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

71–80 of 596 posts

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

#71

Post by takeda »

JSavageOne wrote: post #42

Google is a totalitarian institution and this is offensive to anyone who values free speech

Google is not a government organization is a private platform. It generally does not get involved in things like that, but the amounts of misinformation is staggering.

I have family members affected by this and it looks like it is a targeted misinformation attack. It starts with Facebook posts, which then often direct you to youtube channels which are condition people into crazier and crazier theories.

It is so weird, because many of these theories even contradict themselves, yet people still believe them.

The guy in article is also an oncologist and he talks about subject that is not his expertise. It's like asking a front end engineer how to best design the a new data center.

This is especially dangerous since we are currently in middle of pandemic and many people will trust his advice.

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

#72

Post by nojito »

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…

People are quick to trust doctors but fail to understand that specialists are the important thought leaders.

The only opinions that matter are infectious disease and respiratory doctors.

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

#73

Post by nojito »

modzu wrote: post #70
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.

He’s not qualified to speak about infectious disease.

Infectious disease is a distinct specialty in medicine.

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

#74

Post by ppod »

scarface74 wrote: post #67
ppod wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Of course. As I said, I'm not asking what rights they have. I'm asking what you think. If you were youtube, would you ban this video?

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

#75

Post by kerkeslager »

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...

The National Post are not experts, and they aren't reporting what experts say accurately. And while there's a video in there where an actual expert speaks, you're not reporting what that expert said accurately.

Public health officials, while they usually are experts, have other concerns beyond simply saying the truth. The US and Canadian recommendations against medical masks for the general public were part of a strategy based on reserving medical masks. So yes, you should have followed the recommendations of health officials and not worn a medical mask, because healthcare workers needed them.

As far as I know, neither the US nor Canada has ever taken a stance against non-medical masks. They haven't taken a stance for medical masks either, but this was likely due to concerns that people would be confused about medical versus non-medical masks. Your own post is an example of this being a very legitimate concern: you have completely failed to differentiate between medical and non-medical masks.

If you look at what experts have been saying who aren't part of governments, the messaging has been fairly consistent: masks prevent illness at varying rates, and we need to prioritize healthcare workers when allocating the most effective masks.

So when you say, "Should I have deferred to expert opinions and waited until yesterday(!?) to start wearing a mask?" I have to say, no, it would have been impossible to do that, because deferring to expert opinions and waiting until yesterday to start wearing a mask are mutually exclusive actions.

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

#76

Post by s9w »

alabaster_punt wrote: post #65
s9w wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It looked very wonky. I cannot judge if the code does not actually produce something worthwhile, but it certainly doesn't pass any smell tests. In no profession would work looking as sloppy as that be trusted. And for the critical decision it was used for I would expect something more robust.

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

#77

Post by [deleted] »

nojito wrote: post #73
modzu wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

He’s not qualified to speak about infectious disease. Infectious disease is a distinct specialty in medicine.

[deleted]

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

#78

Post by DiffEq »

alabaster_punt wrote: post #65
s9w wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The model said if we don't lock things down China-style millions will die. But we see now from Sweden it was not true. See top graph: https://informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/covid-19-c...

Also Neil's other predictions have been completely wrong on the Swine Flu and Bird flu. Why this "expert in his field" is still listened to is a mystery to me.

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

#79

Post by kerkeslager »

modzu wrote: post #70
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.

I didn't watch the piece, but I've read enough of what Sakora has written to conclude that Sakora is a consistent liar. Even if a liar tells the truth, he's not a valuable source of information because you don't know whether what he says is true or not.

> and imo the issue here isnt what is "true" -- nobody knows the truth with corona; its novel.

If nobody knows what's true with corona, then shouldn't claim to know what's true with corona, which is what Sakora is doing.

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

#80

Post by shrimpx »

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…

For (2), allowing conversation as a general solution seems tough at scale, e.g., targeted misinformation campaigns on fb and twitter.
Post reply on HN