4 ms·

I'm disappointed you are not more active in pulling these snake oil posts from the front page.

by lvs 5y ago

jacquesm 5y ago
Seconded. The whole Ivermectin saga does not deserve the attention that it is getting, those that are relentlessly pushing it are causing people not to get vaccinated and that in turn will prolong the epidemic and lead to people getting ill and some fraction of those will die. I've read up on this thing as much as I could and it's quite simple: there is at this point in time zero hard evidence that it works in humans short of using it in dosage that is well outside the range that we have data on. It's just the HCQ story warmed over.
- effie 5y ago
  > are causing people not to get vaccinated and that in turn will prolong the epidemic Can you make an argument that people going for natural immunity and relying on currently used COVID treatment protocols in case they decide it is needed will prolong the epidemic more than if they took the vaccine? Maybe it will do the opposite, as 1) natural immunity may be stronger, last longer 2) some number of non-vaccinated people getting sick, getting isolated and taking effective treatment may on the whole infect less people than if that same number of people gets vaccinated and then interacts with other people and potentially spread the infection more because they don't get strong symptoms. I'm not saying that you are incorrect, just that the argument that getting vaccinated solves the epidemic quicker isn't clear.
  - jacquesm 5y ago
    Modulo a few hundred thousand deaths those mechanisms have the same outcome. If you're ok with that by all means, go push herd immunity through infection.
    - effie 5y ago
      There are effective treatments available now, it is not clear that well-treated infections would lead to more deaths than vaccinations.
dang 5y ago
I've addressed that here and here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27563873 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27563873 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27564376 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27564376
- lvs 5y ago
  This community is not equipped to have this discussion, as evidenced by the discussion.
  - jacquesm 5y ago
    Seeing HN used to promote garbage is going to cause good people to leave, and that in turn is going to accelerate the degree to which garbage will end up on the homepage and so on. This is a downward spiral.
    - DoreenMichele 5y ago
      This is not the way to handle this. There are better ways to handle this. You seem to be on a tear today. FYI, I added my flag here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27577500 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27577500 As well as adding a flag to one of the comments in that discussion that attacked you. I don't leave a lot of flags on HN. For various reasons, I'm pretty conservative in my use of flags. I'm surprised to see this particular piece where I am currently commenting got so many upvotes and so many comments. I asked about the mechanism of how this drug works and got some meaningful engagement and also some really worthless engagement, in my opinion.* And then I lost interest. I couldn't readily see a meaningful connection. But you are basically talking about censorship. Censorship grows interest in the forbidden topic. I wholly disagree with your position here. If this is the garbage you claim it is -- and it may well be, I just don't know the topic well enough to affirmatively agree with you -- then there are vastly better ways to kill it without harming freedom of speech. * https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27562715 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27562715
raphlinus 5y ago
I'm with you on this. I've put a nontrivial amount of effort into commenting (including reading a lot of source material and watching video clips), and there has been some interesting discussion, but I'm not convinced it's been worth it. My suggestion is to be more selective about sources, and perhaps to have an explicit policy. Individual papers tend not to be good sources, as people just use them as weapons to prop up their opinion. Mainstream media pieces aren't either, as they lack intellectual depth. I suggest blog posts by experts (David Gorski, Derek Lowe), pieces by top science journalists (Helen Branswell, Kai Kupferschmidt, Jon Cohen). Note I am not saying only mainstream views should be represented, quite the contrary. If and when Alina Chan posts something long form on lab leak (likely, as she's working on a book), that's a great candidate for spurring intellectually curious discussion.
MilnerRoute 5y ago
Here's an observation. I've seen at least three "pro-Ivermectin" posts on the front page in the last six days. Does it seem like that's been balanced with any posts discussing its inefficacy (which is apparently the medical community's dominant view)? I also remember today's Ivermectin post being flagged. Does that mean the moderators then chose to unflag it (despite the fact there'd already been at least two earlier "pro-Ivermectin" posts throughout the week)? According to the Hacker News FAQ, moderators "sometimes turn flags off when they are unfair." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html Maybe the question we should be asking is: what made the moderators consider the flagging of this post unfair?
- spfzero 5y ago
  It doesn't seem to me that the dominant view here is that Ivermectin is ineffective, just that it has not yet been proven to be effective, for a certain definition of "proven". With time and stronger studies, that may well be proven, or not.

I'm disappointed you are not more active in pulling these snake oil posts from the front page.

by lvs 5y ago

I'm disappointed you are not more active in pulling these snake oil posts from the front page.

Seconded. The whole Ivermectin saga does not deserve the attention that it is getting, those that are relentlessly pushing it are causing people not to get vaccinated and that in turn will prolong the epidemic and lead to people getting ill and some fraction of those will die. I've read up on this thing as much as I could and it's quite simple: there is at this point in time zero hard evidence that it works in humans short of using it in dosage that is well outside the range that we have data on. It's just the HCQ story warmed over.

effie 5y ago
> are causing people not to get vaccinated and that in turn will prolong the epidemic Can you make an argument that people going for natural immunity and relying on currently used COVID treatment protocols in case they decide it is needed will prolong the epidemic more than if they took the vaccine? Maybe it will do the opposite, as 1) natural immunity may be stronger, last longer 2) some number of non-vaccinated people getting sick, getting isolated and taking effective treatment may on the whole infect less people than if that same number of people gets vaccinated and then interacts with other people and potentially spread the infection more because they don't get strong symptoms. I'm not saying that you are incorrect, just that the argument that getting vaccinated solves the epidemic quicker isn't clear.
- jacquesm 5y ago
  Modulo a few hundred thousand deaths those mechanisms have the same outcome. If you're ok with that by all means, go push herd immunity through infection.
  - effie 5y ago
    There are effective treatments available now, it is not clear that well-treated infections would lead to more deaths than vaccinations.

dang 5y ago

I've addressed that here and here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27563873 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27563873 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27564376 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27564376

lvs 5y ago
This community is not equipped to have this discussion, as evidenced by the discussion.
- jacquesm 5y ago
  Seeing HN used to promote garbage is going to cause good people to leave, and that in turn is going to accelerate the degree to which garbage will end up on the homepage and so on. This is a downward spiral.
  - DoreenMichele 5y ago
    This is not the way to handle this. There are better ways to handle this. You seem to be on a tear today. FYI, I added my flag here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27577500 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27577500 As well as adding a flag to one of the comments in that discussion that attacked you. I don't leave a lot of flags on HN. For various reasons, I'm pretty conservative in my use of flags. I'm surprised to see this particular piece where I am currently commenting got so many upvotes and so many comments. I asked about the mechanism of how this drug works and got some meaningful engagement and also some really worthless engagement, in my opinion.* And then I lost interest. I couldn't readily see a meaningful connection. But you are basically talking about censorship. Censorship grows interest in the forbidden topic. I wholly disagree with your position here. If this is the garbage you claim it is -- and it may well be, I just don't know the topic well enough to affirmatively agree with you -- then there are vastly better ways to kill it without harming freedom of speech. * https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27562715 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27562715

raphlinus 5y ago

I'm with you on this. I've put a nontrivial amount of effort into commenting (including reading a lot of source material and watching video clips), and there has been some interesting discussion, but I'm not convinced it's been worth it. My suggestion is to be more selective about sources, and perhaps to have an explicit policy. Individual papers tend not to be good sources, as people just use them as weapons to prop up their opinion. Mainstream media pieces aren't either, as they lack intellectual depth. I suggest blog posts by experts (David Gorski, Derek Lowe), pieces by top science journalists (Helen Branswell, Kai Kupferschmidt, Jon Cohen). Note I am not saying only mainstream views should be represented, quite the contrary. If and when Alina Chan posts something long form on lab leak (likely, as she's working on a book), that's a great candidate for spurring intellectually curious discussion.

MilnerRoute 5y ago

Here's an observation. I've seen at least three "pro-Ivermectin" posts on the front page in the last six days. Does it seem like that's been balanced with any posts discussing its inefficacy (which is apparently the medical community's dominant view)? I also remember today's Ivermectin post being flagged. Does that mean the moderators then chose to unflag it (despite the fact there'd already been at least two earlier "pro-Ivermectin" posts throughout the week)? According to the Hacker News FAQ, moderators "sometimes turn flags off when they are unfair." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html Maybe the question we should be asking is: what made the moderators consider the flagging of this post unfair?

spfzero 5y ago
It doesn't seem to me that the dominant view here is that Ivermectin is ineffective, just that it has not yet been proven to be effective, for a certain definition of "proven". With time and stronger studies, that may well be proven, or not.