501–510 of 1001 posts
“Preliminary investigations conducted by the Chinese authorities have found no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission of the novel coronavirus.”
From my understanding that Tweet was deleted. With all the contradicting stories coming from the media, the WH, WHO, social media, I’m going to stick with facts and not twisted agenda pushing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The WHO has been spreading misinformation from the start, including claims that covid does not spread from human to human Go back and actually read the full set of WHO statements in mid-January. They have a bunch of statements saying that nations should get prepared, one saying that specific studies haven’t yet found hard evidence for person-to-person transmission (because at that point most of the cases they’d man…
They did say though that flying to China was still okay in as late as February. For what? Fear of CCP? If this virus had come in some African country, they would have no problem in closing everything out - as anyone that understands tail risks would. But because it's China, then the recommendations for actions come after the evidence can not be hidden anymore. It is immoral.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The WHO has been spreading misinformation from the start, including claims that covid does not spread from human to human after it was abundantly clear that it does[0], claims that travel bans would be unnecessary to halt its spread[1], and claims that people should not wear masks[2]. These are not mere edge cases. We have structured our public organizations in a way that gives credentialed "experts" enormous amounts…
>including claims that covid does not spread from human to human. That's how you interpret 'no clear evidence from preliminary investigations' is it? Why bother attempting to twist the WHO's words? What does it get you?
The relevant timeline: Li Wenliang (a doctor in Wuhan) blew the whistle on Dec 30. 4 days later he was harassed by the Chinese police for "spreading rumors". On Jan 8 Li Wenliang was infected. On Jan 12 he was put in the ICU. On Jan 14 WHO denied human-to-human transmission.
Li unfortunately passed away in early February.
And by the way, there were warnings from Taiwan about human-to-human transmission very early on, which the WHO ignored: https://www.ft.com/content/2a70a02a-644a-11ea-a6cd-df28cc3c6...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Revoking 230 won't make the executives at YouTube go "gosh darn, guess we'll have to start taking a loss by employing hundreds of thousands of moderators to literally watch every video uploaded", they'll constrain and limit the platform in any way which still guarantees similar or greater ad revenue. That is, if there isn't any legal loophole like requiring creators sign legal paperwork which makes creators their own…
They'll probably cull everything that doesn't earn them ad revenue, to minimize the fallout. The content will trend toward sanitized garbage and the viewers will start leaking to somewhere else.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because the official narrative is not always the truth. And censorship breeds tyranny.
So again, this is an argument for allowing specific, identifiably harmful and wrong claims?
Current WHO advice: "If you are healthy, you only need to wear a mask if you are taking care of a person with COVID-19." [0] Where we live, due to local laws , we are now obliged to wear a mask to go shopping. Can one discuss that on YouTube, or would one be contradicting the WHO? I fear there isn't "one truth" out there, despite the content providers' and fact-checkers' attempts :( We keep trying to encourage our ki…
What WHO is saying is that there is no solid proof that wearing a mask will do much to protect you. And they are correct in saying that. They do not say that masks offer no protection. They also don't say that you shouldn't wear masks. Actual scientists give advice based on available evidence. When there is no evidence, or available evidence is too weak, they don't give that advice and they also don't fall in the tra…
You can be rational and completly dumb at the same time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Its not that it is unethical But it does support the statement that "The WHO is a political organization with medical leanings". Personally I think that statement puts it a bit too strongly. It would be like saying "PyCon is a feminist organization with technical leanings."
I’m curious what possible behavior by the WHO you would consider not to indicate that it’s a political organization.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> No, censoring that content including videos is NOT the role of a hosting platform. Huh? If I ran a hosting platform and people were putting absolute BS on there, I'd remove it too. People who run hosting platforms want to have integrity.
The WHO denied human-to-human transmission even after Taiwan told them about it, and they dug their heels on calling the outbreak a pandemic for weeks. I think it depends how youtube draws the line. If they’re removing stuff like “use colloidial silver” or “no need to wash your hands” then sure. But the WHO is not gospel.
> The WHO denied human-to-human transmission even after Taiwan told them about it
I don't think anyone on HN needs to be told that "there are no clear evidence of human to human transmission" is not the same as "there are evidence that human to human transmission is not possible" which is how everyone is trying their hardest to interpret it as.
> even after Taiwan told them about it
Do you have a primary source about it? Every time someone references it, it's an editorial obfuscating the embarrassing primary source of Taiwan's "warning" email from December 31 which reads:
"News resources today indicate that at least seven atypical pneumonia cases were reported in Wuhan, CHINA. Their health authorities replied to the media that the cases were believed not SARS; however the samples are still under examination, and cases have been isolated for treatment.
I would greatly appreciate it if you have relevant information to share with us.
Thank you very much in advance for your attention to this matter."
where they're asking for the WHO's help clarifying something they heard over the news.
I guess if this were the 1500s YouTube would only have us post videos that confirm that witches and heretics should be burned at the stake. Maybe it would be okay to talk about a few more crusades. Mankind improves because systems become big, rigid, and unable to evolve. People come along and point that out, suggesting various theories about how those systems got that way, the reasons why they are wrong, and offering…
No, it isn't. The title does not match the policy.
There are armed groups at state capitols spreading dangerous misinformation about COVID-19 that will almost certainly cause people to get sick and die. That misinformation effort is coordinated and well-funded. Whatever hypothetical you want to argue about censorship, you need to grapple with the fact that we face a persistent and aggressive misinformation threat, and combating it is part of the public health respons…
It’s sort of like torture: even if it worked for the problem it is trying to solve, it would debase us as human beings to try to use it. To top that off, it doesn’t work.