5 ms·

It's a pandemic. We're in a Public Health Crisis in which 700 000 people have died. We have medicine to give people which is safe, and almost guarantees they wo

It's a pandemic. We're in a Public Health Crisis in which 700 000 people have died. We have medicine to give people which is safe, and almost guarantees they won't die, and material chunk of the population won't believe it, due to information like this. I have 0 problem whatsoever with large, public information clearing houses suppressing anything that is counter factual during the emergency. If they were taking down information about a doctor challenging Health Authorities in a very Scientific manner, that would be something else. And of course, we have to make sure that we do come out of this 'crisis' and that institutions don't use it as a means for perennial control, but I'm not really worried about that. We're all sick of this and as COVID passes out of reality, people just won't care what people have to say about it, just like any other mundane subject. So once COVID has passed, we can sing dumb songs about dumb things, if they take them down then, I suggest that would amount to undue censorship.

_fat_santa 5y ago
> I have 0 problem whatsoever with large, public information clearing houses suppressing anything that is counter factual during the emergency. That's precisely the problem though. The rule at Youtube is any content that goes against CDC/WHO guidelines is considered "misinformation". So to your point: > If they were taking down information about a doctor challenging Health Authorities in a very Scientific manner, that would be something else. Yeah unless that doctor comes to the exact same conclusion as the CDC, and parrots the exact same info, that doctor is spreading misinformation according to Youtube. I've even seen instances where the CDC would say something, Youtuber would cover it, the next week the CDC reverses that policy and Youtube will hit the Youtuber for "misinformation".
- jollybean 5y ago
  The WHO/CDC positions are consistent with the prevailing science. If someone went on YouTube to articulate the current scientific consensus of Ivermectin, which is that "There is no evidence to support it as a therapy for COVID, but that there are currently studies in progress which could yield important information, and in the meantime, people should definitely not be taking it as it can be dangerous unless administered by Health professionals" - I'm doubtful such a video would be taken down. Anyone talking about COVID 'cures' in public forums for which there is no scientific consensus, during a pandemic, should definitely come under heavy scrutiny.
  - zionic 5y ago
    > The WHO/CDC positions are consistent with the prevailing science. Aren’t these the organizations that lied to the public in March 2020, saying masks were not effective? They later justified their deception, at the cost of how many lives (?), by suggesting it was to prevent a shortage of masks for medical personnel. These organizations are not promoting the science to shape policy, they’re promoting policy with filtered science.
    - henrikschroder 5y ago
      > Aren’t these the organizations that lied to the public in March 2020, saying masks were not effective? A simpler explanation, that is consistent with data, is that community masking was never very effective, and that the current mask guidelines are 100% about politics and signaling.
      - jollybean 5y ago
        The notion that 7 Billion people in the world are living under a 'Mask Policy' which have no material value, but exists only for the purposes of 'signalling' is conspiratorial nonsense. At the start of the pandemic, the efficacy of masks in the commons was still debatable, more so than is now. Public Health Policy issues around getting 100's of millions of Westerners, not acclimated to wearing masks (as they are in some Asian countries), was a daunting concern, as we can see with all the anti-mask idiots even to this day. N95s in particular were acutely necessary in Healthcare settings and the supply chains from China towards the start of the pandemic in the US were not quite ramped-up, and were just becoming secure by the time the CDC switched to a pro-mask footing. Otherwise, any call by the CDC for 350M Americans to 'wear masks' would have likely overran the Healthcare supply chain. As the availability of PPE to Healthcare became secure, as Asian health officials urged Westerners to adopt mask policies, as we understand a bit more about masks, the policy shifted towards mask wearing. Obviously, masks are a marginal tactic in the fight against COVID, but there is a systematic benefit, especially over 350M people million people, wearing them when they are interacting wit others. If there is ambiguity in their efficacy, it's rational to err on the side of caution, not the other way. Because we are 'going with the policy' then it has to be supported and enforced, like anything else.
hihihihi1234 5y ago
> If they were taking down information about a doctor challenging Health Authorities in a very Scientific manner, that would be something else. YouTube has already done exactly this: https://www.wsj.com/articles/youtube-cancels-the-u-s-senate-11612288061 https://www.wsj.com/articles/youtube-cancels-the-u-s-senate-...
- robbrown451 5y ago
  In that video, Pierre Kory uses his credibility as a medical doctor, to claim "mountains of data have emerged from all, from many centers and countries around the world, showing the miraculous effectiveness of ivermectin. It basically obliterates transmission of this virus. If you take it, you will not get sick." Later, Pierre Kory himself contracted Covid, from his daughter. Both of them had been on Ivermectin, obviously. He doesn't mention this publicly. Only thanks to someone who was watching closely do we now have proof this even happened. So no, this isn't "in a very scientific manner." He creates a good illusion of being scientific, but he's not. These are dangerous falsehoods, that are used by millions as part of their justification for not getting vaccinated, which allows the virus to continue spreading. YouTube isn't perfect, but they are making an attempt to compensate for all the lies that are spread on their platform and others. This is important during a crisis that has already killed 700,000 Americans. I get the "freedom of speech" thing, I really do. But Americans are still dying at a rate of 2 fully loaded 747s a day crashing, and YouTube would prefer not be contributing to that. So I support YouTube's decision on that one.
- jollybean 5y ago
  If YouTube did take down such information, then I would be inclined to agree they made a mistake. But the example you gave doesn't help make your case, just the opposite, Dr. Kory's information indicating that Ivermectin is helpful in treating COVID is not scientific and the net result of his communication is de facto misinformation, and can definitely cause harm. If this Doctor wants to put information up on his own, personal website, that's a different story. He's free to do that. YouTube has no obligation to carry those videos. His liberties are not infringed.
GauntletWizard 5y ago
What is your opinion on Dr Li Wenliang, who publically contradicted official health guidelines that they were certain that there was no new SARS variant spreading in Wuhan and encouraging mask usage was spreading a public panic?
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
JPKab 5y ago
The assumption that material like this is the reason people don't believe the government is just that: an assumption. What evidence do you have that this is what drives people to not believe the things the public health establishment wants them to believe? You don't have any evidence because it's not possible to prove this. I should also point out that you have misinformation in your statement. You are stating that covid will eventually pass. This virus is now endemic and is not going to go away. You do realize this, right? The vaccine is very effective in minimizing the risk of hospitalization and/or death but it is a leaky vaccine. Leaky vaccines will never eradicate any virus and instead will simply promote various mutations. Blame unvaccinated people for many things but you can't blame them for the persistence of this virus. It's not going to go away.
- jollybean 5y ago
  It's false to suggest that we can't develop an understanding of how people arrive at their conclusions. If you work in the field of Marketing, PR or Communications for just a few days, it becomes pretty clear how people come to believe what they do. What is 'impossible' - is for a material portion of the population to arrive at the specific conclusion that 'XYZ drug is beneficial for ABC disease' without having popular sources for that information: they have to hear it or read it somewhere. The greater the voice, the greater the credibility of the source in the mind of the recipient, the greater the likelihood that information becomes sticky. While there are other factors, the primary vehicle of the message is paramount. It's also measurable. In fact it is your statement that miscommunicates the ongoing nature of the pandemic: While COVID may linger for some time, there is no evidence as of yet that it will remain endemic - we don't know that. Also - pandemic itself will definitely pass - as all pandemics in history. COVID may or may not linger around in one form or another, but we will, at some point, back off from public health emergency status.

_fat_santa 5y ago

> I have 0 problem whatsoever with large, public information clearing houses suppressing anything that is counter factual during the emergency. That's precisely the problem though. The rule at Youtube is any content that goes against CDC/WHO guidelines is considered "misinformation". So to your point: > If they were taking down information about a doctor challenging Health Authorities in a very Scientific manner, that would be something else. Yeah unless that doctor comes to the exact same conclusion as the CDC, and parrots the exact same info, that doctor is spreading misinformation according to Youtube. I've even seen instances where the CDC would say something, Youtuber would cover it, the next week the CDC reverses that policy and Youtube will hit the Youtuber for "misinformation".

jollybean 5y ago
The WHO/CDC positions are consistent with the prevailing science. If someone went on YouTube to articulate the current scientific consensus of Ivermectin, which is that "There is no evidence to support it as a therapy for COVID, but that there are currently studies in progress which could yield important information, and in the meantime, people should definitely not be taking it as it can be dangerous unless administered by Health professionals" - I'm doubtful such a video would be taken down. Anyone talking about COVID 'cures' in public forums for which there is no scientific consensus, during a pandemic, should definitely come under heavy scrutiny.
- zionic 5y ago
  > The WHO/CDC positions are consistent with the prevailing science. Aren’t these the organizations that lied to the public in March 2020, saying masks were not effective? They later justified their deception, at the cost of how many lives (?), by suggesting it was to prevent a shortage of masks for medical personnel. These organizations are not promoting the science to shape policy, they’re promoting policy with filtered science.
  - henrikschroder 5y ago
    > Aren’t these the organizations that lied to the public in March 2020, saying masks were not effective? A simpler explanation, that is consistent with data, is that community masking was never very effective, and that the current mask guidelines are 100% about politics and signaling.
    - jollybean 5y ago
      The notion that 7 Billion people in the world are living under a 'Mask Policy' which have no material value, but exists only for the purposes of 'signalling' is conspiratorial nonsense. At the start of the pandemic, the efficacy of masks in the commons was still debatable, more so than is now. Public Health Policy issues around getting 100's of millions of Westerners, not acclimated to wearing masks (as they are in some Asian countries), was a daunting concern, as we can see with all the anti-mask idiots even to this day. N95s in particular were acutely necessary in Healthcare settings and the supply chains from China towards the start of the pandemic in the US were not quite ramped-up, and were just becoming secure by the time the CDC switched to a pro-mask footing. Otherwise, any call by the CDC for 350M Americans to 'wear masks' would have likely overran the Healthcare supply chain. As the availability of PPE to Healthcare became secure, as Asian health officials urged Westerners to adopt mask policies, as we understand a bit more about masks, the policy shifted towards mask wearing. Obviously, masks are a marginal tactic in the fight against COVID, but there is a systematic benefit, especially over 350M people million people, wearing them when they are interacting wit others. If there is ambiguity in their efficacy, it's rational to err on the side of caution, not the other way. Because we are 'going with the policy' then it has to be supported and enforced, like anything else.

hihihihi1234 5y ago

> If they were taking down information about a doctor challenging Health Authorities in a very Scientific manner, that would be something else. YouTube has already done exactly this: https://www.wsj.com/articles/youtube-cancels-the-u-s-senate-11612288061 https://www.wsj.com/articles/youtube-cancels-the-u-s-senate-...

robbrown451 5y ago
In that video, Pierre Kory uses his credibility as a medical doctor, to claim "mountains of data have emerged from all, from many centers and countries around the world, showing the miraculous effectiveness of ivermectin. It basically obliterates transmission of this virus. If you take it, you will not get sick." Later, Pierre Kory himself contracted Covid, from his daughter. Both of them had been on Ivermectin, obviously. He doesn't mention this publicly. Only thanks to someone who was watching closely do we now have proof this even happened. So no, this isn't "in a very scientific manner." He creates a good illusion of being scientific, but he's not. These are dangerous falsehoods, that are used by millions as part of their justification for not getting vaccinated, which allows the virus to continue spreading. YouTube isn't perfect, but they are making an attempt to compensate for all the lies that are spread on their platform and others. This is important during a crisis that has already killed 700,000 Americans. I get the "freedom of speech" thing, I really do. But Americans are still dying at a rate of 2 fully loaded 747s a day crashing, and YouTube would prefer not be contributing to that. So I support YouTube's decision on that one.
jollybean 5y ago
If YouTube did take down such information, then I would be inclined to agree they made a mistake. But the example you gave doesn't help make your case, just the opposite, Dr. Kory's information indicating that Ivermectin is helpful in treating COVID is not scientific and the net result of his communication is de facto misinformation, and can definitely cause harm. If this Doctor wants to put information up on his own, personal website, that's a different story. He's free to do that. YouTube has no obligation to carry those videos. His liberties are not infringed.

GauntletWizard 5y ago

What is your opinion on Dr Li Wenliang, who publically contradicted official health guidelines that they were certain that there was no new SARS variant spreading in Wuhan and encouraging mask usage was spreading a public panic?

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

JPKab 5y ago

The assumption that material like this is the reason people don't believe the government is just that: an assumption. What evidence do you have that this is what drives people to not believe the things the public health establishment wants them to believe? You don't have any evidence because it's not possible to prove this. I should also point out that you have misinformation in your statement. You are stating that covid will eventually pass. This virus is now endemic and is not going to go away. You do realize this, right? The vaccine is very effective in minimizing the risk of hospitalization and/or death but it is a leaky vaccine. Leaky vaccines will never eradicate any virus and instead will simply promote various mutations. Blame unvaccinated people for many things but you can't blame them for the persistence of this virus. It's not going to go away.

jollybean 5y ago
It's false to suggest that we can't develop an understanding of how people arrive at their conclusions. If you work in the field of Marketing, PR or Communications for just a few days, it becomes pretty clear how people come to believe what they do. What is 'impossible' - is for a material portion of the population to arrive at the specific conclusion that 'XYZ drug is beneficial for ABC disease' without having popular sources for that information: they have to hear it or read it somewhere. The greater the voice, the greater the credibility of the source in the mind of the recipient, the greater the likelihood that information becomes sticky. While there are other factors, the primary vehicle of the message is paramount. It's also measurable. In fact it is your statement that miscommunicates the ongoing nature of the pandemic: While COVID may linger for some time, there is no evidence as of yet that it will remain endemic - we don't know that. Also - pandemic itself will definitely pass - as all pandemics in history. COVID may or may not linger around in one form or another, but we will, at some point, back off from public health emergency status.