Live data from Hacker News

Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

royalsociety.org

821–830 of 970 posts

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#821
post #143
post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In all honesty, we probably owe the existence of Covid to the scientific community doing gain of function research. We never did find evidence of it in a bat, either in a wet market or elsewhere in Wuhan. We do know it existed in the WIV lab though.

Do you know that the particular strain of Covid-19 was in WIV without a doubt or is it still speculation? You could argue that indeed this was a lapse of protocol through disposal of lab specimens but does that mean we need to condemn an entire group of people for the mistakes of a few within a group that was studying this gain of function? I just don't buy that we should somehow make this into a holy war against an…

>What about the mistake of dropping nuclear bombs on Hiroshima or Nagasaki? That in itself is a specifically horrific mistake.

Thanks for the reminder, we can also thank scientists for nuclear weapons.

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#822

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I personally think that a lot of vaccine scepticism comes from the perceived force involved. For example, via passports and mandates. I think once you get into the situation in which people think "I'm being forced to do X", you've created an impossible catch-22 and you've basically ensured that some % double down. It's hard for me to explain because it just seems intuitively obvious. I really enjoy a beer after work.…

> I personally think that a lot of vaccine scepticism comes from the perceived force involved. For example, via passports and mandates. You would think that, and they promote that, but it does not. It is obvious when you consider that all the vaccine skeptics were also vaccine skeptics before there was any hint of force involved.

I guess it depends on what you define as "scepticism".

I know a lot of people who took the first or second vaccine but are refusing further due to the coercion involved.

Or more generally, they behaved "carefully" in the early days of the pandemic but then switched off over time as they tired of being given legal commandments from God rather than sensible advice.

I agree that the same set of people think crackpot stuff like "5g causes corona" or the vaccines have microchips, I don't think those people are really relevant to the discussion.

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#823

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't the fact that we (as in, society) don't agree that it does affect your life an indication that it's actually a borderline issue, though? Everyone would agree that a person wandering around the street firing live rounds into targets is acting in a dangerous manner. No-one would agree that a person drinking a cup of tea in their own house is acting in a dangerous manner. But coronavirus isn't one of those things.…

There were people during every atrocity (e.g. genocide) who argued the atrocity didn't affect their lives. Did that make it a borderline issue? No, it did not.

I like chocolate. Do you like chocolate?

What does this have to do with the price of fish?

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#824
post #89
post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have no idea how to respond to the overcrowded hospitals. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/covid-hospitals-... Hospitals have been jam packed the entire time. There is data everywhere to support this. Tons of procedures are not being done due to beds and ICUs being full. Ask anyone who works in a hospital. Call one if you'd like.

Then why did the USS Mercy which was in New York during the beginning of the pandemic only ever treat 48 patients? 77 while she was in Los Angeles. https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/military/infected-usn... https://news.usni.org/2020/05/15/usns-mercy-leaves-los-angel...

Damn! You finally figured it out! It was all just a fake thing we made up. You win!

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#825
post #642

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. The guy who is an "Ultimate Fighting Championship color commentator, comedian, actor, and former television presenter" doesn't have a conflict of interest, which makes him less biased and more believable.

That's not fair to say. The guy who is "Ultimate Fighting Championship color commentator, comedian, actor, and former television presenter" has a massive conflict of interest, namely between generating viewership and presenting factual information. Everything he presents is a choice on a gradient between those two. These snake oil salesmen have quickly cottoned on to the fact that they can take disenfranchised and us…

Exactly this!

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#826

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It may not be technically possible, but that won't stop misguided people from trying to regulate Turing machines and exploit their vulnerabilities. Rather than putting so much energy into in regulation, surveillance and offensive measures, I suspect the "winning" strategy is to focus on secure, verifiable computing. Whoever masters this first will grow an immunity to (human and AI) cyber-threats and gain a significan…

The extent to which truly secure computing is possible depends in large part on which of the many possible "cryptographic universes" we live in (based on how the algorithmic complexity categories like P and NP are). https://cdn.futura-sciences.com/buildsv6/images/mediumorigin...

There are different kinds of secure computing. The kind of security you are referring to is based on cryptographic schemes like homomorphic encryption or zero-knowledge proofs. The kind of security I am referring to is language-based security.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language-based_security

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#827

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That all sounds disturbingly like you kinda are okay with Joe Rogan and Bret Weinstein spreading nonsense about how vaccines are killing people and how ivermectin is better than vaccination.

Joe Rogan doesn't spread anything. He interviews experts in the field and listens to what they have to say. Currently everyone is angry because he interviewed Robert Malone, the inventor of mRNA vaccines. You can read about Robert Malone's contributions here: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02483-w Robert Malone's bio "Dr. Robert Malone is the inventor of the nine original mRNA vaccine patents, which were…

Joe Rogan has recently talked about that - that he just interviews people who seem interesting https://www.instagram.com/tv/CZYQ_nDJi6G/

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#828

I see the root cause of all this debate as a failure in scientific communication. When it comes to complex scientific decisions with significant impacts on the public, nuanced and detailed justifications are required. Instead, we often get simple declarations written by PR departments at juvenile reading level. This spawns chaotic and poorly conducted debate in all walks of life. What is required is a robust and tran…

Really? I'm speaking from a US perspective, but my opinion is the communication out of the CDC has too much nuance and is too concerned about being scientifically accurate. They forget they're speaking to a largely scientifically illiterate crowd, and that crowd sees the constant back-and-forth not as scientific progress but as a reason not to trust the institution. Never mind that it's often delivered with a tone of condescension people have come to despise from their institutions, and some of their policy recommendations are... debatable to say the least (recommending mass testing for high school sports/band/choir, for a recent example).

Honestly I only trust the CDC because I have the knowledge and capacity to verify what they say and ignore the bullshit. A lot of people don't have that. And there is bullshit to filter.

The message to the public, assuming the CDC is interested in actually convincing people, needs a simple path forward individuals can take to get said individuals something they want, even if it taps into a selfish motivation and isn't 1000% technically optimal. (i.e. Get vaccinated and the mask requirements go away). And it should be repeated in every statement, regardless of new data. It should have been consistent for the past 2 years. It should have a catchy slogan. It should be on fucking billboards. People would still bitch and grumble, and some would never be convinced. But we'd probably have more people vaccinated if that approach had been taken. Instead we confused people and handed ammo to the anti-vaxxers by the truckload, relying on peoples' better natures and assuming a higher average level of education than actually exists in the American populace.

In short the CDC should optimize for leadership and "good enough" solutions, not strict scientific accuracy and trying to save each and every life in their public statements. Publish the hard science/raw data in more obscure releases that only scientists will care about. And they need a better front person than Fauci. Fauci just radiates highly-credentialed-beltway-insider arrogance however nice he tries to sound and however right he may be.

Of course you could argue such a role should be the place of the executive, and the CDC was trying to fill the gap left by a largely absent Trump administration, and by the time the Biden admin took over Fauci's position as front-man/leadership was already too solidified. Maybe so, but the CDC and public institutions in general have failed the task of public leadership, although thankfully have had success in logistics/vaccine development.

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#829

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The best diet is the one eaten for 1000s of years by your ancestors

You mean the one for people whose life expectancy was less than half the modern day? Who lived completely different lives?

Overall life expectancy was low due to massive childhood mortality. If you survived to adulthood your life expectancy was much higher.

Re: Royal Society cautions against censorship of scientific misinformation online

#830

I remember when the government and scientific consensus informed me that margarine was good for me. For decades. Who knows what damage that has done to my internals.

I'm out of the loop here apparently, is margarine bad now? What's consequences does long term use have?

- Accepted fact 1: eating saturated fat causes more coronary heart disease thank unsaturated fat (very high correlation, and accepted as causal)

- Accepted fact 2: eating trans fat is bad. A diet high in trans fats can contribute to obesity, high blood pressure, and higher risk for heart disease, because intake of dietary trans fat disrupts the body's ability to metabolize essential fatty acids. Trans fat is also implicated in Type 2 diabetes.

Historically margarine was low in saturated fat but high in trans fat due to partial hydrogenation - hence the questionable "health benefits" of it vs butter.

Currently in most of the developed world vegetable spreads are not allowed to contain significant amounts of partially hydrogenated oils, and thus margarine should be healthier - but there is a powerful dairy lobby so the bad reputation will last for a long while...

Post reply on HN