Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

YouTube removes interview with professor of medicine on Covid stats and policy

unherd.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 596 posts

Re: YouTube removes interview with professor of medicine on Covid stats and policy

#61

Post by aianus »

joshuamorton wrote: post #55
throwawaysea wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with the idea of truth being the answer to lies, and echo chambers being dangerous for society in the long term. But I disagree with the notion that no one has business speaking outside their field of expertise. Experts can be wrong or change their views over time and they should be open to being challenged by others. No one has a monopoly on data or logic or free thought. If the line of correctness between s…

No, complex topics that aren't simple and sometimes are counterintuitive are exactly the cases when deferral to experts is important because countering other views in lay explanations may not be possible.

Should I have deferred to expert opinions and waited until yesterday(!?) to start wearing a mask?

https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/national-directive-on-w...

Re: YouTube removes interview with professor of medicine on Covid stats and policy

#62

Post by joshuamorton »

aianus wrote: post #61
joshuamorton wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, complex topics that aren't simple and sometimes are counterintuitive are exactly the cases when deferral to experts is important because countering other views in lay explanations may not be possible.

Should I have deferred to expert opinions and waited until yesterday(!?) to start wearing a mask? https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/national-directive-on-w...

Two questions: did the Canadian government actively recommend against mask wearing? Do you live in Canada?

Note the difference between "we can't condone masks because there is limited evidence that they are helpful" and "we recommend against masks because they are harmful" and "the lockdown is a government consipracy to subjugate us".

Re: YouTube removes interview with professor of medicine on Covid stats and policy

#63

Post by s9w »

alabaster_punt wrote: post #53
DiffEq wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what is so dangerous about it? Perhaps you need to consult a dictionary as to what danger really is. I don't know these people that made the video and I don't subscribe to magic crystals or whatever they are pushing/saying but I do know what Epidemiologist Neil Ferguson from Imperial college created in his flawed modeling - a world wide panic. That is what has been dangerous. Google is a private company I suppose…

What's dangerous about it is that it's encouraging people to demand that their government enact policies that will lead to unnecessary deaths. Neil Ferguson's model was not flawed (at least, not in a significant way that would invalidate its conclusions)

Oh boy I wouldn't be so sure after having a look at it on github.

Re: YouTube removes interview with professor of medicine on Covid stats and policy

#64

Post by kerkeslager »

throwawaysea wrote: post #52
kerkeslager wrote: post #40

There are two separate issues here: 1. Non-science: calling Karol Sikora a "professor of medicine" hides the fact that he's an oncologist; if he ever had any expertise it was in cancer, not epidemics, and he has no business speaking outside his field. Sikora is also a fellow of The Princes Foundation For Integrated Health and a professional member of the generically-named College Of Medicine. Both of these organizati…

I agree with the idea of truth being the answer to lies, and echo chambers being dangerous for society in the long term. But I disagree with the notion that no one has business speaking outside their field of expertise. Experts can be wrong or change their views over time and they should be open to being challenged by others. No one has a monopoly on data or logic or free thought. If the line of correctness between s…

> Experts can be wrong or change their views over time and they should be open to being challenged by others. No one has a monopoly on data or logic or free thought.

Experts discover they are wrong and change their views based on evidence, not based on what other experts or non-experts say.

Non-experts, like the majority of HN users, really can only go off the word of experts at some point, unless we decide to spend the time studying a field to become experts.

And to be clear, I'm not saying "experts" only meaning people who got a degree in a field. A degree is only the most obvious way to show expertise in a field. But it's quite possible to study a field for a long time without getting a degree. But it's not at all apparent that Sakora has done that--in fact, all evidence I see seems to be trying to gloss over his lack of expertise.

Re: YouTube removes interview with professor of medicine on Covid stats and policy

#65

Post by alabaster_punt »

s9w wrote: post #63
alabaster_punt wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's dangerous about it is that it's encouraging people to demand that their government enact policies that will lead to unnecessary deaths. Neil Ferguson's model was not flawed (at least, not in a significant way that would invalidate its conclusions)

Oh boy I wouldn't be so sure after having a look at it on github.

If you have a specific reason to believe that the model resulted in an incorrect conclusion, feel free to share it, instead of casting aspersions with cryptic nothings.

Re: YouTube removes interview with professor of medicine on Covid stats and policy

#66

Post by ska »

aianus wrote: post #61
joshuamorton wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, complex topics that aren't simple and sometimes are counterintuitive are exactly the cases when deferral to experts is important because countering other views in lay explanations may not be possible.

Should I have deferred to expert opinions and waited until yesterday(!?) to start wearing a mask? https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/national-directive-on-w...

Those Canadian experts haven't been telling you not to wear a mask, have they? I can't find evidence of that - I just find them saying they don't have scientific evidence (yet) that wearing masks prophetically is necessary. Which is a very different thing.

Have you seen different statements?

Re: YouTube removes interview with professor of medicine on Covid stats and policy

#67

Post by scarface74 »

ppod wrote: post #54
scarface74 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. You have the right to say whatever you want but you don’t have the right to force someone else to publish it. If you want to publish what you want free of interference, pay for your own servers and bandwidth.

Of course, but I'm not asking about what rights distributors should have, I'm asking normatively whether a distributor should ban people like this.

A distributor is a private business that has the right to ban anyone they want except for protected classes.

He can be his own distributor that’s the power of the internet.

Re: YouTube removes interview with professor of medicine on Covid stats and policy

#68

Post by kerkeslager »

alabaster_punt wrote: post #59
kerkeslager wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Somebody consuming this content is not likely to seek out alternative viewpoints to correct themselves. Which is why it's important that we present the truth right next to it, so people don't have to look elsewhere. > The information is dangerous, it should not be available. Well, it is available, in places where the truth isn't available, so I don't really know what you think taking it off YouTube has achieved.

> Which is why it's important that we present the truth right next to it, so people don't have to look elsewhere. This still assumes that people will be willing to watch it. > Well, it is available, in places where the truth isn't available, so I don't really know what you think taking it off YouTube has achieved. It has achieved a lower spread of misinformation. Now nobody browsing YouTube will happen upon this vide…

> It has achieved a lower spread of misinformation.

Has it? I'm not really sure how you came to this conclusion.

If kicking Sakora off YouTube causes his followers to become angry and go share his personal site through a bunch of different channels, that could easily outpace the impact of a YouTube channel where refutations are included.

If someone censored your views, what would you do? Why do you think people who disagree with you won't do all the same things?

Re: YouTube removes interview with professor of medicine on Covid stats and policy

#69

Post by DiffEq »

alabaster_punt wrote: post #53
DiffEq wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what is so dangerous about it? Perhaps you need to consult a dictionary as to what danger really is. I don't know these people that made the video and I don't subscribe to magic crystals or whatever they are pushing/saying but I do know what Epidemiologist Neil Ferguson from Imperial college created in his flawed modeling - a world wide panic. That is what has been dangerous. Google is a private company I suppose…

What's dangerous about it is that it's encouraging people to demand that their government enact policies that will lead to unnecessary deaths. Neil Ferguson's model was not flawed (at least, not in a significant way that would invalidate its conclusions)

Sounds like we don't need to worry about that...government does all on its own...https://nypost.com/2020/04/28/more-blood-on-gov-cuomos-hands...

Re: YouTube removes interview with professor of medicine on Covid stats and policy

#70

Post by modzu »

kerkeslager wrote: post #40

There are two separate issues here: 1. Non-science: calling Karol Sikora a "professor of medicine" hides the fact that he's an oncologist; if he ever had any expertise it was in cancer, not epidemics, and he has no business speaking outside his field. Sikora is also a fellow of The Princes Foundation For Integrated Health and a professional member of the generically-named College Of Medicine. Both of these organizati…

did you watch the piece? what exactly was "insane" about it? and imo the issue here isnt what is "true" -- nobody knows the truth with corona; its novel. so what's important is having a guide to truth. and that guide is scientific thinking -- the scientific method. experts are dead wrong all the time. but they dont stay wrong.
Post reply on HN