4 ms·

We're not talking about scientific process, which changes with new evidence, we're talking about calling people as "heads filled with rocks" for suggesting that

We're not talking about scientific process, which changes with new evidence, we're talking about calling people as "heads filled with rocks" for suggesting that the current recommendations are bad/wrong/inapropriate/...., censoring them from social networks, calling them covid deniers, conspiracy theorists, having their wikipedia edits removed, doxing them, and in some cases, even doing stuff that affects their livelyhood, possible medical licences etc., then having the 'truth' change, not acknowledge that 'we' were wrong, and 'they' were right and apologizing, but again, doing all those things to the next group (eg. the ones who bought and wore masks in the time when it was "enough to just wash your hands" were "attacked" first, then the "attack" moved over to the ones who didn't want to wear a mask). If someone (from the government, national 'cdc', whoever) stood up infront of the cameras, said "we fucked up, masks are really needed, we thought so otherwise and gave bad advice, we're sorry, please wear masks", then sure... some will get mad, because their relatives died by following the advice, but for most, it would be a decent thing done by their governments... but banning people who suggested that we need masks, and then banning people who suggested that we didn't need masks without unbanning the first group, is, well... stupid. > The initial recommendation not to go out and panic buy masks was for a good reason, healthcare providers needed them first. Oh yeah, just a thing I'd like to see with people in power, scientists in doctors... "we lied to you, because we couldn't fill out order forms in time, you could have died by following our advice, but here's new advice, we're totally not lying now, whoopsie, sorry!" (but without the 'sorry'). How am I supposed to trust them now, when they recommend something else?

kube-system 3y ago
> we're talking about calling people as "heads filled with rocks" for suggesting that the current recommendations are bad/wrong/inapropriate/. There's two different things to discuss here. One is "the science" and one is "public health guidelines", and they're different things. It is one thing to discuss the behavior of the virus in a scientific context. It is another thing to spread memes, FUD, or armchair conjecture in a forum of non-experts that make claims counter to the latest scientific consensus. > censoring them from social networks, calling them covid deniers, conspiracy theorists, having their wikipedia edits removed, This isn't a fault of scientists or regulators. This is a failure of social media and their user base. They are incapable of being nuanced enough to determine the difference between scientific discussion, pseudoscience, conjecture, and malice. And so, those platforms became filled with speech that confused all four, and those who managed those platforms threw up their hands and resorted to heavy handed tactics because they lack the capability to do anything more precise. > If someone (from the government, national 'cdc', whoever) stood up infront of the cameras, said "we fucked up, masks are really needed When the guidance changed, they did announce the change, along with the reason. The reason wasn't a "fuck up" it was new data that changed the calculus. > Oh yeah, just a thing I'd like to see with people in power, scientists in doctors... "we lied to you, because we couldn't fill out order forms in time, you could have died by following our advice, but here's new advice, we're totally not lying now, whoopsie, sorry!" (but without the 'sorry'). How am I supposed to trust them now, when they recommend something else? That isn't at all what happened, or what the problem was. The national stockpile of masks wasn't mismanaged by scientists, it was mismanaged by politicians. And JIT inventory wasn't implemented by distributors and hospital management by scientists, it was done by MBAs. And divesting manufacturing overseas wasn't done by scientists, it was done by wall street. And again, as I said in a sibling comment, the CDC was upfront about the rationale from the beginning.
- ajsnigrutin 3y ago
  > There's two different things to discuss here. One is "the science" and one is "public health guidelines", and they're different things. It is one thing to discuss the behavior of the virus in a scientific context. It is another thing to spread memes, FUD, or armchair conjecture in a forum of non-experts that make claims counter to the latest scientific consensus. But what if the memes and FUD are right? Should we really censor the paranoid conspiracy theorist, that said that you need a mask, when fauci was saying that washing hands is enough? What about when vaccines became available, someone said "even if vaccinated, you'll still get it, you can still spread it to your grandma, and she can still die from it, and the 'vaccinated people don't get ill' is a lie!"? I mean... it turned out to be true, but it got deleted from facebook and it got you banned from a lot of reddit. > This isn't a fault of scientists or regulators. This is a failure of social media and their user base. They are incapable of being nuanced enough to determine the difference between scientific discussion, pseudoscience, conjecture, and malice. And so, those platforms became filled with speech that confused all four, and those who managed those platforms threw up their hands and resorted to heavy handed tactics because they lack the capability to do anything more precise. ...and wikipedia, the topic of this post. > That isn't at all what happened, or what the problem was. The national stockpile of masks wasn't mismanaged by scientists, it was mismanaged by politicians. And JIT inventory wasn't implemented by distributors and hospital management by scientists, it was done by MBAs. And divesting manufacturing overseas wasn't done by scientists, it was done by wall street. And again, as I said in a sibling comment, the CDC was upfront about the rationale from the beginning. The general consensus was, that masks don't help a lot, that's why you don't need them. It wasn't "you really need a mask, and we'll mandate it soon, but we don't have enough for now".
  - kube-system 3y ago
    > But what if the memes and FUD are right? Should we really censor the paranoid conspiracy theorist, that said that you need a mask, when fauci was saying that washing hands is enough? I'll answer this two different ways: 1. For ad supported platforms: Regardless of anyone's moral objections, ad supported platforms have neither the expertise nor desire to do anything otherwise. They are not scientific experts, they aren't any good at moderating nuanced speech, and they barely have the capability to moderate even the most obvious of situations on their platform. 2. In regards to Wikipedia, while they at least attempt to operate in a way that prioritizes information over profit incentives, it has always been a battleground of agendas by people of varying qualification hiding behind keyboards. Truth is just an inherently hard thing to determine, especially when it is a contemporary topic with a lot of change that requires expertise to understand. If it is hard for the world's best experts to come to an answer, it will be even harder others to do the same. Then the question is more about balance of quality -- do you want your platform to contain more information, even if some is wrong? Or do you want to maintain a higher standard, even if you kick out some people who might have been right? What if the wrong information could be dangerous to people's health? Do you bear some responsibility to ensure it is correct? I don't think there's a correct answer for every situation here, but there are absolutely good arguments for why you might not want to let people cry fire in a crowded theatre if the other attendees disagree. > The general consensus was, that masks don't help a lot, that's why you don't need them. It wasn't "you really need a mask, and we'll mandate it soon, but we don't have enough for now". What "general consensus" are you referring to? What the CDC said in March 2020 was that masks were recommended to be prioritized for healthcare workers who needed them the most. This was reasonable at the time, and still reasonable in hindsight.

kube-system 3y ago

> we're talking about calling people as "heads filled with rocks" for suggesting that the current recommendations are bad/wrong/inapropriate/. There's two different things to discuss here. One is "the science" and one is "public health guidelines", and they're different things. It is one thing to discuss the behavior of the virus in a scientific context. It is another thing to spread memes, FUD, or armchair conjecture in a forum of non-experts that make claims counter to the latest scientific consensus. > censoring them from social networks, calling them covid deniers, conspiracy theorists, having their wikipedia edits removed, This isn't a fault of scientists or regulators. This is a failure of social media and their user base. They are incapable of being nuanced enough to determine the difference between scientific discussion, pseudoscience, conjecture, and malice. And so, those platforms became filled with speech that confused all four, and those who managed those platforms threw up their hands and resorted to heavy handed tactics because they lack the capability to do anything more precise. > If someone (from the government, national 'cdc', whoever) stood up infront of the cameras, said "we fucked up, masks are really needed When the guidance changed, they did announce the change, along with the reason. The reason wasn't a "fuck up" it was new data that changed the calculus. > Oh yeah, just a thing I'd like to see with people in power, scientists in doctors... "we lied to you, because we couldn't fill out order forms in time, you could have died by following our advice, but here's new advice, we're totally not lying now, whoopsie, sorry!" (but without the 'sorry'). How am I supposed to trust them now, when they recommend something else? That isn't at all what happened, or what the problem was. The national stockpile of masks wasn't mismanaged by scientists, it was mismanaged by politicians. And JIT inventory wasn't implemented by distributors and hospital management by scientists, it was done by MBAs. And divesting manufacturing overseas wasn't done by scientists, it was done by wall street. And again, as I said in a sibling comment, the CDC was upfront about the rationale from the beginning.

ajsnigrutin 3y ago
> There's two different things to discuss here. One is "the science" and one is "public health guidelines", and they're different things. It is one thing to discuss the behavior of the virus in a scientific context. It is another thing to spread memes, FUD, or armchair conjecture in a forum of non-experts that make claims counter to the latest scientific consensus. But what if the memes and FUD are right? Should we really censor the paranoid conspiracy theorist, that said that you need a mask, when fauci was saying that washing hands is enough? What about when vaccines became available, someone said "even if vaccinated, you'll still get it, you can still spread it to your grandma, and she can still die from it, and the 'vaccinated people don't get ill' is a lie!"? I mean... it turned out to be true, but it got deleted from facebook and it got you banned from a lot of reddit. > This isn't a fault of scientists or regulators. This is a failure of social media and their user base. They are incapable of being nuanced enough to determine the difference between scientific discussion, pseudoscience, conjecture, and malice. And so, those platforms became filled with speech that confused all four, and those who managed those platforms threw up their hands and resorted to heavy handed tactics because they lack the capability to do anything more precise. ...and wikipedia, the topic of this post. > That isn't at all what happened, or what the problem was. The national stockpile of masks wasn't mismanaged by scientists, it was mismanaged by politicians. And JIT inventory wasn't implemented by distributors and hospital management by scientists, it was done by MBAs. And divesting manufacturing overseas wasn't done by scientists, it was done by wall street. And again, as I said in a sibling comment, the CDC was upfront about the rationale from the beginning. The general consensus was, that masks don't help a lot, that's why you don't need them. It wasn't "you really need a mask, and we'll mandate it soon, but we don't have enough for now".
- kube-system 3y ago
  > But what if the memes and FUD are right? Should we really censor the paranoid conspiracy theorist, that said that you need a mask, when fauci was saying that washing hands is enough? I'll answer this two different ways: 1. For ad supported platforms: Regardless of anyone's moral objections, ad supported platforms have neither the expertise nor desire to do anything otherwise. They are not scientific experts, they aren't any good at moderating nuanced speech, and they barely have the capability to moderate even the most obvious of situations on their platform. 2. In regards to Wikipedia, while they at least attempt to operate in a way that prioritizes information over profit incentives, it has always been a battleground of agendas by people of varying qualification hiding behind keyboards. Truth is just an inherently hard thing to determine, especially when it is a contemporary topic with a lot of change that requires expertise to understand. If it is hard for the world's best experts to come to an answer, it will be even harder others to do the same. Then the question is more about balance of quality -- do you want your platform to contain more information, even if some is wrong? Or do you want to maintain a higher standard, even if you kick out some people who might have been right? What if the wrong information could be dangerous to people's health? Do you bear some responsibility to ensure it is correct? I don't think there's a correct answer for every situation here, but there are absolutely good arguments for why you might not want to let people cry fire in a crowded theatre if the other attendees disagree. > The general consensus was, that masks don't help a lot, that's why you don't need them. It wasn't "you really need a mask, and we'll mandate it soon, but we don't have enough for now". What "general consensus" are you referring to? What the CDC said in March 2020 was that masks were recommended to be prioritized for healthcare workers who needed them the most. This was reasonable at the time, and still reasonable in hindsight.