomes about the election. People wanted to attack Trump at every turn, even when he suggested reasonable measures like controlling travel, and equally they wanted to ensure all blame was directed at Trump rather than the Chinese government or state governments or elsewhere. To address your claim more directly, there was never any justification to dismiss the lab leak theory, or claim it was debunked (as many news outlets did), or censor conversations about it online. This isn't about believing it is the only possibility, but that it is a likely possibility that deserves serious attention. The reason it was instead cloaked in dogmatic terms like "conspiracy theory" and shutdown outright, is purely because of politics. There was no "real evidence" to dismiss it as it was. And guess what - that dismissal also allowed the Chinese government to avoid a site visit for months, and even when the WHO visit happened, it was under the terms of the Chinese government with an untrustworthy outcome. Those who shutdown the lab leak theory and other such claims aren't interested in evidence. They're interested in political opportunism.
  - whydoibother 5y ago
    > there was never any justification to dismiss the lab leak theory that isn't how this works. extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. there is zero evidence of a lab leak besides circumstantial. > censor conversations about it online they did a poor job of that then, considering all the very vocal people I had to hear keep talking about it for the last year. >He was slated to be the clear winner until two events (COVID-19 and George Floyd) weird how that works, huh? when you handle crises poorly -- or downright negligently -- people will hate you and not vote for you. strange.
toast0 5y ago
> People were against this emotionally since Trump suggested it first and no one wanted to be seen agreeing with him on something, even though a broken clock can be right twice a day Trump wanted to use some inappropriate names for the disease and wanted to ban travel for people holding PRC passports. Neither of those things make sense to do from a disease control standpoint. If you wanted to ban travel for people who had been in the area of exposure, that might make sense, but nation of passport isn't the way; and after not a whole lot of time, the disease had spread widely enough that there weren't really many places that should have been whitelisted.
- throwawaysea 5y ago
  We very regularly associate things with their origin. We did so almost this entire last year when we talked about variants of COVID-19. And in the early days of COVID-19, in China, in their airports, the virus was called "Wuhan virus" on signage. Those names were also used in news reports regularly. I agree that something like "kung flu" is inappropriate, but I don't agree that "China virus" or "Wuhan virus" are inappropriate, and don't think they were controversial until they were deemed as such for what seems like political reasons. > wanted to ban travel for people holding PRC passports Banning by passport makes some sense. We can't prevent US citizens from returning to their homes. But we can prevent others from traveling to the US. It might make sense to ban all passports except the US for flights originating from China, but then you end up dragging in connecting flights through China from other countries. In terms of a quick, easy to implement measure, that will at least reduce the number of imported cases, banning travel based on PRC passports seems logical. > the disease had spread widely enough that there weren't really many places that should have been whitelisted Surely, given that we do care about just controlling the numbers even if it is not perfect (like with "flatten the curve"), it makes some sense to focus on the epicenter.
  - jcranmer 5y ago
    > We can't prevent US citizens from returning to their homes. SCOTUS has ruled that the US does have quarantine powers for medical emergencies, even for its own citizens. Maybe a complete ban if poorly orchestrated might run afoul of the Constitution, but a policy like "all travelers [US citizen or not] from X region must present at <specific port of entry>, whereupon they will be transferred to a quarantine facility for 14 days" would totally be fine. Note, for example, the way that the quarantine on dogs because of rabies is being handled. > But we can prevent others from traveling to the US. It might make sense to ban all passports except the US for flights originating from China, but then you end up dragging in connecting flights through China from other countries. Why should you exempt people whose only presence was via connecting flights? This generally involves long layovers inside of airports, where a large enough fraction is potentially susceptible to already be concerned about (due to local people making their flights), and you're likely to be spending a decent period of time on the plane with such people as well, too.
avs733 5y ago
I would argue, philosophically, the broken clock isn't right twice a day. That clock is simply saying the same thing as people who are right. It's claim about what time it is has no credibility. I have a friend who's Toddler knows that things have colors but only knows one color - Blue. If the child calls everything Blue it isn't showing understanding of the concept, even if the kid responds 'Blue' when asked what color the sky is. To claim that is 'right' is projecting my beliefs and knowledge onto the childs.