3 ms·

People were censored and deplatformed for being more correct than the public health experts.

by kodyo 4y ago

epgui 4y ago
You'll have to provide examples of this, because I don't think that's clear and obvious.
- kodyo 4y ago
  Journalist Alex Berenson was banned from Twitter for saying the covid vaccines don’t prevent infection or transmission. He was correct.
  - epgui 4y ago
    Except that's not exactly true either, depending on how you look at it. At the population-scale, they do prevent infection and transmission, and they prevent it very very well. This particular individual has said many other things during and about the pandemic, and this was part of a much broader line of messaging that was, broadly speaking, both incorrect and harmful. (I'm a biochemist, and immunology and extracellular vesicles are my areas of expertise. No conflict of interest.)
    - kodyo 4y ago
      Alright we’ll I’m opposed to censorship over pissy word-mincing. He wasn’t wrong.
    - junofan 4y ago
      People say dumb and destructive stuff about my area of expertise too. I don’t think they should be silenced.
      - epgui 4y ago
        Does it spread like wildfire and cause people to lose their lives in a way that could totally be prevented? (What field?)
        junofan 4y ago
        Yep. Finance. Resource allocation has life-or-death impact. Whether your immunology research finds applications, a hospital gets acquired instead of wound down, or an N95 factory gets built can be a few parameters pushed through a model. Parameters dictated by sentiment.
        jsnk 4y ago
        I think the world could benefit immensely from banning some mainstream publications that ferment hatred, instill unjustified fear, destroy innocent people by labeling them with unspeakable labels. Their narratives for decades have destroyed nations, killed millions of people and locked the entire world down for 2 years. Do I still think they should still be able to have an outlet? Yes, I do. Just like every other publications, individuals and outlets banned by Twitter, FB, and Youtube.
    - pessimizer 4y ago
      > this was part of a much broader line of messaging When you start to do this, you've drifted into censoring people rather than misinformation. You can't censor things that are true for fear that they'll embolden forces that you are against. Well you can, but that's a dictatorship.
  - deathanatos 4y ago
    I'll replicate the tweet, since I think it's useful when discussing these matters: > It doesn't stop infection. Or transmission. Don't think of it as a vaccine. Think of it - at best - as a therapeutic with a limited window of efficacy and terrible side effect profile that must be dosed IN ADVANCE OF ILLNESS. And we want to mandate it? Insanity, "Don't think of it as a vaccine" is trivially false, as it is literally a vaccine. "terrible side effect profile" is false: we now have data that shows at population-scale the vaccine was overwhelmingly effective with minimal side-effects. (We knew that before then, too; anyone looking at the efficacy rates knew it before it hit the gen pop.) "that must be dosed IN ADVANCE OF ILLNESS": that's how nearly all vaccines work, yes. Your body can't really fight an infection with the effects of the vaccine that it hasn't had the time to produce the corresponding antibodies for. (AIUI, rabies is the exception to this, where you can be vaccinated after infection, but that's due to rabies being a very slow moving infection.) "It doesn't stop infection. Or transmission." And the rest of the tweet is just misleading: nothing is guaranteed in life, but we can look at the probabilities and risks associated with and without the vaccine and know which choice has a lower risk profile, and make a sane recommendation based on that. Wearing your seat belt can't stop death in a car accident, but it is still a good idea. Tweets like these very likely drove people to not get vaccinated, leading to either them dying, or them passing it on to someone who did. Using some small technicalities around things that cannot be guaranteed not being guaranteed to try to push a bad policy and decision making is not "correct". The evaluation of risk here in the tweet is absurdly bad. Whether Twitter should be forced to promulgate such idiocy is a conversation that's been had many times since on HN, but it is idiocy.
    - epgui 4y ago
      Thank you, I tried looking for the original tweet but with less success. I agree with your comment.
- ipaddr 4y ago
  Lets go down memory lane. So soon we forgot the original whistleblower who shared the news of covid to the west and then China censored him.. Many doctors/nurse personnel had medical licenses removed because they spoke against the narrative. Doctors with 30 / 40 years experience being told if you don't parrot what we are saying we are going to make a case that will remove your doctor title. Now we can say 99% of doctor support this.. It was sad seeing doctors twist the truth on tv. As the virus changed trying to stick to the narrative became more difficult.
  - epgui 4y ago
    Apart from the issue with China's control of information, I don't think we have the same memory. That last paragraph does not match what I saw in most of the world. In particular, this perspective does not really match what happened in Canada, the US, or Europe, at least not in the way I think you are suggesting.
    - ipaddr 4y ago
      Here are the Canadian examples. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thestar.com/amp/news/canada/2022/05/03/ontario-doctor-accused-of-disgraceful-covid-conduct-gets-suspended.html https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thestar.com/amp/news/canada... https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbc.ca/amp/1.6440227 https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbc.ca/amp/1.6440227 4 doctors landmark hearing https://www.google.com/amp/s/globalnews.ca/news/8517353/canada-doctors-covid-vaccine-disinformation/amp/ https://www.google.com/amp/s/globalnews.ca/news/8517353/cana...
      - epgui 4y ago
        This is the system working as it should. When you are a physician, you have an incredibly high burden of care towards your patients, and you have an ethical and a deontological obligation (in some cases a legal one, though doctors do have a lot of leeway, for patient-centred care, in Canada) to give them the highest standard of care. As far as I can tell, these are all examples of serious breaches of this duty. These physicians didn't just accidentally cross some fuzzy line, or slip off a tight rope. They were way off in their conduct. Heck, with the exception of one, they apparently didn't even show up in court. In all of the above cases, it is the public and the patients who are being protected.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

People were censored and deplatformed for being more correct than the public health experts.

by kodyo 4y ago

People were censored and deplatformed for being more correct than the public health experts.

epgui 4y ago

You'll have to provide examples of this, because I don't think that's clear and obvious.

kodyo 4y ago
Journalist Alex Berenson was banned from Twitter for saying the covid vaccines don’t prevent infection or transmission. He was correct.
- epgui 4y ago
  Except that's not exactly true either, depending on how you look at it. At the population-scale, they do prevent infection and transmission, and they prevent it very very well. This particular individual has said many other things during and about the pandemic, and this was part of a much broader line of messaging that was, broadly speaking, both incorrect and harmful. (I'm a biochemist, and immunology and extracellular vesicles are my areas of expertise. No conflict of interest.)
  - kodyo 4y ago
    Alright we’ll I’m opposed to censorship over pissy word-mincing. He wasn’t wrong.
  - junofan 4y ago
    People say dumb and destructive stuff about my area of expertise too. I don’t think they should be silenced.
    - epgui 4y ago
      Does it spread like wildfire and cause people to lose their lives in a way that could totally be prevented? (What field?)
      - junofan 4y ago
        Yep. Finance. Resource allocation has life-or-death impact. Whether your immunology research finds applications, a hospital gets acquired instead of wound down, or an N95 factory gets built can be a few parameters pushed through a model. Parameters dictated by sentiment.
      - jsnk 4y ago
        I think the world could benefit immensely from banning some mainstream publications that ferment hatred, instill unjustified fear, destroy innocent people by labeling them with unspeakable labels. Their narratives for decades have destroyed nations, killed millions of people and locked the entire world down for 2 years. Do I still think they should still be able to have an outlet? Yes, I do. Just like every other publications, individuals and outlets banned by Twitter, FB, and Youtube.
  - pessimizer 4y ago
    > this was part of a much broader line of messaging When you start to do this, you've drifted into censoring people rather than misinformation. You can't censor things that are true for fear that they'll embolden forces that you are against. Well you can, but that's a dictatorship.
- deathanatos 4y ago
  I'll replicate the tweet, since I think it's useful when discussing these matters: > It doesn't stop infection. Or transmission. Don't think of it as a vaccine. Think of it - at best - as a therapeutic with a limited window of efficacy and terrible side effect profile that must be dosed IN ADVANCE OF ILLNESS. And we want to mandate it? Insanity, "Don't think of it as a vaccine" is trivially false, as it is literally a vaccine. "terrible side effect profile" is false: we now have data that shows at population-scale the vaccine was overwhelmingly effective with minimal side-effects. (We knew that before then, too; anyone looking at the efficacy rates knew it before it hit the gen pop.) "that must be dosed IN ADVANCE OF ILLNESS": that's how nearly all vaccines work, yes. Your body can't really fight an infection with the effects of the vaccine that it hasn't had the time to produce the corresponding antibodies for. (AIUI, rabies is the exception to this, where you can be vaccinated after infection, but that's due to rabies being a very slow moving infection.) "It doesn't stop infection. Or transmission." And the rest of the tweet is just misleading: nothing is guaranteed in life, but we can look at the probabilities and risks associated with and without the vaccine and know which choice has a lower risk profile, and make a sane recommendation based on that. Wearing your seat belt can't stop death in a car accident, but it is still a good idea. Tweets like these very likely drove people to not get vaccinated, leading to either them dying, or them passing it on to someone who did. Using some small technicalities around things that cannot be guaranteed not being guaranteed to try to push a bad policy and decision making is not "correct". The evaluation of risk here in the tweet is absurdly bad. Whether Twitter should be forced to promulgate such idiocy is a conversation that's been had many times since on HN, but it is idiocy.
  - epgui 4y ago
    Thank you, I tried looking for the original tweet but with less success. I agree with your comment.
ipaddr 4y ago
Lets go down memory lane. So soon we forgot the original whistleblower who shared the news of covid to the west and then China censored him.. Many doctors/nurse personnel had medical licenses removed because they spoke against the narrative. Doctors with 30 / 40 years experience being told if you don't parrot what we are saying we are going to make a case that will remove your doctor title. Now we can say 99% of doctor support this.. It was sad seeing doctors twist the truth on tv. As the virus changed trying to stick to the narrative became more difficult.
- epgui 4y ago
  Apart from the issue with China's control of information, I don't think we have the same memory. That last paragraph does not match what I saw in most of the world. In particular, this perspective does not really match what happened in Canada, the US, or Europe, at least not in the way I think you are suggesting.
  - ipaddr 4y ago
    Here are the Canadian examples. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thestar.com/amp/news/canada/2022/05/03/ontario-doctor-accused-of-disgraceful-covid-conduct-gets-suspended.html https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thestar.com/amp/news/canada... https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbc.ca/amp/1.6440227 https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbc.ca/amp/1.6440227 4 doctors landmark hearing https://www.google.com/amp/s/globalnews.ca/news/8517353/canada-doctors-covid-vaccine-disinformation/amp/ https://www.google.com/amp/s/globalnews.ca/news/8517353/cana...
    - epgui 4y ago
      This is the system working as it should. When you are a physician, you have an incredibly high burden of care towards your patients, and you have an ethical and a deontological obligation (in some cases a legal one, though doctors do have a lot of leeway, for patient-centred care, in Canada) to give them the highest standard of care. As far as I can tell, these are all examples of serious breaches of this duty. These physicians didn't just accidentally cross some fuzzy line, or slip off a tight rope. They were way off in their conduct. Heck, with the exception of one, they apparently didn't even show up in court. In all of the above cases, it is the public and the patients who are being protected.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]