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

California approves bill to punish doctors who spread false information

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–108 of 108 posts

Re: California approves bill to punish doctors who spread false information

#101

Post by nishs »

anonygler wrote: post #27

Vinay Prasad, who has been wildly correct/vindicated would’ve been punished. Speaking out about learning loss and child masking would’ve been punished. This is legislation from the new authoritarian left. Liberalism is dead.

Vinay Prasad.

“Wearing an n95 to avoid the virus after vaccination is futile. You will eventually stop wearing it. And then you will eventually get hit with a subsequent epidemic wave. Or catch the virus between waves.” [1]

“So ‘I'm done with COVID’ is the honorable, equitable, altruistic, egalitarian, pro-science message that we need right now to combat the delusional thinking that ignored trade-offs for so long and would have us live in a bunker forever.” [2]

And seemingly, his warped definition of “Duty” [3] includes recommending children to be repeatedly exposed a virus that has deleterious, long-term effects effects on multiple organ systems, basing his arguments on comparing SARS-CoV-2 to a common cold virus (“Stop testing kids”). [4]

More of his egregious stuff is noted on a parody Twitter account. [5]

[1]: https://twitter.com/vprasadmdmph/status/1485312764297891843

[2]: https://twitter.com/vprasadmdmph/status/1485312770635538435

[3]: https://vinayprasadmdmph.substack.com/p/stop-testing-kids

[3]: https://vinayprasadmdmph.substack.com/p/duty

[4]: https://vinayprasadmdmph.substack.com/p/stop-testing-kids

[5]: https://twitter.com/vpwndf

Re: California approves bill to punish doctors who spread false information

#102

Post by illuminerdy »

anigbrowl wrote: post #88
illuminerdy wrote: post #81

False information such as "we don't know if the vaccine will actually prevent infection" when all the beaurocrats and "scientists" (the only ones who were allowed to speak) were falsely stating that if you took the vaccine, you absolutely would not get the virus? So when are they gonna punish those doctors?

all the beaurocrats and "scientists" [...] were falsely stating that if you took the vaccine, you absolutely would not get the virus Not actually true

Of course it's not true. It's not like we have them on video literally saying that.

Who am I going to believe, you or my lying eyes?

Re: California approves bill to punish doctors who spread false information

#103

Post by ralusek »

hayst4ck wrote: post #96
ralusek wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A few more came to mind: - Two senior members of the FDA resign as a result of the politically pressured decision to recommend boosters, despite a lack of a safety profile and subsequent risk analyses having been laid out - Monoclonal antibodies were downplayed as a treatment for COVID during the Alpha and Delta waves, a time during which they were incredibly effective, and a surplus supply was available in every sta…

I have to ask, do you think you are being convincing? I've heard most of these talking points, but don't find them as compelling as you do. That means it's probably not some information that you have that I don't, so more bullet points probably aren't going to be convincing. What is your mental model for why we seem to come to different conclusions from the same information?

I'm not sure I understand your question.

Re: California approves bill to punish doctors who spread false information

#104

Post by anigbrowl »

illuminerdy wrote: post #102
anigbrowl wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

all the beaurocrats and "scientists" [...] were falsely stating that if you took the vaccine, you absolutely would not get the virus Not actually true

Of course it's not true. It's not like we have them on video literally saying that. Who am I going to believe, you or my lying eyes?

I don't think your memory is all that great, because I remember plenty of caveats about how you could still catch COVID but symptoms would probably be mild - just like every other vaccine on the market has a percentage of effectivity. Perhaps drink less plandemic koolaid and read or watch more discourse from actual epidemiologists and doctors.

Re: California approves bill to punish doctors who spread false information

#105

Post by hayst4ck »

ralusek wrote: post #103
hayst4ck wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have to ask, do you think you are being convincing? I've heard most of these talking points, but don't find them as compelling as you do. That means it's probably not some information that you have that I don't, so more bullet points probably aren't going to be convincing. What is your mental model for why we seem to come to different conclusions from the same information?

I'm not sure I understand your question.

You wrote a lot of bullet points. Was your motivation to convince me of something? I've written a lot of things in my life that felt righteous, so writing it felt good because I "knew" I was right and then I'd get social reward via upvotes which felt good, but I've also written things in an attempt to be convincing and that's a completely different style. So I'm legitimately wondering if you wrote the bullet points out of righteousness (for you), or was it done for the purpose of being convincing (for me)?

I read your bullet points and my point of view is the same as it was before. So if you thought I didn't generally agree with you because I didn't have the information you had, that isn't the case. I already was aware of what you wrote in your bullet points.

So if we both have the same information, why do you think we reach different conclusions with that information? Why do you think I don't reach the same conclusion that you have reached?

Re: California approves bill to punish doctors who spread false information

#106

Post by ralusek »

hayst4ck wrote: post #105
ralusek wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure I understand your question.

You wrote a lot of bullet points. Was your motivation to convince me of something? I've written a lot of things in my life that felt righteous, so writing it felt good because I "knew" I was right and then I'd get social reward via upvotes which felt good, but I've also written things in an attempt to be convincing and that's a completely different style. So I'm legitimately wondering if you wrote the bullet points o…

First of all, your comments have all felt righteous and sanctimonious to me, so I find it weird that this is the angle you've decided to take with me...to accuse my motive. You are the one who is condescendingly telling me that I need to consider other people's positions as to why control of information might be beneficial, then inferring my motive and trying to get me to consider why I laid out these bullet points that you obviously already knew.

Secondly, I have no idea what information you know. You say that you gained no new information from the bullet points I laid, so what was the point? Well, as I said, not only do I not know what you know, but it's important for the context of the conversation to iterate on examples about which I'm talking about.

> So if we both have the same information, why do you think we reach different conclusions with that information

Given that I'm aware that we have the exact same information, which, for the last time, how could I be? Well in that case, people coming to different conclusions with the same information happens more often than not. It typically comes from people having different frameworks through which they process information.

As to the purpose of my "talking points," which is an extremely condescending way of dismissing a compilation of facts, as if I'm simply parroting a feed of propaganda I've been force fed...as to their purpose: they are examples of what I would consider to be institutional failures. Institutional failures, shows of bad faith, incompetence, and departures from the truth, all of which were done by the very same institutions I've argued should not have the authority to claim command over reality, as proposed by this legislation.

That is my point: not only would I be skeptical of giving competent institutions authority over controlling the way the public exchanges information, but here are the examples of the way those very same institutions have missed the mark throughout the pandemic. If my point isn't clear enough for you to have come to the same conclusion as me, very well, it happens all the time. If you're actually interested in getting to the philosophy of why that is, which I don't actually think you are, and seem to have just fallen back on this psychoanalytical bullshit as a defense mechanism, then I'm perfectly happy to transition away from the topic at hand into that conversation.

Re: California approves bill to punish doctors who spread false information

#108

Post by hayst4ck »

ralusek wrote: post #106
hayst4ck wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You wrote a lot of bullet points. Was your motivation to convince me of something? I've written a lot of things in my life that felt righteous, so writing it felt good because I "knew" I was right and then I'd get social reward via upvotes which felt good, but I've also written things in an attempt to be convincing and that's a completely different style. So I'm legitimately wondering if you wrote the bullet points o…

First of all, your comments have all felt righteous and sanctimonious to me, so I find it weird that this is the angle you've decided to take with me...to accuse my motive. You are the one who is condescendingly telling me that I need to consider other people's positions as to why control of information might be beneficial, then inferring my motive and trying to get me to consider why I laid out these bullet points t…

> then inferring my motive

I was not inferring your motive. I was asking because I don't know the answer. If you felt it was a rhetorical question, I am sorry I worded it poorly.

> I have no idea what information you know.

I know you don't, which is why I was asking if you thought a person not agreeing with you was likely the result of them not having the same information you have. I wanted to know if you were trying to convince, and if your strategy to be convincing was to "add information they might not already have." I want to know how many times you've been convinced by someone you disagree with sharing their "facts" from their reality.

> getting to the philosophy of why that is, which I don't actually think you are

I very much am interested in exactly that. That is what the purpose of my line of questioning was.

I am trying to understand why you think what you think and say what you say so that I can understand why we can't seem to share the same reality. I want to know where you think our realities diverge and why.

Post reply on HN