'Staggering' number of people believe unproven health claims • Hacker News Board

Re: 'Staggering' number of people believe unproven health claims

#61

Post by LorenPechtel » Wed, May 06, 2026, 9:59 PM UTC

throwawaypath wrote: post #58

LorenPechtel wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Big gatherings *indoors*: big risk. Big gatherings *outdoors*: low risk. Church is pretty dangerous, a protest is reasonably safe.

Except that's not what they said. Large gatherings anywhere were risky with people in close proximity. Outdoor events with many people in close proximity could become super spreader events. Unless the outdoor event was a politically aligned protest. In that case the rules didn't apply and there was no risk of it becoming a super spreader event. Big outdoor gatherings *for right-wing causes*: big risk. Big outdoor gat…

I do not recall any such claims about right wing things.

I do recall worry about right wing things which were "outdoor"--but would have a lot of indoor spillover. Things like that motorcycle thing--the motorcycle part was outdoors but you would have a lot of people going to bars and the like in the evening. The right always tried to portray it as political, but only by oversimplification.

Re: 'Staggering' number of people believe unproven health claims

#62

Post by LorenPechtel » Wed, May 06, 2026, 10:08 PM UTC

stinkbeetle wrote: post #31

LorenPechtel wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Huh? 1) No vaccine is 100% effective. 2) Against something that mutates quickly the vaccine will always be behind. Thus the new variants win out. (The same thing would happen in the absence of vaccines, but it would take longer.) The idea that it could actually be stamped out was very wishful thinking. But the vaccine does have a big benefit in reducing death.

Yeah I know it sounds crazy but that was among the misinformation being spread, and many widely believed it without evidence.

Much of what I see is science generally avoids making claims that are not proven--but people want answers. When a reporter gets hold of something like China saying there is no evidence it's airborne they treat it like China saying that it isn't airborne. No--that wasn't incorrect, that was a lack of data. They didn't have a non-human host, it wasn't a disease where it would be reasonable to expose people and see what happens, data collection is going to be limited.

But China saw it was probably airborne and reacted as if it were. We had the same data, we could reach the same conclusions, but we didn't want to.

Re: 'Staggering' number of people believe unproven health claims

#63

Post by stinkbeetle » Thu, May 07, 2026, 11:13 PM UTC

LorenPechtel wrote: post #62

stinkbeetle wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah I know it sounds crazy but that was among the misinformation being spread, and many widely believed it without evidence.

Much of what I see is science generally avoids making claims that are not proven--but people want answers. When a reporter gets hold of something like China saying there is no evidence it's airborne they treat it like China saying that it isn't airborne. No--that wasn't incorrect, that was a lack of data. They didn't have a non-human host, it wasn't a disease where it would be reasonable to expose people and see what…

Not just reporters, political leaders and bureaucrats and self proclaimed "experts" spread anti-scientific misinformation too, like the one I mentioned. A big reason people believe these falsehoods.

Re: 'Staggering' number of people believe unproven health claims

#64

Post by throwawaypath » Fri, May 15, 2026, 2:34 PM UTC

LorenPechtel wrote: post #61

throwawaypath wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except that's not what they said. Large gatherings anywhere were risky with people in close proximity. Outdoor events with many people in close proximity could become super spreader events. Unless the outdoor event was a politically aligned protest. In that case the rules didn't apply and there was no risk of it becoming a super spreader event. Big outdoor gatherings *for right-wing causes*: big risk. Big outdoor gat…

I do not recall any such claims about right wing things. I do recall worry about right wing things which were "outdoor"--but would have a lot of indoor spillover. Things like that motorcycle thing--the motorcycle part was outdoors but you would have a lot of people going to bars and the like in the evening. The right always tried to portray it as political, but only by oversimplification.

>I do not recall any such claims about right wing things.

Because you were gas lit or are currently gas lighting.

>I do recall worry about right wing things which were "outdoor"--but would have a lot of indoor spillover.

Don't more the goal posts or attempt to bring in something that never happened. This was about ANY large gatherings outdoors.

> The right always tried to portray it as political, but only by oversimplification.

The left are the ones who politicized the pandemic to unthinkable levels. The country's trust in the government is at all time lows because of it.