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

Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

astralcodexten.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

511–520 of 805 posts

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#511

Post by naasking »

_djo_ wrote: post #505
naasking wrote: post #439

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm not sure the market exists for all journalists to be as highly qualified as Scott I'm not sure we need as many journalists as we currently have. Do we really need another rehashing of the latest culture war nonsense? If you strip out all of these pseudo-journalists and consider only journalists covering real facts and in-depth analysis, that's a considerably smaller group that could plausibly consist of a numbe…

That's what the public demands, so that's what news companies cater for in order to make a profit and stay in business. Few journalists like covering that sort of stuff, a whole bunch dreamed of being investigative journalists breaking corruption and other public interest stories. But there simply aren't enough people reading those stories to maintain nearly enough staff for them. Scott Alexander can also do what he…

Journalists aren't required to be totally accurate either. Most journalism is opinion, especially these days. Sometimes also informed opinion backed by experience, often not even that.

I'm just not seeing this distinction you claim exists.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#512

Post by tillinghast »

tqi wrote: post #406
romeros wrote: post #383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I need to clarify. I am not implying that WHO / CDC is lying outright. It's just that they have to be very careful and choose the right message to convey to the general public. It does mean you might have to downplay some things which might be true but will cause more harm than good if emphasized. I personally can never do that but I won't judge people who are in a situation where every thing they say has a huge impa…

I think that rationale is patronizing nonsense. At best, this behavior is short-sighted and forgets erosion of trust is cumulative.

And yet…

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#513

Post by jacquesm »

mgamache wrote: post #487
jacquesm wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a pretty good memory for comment histories and you've been pushing this for far more than it is worth. That this single article would change your mind is fortunate, but I do not suspect that to hold true for the bulk of the conspiracy peddlers that remain.

"Conspiracy peddlers" -- IE People with a different standard of evidence than yourself.

No, people who will amplify bullshit because they want to believe in miracles rather than to face the music. As long as it is just about yourself go wild, do whatever you want. But keep your mental viruses to yourself, lest they destroy the lives of others.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#514

Post by mcguire »

pdonis wrote: post #409
romeros wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

WHO has no other option than being inaccurate. Society needs a simple answer. Do this. Do that etc. Put on a mask. Wash your hands. Practice social distancing. Use approved vaccines. Take booster shots etc are pretty simple to follow. Likewise don't take non approved stuff. Easy to understand and simple to follow. Nuances will likely hurt and confuse the common man. That's why the news and celebs and politicians etc…

> 1. Be 100% accurate and risk confusing people 2. Be strategic about it and for the greater good. Humans have a very poor track record at actually advancing any "greater good" when they choose option 2. In practice, "the greater good" turns out to be whatever helps those particular humans keep their power and status. That's why option 1 is the only acceptable one. > We need a narrative and the cost is accuracy. If t…

How much time are you going to spend learning enough virology to make your own decisions in this case? How much time are you going to spend on the tens of thousands of other fields that you need to understand in order to make your own decisions?

Alternatively, what do you do for a living? Do you make decisions that affect others? Or do you provide 100% accurate information in sufficient detail that they can make those decisions individually?

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#515

Post by azinman2 »

SkeuomorphicBee wrote: post #403
PragmaticPulp wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is worth reading purely for the writing alone. Scott Alexander is a treasure This post is a breath of fresh air for the blog and feels refreshingly well-researched. Between that and the unquestionable popularity of COVID-related discussion, it’s no wonder this article is popular. Scott is undeniably a good blog writer with an entertaining writing style that resonates with his reader base. However, I’ve become…

Most of the writing is fantastic, but I'm very disappointed by the take that "everyone was wrong", by the implication that doctors didn't know they should treat for worms before giving immunosuppressants. Guess what, doctors in the developing world already knew that, it was always the standard practice on Brazilian hospitals. In fact, ivermectin was in very high demand in hospitals before it was suspected to be a Cov…

So why hasn’t that come up before in these studies?

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#516

Post by low_tech_love »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #465
low_tech_love wrote: post #129

It was a fun read, but implying that a drug dealer from Kern county is related to a published researcher from Mexico just because they have the same surname is not really cool.

I think you missed the point of the comparison. It wasn't a real claim that they are literally the same person. It was a joke that that the study was so suspicious and potentially fraudulent that the author could be a criminal drug dealer...

Sure it’s a joke. A very bad, tasteless, and racist joke. I get it!

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#517

Post by jacquesm »

TigeriusKirk wrote: post #424
jacquesm wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Some people want to understand. So go study medicine, assuming you have 10 years to burn and are willing to take a massive pay cut. The average HN'er probably knows how to program a computer and some of them may even know how to program one well. If a guy that runs a fishing boat with not even the most basic idea about programming, hardware, software, satellite systems, general relativity and integrating all of the…

No, I would definitely make an effort to explain it to him in ways he could understand. I mean, that's half the job of a professional programmer right there.

Not really, that's the job of a technical writer. The job of a programmer is implementation to spec.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#518

Post by mcguire »

dnautics wrote: post #419
dekhn wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

romeros is right. public health people have to do third-order thinking to maximize the overall health impact. I haven't done RCTs but we studied them in detail in my stats class in grad school.

no they don't. They just need to be honest about what they do know and what they don't and don't assert something is true when it's "we're not sure". Just do zero-order thinking. Don't patronize the public. Guess what. If you don't trust the public. Why should the public trust you?

Remember when the COVID vaccines were in trials and the news were all reporting that they were "80-90+%" effective on the then-current strains?

Why, then, do I keep seeing arguments from people about the vaccines not being perfectly effective?

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#519

Post by _djo_ »

naasking wrote: post #511
_djo_ wrote: post #505

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's what the public demands, so that's what news companies cater for in order to make a profit and stay in business. Few journalists like covering that sort of stuff, a whole bunch dreamed of being investigative journalists breaking corruption and other public interest stories. But there simply aren't enough people reading those stories to maintain nearly enough staff for them. Scott Alexander can also do what he…

Journalists aren't required to be totally accurate either. Most journalism is opinion, especially these days. Sometimes also informed opinion backed by experience, often not even that. I'm just not seeing this distinction you claim exists.

Journalists at established media houses are accountable, including to internal and external ombuds or public editors. They also rely on reputation.

Of course a lot of what's supposed to be 'journalism' isn't, like talking heads on cable news.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#520

Post by toolz »

RandallBrown wrote: post #509
gunapologist99 wrote: post #458

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> First world countries are in the process of conducting RCTs testing Ivermectin, for example the activ-6 and covid-out studies in the US. ... "in the process of"? How long has ivermectin existed? How long has the pandemic been around for? How long has ivermectin been claimed to have huge benefits for, regardless of the source? Isn't it possible that there are some other reasons why RCT's haven't been conducted yet b…

Who makes ivermectin, if not Big Pharma? Wouldn't it have been way easier to just sell pills they already manufacture than investing all the time and energy into new stuff?

ivermectin is a generic drug now, the profits are squeezed down to nearly nothing due to competition and it's being mass produced in many places.
Post reply on HN