13 ms·

There is also no evidence that it came from animals directly. Given that there are really only two plausible hypotheses, and nondirect evidence of either, we h

There is also no evidence that it came from animals directly. Given that there are really only two plausible hypotheses, and nondirect evidence of either, we have to speculate based on circumstantial evidence. And if one hypothesis is floated around the media, we need to raise the other one as well. I'll also point out that some people don't like to believe that there can be global media conspiracies, even though there are (cf. "masks don't work unless you're a trained medical professional" propaganda at the beginning).

isitmadeofglass 4y ago
Where have I heard this kind of reasoning before? Oh yes, I remember: There is no direct evidence for god not existing. Given that there are only two possible hypothesis, that he exists and that he doesn’t, we need to teach both sides to children, and the case for a 4000 year old planet with dinosaur bones buried to confuse scientists must be taught at equal level!
PurpleRamen 4y ago
> I'll also point out that some people don't like to believe that there can be global media conspiracies, even though there are (cf. "masks don't work unless you're a trained medical professional" propaganda at the beginning). That's not a conspiracy, that's just common shared knowledge.
- hackerlight 4y ago
  It isn't a conspiracy. Conspiracy implies planning and plotting. That was just decentralized media figures deciding to copy each other's opinions, because there's safety in numbers and group think, and because dissent sticks out and gets attacked.
  - heartbreak 4y ago
    You just described the early-Covid shutdown policy-making too.
    - chaosite 4y ago
      Shutdowns weren't done by media figures, they were done by policy-makers inside governments.
      - heartbreak 4y ago
        > That was just decentralized [governments] deciding to copy each other's opinions, because there's safety in numbers and group think, and because dissent sticks out and gets attacked. Sorry, I thought that substitution was implied.
      - yonaguska 4y ago
        And "consent" to shutdowns were manufactured by policy makers inside governments paying media companies to promote their policies. It was a concerted effort.
  - yonaguska 4y ago
    If you still think we have decentralized media figures simply copying each other...when all your media companies air the same advertisements from the same pharmaceutical companies, it's no surprise that they would all take the same opinions. Speaking for American media only. They might not be conspiring with each other, but they are certainly are taking orders from the same places. This doesn't cover the other news epidemic we have of state intel actors propping up media conglomerates as a matter of foreign policy. Specifically in Ukraine, and I'm only referencing this as it's probably the most recent example- the US is currently offering grants to organizations in Ukraine right now [0], this actually doesn't seem very nefarious. It's been going on for quite some time however. This article [1] goes into details about various factchecking organizations that worked in Ukraine to promote and minimalize the extreme sides of far right orgs in Ukraine since before the Russian invasion. StopFake is specifically called out, an organization that was previously hosted by our very own spokeswoman for the now defunct Ministry of Truth, Nina Jankowicz. And we know Taiwan does it, via Epoch Times, Russia does it with Russia Times, and various other state actors use more sophisticated methods. Before I dropped off most social media, it was obvious seeing Chinese propaganda being pushed, oftentimes through New York Times opinion pieces. Israel and China are probably two of the more sophisticated state actors, up there with the US intel agencies. tldr: nothing is real, most media is carefully curated to shape your opinions and culture, not to inform you. [0] https://ua.usembassy.gov/education-culture/media-development-fund-program/ https://ua.usembassy.gov/education-culture/media-development... [1] https://mronline.org/2022/08/08/most-of-the-fact-checking-organizations-facebook-uses-in-ukraine-are-directly-funded-by-washington/ https://mronline.org/2022/08/08/most-of-the-fact-checking-or...
    - hackerlight 4y ago
      > They might not be conspiring with each other, but they are certainly are taking orders from the same places. I don't see enough evidence for this claim. The simpler explanation is that they're lazy (as most humans are) and scared to dissent (as most humans are), therefore they don't bother doing original work that challenges the accepted wisdom and they copy each other. I do have some evidence for this. Within hours of the Amber Heard judgement came down, identical false claims about the judgement were blasted across all major news sites. I am rather confident that there was no nefarious plot here, because the stakes were so low and didn't involve powerful actors, and because non-US news outlets parroted the same fake news. Is there some secret clandestine organization doing this, coordinating with US and non-US news sources, on a story of no political significance? I saw the fake news get manufactured in front of my eyes. What happened was there was a viral tweet that created the fake claim, then one journalist picked up on it, and then all the other journalists copied that one journalist, because that's lower effort and safer than doing a thorough job. Occam's razor + hanlon's razor. > This article [1] goes into details about various factchecking organizations that worked in Ukraine to promote and minimalize the extreme sides of far right orgs in Ukraine since before the Russian invasion. Lol, very few people are minimizing Azov or other far-right groups in Ukraine. Everyone knows they're a huge problem (albeit they are a problem that is caused by Russia's invasion in 2014 - Ukraine, being much smaller, doesn't have the luxury of picking and choosing who is allowed to fight, given the imminent threat of further invasion from a larger neighbor). They are mostly just countering the Kremlin's propaganda that Ukraine is run by drug-addicted banderites and that Azov, a fairly small unit, is representative of the entire military and political leadership. The Russian propaganda around this was insane, helped along by treacherous US crypto fascists, and so hypocritical given that neo-Nazi views are more widely subscribed inside Russia than in Ukraine according to Pew polling, and given that the head of Wagner (whom Putin has shaken hands with) is an open neo-nazi with SS tattoos on his neck, and given that Pushilin has been seen awarding a medal to an open neo-nazi, and given that Putin himself is a literal fascist compared to the democratically elected Zelenskyy.
- mejutoco 4y ago
  > "masks don't work unless you're a trained medical professional" Putting aside the phrasing, which I take to be something like "unless you follow procedures and have new masks often etc". In the beginning this was the narrative because there was a shortage of masks, or because of plain ignorance. Masks are not perfect, but they were effective, which is why they are still mandatory in some contexts. If one can ignore the bizarre political associations that formed in the US regarding masks, it is difficult to argue that the effort of wearing a mask is not worth it. Even if, as I said before, they are far from perfect.
  - PathOfEclipse 4y ago
    To my knowledge, to this day, there are still exactly zero RCTs showing that masks were ever effective against COVID, and at least two major RCTs whose results indicate they are not very effective (there was no statistically significant benefit to masking). If, after two years of a world-wide pandemic, the best evidence we can put forth are low-quality observational studies which explicitly state they cannot show causation, then maybe it's time to stop blindly repeating the mantra that masks are effective. https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n2729 https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n2729
    - mejutoco 4y ago
      I think it is difficult to do a RCT of Covid (many different variants, vaccines, variability in symptoms), but it is a very fair point. Thank you. There are RCT for influenza and other diseases Sars (1): https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22280120/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22280120/ https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2014564118 https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2014564118 While maybe we do not have the gold standard study, I think it was the right decision, given how little inconvenience masks have, for the much bigger benefit of reducing Covid risks.
    - aljungberg 4y ago
      The fact that we were strongly told no and then yes with equal conviction is sufficient to demonstrate the point, regardless of whether masks work. Whether intentionally or not, media and governments can mislead in an in effect coordinated fashion. (Note there is a straw-man counterargument where one might say “so they changed their mind as evidence evolved, that’s allowed”. But the information was presented as established and factual in both cases. We have always been at war with Eastasia.)
layer8 4y ago
Why do we have to speculate? If both hypotheses are plausible, should it make a significant difference for the measures we take which one is actually true? If evidence comes out showing which hypothesis is true, does it suddenly make the other one retroactively less plausible? I mean, it would be interesting to know what really happened, but it doesn’t change all that much.
- ajsnigrutin 4y ago
  It does. Knowing what caused this should be important, so it doesn't happen again. If it happens naturally and randomly, there's nothing we can do. If it was a lab leak, maybe some special precautions should be taken, or such things should not be done in labs with iffy security practices... or maybe even not done at all. Many workplace (and general) safety rules were written because someone has died doing something (now considered) against the rules. Killing a few millions of people and stoping the planets economy for almost two years seems like a terrible cost of some research gone bad.
  - mellavora 4y ago
    > If it happens naturally and randomly, there's nothing we can do. Some people say the main progress of civilization is the ability to do things about forces which were previously seen as natural and random. > If it was a lab leak, maybe some special precautions should be taken, Do you mean like making sure the labs follow certain biohazard handling standards and procedures? Which they currently have to do to maintain their certifications/ratings? We don't have to prove that covid was a lab leak to review the procedures. Likewise, we don't have to prove that covid was natural and random (I am glad you separated those two, by the way) before reviewing how we handle food safety and animal transportation measures.
    - Closi 4y ago
      Nontheless, noting and acknowledging that a worldwide pandemic was actually caused from a lab leak would certinaly drive stricter regulation and higher adherence to procedures. Conversely, a strong belief that it wasn't a lab leak would, of course, reduce the pressure to implement changes to safety protocols. In theory everyone would react in a way which optimally reduces risk, but in practice acknowledgement of an incident drives significantly different behaviour.

isitmadeofglass 4y ago

Where have I heard this kind of reasoning before? Oh yes, I remember: There is no direct evidence for god not existing. Given that there are only two possible hypothesis, that he exists and that he doesn’t, we need to teach both sides to children, and the case for a 4000 year old planet with dinosaur bones buried to confuse scientists must be taught at equal level!

PurpleRamen 4y ago

> I'll also point out that some people don't like to believe that there can be global media conspiracies, even though there are (cf. "masks don't work unless you're a trained medical professional" propaganda at the beginning). That's not a conspiracy, that's just common shared knowledge.

hackerlight 4y ago
It isn't a conspiracy. Conspiracy implies planning and plotting. That was just decentralized media figures deciding to copy each other's opinions, because there's safety in numbers and group think, and because dissent sticks out and gets attacked.
- heartbreak 4y ago
  You just described the early-Covid shutdown policy-making too.
  - chaosite 4y ago
    Shutdowns weren't done by media figures, they were done by policy-makers inside governments.
    - heartbreak 4y ago
      > That was just decentralized [governments] deciding to copy each other's opinions, because there's safety in numbers and group think, and because dissent sticks out and gets attacked. Sorry, I thought that substitution was implied.
    - yonaguska 4y ago
      And "consent" to shutdowns were manufactured by policy makers inside governments paying media companies to promote their policies. It was a concerted effort.
- yonaguska 4y ago
  If you still think we have decentralized media figures simply copying each other...when all your media companies air the same advertisements from the same pharmaceutical companies, it's no surprise that they would all take the same opinions. Speaking for American media only. They might not be conspiring with each other, but they are certainly are taking orders from the same places. This doesn't cover the other news epidemic we have of state intel actors propping up media conglomerates as a matter of foreign policy. Specifically in Ukraine, and I'm only referencing this as it's probably the most recent example- the US is currently offering grants to organizations in Ukraine right now [0], this actually doesn't seem very nefarious. It's been going on for quite some time however. This article [1] goes into details about various factchecking organizations that worked in Ukraine to promote and minimalize the extreme sides of far right orgs in Ukraine since before the Russian invasion. StopFake is specifically called out, an organization that was previously hosted by our very own spokeswoman for the now defunct Ministry of Truth, Nina Jankowicz. And we know Taiwan does it, via Epoch Times, Russia does it with Russia Times, and various other state actors use more sophisticated methods. Before I dropped off most social media, it was obvious seeing Chinese propaganda being pushed, oftentimes through New York Times opinion pieces. Israel and China are probably two of the more sophisticated state actors, up there with the US intel agencies. tldr: nothing is real, most media is carefully curated to shape your opinions and culture, not to inform you. [0] https://ua.usembassy.gov/education-culture/media-development-fund-program/ https://ua.usembassy.gov/education-culture/media-development... [1] https://mronline.org/2022/08/08/most-of-the-fact-checking-organizations-facebook-uses-in-ukraine-are-directly-funded-by-washington/ https://mronline.org/2022/08/08/most-of-the-fact-checking-or...
  - hackerlight 4y ago
    > They might not be conspiring with each other, but they are certainly are taking orders from the same places. I don't see enough evidence for this claim. The simpler explanation is that they're lazy (as most humans are) and scared to dissent (as most humans are), therefore they don't bother doing original work that challenges the accepted wisdom and they copy each other. I do have some evidence for this. Within hours of the Amber Heard judgement came down, identical false claims about the judgement were blasted across all major news sites. I am rather confident that there was no nefarious plot here, because the stakes were so low and didn't involve powerful actors, and because non-US news outlets parroted the same fake news. Is there some secret clandestine organization doing this, coordinating with US and non-US news sources, on a story of no political significance? I saw the fake news get manufactured in front of my eyes. What happened was there was a viral tweet that created the fake claim, then one journalist picked up on it, and then all the other journalists copied that one journalist, because that's lower effort and safer than doing a thorough job. Occam's razor + hanlon's razor. > This article [1] goes into details about various factchecking organizations that worked in Ukraine to promote and minimalize the extreme sides of far right orgs in Ukraine since before the Russian invasion. Lol, very few people are minimizing Azov or other far-right groups in Ukraine. Everyone knows they're a huge problem (albeit they are a problem that is caused by Russia's invasion in 2014 - Ukraine, being much smaller, doesn't have the luxury of picking and choosing who is allowed to fight, given the imminent threat of further invasion from a larger neighbor). They are mostly just countering the Kremlin's propaganda that Ukraine is run by drug-addicted banderites and that Azov, a fairly small unit, is representative of the entire military and political leadership. The Russian propaganda around this was insane, helped along by treacherous US crypto fascists, and so hypocritical given that neo-Nazi views are more widely subscribed inside Russia than in Ukraine according to Pew polling, and given that the head of Wagner (whom Putin has shaken hands with) is an open neo-nazi with SS tattoos on his neck, and given that Pushilin has been seen awarding a medal to an open neo-nazi, and given that Putin himself is a literal fascist compared to the democratically elected Zelenskyy.
mejutoco 4y ago
> "masks don't work unless you're a trained medical professional" Putting aside the phrasing, which I take to be something like "unless you follow procedures and have new masks often etc". In the beginning this was the narrative because there was a shortage of masks, or because of plain ignorance. Masks are not perfect, but they were effective, which is why they are still mandatory in some contexts. If one can ignore the bizarre political associations that formed in the US regarding masks, it is difficult to argue that the effort of wearing a mask is not worth it. Even if, as I said before, they are far from perfect.
- PathOfEclipse 4y ago
  To my knowledge, to this day, there are still exactly zero RCTs showing that masks were ever effective against COVID, and at least two major RCTs whose results indicate they are not very effective (there was no statistically significant benefit to masking). If, after two years of a world-wide pandemic, the best evidence we can put forth are low-quality observational studies which explicitly state they cannot show causation, then maybe it's time to stop blindly repeating the mantra that masks are effective. https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n2729 https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n2729
  - mejutoco 4y ago
    I think it is difficult to do a RCT of Covid (many different variants, vaccines, variability in symptoms), but it is a very fair point. Thank you. There are RCT for influenza and other diseases Sars (1): https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22280120/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22280120/ https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2014564118 https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2014564118 While maybe we do not have the gold standard study, I think it was the right decision, given how little inconvenience masks have, for the much bigger benefit of reducing Covid risks.
  - aljungberg 4y ago
    The fact that we were strongly told no and then yes with equal conviction is sufficient to demonstrate the point, regardless of whether masks work. Whether intentionally or not, media and governments can mislead in an in effect coordinated fashion. (Note there is a straw-man counterargument where one might say “so they changed their mind as evidence evolved, that’s allowed”. But the information was presented as established and factual in both cases. We have always been at war with Eastasia.)

layer8 4y ago

Why do we have to speculate? If both hypotheses are plausible, should it make a significant difference for the measures we take which one is actually true? If evidence comes out showing which hypothesis is true, does it suddenly make the other one retroactively less plausible? I mean, it would be interesting to know what really happened, but it doesn’t change all that much.

ajsnigrutin 4y ago
It does. Knowing what caused this should be important, so it doesn't happen again. If it happens naturally and randomly, there's nothing we can do. If it was a lab leak, maybe some special precautions should be taken, or such things should not be done in labs with iffy security practices... or maybe even not done at all. Many workplace (and general) safety rules were written because someone has died doing something (now considered) against the rules. Killing a few millions of people and stoping the planets economy for almost two years seems like a terrible cost of some research gone bad.
- mellavora 4y ago
  > If it happens naturally and randomly, there's nothing we can do. Some people say the main progress of civilization is the ability to do things about forces which were previously seen as natural and random. > If it was a lab leak, maybe some special precautions should be taken, Do you mean like making sure the labs follow certain biohazard handling standards and procedures? Which they currently have to do to maintain their certifications/ratings? We don't have to prove that covid was a lab leak to review the procedures. Likewise, we don't have to prove that covid was natural and random (I am glad you separated those two, by the way) before reviewing how we handle food safety and animal transportation measures.
  - Closi 4y ago
    Nontheless, noting and acknowledging that a worldwide pandemic was actually caused from a lab leak would certinaly drive stricter regulation and higher adherence to procedures. Conversely, a strong belief that it wasn't a lab leak would, of course, reduce the pressure to implement changes to safety protocols. In theory everyone would react in a way which optimally reduces risk, but in practice acknowledgement of an incident drives significantly different behaviour.