4 ms·

Right, and the headline surely isn’t designed to make you think it’s from COVID...

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
detaro 5y ago
It's from the pandemic, excess death and "people are dying because they didn't get medical care for other things" has been a regular talking point, ... At least on HN, commenting on just some snap impression from the headline shouldn't quite cut it, commenting things the article already covers, and a large previous subthread already covers, doesn't really tell us anything new.
- ceilingcorner 5y ago
  No, they may not be “from the pandemic”, they may be from the actions taken in response to the pandemic. These aren’t the same things.
  - detaro 5y ago
    Matter of perspective I guess. Deaths directly from COVID also depend on the actions taken in response to the pandemic, so in both cases they are (potentially avoidable) consequences of the pandemic and societies reaction to it.
    - ceilingcorner 5y ago
      No other cause of death is reported this way.
    - deregulateMed 5y ago
      This is irresponsible. Especially as policy decisions are made from it.
      - detaro 5y ago
        What's irresponsible is making policy decisions based on numbers that are clearly not useful for that purpose.
    - leereeves 5y ago
      > consequences of the pandemic and societies reaction to it But which? That's an extremely important distinction because the correct response might be further lockdowns or the exact opposite. Merely knowing there were four million excess deaths, while tragic and important information, is not a useful guide for the response.
      - detaro 5y ago
        Of course it's an extremely important question, if you can get data for it, awesome. Doesn't mean we shouldn't publish other numbers just because they are not useful to answer all questions - this is clearly labelled all-cause mortality estimated on extremely thin data. If you just take any random number you see and base your policy on that without context you'll always have problems.
        leereeves 5y ago
        Who said we shouldn't publish that data? I agree with you that it should be published, and considered in context. And discussion about the effects of lockdowns on the supply chain is part of that context. The obvious inference many people will jump to is that the deaths are directly due to covid. It's important to remember there are other possible explanations.
        detaro 5y ago
        And all I objected to was the (perceived) claim that the article and existing discussion didn't acknowledge that, or that readers wouldn't be familiar with the idea.
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
  - deregulateMed 5y ago
    I was literally flagged on HN last year from pointing out potential side effects of lockdowns. It was weird being pro science and seeing this turn political. It really showed which of my friends could think scientifically for themselves, and which repeated what authority said.
    - ceilingcorner 5y ago
      HN seems to have gone the way of Reddit, where any skepticism toward lockdowns is treated as conspiracy fringe thinking. I suppose it’s to be expected from a community that can work remotely, but as you said, it is extremely unscientific.
      - srean 5y ago
        Please don't post comments saying that HN is turning into Reddit. It's a semi-noob illusion, as old as the hills. From the guidelines https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
      - leereeves 5y ago
        The discussion on this topic here is just opinion and speculation, as are the votes. I think of the upvotes and downvotes in a discussion like this as nothing more than a poll of HN readers' opinions.
    - BoxOfRain 5y ago
      I think the difference is between people who see science as a process and people who see science as a priesthood. A true pro-science position is to follow the conclusions from scientific observations wherever they may lead however uncomfortable that may be. Someone who is not pro-science but merely adopting the aesthetic of science will claim "obey the science" as though it's a doctrine rather than simply a tool.
      - deregulateMed 5y ago
        I find that these people don't read studies but rather treat scientists as Science. Scientists are Authority, not science. It was mind boggling how many scientists made this mistake.
Jedd 5y ago
> Right, and the headline surely isn’t designed to make you think it’s from COVID... Is that an attempt at sarcasm, or are you pointing out that the headline doesn't make you think it's 'from COVID'? Because to my eyes, the headline very much describes a situation of excess deaths, including those indirectly attributable to COVID19.
- ceilingcorner 5y ago
  The average person looking at this headline will assume it means COVID caused 4 million deaths. There’s even a colon used, implying that the thing before the colon implies the thing after it. A less misleading headline would be something like: > 4 million excess deaths in India: caused by COVID or the response to COVID?
  - srean 5y ago
    Why stop there, why not add the full paraphernalia and their parents. The fine print towards the end of medicine advertisements make such great titles, dont you agree ? I have a strong suspicion that its only people reading the title in bad faith who will assume that the word 'caused' does not include all sorts of causations triggered by Covid, be it direct or indirect.
    - aww_dang 5y ago
      Starvation and supply chain issues are caused by the lockdowns. I'd say that the lockdowns are caused by politicians. It is a bit like, "why did you make me beat you?"
  - alexisread 5y ago
    The phrase 'response to COVID' is pretty much a dog whistle for conspiracy theorists. '4 million excess deaths in India: directly caused by COVID?' Would leave it less politicised. TBH I'm fine with the headline anyway.
    - mardifoufs 5y ago
BoxOfRain 5y ago
The behaviour of the press really has concerned me during the pandemic, I know yellow/tabloid journalism is nothing new but that kind of sensationalism on top of highly targeted social media is. I have no doubt the press as an industry is at least in part morally responsible for causing cases of intractable anxiety and depression in their customers. Media outlets have a Darwinian struggle for your attention and the emotions of fear, rage, and rushed judgement against your neighbours all produce incredible engagement metrics. Think of how many people came to watch public executions in the 19th century for example, we as humans eat that kind of thing up like a half-starved labrador. Since social media became widespread our society has possessed a well-oiled machine powered by human sentiment and the pandemic has filled that machine's fuel tank with liquid fear and suspicion. News sites don't exist to report the news, they exist to get your eyeballs on them whatever the cost and drive up their site traffic (in the case of most media outlets to serve more ads, in the case of the BBC it's an enormous part of the UK's soft power domestically and overseas). Think of how many inaccuracies, oversimplifications, and claiming that edge-cases are the norm goes on in the press when it comes to our industry, the tech industry. How many times do we read unsubstantiated bollocks even from supposedly reputable publications about AI or cybersecurity, roll our eyes at the obvious inaccuracies, and move on to the next article about COVID which we suddenly take at face value as though our last reaction never happened at all? The truth is usually messy, complicated, and with hundreds of asterisks; it often cannot be made concise or useful to get eyeballs on ads. It certainly can't be concisely summed up in a five-minute article or judged as a binary true or false by the likes of Mark Zuckerberg. That's not even mentioning the likes of the UK's SPI-B (a subcommittee of SAGE) which I think has acted very unethically in its approach of employing what in my opinion are abusive behavioural psychology tactics against the British population. The reliance on inducing fear among the general public to improve compliance statistics I think will be judged very harshly by future historians, and this deliberate emotional colouring of current affairs by public sector authorities won't just go away with the pandemic; a power once used is rarely given up voluntarily. The nice thing about conspiracy theories is that they give a feeling that at least somebody is in control however malevolent and that's actually a comforting thought to many, but I think the reality is that we've built an enormous machine that in an Asimov-esque way has run out of control doing exactly what we told it to do: optimise eyeballs on ads with engaging content. Nobody's really in control, and I think that's terrifying to a lot of people.
ekianjo 5y ago
It's the BBC. They love their clicks more than the truth.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

It's from the pandemic, excess death and "people are dying because they didn't get medical care for other things" has been a regular talking point, ... At least on HN, commenting on just some snap impression from the headline shouldn't quite cut it, commenting things the article already covers, and a large previous subthread already covers, doesn't really tell us anything new.

ceilingcorner 5y ago
No, they may not be “from the pandemic”, they may be from the actions taken in response to the pandemic. These aren’t the same things.
- detaro 5y ago
  Matter of perspective I guess. Deaths directly from COVID also depend on the actions taken in response to the pandemic, so in both cases they are (potentially avoidable) consequences of the pandemic and societies reaction to it.
  - ceilingcorner 5y ago
    No other cause of death is reported this way.
  - deregulateMed 5y ago
    This is irresponsible. Especially as policy decisions are made from it.
    - detaro 5y ago
      What's irresponsible is making policy decisions based on numbers that are clearly not useful for that purpose.
  - leereeves 5y ago
    > consequences of the pandemic and societies reaction to it But which? That's an extremely important distinction because the correct response might be further lockdowns or the exact opposite. Merely knowing there were four million excess deaths, while tragic and important information, is not a useful guide for the response.
    - detaro 5y ago
      Of course it's an extremely important question, if you can get data for it, awesome. Doesn't mean we shouldn't publish other numbers just because they are not useful to answer all questions - this is clearly labelled all-cause mortality estimated on extremely thin data. If you just take any random number you see and base your policy on that without context you'll always have problems.
      - leereeves 5y ago
        Who said we shouldn't publish that data? I agree with you that it should be published, and considered in context. And discussion about the effects of lockdowns on the supply chain is part of that context. The obvious inference many people will jump to is that the deaths are directly due to covid. It's important to remember there are other possible explanations.
        detaro 5y ago
        And all I objected to was the (perceived) claim that the article and existing discussion didn't acknowledge that, or that readers wouldn't be familiar with the idea.
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
- deregulateMed 5y ago
  I was literally flagged on HN last year from pointing out potential side effects of lockdowns. It was weird being pro science and seeing this turn political. It really showed which of my friends could think scientifically for themselves, and which repeated what authority said.
  - ceilingcorner 5y ago
    HN seems to have gone the way of Reddit, where any skepticism toward lockdowns is treated as conspiracy fringe thinking. I suppose it’s to be expected from a community that can work remotely, but as you said, it is extremely unscientific.
    - srean 5y ago
      Please don't post comments saying that HN is turning into Reddit. It's a semi-noob illusion, as old as the hills. From the guidelines https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - leereeves 5y ago
      The discussion on this topic here is just opinion and speculation, as are the votes. I think of the upvotes and downvotes in a discussion like this as nothing more than a poll of HN readers' opinions.
  - BoxOfRain 5y ago
    I think the difference is between people who see science as a process and people who see science as a priesthood. A true pro-science position is to follow the conclusions from scientific observations wherever they may lead however uncomfortable that may be. Someone who is not pro-science but merely adopting the aesthetic of science will claim "obey the science" as though it's a doctrine rather than simply a tool.
    - deregulateMed 5y ago
      I find that these people don't read studies but rather treat scientists as Science. Scientists are Authority, not science. It was mind boggling how many scientists made this mistake.

Jedd 5y ago

> Right, and the headline surely isn’t designed to make you think it’s from COVID... Is that an attempt at sarcasm, or are you pointing out that the headline doesn't make you think it's 'from COVID'? Because to my eyes, the headline very much describes a situation of excess deaths, including those indirectly attributable to COVID19.

ceilingcorner 5y ago
The average person looking at this headline will assume it means COVID caused 4 million deaths. There’s even a colon used, implying that the thing before the colon implies the thing after it. A less misleading headline would be something like: > 4 million excess deaths in India: caused by COVID or the response to COVID?
- srean 5y ago
  Why stop there, why not add the full paraphernalia and their parents. The fine print towards the end of medicine advertisements make such great titles, dont you agree ? I have a strong suspicion that its only people reading the title in bad faith who will assume that the word 'caused' does not include all sorts of causations triggered by Covid, be it direct or indirect.
  - aww_dang 5y ago
    Starvation and supply chain issues are caused by the lockdowns. I'd say that the lockdowns are caused by politicians. It is a bit like, "why did you make me beat you?"
- alexisread 5y ago
  The phrase 'response to COVID' is pretty much a dog whistle for conspiracy theorists. '4 million excess deaths in India: directly caused by COVID?' Would leave it less politicised. TBH I'm fine with the headline anyway.
  - mardifoufs 5y ago

BoxOfRain 5y ago

The behaviour of the press really has concerned me during the pandemic, I know yellow/tabloid journalism is nothing new but that kind of sensationalism on top of highly targeted social media is. I have no doubt the press as an industry is at least in part morally responsible for causing cases of intractable anxiety and depression in their customers. Media outlets have a Darwinian struggle for your attention and the emotions of fear, rage, and rushed judgement against your neighbours all produce incredible engagement metrics. Think of how many people came to watch public executions in the 19th century for example, we as humans eat that kind of thing up like a half-starved labrador. Since social media became widespread our society has possessed a well-oiled machine powered by human sentiment and the pandemic has filled that machine's fuel tank with liquid fear and suspicion. News sites don't exist to report the news, they exist to get your eyeballs on them whatever the cost and drive up their site traffic (in the case of most media outlets to serve more ads, in the case of the BBC it's an enormous part of the UK's soft power domestically and overseas). Think of how many inaccuracies, oversimplifications, and claiming that edge-cases are the norm goes on in the press when it comes to our industry, the tech industry. How many times do we read unsubstantiated bollocks even from supposedly reputable publications about AI or cybersecurity, roll our eyes at the obvious inaccuracies, and move on to the next article about COVID which we suddenly take at face value as though our last reaction never happened at all? The truth is usually messy, complicated, and with hundreds of asterisks; it often cannot be made concise or useful to get eyeballs on ads. It certainly can't be concisely summed up in a five-minute article or judged as a binary true or false by the likes of Mark Zuckerberg. That's not even mentioning the likes of the UK's SPI-B (a subcommittee of SAGE) which I think has acted very unethically in its approach of employing what in my opinion are abusive behavioural psychology tactics against the British population. The reliance on inducing fear among the general public to improve compliance statistics I think will be judged very harshly by future historians, and this deliberate emotional colouring of current affairs by public sector authorities won't just go away with the pandemic; a power once used is rarely given up voluntarily. The nice thing about conspiracy theories is that they give a feeling that at least somebody is in control however malevolent and that's actually a comforting thought to many, but I think the reality is that we've built an enormous machine that in an Asimov-esque way has run out of control doing exactly what we told it to do: optimise eyeballs on ads with engaging content. Nobody's really in control, and I think that's terrifying to a lot of people.

ekianjo 5y ago

It's the BBC. They love their clicks more than the truth.