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

China reports human case of H3N8 bird flu

bnonews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 134 posts

Re: China reports human case of H3N8 bird flu

#121

Post by arisAlexis »

loeg wrote: post #92
OJFord wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Monkeypox was(/is? Idk) not a non-event, it was very real and relevant professionals were concerned about it. I don't know where 'BNONews' is based, but since China's in the title of this one I'll point out there were 'monkeypox' cases in the UK too for example. Just because it fortunately didn't go (/hasn't gone!) like SARS-nCoV-2019 doesn't mean it wasn't worth reporting.

Monkeypox was pretty clearly a non-event for the vast majority of the population pretty early on. There continued to be misleading and fearmongering reporting for weeks and months after that was obvious, because of the well-known phenomenon where media gets more clicks and eyeballs if the "news" is bad. Also, Covid doomers really wanted a 2nd thing to be depressed about.

No it wasn't but because your gamble won and with hindsight bias you can state that now.

Re: China reports human case of H3N8 bird flu

#122

Post by flangola7 »

jojobas wrote: post #109
bpp wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't call Monkeypox a maybe virus, especially along with these. Its spread was mostly limited to a single community (sexually active gay men), and it absolutely would have spread out of control had there not been a very strong vaccination campaign with high rates of compliance. Within that community, there were many people who were impacted and many others who changed their behavior to help mitigate to spread.

>sexually active I think you meant "promiscuous".

Potatoe potato

Re: China reports human case of H3N8 bird flu

#123

Post by __d »

dmix wrote: post #82
__d wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And you'd trust the news out of ... where, exactly? I think it's pretty clear from the last decade that the major journalism providers in the US (for example) are also corrupt, and that's true of every country I've experienced. Which is not to say that everywhere suffers this problem to the same degree, but just that the notion of a "trusted source of news" is demonstrably naive.

Just because “American also bad” doesn’t mean that they are in the same ballpark of bad.

Agreed. See the last line in my comment.

Re: China reports human case of H3N8 bird flu

#124

Post by __d »

ericmay wrote: post #85
__d wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And you'd trust the news out of ... where, exactly? I think it's pretty clear from the last decade that the major journalism providers in the US (for example) are also corrupt, and that's true of every country I've experienced. Which is not to say that everywhere suffers this problem to the same degree, but just that the notion of a "trusted source of news" is demonstrably naive.

Nah, that’s a false equivalency because you’re equating “some corruption exists” like in the US to ~99% corruption as it exists in China w.r.t how it seems you are defining corruption in the mainstream press. Because unlike China there exists enough of a free press, from institutions down to individual bloggers and professors, who can jump on the Internet and write almost anything without repercussion and if they wri…

I think you're both over-estimating the situation in the US, and under-estimating the situation in China, but you're right: there's a difference.

My point is that _trusting_ news organizations is dumb. None is trustworthy. Whether their coverage is manufactured/absent/biased because it's required by the government, required by the owners, required by the editor, required by the organizational culture, or even a side-effect of their workload, nothing is trustworthy.

I'm not sure there was ever a time that the press could be trusted, but it absolutely cannot be trusted now.

Re: China reports human case of H3N8 bird flu

#125

Post by ericmay »

__d wrote: post #124
ericmay wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nah, that’s a false equivalency because you’re equating “some corruption exists” like in the US to ~99% corruption as it exists in China w.r.t how it seems you are defining corruption in the mainstream press. Because unlike China there exists enough of a free press, from institutions down to individual bloggers and professors, who can jump on the Internet and write almost anything without repercussion and if they wri…

I think you're both over-estimating the situation in the US, and under-estimating the situation in China, but you're right: there's a difference. My point is that _trusting_ news organizations is dumb. None is trustworthy. Whether their coverage is manufactured/absent/biased because it's required by the government, required by the owners, required by the editor, required by the organizational culture, or even a side-…

Personally I don’t find “trust nothing” to be very useful or practical. My local TV news reported that the Ohio Senate introduced a bill to do X and they reported that an estimated 26 people died the other day due to a tornado or series of tornadoes in Mississippi. I’m supposed to not trust that reporting?

Re: China reports human case of H3N8 bird flu

#126

Post by lamontcg »

Traubenfuchs wrote: post #7

How does it make sense for humans to get this flu from birds, become symptomatic, but not pass it on to at least their sexual/kissing partners?

Because it takes an avian nasal mucosa to spread it. Human mucosa is ineffective at creating infectious droplets and aerosols for whatever reason.

Re: China reports human case of H3N8 bird flu

#127

Post by lamontcg »

joshuahedlund wrote: post #76
thelittleone wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An unprecedented number of unprecedented, once in a lifetime events.

Not likely. The 60’s had riots, Vietnam, political assassinations, Cuban missile crisis and ongoing Cold War MAD fears. The 1910-1940’s were jam packed with world wars, the Great Depression, Spanish flu, and more. And before that a quarter of all children died young. Every generation ever. What’s actually unprecedented is having a few years between crises where things are actually pretty ok!

Shhhhh, you're harshing the millennial vibe. Remember that due to their constant suffering the millennials are the most empathetic generation ever and everyone else are the narcissists.

Re: China reports human case of H3N8 bird flu

#128

Post by HWR_14 »

areyousure wrote: post #101
vkou wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My town had three months of lockdowns, followed by (so far!) three years of complaining about lockdowns. (If I live long enough, I expect to hear thirty three more years of complaining about lockdowns.)

In case anyone is curious, it appears the location in question had three months of "stay at home", over a year of other restrictions (including school closures), 625 days of broad mask requirements, and so forth. In fact, some mask requirements are still in effect today.

Mask requirements are not lockdowns.

Re: China reports human case of H3N8 bird flu

#130

Post by __d »

ericmay wrote: post #125
__d wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're both over-estimating the situation in the US, and under-estimating the situation in China, but you're right: there's a difference. My point is that _trusting_ news organizations is dumb. None is trustworthy. Whether their coverage is manufactured/absent/biased because it's required by the government, required by the owners, required by the editor, required by the organizational culture, or even a side-…

Personally I don’t find “trust nothing” to be very useful or practical. My local TV news reported that the Ohio Senate introduced a bill to do X and they reported that an estimated 26 people died the other day due to a tornado or series of tornadoes in Mississippi. I’m supposed to not trust that reporting?

Everything is information. It might be accurate, it might not. Personally I would not _trust_ the tornado report: maybe it was 25 people or 27? What motivations might there be to exaggerate or diminish the number? Disaster reporting often exaggerates during the initial phase, and then corrects (or not) later. In that case, perhaps errors are more likely to be a lack of knowledge, to reflect hearsay and confusion between agencies?

I think it’s an important to maintain an attitude of skepticism, to be aware of sources of error, and biases that might be at play. Blind _trust_ in information sources is foolhardy.

Post reply on HN