11 ms·

The fear and groupthink was so strong at the time that even pointing out the existence of dissenting voices was enough to get you labeled as a selfish grandma k

The fear and groupthink was so strong at the time that even pointing out the existence of dissenting voices was enough to get you labeled as a selfish grandma killer conspiracy theorist. I'm glad in hindsight more people are willing to see the problems of groupthink in this period, but I do hope they look inward and hold themselves responsible too, and maybe next time not defer to authority and demonize others so willingly.

musicale 4y ago
The Washington Post[1] did seem to engage in a a bit of introspection eventually: "The Post originally described Cotton’s remarks as “debunked” and a “conspiracy theory” in a February 2020 article. But last week, The Post rewrote the article’s headline, softening “conspiracy theory” to “fringe theory” and noting that scientists have “disputed” it rather than “debunked” it." [1]"The media called the ‘lab leak’ story a ‘conspiracy theory.’ Now it’s prompted corrections — and serious new reporting." Washington Post, 6/10/21
- SamPatt 4y ago
  A very small bit. Readers aren't parsing sentences this closely and comparing to previous statements. Unless they come out with an editorial statement apologizing then they aren't really serious about their own involvement in censorship on behalf of those in power.
  - OrvalWintermute 4y ago
    i think a retraction or minor edit after 99.9% of the readerbase has consumed the content, is too little, too late. Damage done.
- nradov 4y ago
  And a couple months later the US federal government published an official report stating that a lab leak was a possible source of the virus. https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/reports-publications/reports-publications-2021/item/2236-unclassified-summary-of-assessment-on-covid-19-origins https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/reports-publications/...
- nonameking2026 4y ago
  More of these are in order, https://fee.org/articles/we-failed-danish-newspaper-apologizes-for-its-covid-coverage/ https://fee.org/articles/we-failed-danish-newspaper-apologiz...
- jxramos 4y ago
  that's a solid distinction, dispute vs debunk. That's a keeper.
- deltarholamda 4y ago
  >The Washington Post[1] did seem to engage in a a bit of introspection eventually Unfortunately, this is a common tactic. Walking back a previous wrong assertion allows one to frame it as a virtue--"we corrected ourselves!"--in order to avoid talking about the original vice of being a copy-and-paste propaganda organ for the state. There seems to be a very tight integration between the government and the major media, and this is a real problem. It's not surprising, as a journalist that is a burr in the saddle of government power soon finds it difficult to talk to government entities. But it is a problem if there really is no journalistic independence. In recent years, journalists seem to be little more than Twitter researchers. Complete randos from the Internet, some of whom were clearly a little bit mad, got closer to the actual truth than the "trusted experts."
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - freediver 4y ago
    One has to trust that the original intent was not malicious, otherwise the whole system falls apart. The leverage being used is tremendous.
    - Georgelemental 4y ago
      The trust is not deserved, the original intent was malicious, and the whole system is a rotting corpse.
    - throwawaylinux 4y ago
      One doesn't have to trust that at all. One would be a fool to. If this is what the system is than it should fall apart.
    - ekianjo 4y ago
      Journalists without agenda barely exist anymore. You should assume malicious intent by default.
- Canada 4y ago
  What do you mean by rewrote? Are you saying the Washingtgon Post published article calling a position a "fringe theory" which a previous, entirely different, article they published referred to as a "conspiracy theory"? Or are you saying they edited a single article, changing the text "conspiracy theory" to "fringe theory"?
  - musicale 4y ago
    In case it wasn't clear, it is a quote from a Washington Post article, which in turn describes how this (previous) article was edited/corrected: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/02/16/tom-cotton-coronavirus-conspiracy/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/02/16/tom-cotto...
    - OrvalWintermute 4y ago
      > In an article published Thursday, economist Jeffrey Sachs called for an independent investigation of information held by U.S.-based institutions that could shed light on the origins of the Covid-19 pandemic. Writing in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Sachs and his co-author, Neil Harrison, a Columbia University professor of molecular pharmacology and therapeutics, said that federal agencies and universities possess evidence that has not been adequately reviewed, including virus databases, biological samples, viral sequences, email communications, and laboratory notebooks. Sachs and Harrison also highlighted a tantalizing scientific detail that may be an indication that SARS-CoV-2, the coronavirus that causes Covid-19, originated in a laboratory: a sequence of eight amino acids on a critical part of the virus’s spike protein that is identical to an amino acid sequence found in cells that line human airways [1] If the Lancet Covid Commission is now claiming it is one of the foremost theories, then it is not fringe. [1] https://theintercept.com/2022/05/19/covid-lab-leak-evidence-jeffrey-sachs/ https://theintercept.com/2022/05/19/covid-lab-leak-evidence-...
    - Canada 4y ago
      Looks like they made the edit clear with a correction note, however they have left that undated.
- jasonlotito 4y ago
  This misrepresents what happened and what was said. Which is easy to do. From April 2: "The prime suspect is ‘natural’ transmission from bats to humans, perhaps through unsanitary markets. But scientists don’t rule out that an accident at a research laboratory in Wuhan might have spread a deadly bat virus that had been collected for scientific study.”" Couple that with the admission from Cotton: "Now, we don’t have evidence that this disease originated [from the lab]" Numerous experts in the field backed up the idea that the virus was engineered or came from a lab. Even Cotton followed up with further clarification of his original tweets. "I am pleased to hear you now distinguish between possibility virus was engineered bioweapon (which can be dismissed) and possibility virus entered human population through lab accident (which cannot--and should not--be dismissed)" - From Feb 16, 2020 (referenced in Feb 17, 2020 in Washington Post. This timeline covers it well: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/05/25/timeline-how-wuhan-lab-leak-theory-suddenly-became-credible/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/05/25/timeline-... Is it bad that people update their thinking when new evidence presents itself? No. But that doesn't mean people who pushed an idea without evidence should be lauded. A broken clock is right twice a day, after all.
- faeriechangling 4y ago
  The issue was that the Post’s conclusions was an inevitable result of treating what public health authorities say as the truth and any heterodox voices as dangers to be silence. Introspection is meaningless if the post fundamentally doesn’t see anything wrong with that model and I think there is actually something to be said about treating mainstream medicine as authoritative truth.
- ekianjo 4y ago
  Corrections get much less visibility than original accusations.
spookthesunset 4y ago
This sounds extreme to say and I know it is uncouth and might invoke Godwin’s law, but bear with me here… Based on the reactions I got from people I knew and respected, the last two years showed me exactly how shit like the holocaust went down. How ordinary people like you or me can be filled with so much fear and propaganda that they willingly sent their fellow humans to their demise with a smile on their face. We got incredibly lucky that things didn’t escalate to violence. I mean for Christ sake, we have phone numbers people could call to rat out their neighbors family birthday party. We had police kicking kids and arresting people for using a playground. All it would have taken was some “expert” or politician to give permission to harm those “selfish grandma killers” and it would have been a whole different thing. People I thought I knew and respected completely lost their damn minds. Many have yet to recover. What these “experts” did to society is beyond the pale. Humans may have fancy shiny tools and “science” but we are fundamentally the same superstitious creatures as those who came before us 10’s of thousands of years ago.
- SV_BubbleTime 4y ago
  Beyond the pale is if we started over with Covid XL right now, it would go almost the exact same way again. Everyone would take up the exact same position they had, there will be a little attrition either side. Rabble on the internet all day long. FEAR was made into a VIRTUE. The good people were afraid and did what they were supposed to do. The bad people vote wrong and we don’t listen to them anyhow. Same thing if we play it back.
  - LanceH 4y ago
    There have been numerous statements along the lines of "we didn't crack down hard enough". Which would likely translate to more restrictions requiring less evidence. I'm sure the opposite side would aim for greater defiance. The problem with both is we're talking "sides" and not "what should we do based on what we know?" There were far too many politicians involved, and they were all more concerned with appearing to be doing something on our behalf than actually acting in our best interests.
    - 4y ago
cronix 4y ago
> The fear and groupthink was so strong at the time that even pointing out the existence of dissenting voices was enough to get you labeled as a selfish grandma killer conspiracy theorist. Yeah, and same if you discussed it on HN.
- marvin 4y ago
  Oh, the intense discussions just pointing out the Norwegian health authorities’ rationale for abandoning the AstraZeneca vaccine. The loud and certain statements that it was all based on selection bias. It was a very interesting time to practice independent-mindedness, and get vivid demonstrations on how rare it is.
- tremon 4y ago
  That's not true in my experience, I have been able to discuss those things many times they came up and usually received upvotes (or at least more upvotes than downvotes). Yes, that's anecdata, so make of it what you will.
  - SamPatt 4y ago
    I was downvoted several times on HN for pointing out that reputable scientists were being censored on YouTube and other platforms for their dissident views on COVID. It happened here fairly often. Though less frequently here than most other places online during that time.
    - OrvalWintermute 4y ago
      Unfortunately, there is a strong element of groupthink present on HN that downvotes according to party line.
      - forgetfreeman 4y ago
        The irony of this comment being downvoted is palpable. Way to prove them right y'all.
GeekyBear 4y ago
> The fear and groupthink was so strong at the time that even pointing out the existence of dissenting voices was enough to get you labeled as a selfish grandma killer conspiracy theorist. My example would be one of the scientists on President Biden's Covid advisory council being interviewed on PBS and pointing out that cloth face masks were not effective against an airborne virus, but n95 masks offered some real protection. https://www.pbs.org/wnet/amanpour-and-company/video/do-masks-provide-much-protection-we-think-bglhwy/ https://www.pbs.org/wnet/amanpour-and-company/video/do-masks... I, personally, saw people demand that links to that interview be removed as "disinformation".
- raydev 4y ago
  Just watched the portion you're referring to, and based on what he actually said, that cloth masks are "ineffective" with zero qualification, is disinformation. I see the concerns. He did qualify a few sentences earlier about the effectiveness of cloth masks is that there is some protection but it's small. Fine, but he was imprecise with his language later on. People want to (and did) latch on to the quotable portion that they are not effective (read: zero difference from no mask), which is demonstrably false.
  - GeekyBear 4y ago
    Cloth masks are effective against a virus with a droplet based spread, like the flu. When an infected person sneezes or coughs, cloth face masks can contain those droplets as they spray out. With an airborne virus you have to be able to filter the air people are breathing and a cloth face mask that isn't even fitted tightly to the face just cannot do that. This is why you need an n95 mask or better fitted tightly enough to your face to create an air seal. For example, the Measles also has an airborne spread and the OSHA requirements for medical professionals mandate gloves, eye and face protection, and respiratory protection. https://www.osha.gov/measles/control-prevention https://www.osha.gov/measles/control-prevention Note that Flu levels hit record lows globally while Covid continued to spread like wildfire. >CDC says seasonal flu cases hit record lows around the world https://www.nbcnews.com/health/cold-and-flu/cdc-says-seasonal-flu-cases-hit-record-lows-around-world-n1240333 https://www.nbcnews.com/health/cold-and-flu/cdc-says-seasona...
behaveEc0n00 4y ago
Fear and group think have not gone anywhere. Society is “group think”. Try paying rent in bottle caps, and telling your boss to go fuck themselves when they ask for something. Fear of unemployment and homelessness make that unlikely. City to city, coast to coast, group think and fear keep us from having serious conversations about consumerisms impact on the environment; don’t touch my capitalism click clack The difference is that’s group think you’ve been conditioned since birth to believe is as immutable as the orbit of the planets. If we all “group thought” more bicycles and fewer cars were more appropriate that’s what we’d produce. It’s unjustifiable belief to make it sound as if you’re a truly free agent unaffected by group think and fear of alternatives.

musicale 4y ago

The Washington Post[1] did seem to engage in a a bit of introspection eventually: "The Post originally described Cotton’s remarks as “debunked” and a “conspiracy theory” in a February 2020 article. But last week, The Post rewrote the article’s headline, softening “conspiracy theory” to “fringe theory” and noting that scientists have “disputed” it rather than “debunked” it." [1]"The media called the ‘lab leak’ story a ‘conspiracy theory.’ Now it’s prompted corrections — and serious new reporting." Washington Post, 6/10/21

SamPatt 4y ago
A very small bit. Readers aren't parsing sentences this closely and comparing to previous statements. Unless they come out with an editorial statement apologizing then they aren't really serious about their own involvement in censorship on behalf of those in power.
- OrvalWintermute 4y ago
  i think a retraction or minor edit after 99.9% of the readerbase has consumed the content, is too little, too late. Damage done.
nradov 4y ago
And a couple months later the US federal government published an official report stating that a lab leak was a possible source of the virus. https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/reports-publications/reports-publications-2021/item/2236-unclassified-summary-of-assessment-on-covid-19-origins https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/reports-publications/...
nonameking2026 4y ago
More of these are in order, https://fee.org/articles/we-failed-danish-newspaper-apologizes-for-its-covid-coverage/ https://fee.org/articles/we-failed-danish-newspaper-apologiz...
jxramos 4y ago
that's a solid distinction, dispute vs debunk. That's a keeper.
deltarholamda 4y ago
>The Washington Post[1] did seem to engage in a a bit of introspection eventually Unfortunately, this is a common tactic. Walking back a previous wrong assertion allows one to frame it as a virtue--"we corrected ourselves!"--in order to avoid talking about the original vice of being a copy-and-paste propaganda organ for the state. There seems to be a very tight integration between the government and the major media, and this is a real problem. It's not surprising, as a journalist that is a burr in the saddle of government power soon finds it difficult to talk to government entities. But it is a problem if there really is no journalistic independence. In recent years, journalists seem to be little more than Twitter researchers. Complete randos from the Internet, some of whom were clearly a little bit mad, got closer to the actual truth than the "trusted experts."
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- freediver 4y ago
  One has to trust that the original intent was not malicious, otherwise the whole system falls apart. The leverage being used is tremendous.
  - Georgelemental 4y ago
    The trust is not deserved, the original intent was malicious, and the whole system is a rotting corpse.
  - throwawaylinux 4y ago
    One doesn't have to trust that at all. One would be a fool to. If this is what the system is than it should fall apart.
  - ekianjo 4y ago
    Journalists without agenda barely exist anymore. You should assume malicious intent by default.
Canada 4y ago
What do you mean by rewrote? Are you saying the Washingtgon Post published article calling a position a "fringe theory" which a previous, entirely different, article they published referred to as a "conspiracy theory"? Or are you saying they edited a single article, changing the text "conspiracy theory" to "fringe theory"?
- musicale 4y ago
  In case it wasn't clear, it is a quote from a Washington Post article, which in turn describes how this (previous) article was edited/corrected: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/02/16/tom-cotton-coronavirus-conspiracy/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/02/16/tom-cotto...
  - OrvalWintermute 4y ago
    > In an article published Thursday, economist Jeffrey Sachs called for an independent investigation of information held by U.S.-based institutions that could shed light on the origins of the Covid-19 pandemic. Writing in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Sachs and his co-author, Neil Harrison, a Columbia University professor of molecular pharmacology and therapeutics, said that federal agencies and universities possess evidence that has not been adequately reviewed, including virus databases, biological samples, viral sequences, email communications, and laboratory notebooks. Sachs and Harrison also highlighted a tantalizing scientific detail that may be an indication that SARS-CoV-2, the coronavirus that causes Covid-19, originated in a laboratory: a sequence of eight amino acids on a critical part of the virus’s spike protein that is identical to an amino acid sequence found in cells that line human airways [1] If the Lancet Covid Commission is now claiming it is one of the foremost theories, then it is not fringe. [1] https://theintercept.com/2022/05/19/covid-lab-leak-evidence-jeffrey-sachs/ https://theintercept.com/2022/05/19/covid-lab-leak-evidence-...
  - Canada 4y ago
    Looks like they made the edit clear with a correction note, however they have left that undated.
jasonlotito 4y ago
This misrepresents what happened and what was said. Which is easy to do. From April 2: "The prime suspect is ‘natural’ transmission from bats to humans, perhaps through unsanitary markets. But scientists don’t rule out that an accident at a research laboratory in Wuhan might have spread a deadly bat virus that had been collected for scientific study.”" Couple that with the admission from Cotton: "Now, we don’t have evidence that this disease originated [from the lab]" Numerous experts in the field backed up the idea that the virus was engineered or came from a lab. Even Cotton followed up with further clarification of his original tweets. "I am pleased to hear you now distinguish between possibility virus was engineered bioweapon (which can be dismissed) and possibility virus entered human population through lab accident (which cannot--and should not--be dismissed)" - From Feb 16, 2020 (referenced in Feb 17, 2020 in Washington Post. This timeline covers it well: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/05/25/timeline-how-wuhan-lab-leak-theory-suddenly-became-credible/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/05/25/timeline-... Is it bad that people update their thinking when new evidence presents itself? No. But that doesn't mean people who pushed an idea without evidence should be lauded. A broken clock is right twice a day, after all.
faeriechangling 4y ago
The issue was that the Post’s conclusions was an inevitable result of treating what public health authorities say as the truth and any heterodox voices as dangers to be silence. Introspection is meaningless if the post fundamentally doesn’t see anything wrong with that model and I think there is actually something to be said about treating mainstream medicine as authoritative truth.
ekianjo 4y ago
Corrections get much less visibility than original accusations.

spookthesunset 4y ago

This sounds extreme to say and I know it is uncouth and might invoke Godwin’s law, but bear with me here… Based on the reactions I got from people I knew and respected, the last two years showed me exactly how shit like the holocaust went down. How ordinary people like you or me can be filled with so much fear and propaganda that they willingly sent their fellow humans to their demise with a smile on their face. We got incredibly lucky that things didn’t escalate to violence. I mean for Christ sake, we have phone numbers people could call to rat out their neighbors family birthday party. We had police kicking kids and arresting people for using a playground. All it would have taken was some “expert” or politician to give permission to harm those “selfish grandma killers” and it would have been a whole different thing. People I thought I knew and respected completely lost their damn minds. Many have yet to recover. What these “experts” did to society is beyond the pale. Humans may have fancy shiny tools and “science” but we are fundamentally the same superstitious creatures as those who came before us 10’s of thousands of years ago.

SV_BubbleTime 4y ago
Beyond the pale is if we started over with Covid XL right now, it would go almost the exact same way again. Everyone would take up the exact same position they had, there will be a little attrition either side. Rabble on the internet all day long. FEAR was made into a VIRTUE. The good people were afraid and did what they were supposed to do. The bad people vote wrong and we don’t listen to them anyhow. Same thing if we play it back.
- LanceH 4y ago
  There have been numerous statements along the lines of "we didn't crack down hard enough". Which would likely translate to more restrictions requiring less evidence. I'm sure the opposite side would aim for greater defiance. The problem with both is we're talking "sides" and not "what should we do based on what we know?" There were far too many politicians involved, and they were all more concerned with appearing to be doing something on our behalf than actually acting in our best interests.
  - 4y ago

cronix 4y ago

marvin 4y ago
Oh, the intense discussions just pointing out the Norwegian health authorities’ rationale for abandoning the AstraZeneca vaccine. The loud and certain statements that it was all based on selection bias. It was a very interesting time to practice independent-mindedness, and get vivid demonstrations on how rare it is.
tremon 4y ago
That's not true in my experience, I have been able to discuss those things many times they came up and usually received upvotes (or at least more upvotes than downvotes). Yes, that's anecdata, so make of it what you will.
- SamPatt 4y ago
  I was downvoted several times on HN for pointing out that reputable scientists were being censored on YouTube and other platforms for their dissident views on COVID. It happened here fairly often. Though less frequently here than most other places online during that time.
  - OrvalWintermute 4y ago
    Unfortunately, there is a strong element of groupthink present on HN that downvotes according to party line.
    - forgetfreeman 4y ago
      The irony of this comment being downvoted is palpable. Way to prove them right y'all.

GeekyBear 4y ago

> The fear and groupthink was so strong at the time that even pointing out the existence of dissenting voices was enough to get you labeled as a selfish grandma killer conspiracy theorist. My example would be one of the scientists on President Biden's Covid advisory council being interviewed on PBS and pointing out that cloth face masks were not effective against an airborne virus, but n95 masks offered some real protection. https://www.pbs.org/wnet/amanpour-and-company/video/do-masks-provide-much-protection-we-think-bglhwy/ https://www.pbs.org/wnet/amanpour-and-company/video/do-masks... I, personally, saw people demand that links to that interview be removed as "disinformation".

raydev 4y ago
Just watched the portion you're referring to, and based on what he actually said, that cloth masks are "ineffective" with zero qualification, is disinformation. I see the concerns. He did qualify a few sentences earlier about the effectiveness of cloth masks is that there is some protection but it's small. Fine, but he was imprecise with his language later on. People want to (and did) latch on to the quotable portion that they are not effective (read: zero difference from no mask), which is demonstrably false.
- GeekyBear 4y ago
  Cloth masks are effective against a virus with a droplet based spread, like the flu. When an infected person sneezes or coughs, cloth face masks can contain those droplets as they spray out. With an airborne virus you have to be able to filter the air people are breathing and a cloth face mask that isn't even fitted tightly to the face just cannot do that. This is why you need an n95 mask or better fitted tightly enough to your face to create an air seal. For example, the Measles also has an airborne spread and the OSHA requirements for medical professionals mandate gloves, eye and face protection, and respiratory protection. https://www.osha.gov/measles/control-prevention https://www.osha.gov/measles/control-prevention Note that Flu levels hit record lows globally while Covid continued to spread like wildfire. >CDC says seasonal flu cases hit record lows around the world https://www.nbcnews.com/health/cold-and-flu/cdc-says-seasonal-flu-cases-hit-record-lows-around-world-n1240333 https://www.nbcnews.com/health/cold-and-flu/cdc-says-seasona...

behaveEc0n00 4y ago

Fear and group think have not gone anywhere. Society is “group think”. Try paying rent in bottle caps, and telling your boss to go fuck themselves when they ask for something. Fear of unemployment and homelessness make that unlikely. City to city, coast to coast, group think and fear keep us from having serious conversations about consumerisms impact on the environment; don’t touch my capitalism click clack The difference is that’s group think you’ve been conditioned since birth to believe is as immutable as the orbit of the planets. If we all “group thought” more bicycles and fewer cars were more appropriate that’s what we’d produce. It’s unjustifiable belief to make it sound as if you’re a truly free agent unaffected by group think and fear of alternatives.