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

Amazon refuses to sell book on Covid-19 and lockdowns

axisofeasy.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 345 posts

Re: Amazon refuses to sell book on Covid-19 and lockdowns

#151

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

StuntPope wrote: post #135
SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's a hard call. I've seen a lot of articles recently that are interesting and germane, yet clearly written from the perspective of fighting some political battle. I think it's appropriate to flag such posts even if a lot of people upvote them.

There is a really good podcast out yesterday with Bill Fleckenstein on QuothTheRaven, and he talked about exactly this: The idea disagreeing with official discourse is somehow "political". It shouldn't be. But everything is so polarized lately that disagreeing with the methodologies for collating case fatalities, for example, or worrying about the second-order effects of the lockdowns, suddenly that makes you "Pro-Tr…

Completely agreed. When I call something political, I mean that people are making it into a fight against their political opponents.

Re: Amazon refuses to sell book on Covid-19 and lockdowns

#152

Post by jdc »

grahamburger wrote: post #134
dahdum wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's an extended quote of his, found on Snopes fact check. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/surgeon-general-against-ma... > One of the things [the general public] shouldn’t be doing is going out and buying masks … It has not been proven to be effective in preventing the spread of coronavirus amongst the general public … Folks who don’t know how to wear them properly tend to touch their faces a lot, and actually ca…

I'm pretty sure all of that is still true. In some cases, for some people, wearing a mask can be neutral or even net-negative. Maybe we learned enough to find that for the population at large wearing masks is better than not, but it's still a trade off.

Please elaborate on these cases in which masks have supposedly a net negative effect on the wearer.

Re: Amazon refuses to sell book on Covid-19 and lockdowns

#153

Post by Will_Parker »

grahamburger wrote: post #134
dahdum wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's an extended quote of his, found on Snopes fact check. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/surgeon-general-against-ma... > One of the things [the general public] shouldn’t be doing is going out and buying masks … It has not been proven to be effective in preventing the spread of coronavirus amongst the general public … Folks who don’t know how to wear them properly tend to touch their faces a lot, and actually ca…

I'm pretty sure all of that is still true. In some cases, for some people, wearing a mask can be neutral or even net-negative. Maybe we learned enough to find that for the population at large wearing masks is better than not, but it's still a trade off.

> In some cases, for some people, wearing a mask can be neutral or even net-negative.

If you don't wear it on your face.

Re: Amazon refuses to sell book on Covid-19 and lockdowns

#154

Post by msandford »

ianai wrote: post #110
darawk wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The CDC and WHO both at various times recommended against the general public wearing masks. https://www.vox.com/recode/2020/4/13/21214114/media-coronavi... This advice was wrong. It is not just sick people that benefit from wearing masks. It is not true that people are flattening that into "masks don't work". Masks don't work was repeated many, many times by these organizations. Here's an example: https://www.cidrap.…

The best I heard it explained as was a dilemma. Do you tell people that only n95 masks or better work to protect the wearer? If you do then, because enough stockpile of n95 masks wasn’t maintained for this pandemic, critical medical practitioners like ER staff, nurses, doctors, surgeons wouldn’t be able to wear PPE. Or Do you lie and tell people n95 masks don’t work in the hopes essential medical personnel are then a…

Dilemma or not lying erodes trust. Was it worth it? Probably not is what a lot of people are saying.

Re: Amazon refuses to sell book on Covid-19 and lockdowns

#155

Post by darawk »

dougmany wrote: post #114
darawk wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The CDC and WHO both at various times recommended against the general public wearing masks. https://www.vox.com/recode/2020/4/13/21214114/media-coronavi... This advice was wrong. It is not just sick people that benefit from wearing masks. It is not true that people are flattening that into "masks don't work". Masks don't work was repeated many, many times by these organizations. Here's an example: https://www.cidrap.…

At least two of those links had nuanced reasons that matched the parent's remarks. One even literately had a three point explanation: * There is no scientific evidence they are effective in reducing the risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission * Their use may result in those wearing the masks to relax other distancing efforts because they have a sense of protection * We need to preserve the supply of surgical masks for at-ris…

Point one is equivalent to saying "masks don't work" when communicated in that way to the general public.

Re: Amazon refuses to sell book on Covid-19 and lockdowns

#156

Post by jdc »

wwweston wrote: post #111
ceejayoz wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US Surgeon General: https://twitter.com/surgeon_general/status/12337257852839321... "Seriously people- STOP BUYING MASKS! They are NOT effective in preventing general public from catching #Coronavirus..."

This is an instance of what I described in my above comment. "STOP BUYING MASKS" is not "Masks don't work," especially given the rest of the context of the statement where he's saying they're important to protect high-exposure roles healthcare providers. Which means he's also saying they work. "They are not effective in preventing the general public" might be reasonably interpreted as "masks don't work", but given th…

Your first paragraph is a blatant strawman on the argument presented here in the comments.

Re: Amazon refuses to sell book on Covid-19 and lockdowns

#157

Post by briefcomment »

Karunamon wrote: post #138
briefcomment wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

HN should really get rid of downvotes. They only play one role: To alter how others perceive a post I am unfortunately immediately biased against a post that is greyed out. Greyed posts are increasingly just a different political view rather than an objectively wrong statement. If a post is truly problematic, there is a flag option. Let the cream rise to the top, but don't tell people how to think.

I tend to agree. If we're going to go meta, use downvotes as a sorting mechanism so the stuff the community thinks is most valuable winds up at the top, but remove the greying.

Agreed. I think downvoting is an ugly thing. Most of the time, low stakes condemnation is a cowardly overreaction. That being said, as a sorting mechanism, it's not much worse than an upvote

Re: Amazon refuses to sell book on Covid-19 and lockdowns

#158

Post by ping_pong »

ardy42 wrote: post #83
solarkraft wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's not what free speech is. The argument becomes more difficult the more widely used and essential a platform is. Would you make the same argument about being restricted in what you can say over a private chat service? Over the last decades and especially during the pandemic how people assemble and use their right to free speech has massively shifted. Before you assume that I hold an strong opinion on this: I d…

>> That's not what free speech is. > The argument becomes more difficult the more widely used and essential a platform is. The solution is to not let any one platform get that big and essential as a matter of policy. For free speech to actually be positive, I'm starting to think it's actually pretty important for that speech to be subjected to some kind of peer review process before it's broadcast widely. We used to…

When people say the things that you say, what they really mean is "I believe in free speech, except for those opinions that I don't believe are right."

Restricting free speech until it's vetted is literally counter to what free speech actually is. Free speech is allowing everyone to speak, even if it makes you nauseous. If you don't believe in free speech, then say so, that's your right as per free speech. But please don't try to gaslight people into thinking that "peer-reviewed free speech" is anything except censorship.

What if the peers that review it don't agree with your world view and don't allow books published that you agree with? Will you calmly accept it, or will you claim censorship?

Re: Amazon refuses to sell book on Covid-19 and lockdowns

#159

Post by nickff »

nabla9 wrote: post #93
wuliwong wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is technically incorrect. You might argue that censorship is commonly understood to mean specifically government censorship. But censorship by itself does not have to refer to the actions of the state.

You have it completely backwards :) It's is technically correct. Legally and conceptually censorship is defined only as censorship done by the government. Censorship is commonly understood to mean any kind of censoring or removing of content.

Google Dictionary agrees with you, but Merriam-Webster, Brittanica and Wikipedia disagree.

Re: Amazon refuses to sell book on Covid-19 and lockdowns

#160

Post by darawk »

wwweston wrote: post #127
darawk wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The CDC and WHO both at various times recommended against the general public wearing masks. https://www.vox.com/recode/2020/4/13/21214114/media-coronavi... This advice was wrong. It is not just sick people that benefit from wearing masks. It is not true that people are flattening that into "masks don't work". Masks don't work was repeated many, many times by these organizations. Here's an example: https://www.cidrap.…

> recommended against the general public wearing masks. which masks? for what reasons? > It is not true that people are flattening that into "masks don't work"...Here's an example: This is an example... of how the advice got flattened. Quoting from that first link: "Surgical masks likely have some utility as source control (meaning the wearer limits virus dispersal to another person)" "Respirators, though, are the on…

Their fundamental message was that masks do not work. They hedged in their language, but their recommendations were predicated on the idea that they are ineffective at slowing transmission. This is and was disastrously false.

Saying that "there's no evidence that masks work" is tantamount to saying they don't work. There is also no formal evidence that standing next to an infected person is a risk. I'm not aware of any studies that have officially proven that yet. But we still know that it is, and saying "there's no evidence that exposure to an infected person puts you at risk of infection" would be a ridiculously inaccurate thing to say.

Post reply on HN