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

751–760 of 805 posts

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#751

Post by glenneroo »

jacquesm wrote: post #624
mcguire wrote: post #615

Earlier quoted context omitted.

" In another promising medical development, the biotechnology company Moderna has announced its COVID-19 vaccine could be up to 94.5% effective. The news comes a week after Pfizer announced its vaccine could be up to 90% effective based on a similar, early analysis from its Phase 3 trial. " ( https://abcnews.go.com/Health/moderna-announces-initial-phas... ) " And then there were three. U.K. pharmaceutical giant Astra…

Note the 'could'. Which of course everybody skips.

According to this (scroll down to panel #5 about Vaccines): https://informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/covid-19-c...

Last updated July 2021 but the data from multiple studies for multiple strains seems to support the initial claims.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#752

Post by afiori »

kaba0 wrote: post #526
jacquesm wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Now it turns out, laughably in hindsight, that the effect is probably whether people had parasites or not and I hadn't thought of that. No, that's just a hypothesis. To move that to 'probably' would require a very carefully designed study.

Null hypothesis should be that it doesn’t work.

Given that it is already an antiparassitic drug the null hypotesys should be that it is "only" an antiparassitic drug

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#753

Post by s1artibartfast »

low_tech_love wrote: post #750
s1artibartfast wrote: post #639

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that is strong point that such comments trigger some readers. I imagine that any politically savvy author like this one evaluates the inclusion of jokes involving POC in their editing process today. As far as intent, I am more inclined to believe the author decided to leave it intentionally, not to endear the conservative reader, but because they believe that while some readers may be offended, that they didn…

The point remains that he singled out a latin-american surname in order to google and look for criminals to relate to. That means he expected to find something, and did. Would he think to do the same with an european surname? And more importantly, would it still sound cool and funny to his audience?

OK, so it all comes down to assumptions.

I honestly assumed he found the tweet when looking the researcher, and would have made the same joke if the name were Mike Smith. I didn't think the joke was especially entertaining, and don't see it being any more or less cool or funny with a Spanish name.

I could see how if the exact opposite were true, it could be racist.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#754

Post by naasking »

_djo_ wrote: post #519
naasking wrote: post #511

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

Which is ultimately irrelevant, because most mainstream outlets are partisan and look after their own, both on the right and left. You only need to look at the ridiculous coverage of Obama, Trump, Russia, Rittenhouse and dozens more examples over the past few years. The people who peddled misinformation haven't suffered any consequences.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#755

Post by jacquesm »

jesterson wrote: post #736
jacquesm wrote: post #729

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The earth may be flat after all. But making that statement absent actual proof is misinformation.

You may be well right here, but it seems like there is significant difference what everyone is considering as "actual proof", hence definition of what is misinformation and what's not becomes very vague.

Ok, I'll take a stab at this then: 'misinformation is the spreading of information that is known to be false'. That doesn't assign any kind of state-of-mind to the person doing it, it could be because they're useful idiots, griefers, state operators and so on.

Of course that kicks the can down the road: what exactly is known to be false and what is not? But we have a pretty good idea in the case of the flat earth and I think that other cases will lend themselves to such analysis. Holocaust denial is a nice example, Hillary Clinton running a pedophile network from a pizza joint is another. 5G phone network used for mind control and so on.

All of these share the trait that reasonable people would - I assume, true - agree that these things are not true and that those that spread this do not have our best interests at heart, either through stupidity or malice.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#756

Post by s1artibartfast »

low_tech_love wrote: post #749
s1artibartfast wrote: post #592

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is it racist? Is any joke that targets a POC racist even if there is no racial content or nature to the joke?

I’m not in the mood to give a lecture on how the real racism is between the lines, if you can’t see it, good for you. The entire article is condescending against research done outside the main european/north-american axis, using words like “Egyptian” and “Mexican” to set the tone of the comments, as if to say “you know what to expect from these people”. There is absolutely no reason to connect the researcher and the…

>The entire article is condescending against research done outside the main european/north-american axis, using words like “Egyptian” and “Mexican” to set the tone of the comments, as if to say “you know what to expect from these people”.

I agree that the article is condescending/skeptical of studies outside the european/north-american axis. I don't think the driver is a belief that brown people can't do science, but that medical research coming from these countries is generally lower quality and less likely to be replicable. The latter is a commonly held belief in the medical research community, which has a basis in reality.

>There is absolutely no reason to connect the researcher and the criminal like he did other than prejudice.

The alternate reason is given at length in the three paragraphs above. Of all the studies, this one is the most likely to be deliberate fraud. The comparison of the joke is demeaning and is intended to be disparaging. The insinuation is that Espitia-Hernandez the doctor is as trustworthy as Espitia-Hernandez the drug dealer, not because they are both Mexican or family, but because Espitia-Hernandez the doctor is a liar and a fraudster.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#757

Post by jacquesm »

afiori wrote: post #752
kaba0 wrote: post #526

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Null hypothesis should be that it doesn’t work.

Given that it is already an antiparassitic drug the null hypotesys should be that it is "only" an antiparassitic drug

No, that is not how this works.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#758

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

dnautics wrote: post #713
PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #689

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We're fine with nuance in entertainment, in romance, in food, in professional team sports, in many things. I would dispute that the same level of comfort extends to "when elected (or not) leaders tell us what we should do."

> I would dispute Why? Because it makes you feel good to think everyone else is dumber than you?

I'm just as subject to this effect as anyone else.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#759

Post by deelowe »

sampo wrote: post #616
deelowe wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The public is much more capable of processing and understanding nuance than we give them credit for. It's just not as profitable for the MSM.

Yes. "COVID lesson: trust the public with hard truths" https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02758-2

I need to bookmark this for future discussions.

Re: Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted to Know

#760

Post by iszomer »

Rastonbury wrote: post #743
_lb7x wrote: post #446

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Anecdotally, it seems to have gotten worse, I know STEM grads who I'd never think of being anti-science announcing they are "vaccine hesitant". We speak about it behind their backs but really no one even tries to discuss this with them.

I know this is a false equivalence argument but one might frame vaccine hesitancy as simply people unwilling to be mandated to inject anything into their bodies. Can you imagine if the government sought to mandate heroine injection as the only standard way of pain relief? That's what I think most average people think about when they are "vaccine hesitant".
Post reply on HN