10 ms·

For whom do the Covid “fact checkers” work?

55 points by missinfo 5y ago

joelbondurant 5y ago
The USA Fact-Check Algorithm from the Science Ministry is the canonical arbiter of truth.
nyxaiur 5y ago
Yeah, after the 6th spelling mistake in the first three paragraphs and checking the writers credentials further than the nice looking bio at the bottom I would flag it if I could.
- zeruch 5y ago
  Even if I didnt know already that Brownstone is more akin to Clownstone (really, its founder is someone Ayn Rand might have an onanistic seizure for, with all the self-righteous dweebishness that implies) and I'm pretty sure editing is one of the last things that it cares about, as long as its anti-mask, anti-vax, anti governments of any kind schtick is maintained.
- d1a2n 5y ago
  I just skimmed the first several paragraphs and the only spelling mistake is "no where" instead of "nowhere". Though if imaginary spelling mistakes help you believe in the obvious BS coming out of the CDC and if that's necessary for your sanity, let's call it 6 mistakes.
  - nyxaiur 5y ago
    That's not the burn you want it to be lol.
weakfish 5y ago
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/brownstone-institute-bias/ https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/brownstone-institute-bias/
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- defaultprimate 5y ago
  The juxtaposition of this comment on this post is hilarious
- sdoering 5y ago
  > Overall, we rate the Brownstone Institute Right Biased based on editorial positions that favor a conservative-libertarian perspective. We also rate them Mixed for factual reporting due to a failed fact check and the promotion of misinformation regarding Covid-19. Just to spare others the click.
charbonneau2 5y ago
> The data in support of this is massive, and quite certain. Continues without providing data.
- ziml77 5y ago
  Because it's just a blog site for people frustrated by the lockdowns with a fancy sounding name.
  - zeruch 5y ago
    It's a bit worse than that. Its the Brownstone "Institute", basically a front for 'anarcho-capitalist' (read: wannabe Peter Thiel on steroids and bitcoin) Jeffrey Tucker. It's buffoonish, but easy to spot.
- xyzzy21 5y ago
  If there is no data provided, this is 100% true.
quitit 5y ago
For the author: The solution is to ask for their sources - not to speculate that it’s all a sham (while conveniently also not providing any data to back up such a claim.) Meanwhile a single search pulls a possible source for the 80% figure: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-briefs/masking-science-sars-cov2.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-br... But talking about that source is inconvenient to the author because it provides ample support over a range of real world and laboratory studies (with both types demonstrating the 80% figure) But even without looking deeply into this - what motive would the CDC have for making everyone run around in little fabric masks versus the very well known disinformation efforts. At this stage of the pandemic: the science is abundantly clear - masks work.
- xkbarkar 5y ago
  Right. Did you even read the “source” you provided? Anyone who uses the 2 infected hairdressers as proof masks work has lost all credibility. Its the kind of scientism that thrives on social media. You do realize that half of the supposedly covid free clientel declined a pcr test? They just said they felt fine. I would not have gotten a passing grade in high scool if I had turned that paper in as proof of masking. Since 2020 any crap, no matter how idiotic, as long as it supports masking, is passed off as science. Some days reddit clearly leaks into HN.
  - atoav 5y ago
    Sorry but masks are not a very disputes issue anymore. I mean it is a airborne virus, how other than filtering air you breath in and out would you practically target it? Weirdly enough nobody seems to doubt HEPA filters work. Maybe because they are more convenient and don't demand that you wear a piece of cloth in your face?
    - tinus_hn 5y ago
      Gee, why would a filter designed and proven to filter certain particles work, and a piece of cloth designed to be clothing not work? It must be an anti mask conspiracy!
ergocoder 5y ago
I have no idea what to believe anymore. Vaccine prevents covid (e.g. death and major injury). Somehow vaccinated people are scared of unvaccinated or vaccinated-but-unmasked people. Huh? Then, all schools in US are open to kids who cannot even be vaccinated (this is since a few months back). If you point that out, people will counter back with covid doesn't impact kids. Well, okay? We try too hard to use unvaccinated as a scapegoat of the bad crisis management. Do you remember how Fauci undermined all masks in the beginning? I do. Fauci still try to pin it on unvaccinated when schools are still open..
- schwartzworld 5y ago
  > Somehow vaccinated people are scared of unvaccinated or vaccinated-but-unmasked people I can't speak for everyone, but even with a vaccine I can still transmit covid to my young children. I'll breathe easier once they are vaccinated too. > Then, all schools in US are open to kids who cannot even be vaccinated There are other factors besides COVID. Quarantine was not good for our kids, and we made the decision to send them back too school when we saw how much they were suffering due to lack of socialization. Additionally, working with kids at home was next to impossible. We are taking a calculated risk sending them back because the bills, unfortunately, do not pay themselves. It was not an easy decision.
  - ergocoder 5y ago
    We are comparing that with kids dying from covid or having long covid, right? I suppose dead kids is cheaper than working with kids at home. That is an absurd decision.
    - nuerow 5y ago
      > That is an absurd decision. Your decision is absurd because that was exactly why you chose to set your strawman like that. If you take a step back and force yourself to take a honest and reasonable look at what the OP really said, you'll quickly understand that all caring parents, even when considering that the average children's risk of serious illness is relatively low, do have a high risk aversion regarding their well-being. Therefore, they breathe easier if their kids' immune system is well trained and prepared to handle an infection, which is precisely what you get when you're vaccinated.
calmworm 5y ago
Why is this on HN? Meh.
- footlose_3815 5y ago
  [flagged]
thrashh 5y ago
Every time these kind of articles come up, either from people for or against the mandates or vaccines, I want to remind everyone that you judge veracity by considering the circumstances of the source, never the source itself. The exact same words coming from someone working for a cigarette company versus someone working for a renowned research institution cannot be construed in the same way, even if they are the exact same person at two points in time. Even if they do work for a cigarette company or a research institution, they also have their own biases separate from the organization that they work for. Their title is only a minor consideration.
- xyzzy21 5y ago
  Honestly resorting to authority is not that different from listening to an organization with a profit motive to lie.
- t0bia_s 5y ago
  Yes, we should ask basic questions as "How many people do you know personally that was healthy and suddenly die for virus with uknown origin?" or "How many people do you know personally that died or has serious side effects from vaccines?" We shouldn't let media and data etc. think for ourselves.
byhemechi 5y ago
> Republished from the author’s blog. Sums up the quality of the "article" pretty well

55 points by missinfo 5y ago

The USA Fact-Check Algorithm from the Science Ministry is the canonical arbiter of truth.

Yeah, after the 6th spelling mistake in the first three paragraphs and checking the writers credentials further than the nice looking bio at the bottom I would flag it if I could.

zeruch 5y ago
Even if I didnt know already that Brownstone is more akin to Clownstone (really, its founder is someone Ayn Rand might have an onanistic seizure for, with all the self-righteous dweebishness that implies) and I'm pretty sure editing is one of the last things that it cares about, as long as its anti-mask, anti-vax, anti governments of any kind schtick is maintained.
d1a2n 5y ago
I just skimmed the first several paragraphs and the only spelling mistake is "no where" instead of "nowhere". Though if imaginary spelling mistakes help you believe in the obvious BS coming out of the CDC and if that's necessary for your sanity, let's call it 6 mistakes.
- nyxaiur 5y ago
  That's not the burn you want it to be lol.

weakfish 5y ago

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/brownstone-institute-bias/ https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/brownstone-institute-bias/

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
defaultprimate 5y ago
The juxtaposition of this comment on this post is hilarious
sdoering 5y ago
> Overall, we rate the Brownstone Institute Right Biased based on editorial positions that favor a conservative-libertarian perspective. We also rate them Mixed for factual reporting due to a failed fact check and the promotion of misinformation regarding Covid-19. Just to spare others the click.

charbonneau2 5y ago

> The data in support of this is massive, and quite certain. Continues without providing data.

ziml77 5y ago
Because it's just a blog site for people frustrated by the lockdowns with a fancy sounding name.
- zeruch 5y ago
  It's a bit worse than that. Its the Brownstone "Institute", basically a front for 'anarcho-capitalist' (read: wannabe Peter Thiel on steroids and bitcoin) Jeffrey Tucker. It's buffoonish, but easy to spot.
xyzzy21 5y ago
If there is no data provided, this is 100% true.

quitit 5y ago

For the author: The solution is to ask for their sources - not to speculate that it’s all a sham (while conveniently also not providing any data to back up such a claim.) Meanwhile a single search pulls a possible source for the 80% figure: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-briefs/masking-science-sars-cov2.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-br... But talking about that source is inconvenient to the author because it provides ample support over a range of real world and laboratory studies (with both types demonstrating the 80% figure) But even without looking deeply into this - what motive would the CDC have for making everyone run around in little fabric masks versus the very well known disinformation efforts. At this stage of the pandemic: the science is abundantly clear - masks work.

xkbarkar 5y ago
Right. Did you even read the “source” you provided? Anyone who uses the 2 infected hairdressers as proof masks work has lost all credibility. Its the kind of scientism that thrives on social media. You do realize that half of the supposedly covid free clientel declined a pcr test? They just said they felt fine. I would not have gotten a passing grade in high scool if I had turned that paper in as proof of masking. Since 2020 any crap, no matter how idiotic, as long as it supports masking, is passed off as science. Some days reddit clearly leaks into HN.
- atoav 5y ago
  Sorry but masks are not a very disputes issue anymore. I mean it is a airborne virus, how other than filtering air you breath in and out would you practically target it? Weirdly enough nobody seems to doubt HEPA filters work. Maybe because they are more convenient and don't demand that you wear a piece of cloth in your face?
  - tinus_hn 5y ago
    Gee, why would a filter designed and proven to filter certain particles work, and a piece of cloth designed to be clothing not work? It must be an anti mask conspiracy!

ergocoder 5y ago

I have no idea what to believe anymore. Vaccine prevents covid (e.g. death and major injury). Somehow vaccinated people are scared of unvaccinated or vaccinated-but-unmasked people. Huh? Then, all schools in US are open to kids who cannot even be vaccinated (this is since a few months back). If you point that out, people will counter back with covid doesn't impact kids. Well, okay? We try too hard to use unvaccinated as a scapegoat of the bad crisis management. Do you remember how Fauci undermined all masks in the beginning? I do. Fauci still try to pin it on unvaccinated when schools are still open..

schwartzworld 5y ago
> Somehow vaccinated people are scared of unvaccinated or vaccinated-but-unmasked people I can't speak for everyone, but even with a vaccine I can still transmit covid to my young children. I'll breathe easier once they are vaccinated too. > Then, all schools in US are open to kids who cannot even be vaccinated There are other factors besides COVID. Quarantine was not good for our kids, and we made the decision to send them back too school when we saw how much they were suffering due to lack of socialization. Additionally, working with kids at home was next to impossible. We are taking a calculated risk sending them back because the bills, unfortunately, do not pay themselves. It was not an easy decision.
- ergocoder 5y ago
  We are comparing that with kids dying from covid or having long covid, right? I suppose dead kids is cheaper than working with kids at home. That is an absurd decision.
  - nuerow 5y ago
    > That is an absurd decision. Your decision is absurd because that was exactly why you chose to set your strawman like that. If you take a step back and force yourself to take a honest and reasonable look at what the OP really said, you'll quickly understand that all caring parents, even when considering that the average children's risk of serious illness is relatively low, do have a high risk aversion regarding their well-being. Therefore, they breathe easier if their kids' immune system is well trained and prepared to handle an infection, which is precisely what you get when you're vaccinated.

calmworm 5y ago

Why is this on HN? Meh.

footlose_3815 5y ago
[flagged]

thrashh 5y ago

Every time these kind of articles come up, either from people for or against the mandates or vaccines, I want to remind everyone that you judge veracity by considering the circumstances of the source, never the source itself. The exact same words coming from someone working for a cigarette company versus someone working for a renowned research institution cannot be construed in the same way, even if they are the exact same person at two points in time. Even if they do work for a cigarette company or a research institution, they also have their own biases separate from the organization that they work for. Their title is only a minor consideration.

xyzzy21 5y ago
Honestly resorting to authority is not that different from listening to an organization with a profit motive to lie.
t0bia_s 5y ago
Yes, we should ask basic questions as "How many people do you know personally that was healthy and suddenly die for virus with uknown origin?" or "How many people do you know personally that died or has serious side effects from vaccines?" We shouldn't let media and data etc. think for ourselves.

byhemechi 5y ago

> Republished from the author’s blog. Sums up the quality of the "article" pretty well