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

The Ebola Wars

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 129 posts

Re: The Ebola Wars

#91

Post by smtddr »

monsterix wrote: post #85
Steuard wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One issue that I've seen raised before is that there's a bit of a Catch-22 in public perception in Africa. As you point out, withholding the experimental drug has nasty overtones of "saving the cure for the white folks". But there's also a real risk that if they gave the first experimental treatment to Dr. Khan, the narrative would be "using the black folks as guinea pigs". Both of these concerns are based on actual…

Hm. I agree that it'd be hard for anyone to decide on a thing that affects public perception in Africa. And in that pressure, I believe, probably the worst decision was taken in the case of Dr. Khan. If they had tried the third vial (extra bottle) of drug on Dr. Khan, and so close he was to the medicines!, and had he survived (given that others did) the public perception would have certainly changed. Don't you think?…

>>It'd be really interesting to find out the correlation between the users who down-voted and the color of their skin. I am pretty sure about the outcome.

I downvoted you and I'm first-gen Nigerian in America. Just about everyone else is in Lagos. I feel very confident, at least as far as educated Nigeria is concerned, that most suspect Africans-used-as-experiments more than withholding-for-white-man.

Not giving Dr.Khan the medicine was the right thing to do.

Having a few people like you talking about withholding-conspiracies that don't really make sense... is better than giving him the untested drug, ends up not working(maybe producing horrible side-effects) and the general public freaks out even more and trusts all the doctors even less than they already do.

Re: The Ebola Wars

#92

Post by monsterix »

smtddr wrote: post #91
monsterix wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hm. I agree that it'd be hard for anyone to decide on a thing that affects public perception in Africa. And in that pressure, I believe, probably the worst decision was taken in the case of Dr. Khan. If they had tried the third vial (extra bottle) of drug on Dr. Khan, and so close he was to the medicines!, and had he survived (given that others did) the public perception would have certainly changed. Don't you think?…

>>It'd be really interesting to find out the correlation between the users who down-voted and the color of their skin. I am pretty sure about the outcome. I downvoted you and I'm first-gen Nigerian in America. Just about everyone else is in Lagos. I feel very confident, at least as far as educated Nigeria is concerned, that most suspect Africans-used-as-experiments more than withholding-for-white-man. Not giving Dr.K…

> Not giving Dr.Khan the medicine was the right thing to do.

Sure. How did you know it was the right thing to do?

Re: The Ebola Wars

#93

Post by smtddr »

monsterix wrote: post #92
smtddr wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>It'd be really interesting to find out the correlation between the users who down-voted and the color of their skin. I am pretty sure about the outcome. I downvoted you and I'm first-gen Nigerian in America. Just about everyone else is in Lagos. I feel very confident, at least as far as educated Nigeria is concerned, that most suspect Africans-used-as-experiments more than withholding-for-white-man. Not giving Dr.K…

> Not giving Dr.Khan the medicine was the right thing to do. Sure. How did you know it was the right thing to do?

Because giving a medicine, untested on humans, to an African during this time of panic and mistrust(justified, to be sure) is a ridiculous risk.

Role a dice to see if you can save Dr.Khan.

- If it works[- If doesn't work[>50%], the already deep mistrust and panic of the people will increase and everyone freaks out. If later they actually do find a cure, who's going to believe them?

- Third option. Test it on someone who isn't African so whatever the results are, you don't have a PR disaster & mass-panic on your hands.

Re: The Ebola Wars

#94

Post by monsterix »

smtddr wrote: post #93
monsterix wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Not giving Dr.Khan the medicine was the right thing to do. Sure. How did you know it was the right thing to do?

Because giving a medicine, untested on humans, to an African during this time of panic and mistrust (justified, to be sure) is a ridiculous risk. Role a dice to see if you can save Dr.Khan. - If it works[ - If doesn't work[>50%], the already deep mistrust and panic of the people will increase and everyone freaks out. If later they actually do find a cure, who's going to believe them? - Third option. Test it on someon…

So you mean to say is that the decision to not give the test medicine to Dr. Khan or not even seek his opinion on trying ZMapp on himself was based purely on what the public perception would be like?

That's the lol'iest argument I've seen so far on HN.

Don't be stupid, I'm not complaining about racism. I am seeking out for the people who took the decisions and their reasoning for it.

Like it or not, racism exists here in the US and there is always some people who are going to be biased because of it.

Re: The Ebola Wars

#95

Post by smtddr »

monsterix wrote: post #94
smtddr wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because giving a medicine, untested on humans, to an African during this time of panic and mistrust (justified, to be sure) is a ridiculous risk. Role a dice to see if you can save Dr.Khan. - If it works[ - If doesn't work[>50%], the already deep mistrust and panic of the people will increase and everyone freaks out. If later they actually do find a cure, who's going to believe them? - Third option. Test it on someon…

So you mean to say is that the decision to not give the test medicine to Dr. Khan or not even seek his opinion on trying ZMapp on himself was based purely on what the public perception would be like? That's the lol'iest argument I've seen so far on HN. Don't be stupid, I'm not complaining about racism. I am seeking out for the people who took the decisions and their reasoning for it. Like it or not, racism exists her…

>> Don't be stupid, I'm not complaining about racism.

But earlier you said:

>>It'd be really interesting to find out the correlation between the users who down-voted and the color of their skin. I am pretty sure about the outcome.

That's the only reason I downvoted you and replied.

We all read(or should have read) the article here. It was a tough call; some people claim it was the wrong call. I say they made the right call.

Think what you want, I can see I'm not going to convince you. I'm just telling you that I downvoted you and why I did it.

Re: The Ebola Wars

#96

Post by throwaway5752 »

monsterix wrote: post #90
throwaway5752 wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is absurd and conspiratorial to think that someone would volunteer or work with MSF at great personal cost and risk and then do something so terrible because of racism. Had you tried to research it, you might have found some of your answer articles like http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/dying-sierra-leone-dr-sheik-um... that talk about some of the details behind the decision. You make a really vile accusation with ver…

It is rather more absurd to withhold the medicine from a dying patient simply to manage "public perception" sir. You can go ahead and give a negative vote too, it wouldn't mean a thing. Yes, people are doing very good, noble work -- Dr Khan was one of them too -- I seek to know the thoughts and names of those who chose to withhold the medicine from him, and give it to others the very next day. The world should know.…

"It is rather more absurd to withhold the medicine from a dying patient simply to manage "public perception" sir."

That would be awful it it were true. Why do you think that is the case? Neither the submitted article, my Lancet link, nor my CBC link contain those words. However, the CBC article notes:

"The drug had never been tested on humans. What if it caused an allergic reaction that killed Dr. Khan?"

"His blood showed antibodies to the virus, evidence that his own immune system was already in full battle. What if the drug got in the way of that immune response?"

"...the final decision was left with the doctors at the field hospital in Sierra Leone, although it was not a unanimous decision."

Friend of Dr Khan talking about the decision, "I do want it to be clear that these were difficult, delicate decisions that people in a stressful situation had to make."

"The treatment, it was felt, if it was to be used at all, would be better attempted at the more sophisticated hospital in Europe where Dr. Khan was about to be moved."

"A Spanish priest who also received the experimental treatment later died."

All of these undercut your accusations completely.

Re: The Ebola Wars

#97

Post by monsterix »

smtddr wrote: post #95
monsterix wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you mean to say is that the decision to not give the test medicine to Dr. Khan or not even seek his opinion on trying ZMapp on himself was based purely on what the public perception would be like? That's the lol'iest argument I've seen so far on HN. Don't be stupid, I'm not complaining about racism. I am seeking out for the people who took the decisions and their reasoning for it. Like it or not, racism exists her…

>> Don't be stupid, I'm not complaining about racism. But earlier you said: >>It'd be really interesting to find out the correlation between the users who down-voted and the color of their skin. I am pretty sure about the outcome. That's the only reason I downvoted you and replied. We all read(or should have read) the article here. It was a tough call; some people claim it was the wrong call. I say they made the righ…

People who down-voted != People who took the decision of taking away the medicine from Dr. Khan. Are you even reading anything?

Yes, some of the users on HN are definitely racist.

Don't mix it with the subject of knowing names of doctors as per OP's article.

Until we see the trail of those debates and discussions between doctors there seems to be no need for me to assume anything.

Re: The Ebola Wars

#98

Post by monsterix »

throwaway5752 wrote: post #96
monsterix wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is rather more absurd to withhold the medicine from a dying patient simply to manage "public perception" sir. You can go ahead and give a negative vote too, it wouldn't mean a thing. Yes, people are doing very good, noble work -- Dr Khan was one of them too -- I seek to know the thoughts and names of those who chose to withhold the medicine from him, and give it to others the very next day. The world should know.…

"It is rather more absurd to withhold the medicine from a dying patient simply to manage "public perception" sir." That would be awful it it were true. Why do you think that is the case? Neither the submitted article, my Lancet link, nor my CBC link contain those words. However, the CBC article notes: "The drug had never been tested on humans. What if it caused an allergic reaction that killed Dr. Khan?" "His blood s…

> That would be awful it it were true.

I totally agree with you.

My intent to know the context of discussions, people and debate that went on for three days while Dr. Khan's health degraded was simply this: Could groupthink have been responsible for the outcome and been avoided? If so, can it be done in the future?

If you look at my original comments closely, I only complained about racially driven down-votes from some users on HN and shared my fears about a similarly driven group-think that might / might not have happened in Africa. Since there is no data on that, it should be outed.

I will not myself be excusable if I were to really accuse someone (or a group) simply by their color, especially after reading some article on HN.

All I seek is the details or think that led to the unfortunate decision. I can form my opinion off it.

Re: The Ebola Wars

#99

Post by makaed »

throwaway_yy2Di wrote: post #7
ddlatham wrote: post #3

A sample of the Ebola now raging in West Africa has, by recent count, 18,959 letters of code in its genome; this is a small genome, by the measure of living things. Does this mean mean Ebola is essentially about 38 kilobytes?

38 kilobits = 4.7 kB, but yes. Here's the complete genome of the pandemic strain (scroll down a bit): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/KJ660346 Here's the paper sequencing it. ([edit]: I just realized the New Yorker article is largely about this exact paper -- I commented before reading, sorry). Note that five of the authors died before publication; there's a short tribute accompanying it. http://www.sciencemag.or…

How did you get 38 kilobits?
Post reply on HN