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

671–680 of 968 posts

Re: Coronavirus and Credibility

#671

Post by rsynnott »

atomashpolskiy wrote: post #87
paulgb wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"just the flu" to me implies that we can treat it like the flu, i.e. go about life as usual and stay home if we catch it. It seems beyond obvious at this point that that's not the case. (Hopefully soon there will be a vaccine and it will become the case.)

But it literally is a strain of flu. And staying at home, sleeping and drinking a lot of water is exactly what the majority of people who contracted COVID are doing at the moment. Or do you believe that there are 1.3 million people in hospitals or cemeteries right now?

> But it literally is a strain of flu

Eh? No, it is not. Who told you this? Whoever it was, stop listening to them. Bloody hell.

Re: Coronavirus and Credibility

#672

Post by bigfudge »

nickff wrote: post #405
rahidz wrote: post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stage four requires admitting guilt, it should be "We've always known we should've done something about it, but (opposing political party) didn't let us!"

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.

The point of YM is that civil servants and ministers are interdependent, rather than a 'deep state' in the trumpian conspiracy theory sense.

Re: Coronavirus and Credibility

#673

Post by yardie »

leereeves wrote: post #505
yardie wrote: post #489

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

I got this instead https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientists%27_views...

Which points to a 2016 study [0] refuting Tol's claim that the majority of climate scientists have not reached a consensus.

[0] https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/04...

Re: Coronavirus and Credibility

#674

Post by roenxi »

FabHK wrote: post #598
pdonis wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In the background global warming is a much greater threat to human life Before making such a confident statement, I would recommend re-reading this particular statement in pg's essay... "These people constantly make false predictions, and get away with it, because the things they make predictions about either have mushy enough outcomes that they can bluster their way out of trouble, or happen so far in the future t…

Your response is quite remarkable. PG's article contrasts 1) the careful predictions of experts, who study an issue in depth their entire life and pronounce on it carefully based on scientific models, with 2) the remarks of politically motivated hacks that seek to distract from the consensus for their own political agenda, often with remarkable (but unjustified) confidence. PG warns against 2), the hacks, and points…

GP was incorrect in taking a position that global warming was not a threat. The actual threat of COVID is going to be much lower than global warming, COVID is either going to be temporary or in the long term settle to look a lot like all the other diseases we put up with. Climate change could be a legitimate crisis at some point.

However, directionally speaking, they have an excellent point that people who predict the future are very common in the climate lobby; and within that group people who correctly predict the future are going to be rare. It is not a lobby made up of scientists because there aren't that many.

Re: Coronavirus and Credibility

#675

Post by bad_user »

leereeves wrote: post #643
FabHK wrote: post #598

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your response is quite remarkable. PG's article contrasts 1) the careful predictions of experts, who study an issue in depth their entire life and pronounce on it carefully based on scientific models, with 2) the remarks of politically motivated hacks that seek to distract from the consensus for their own political agenda, often with remarkable (but unjustified) confidence. PG warns against 2), the hacks, and points…

You're misrepresenting what GP said. They didn't say "experts", they said: > all the people who have made confident predictions over the years regarding global warming. You can't deny that most of the people speaking publicly, and by far the loudest people, are not experts, they are politicians, journalists, and filmmakers. (And tech entrepreneurs...) Many of those have predicted disasters that never happened. But ju…

No, it is the scientists that have predicted the disaster, with an overwhelming consensus, hence the downvotes.

Re: Coronavirus and Credibility

#676

Post by hi41 »

devy wrote: post #656

Fox News deserves class-action lawsuit for their lies and the damages it caused for making people who watched their news disregarding the social distancing rules. https://news.yahoo.com/fox-news-reportedly-fears-early-11453...

Honest question here. I am not an American but watching the scene.

Fox News also pointed out several things that the left media wrong.

1. Washingtonpost telling in early Feb that public should be wary of government asking for a shutdown. The video showed that Bill Maher wanted the pandemic so that Trump gets ousted.

2. Fox News also pointed inaccuracies in npr’s article.

Looks like each side is blaming the other.

How do you tell which side aid correct. The left too wants to destroy Trump’s reputation. Left is a hateful group which wants to bury the right.

Re: Coronavirus and Credibility

#677

Post by jacquesm »

maps7 wrote: post #559
jacquesm wrote: post #517

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here is the relevant passage: "The answer, I realized, is that they didn't think they could get caught. They didn't realize there was any danger in making false predictions. These people constantly make false predictions, and get away with it, because the things they make predictions about either have mushy enough outcomes that they can bluster their way out of trouble, or happen so far in the future that few remembe…

The article doesn't disagree with that. Here's the relevant parts: "An event like this is thus a uniquely powerful way of taking people's measure." and "Now that we've seen the results, let's remember what we saw, because this is the most accurate test of credibility we're ever likely to have. I hope."

Sorry, but no. There have been thousands if not tens of thousands of such testable events over the last couple of years and in not even a single case has this led to repercussions against those that lied. Nobody's measure has been taken in a way that they cared about.

We can record this one and likely it won't make any difference either. It's just whose team you are on now, not about whether there is anything truthful being said.

Re: Coronavirus and Credibility

#678

Post by throwaway32120 »

_wwz4 wrote: post #548

Do people appreciate that denial of the severity of this virus came from all political quarters? Here's one showing the mistakes of left-leaning media I found in 2 seconds: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=36&v=wVDPVBZF2Xg It's just as easy to find supercuts of Pelosi, DeBlasio, and other prominent Democrats telling people that they didn't need to start social distancing or that the virus wasn't airborne c…

That's one of the issues with hyperpartisanship. Everyone thinks that people need to be held accountable - as long as it's people they already decided were terrible. The truth is the response to this pandemic has been poor across the board. Go back and read what people were saying in February to see how unprepared everyone was.

Bill Gates, for example, is held up as someone who saw this coming. However, if you read what he wrote at the end of February about what needs to be done to stop the Coronavirus, you'll he didn't raise any issues about the way it was being handled within the United States, and viewed the main problem being the difficulties that poor countries would have handling it. Even a few days ago there were almost no leaders calling for mass use of face coverings. And there still seem to be very few (if any) calling for an implementation of measures like those that are successfully combating the virus in South Korea.

Re: Coronavirus and Credibility

#680

Post by titzer »

drocer88 wrote: post #275

If you're getting your "news" from CNN/Fox/MSNBC, or "gathering evidence" to promote one the two permitted narratives, that's your problem. This is stuff is low effort "Presidential Level Politics" 24x7. Real news died when reporters stopped having to craft a story so that the Associated Press or United Press International picked it up and made it available to the varied local newspapers of America, both liberal and…

> Real news died when reporters stopped having to craft a story

Or stopped fact-checking--you know, doing your homework. Real journalists used to interview one person at a time, ask them direct questions, call them on their bullshit, and fact check them in real-time. Nowadays what passes as journalism is to put two people from different "sides" on at the same time and watch them fling crap at each other. Or put two people from the same "side" on to have them take turns ripping someone else to shreds.

Frankly, it's disgusting. I have literally felt myself close to vomiting while watching TV these days. The fact the people on TV new wears suits and business attire is the worst irony; all they do is fling mudwrestling now. Just another one of the present debasement of all things past good and wholesome.

Post reply on HN