5 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

by 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.
      - PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
        Except that it's not downvoted now. Jumping to conclusions about early voting behavior on HN causes (mild) embarrasment to many, and so it is once again.
        forgetfreeman 4y ago
        "Things change over time" is hardly a profound observation.
        PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
        It wasn't meant to be profound. It was meant to be correct. And it wasn't "things change over time".
fireflash38 4y ago
What do you suppose this thread is, other than groupthink in a slightly different direction?
- spookthesunset 4y ago
  I’ve arrived at my conclusions all on my own. I’d love to be part of the “take this serious” crowd because it would have made my life a lot easier (but also wasted). Unfortunately the facts and data combined with my values just don’t align with the idea that Covid was ever something we should have shut it all down for. There is an alternate universe where they didn’t test everybody that breathed and don’t publish daily death counts. The only way you’d know there was a pandemic was an uptick in “wash your hands” signs in the restroom. Otherwise it would have been “just that thing going around”. The last time we had an equivalent pandemic they held Woodstock. No shutdowns. No masks. No hysterical blowhards tweeting about the end of the world on twitter. People just got on with life. Does this make me a selfish asshole? Perhaps. But I personally think the people screaming to mask up and shut it all down are the true selfish ones. The expect everybody to massively disrupt their lives in order to appease their fear and anxiety. Especially when those mitigations had no prior evidence they’d work and not even a whiff of a stated off-ramp or end goal.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
    > The last time we had an equivalent pandemic they held Woodstock. https://www.cdc.gov/flu/pandemic-resources/1968-pandemic.html https://www.cdc.gov/flu/pandemic-resources/1968-pandemic.htm... > The estimated number of deaths was 1 million worldwide and about 100,000 in the United States. Uh, "equivalent pandemic". I don't think so. [ EDIT: Oh, and also: https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-woodstock-pandemic-1968/misleading-claim-woodstock-took-place-in-the-middle-of-a-pandemic-idUSKBN22J2MJ https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-woodstock-pande... ]
    - spookthesunset 4y ago
      Try adjusting for population instead of using raw numbers. Then account for the fact they test for everybody and anybody for Covid. Not so for the earlier pandemics. Totally different measurements. Imagine if they did the same test protocol back then like they did today. Only then can you compare. The use and abuse of raw data has been a hallmark of the last 2.5 years. Whatever number makes Covid sound worse is the number that gets published and spread. Anything suggesting it isn’t as bad as predicted is buried as a conspiracy or “not peer reviewed”.
PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
Oh my! You were labelled as a selfish grandma killer! Heavens to Betsy! The sheer force of censorship! The utter horror of government-mandated labelling on social media! Seriously. What do you think is going to happen when there's a worldwide pandemic and people with (in some cases) utterly opposing views on what is safe and advisable as public health policy?
- SamPatt 4y ago
  Censorship of dissident medical views - many of which were later proven correct - during this period doesn't concern you? I pointed out the existence of differing viewpoints being silenced, was shouted down, and you follow this up with mockery?
  - PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
    1. I don't believe there was "censorship of dissident views" - this is a framing I reject 2. I followed up the mockery with a serious point that you have not responded to.
    - FartsDomino 4y ago
      - PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
        You reject the framing that there were major differences of opinion in the appropriate public health policy to adopt in the presence of COVID-19? Censorship? What the OP means by censorship is not what I mean by censorship. Were heterodox ideas etc. surrounding COVID-19 severely criticized? Yes. Were they even limited or deleted from social media? Yes. Were they still published in blogs? In various traditional media? Yes. Could you encounter them on cable news? Yes. Was anyone tried or even arrested for promoting or distributing such ideas? No. That's not the way we treat the announcement of a lemonade stand, but it's also not what I consider censorship in any meaningful way.

by 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.
    - PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
      Except that it's not downvoted now. Jumping to conclusions about early voting behavior on HN causes (mild) embarrasment to many, and so it is once again.
      - forgetfreeman 4y ago
        "Things change over time" is hardly a profound observation.
        PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
        It wasn't meant to be profound. It was meant to be correct. And it wasn't "things change over time".

fireflash38 4y ago

What do you suppose this thread is, other than groupthink in a slightly different direction?

spookthesunset 4y ago
I’ve arrived at my conclusions all on my own. I’d love to be part of the “take this serious” crowd because it would have made my life a lot easier (but also wasted). Unfortunately the facts and data combined with my values just don’t align with the idea that Covid was ever something we should have shut it all down for. There is an alternate universe where they didn’t test everybody that breathed and don’t publish daily death counts. The only way you’d know there was a pandemic was an uptick in “wash your hands” signs in the restroom. Otherwise it would have been “just that thing going around”. The last time we had an equivalent pandemic they held Woodstock. No shutdowns. No masks. No hysterical blowhards tweeting about the end of the world on twitter. People just got on with life. Does this make me a selfish asshole? Perhaps. But I personally think the people screaming to mask up and shut it all down are the true selfish ones. The expect everybody to massively disrupt their lives in order to appease their fear and anxiety. Especially when those mitigations had no prior evidence they’d work and not even a whiff of a stated off-ramp or end goal.
- PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
  > The last time we had an equivalent pandemic they held Woodstock. https://www.cdc.gov/flu/pandemic-resources/1968-pandemic.html https://www.cdc.gov/flu/pandemic-resources/1968-pandemic.htm... > The estimated number of deaths was 1 million worldwide and about 100,000 in the United States. Uh, "equivalent pandemic". I don't think so. [ EDIT: Oh, and also: https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-woodstock-pandemic-1968/misleading-claim-woodstock-took-place-in-the-middle-of-a-pandemic-idUSKBN22J2MJ https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-woodstock-pande... ]
  - spookthesunset 4y ago
    Try adjusting for population instead of using raw numbers. Then account for the fact they test for everybody and anybody for Covid. Not so for the earlier pandemics. Totally different measurements. Imagine if they did the same test protocol back then like they did today. Only then can you compare. The use and abuse of raw data has been a hallmark of the last 2.5 years. Whatever number makes Covid sound worse is the number that gets published and spread. Anything suggesting it isn’t as bad as predicted is buried as a conspiracy or “not peer reviewed”.

PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago

Oh my! You were labelled as a selfish grandma killer! Heavens to Betsy! The sheer force of censorship! The utter horror of government-mandated labelling on social media! Seriously. What do you think is going to happen when there's a worldwide pandemic and people with (in some cases) utterly opposing views on what is safe and advisable as public health policy?

SamPatt 4y ago
Censorship of dissident medical views - many of which were later proven correct - during this period doesn't concern you? I pointed out the existence of differing viewpoints being silenced, was shouted down, and you follow this up with mockery?
- PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
  1. I don't believe there was "censorship of dissident views" - this is a framing I reject 2. I followed up the mockery with a serious point that you have not responded to.
  - FartsDomino 4y ago
    - PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
      You reject the framing that there were major differences of opinion in the appropriate public health policy to adopt in the presence of COVID-19? Censorship? What the OP means by censorship is not what I mean by censorship. Were heterodox ideas etc. surrounding COVID-19 severely criticized? Yes. Were they even limited or deleted from social media? Yes. Were they still published in blogs? In various traditional media? Yes. Could you encounter them on cable news? Yes. Was anyone tried or even arrested for promoting or distributing such ideas? No. That's not the way we treat the announcement of a lemonade stand, but it's also not what I consider censorship in any meaningful way.