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

Coronavirus and Credibility

paulgraham.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

501–510 of 968 posts

Re: Coronavirus and Credibility

#501

Post by enraged_camel »

Reedx wrote: post #390
enraged_camel wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> CNN/Fox/MSNBC One of those is not like the other two. CNN and MSNBC may not be as high quality as WaPo/NYTimes in terms of depth and quality of journalism, but they also don't maliciously and cynically and shamelessly lie to their viewers.

Do you think the Red Sox are not like the Yankees? They're just different teams playing the same game. Fans always defend their team and vilify the other. Always. With every dispute they're able to convince themselves it's the other side that are the cheaters. They can't both be right, but yet each side feels equally certain of their position.

On the contrary, not only is this type of "both sideism" incredibly harmful to healthy political discourse (because it discourages engagement and breeds cynicism), both sides are not in fact equal, or even similar.

There are always bad apples, but you just need to look at how they are treated (e.g. whether they are rewarded or punished).

Re: Coronavirus and Credibility

#502

Post by s_y_n_t_a_x »

endorphone wrote: post #326
AndrewBissell wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The equivalency being drawn by the parent may be wrong, but mainstream sources outside Fox News absolutely downplayed the seriousness of the virus and helped push the "it's not a big deal" perception that we are all now rowing against.

but mainstream sources outside Fox News absolutely downplayed the seriousness of the virus and helped push the "it's not a big deal" perception that we are all now rowing against. Yet many, including right here on HN, were claiming exactly the opposite: That they were fear mongering, inciting panic, etc. It can't be both. Here's the NYT from February 2nd - https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/02/health/coronavirus-pandem.…

> quite unlike Fox where the entire organization is given marching orders and a narrative they must push.

Honestly that seems more like the NYTimes or something. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/08/new-york-times-m...

Do you have proof Fox is like this and other media organizations aren't? I'd honestly would like to see it.

We all have access to wikileaks so we should all know which organizations were in bed with the DNC (thanks dkim!).

Re: Coronavirus and Credibility

#503

Post by gamblor956 »

ugh123 wrote: post #329

Its easy to focus on foxnews and pull all sorts of terrible content like that, but a more serious task is to look at a lot of the statements and confidence from the medical and scientific community early on - things around wearing masks in public and its inability to prevent spread, or UV light from the Sun and its ability to kill the virus (a popular statement projected by several doctors within the media), and seve…

If experts in the field are getting it wrong, how do you expect journalists to get it right?

You're holding them up to unreasonably high standards.

It's simply unfair to compare news organizations like CNN which are at least trying to present accurate information (to the best of their knowledge) vs channels like Fox News that are active and avowed political propaganda engines that have admitted to deliberately deceiving their audience for views and political gain.

Re: Coronavirus and Credibility

#504

Post by [deleted] »

dekhn wrote: post #427
akiselev wrote: post #417

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When's the last time the annual flu caused upwards of 50-80% ICU occupancy rates in several countries simultaneously? That's the difference between biology and medicine.

But given the severity and high death rate of flu, shouldn't it also have that high level of hospitalization, or perhaps covid shouldn't have such a high rate? It's unclear at this team what purpose super-intensive hospitalization for covid serves. That's something we're only going to understand in time. (note, I did my training at a hospital medical center and my biology work was health-oriented).

[deleted]

Re: Coronavirus and Credibility

#505

Post by leereeves »

yardie wrote: post #489
lliamander wrote: post #472

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here you go pal[0] [0] https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11191-013-9647-9 edit: added missing word.

Well don't hold back now. If you read the article, I can't because it's paywalled, then present the evidence here, in this forum.

Searching for the title will usually find a free copy.

https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~wsoon/myownPapers-d/LegatesSoon...

Re: Coronavirus and Credibility

#506

Post by jacquesm »

throwawaylolx wrote: post #495
jacquesm wrote: post #386

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Err on the side of caution works quite well when modelling things that are rare but that can have devastating effects.

This is a nonsensical approach unless you consider the damage caused by overprotective measures such as the rapidly increasing number of people who are filling for unemployment every day.

Right. So, in your opinion, how many people would you be willing to give up for the economy? What ages? Prior conditions? What about yourself? Your family?

We've been conditioned over the last 100+ years that life - especially life of white people, but never mind that bit - is precious. So now, when white people's lives are in danger you suddenly want to go all super rational and equate lives with paying out unemployment? Good luck with that.

Re: Coronavirus and Credibility

#507

Post by maps7 »

btilly wrote: post #378

There is nothing about what has happened that should surprise anyone who has read the book Superforecasting . It explains that we naturally trust people who sound smart, well-informed, and CONFIDENT. We don't want to hear uncertainty, probabilities, or the other signs of someone who thinks in a careful quantitative way. We want to accept a cognitively simple answer, then move on. This is what we find comfortable. How…

Based on your comment I went to buy Superforecasting on Audible. When I browsed to it I saw I already bought it on 29-04-19. Time to listen to it.

Re: Coronavirus and Credibility

#508

Post by maps7 »

jacquesm wrote: post #442

Paul is off by a mile and a half on this one. They weren't worried about getting caught. At all. The thing they would be worried about is whether or not getting caught would have consequences. And if there is anything that you could have learned from the last three years then it is that lying to the public carries no consequences at all.

I don't think the author is off at all. Sounds spot on to me.

Re: Coronavirus and Credibility

#509

Post by fourmyle »

s_y_n_t_a_x wrote: post #491
dragonwriter wrote: post #476

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I actually followed the coverage the first time, and where the ban was criticized it was almost entirely for being too late for that response to be useful, not unwarranted by the severity of the disease. Of course, if there really are “countless” examples supporting your characterization, it will be easy for you to cite some.

The China travel ban was ordered on Jan 28th and active on Feb 3rd. The WHO didn't confirm human transmission until Jan 25th... Some of many examples of the media in Jan and Feb: https://twitter.com/LizRNC/status/1245478539018805251?s=20 https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/01/31/how-our-br... https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/18/world/europe/coronavirus-... https://www.cnbc.com/2020/02/03/the-flu-has-already-ki…

It's worth pointing out that Trump gave this order the day after or during the impeachment trial when it was risky for him to do so.

edit: None of this matters though because orange man bad.

Re: Coronavirus and Credibility

#510

Post by jacquesm »

AlexandrB wrote: post #426
nickff wrote: post #405

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That back-and-forth is between two bureaucrats, who are talking about how to obstruct politicians. One of the core premises of "Yes Minister" is that the bureaucracy holds the real power in government, somewhat similar to the idea of a 'deep state', though the show existed long before that phrase was coined.

This seems to undermine the point at the end of the GP comment: > Remember that Yes Minister is a manual for politicians, not a comedy. It seems like the deep state was (more) right on this one and the politicians are/were the ones trying to downplay the danger and generally mislead.

The proper name for the deep state is civil service employees and they generally tend to be right on a lot of stuff because they've been at it for decades rather than a couple of weeks to months. The whole idea that some politician lands in a chair and starts making policy by their lonesome is laughable.
Post reply on HN