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

YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

newsweek.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

911–920 of 923 posts

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#911

Post by stateofnounion »

joshuamorton wrote: post #588
stateofnounion wrote: post #568

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are large swathes of the population that have been infected asymptomatically: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/23/nyregion/coronavirus-anti... There are similar studies and similar findings in both the US and Europe. tl;dr The virus is much less lethal for the average person than models predicted before we had more data.

> There are large swathes of the population that have been infected asymptomatically: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/23/nyregion/coronavirus-anti... . No, there are tests that have high false-positive rates. The studies in both the US and Europe used similarly flawed tests and didn't correctly account for the false-positive rates of those tests. [0] There are two ways to think through how these results are flawed: t…

Are you equally skeptical that we have a test that reliably detects Covid?

And I suppose all of the 2+ dozen studies done are completely inaccurate as well? List below includes the revised study from Ioannidis. Your criticisms are from a preprint.

May 4: 370 workers test positive in Missouri. None had symptoms.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/04/us/triumph-foods-outbreak-mis...

May 1: revised Santa Clara study: 2.8% of the population had antibodies. Study came out on April 14.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.14.20062463v...

May 1: Dutch Royal Institute of Health 13884 healthcare workers test positive in the Netherlands. 9 have died. 0.06% CFR among healthcare workers 3% hospitalization rate 6/9 underlying conditions 9/9 above 45

https://www.rivm.nl/documenten/covid-19-en-zorgmedewerkers-3...

May 1: 15.5% seroprevalence in German Community. 0.36% IFR

https://www.ukbonn.de/C12582D3002FD21D/vwLookupDownloads/Str...

April 30: partial results give 61% of population infected in Bergamo

https://bergamo.corriere.it/notizie/cronaca/20_aprile_30/cor...

April 27: 36% infected in homeless shelters

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2765378?gu...

April 27: Governor of NY claims their study indicate 24.7% on the island. Up to 2.7m people in nyc had covid : https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/cuomo-outlines-reopeni...

April 26: 96% symptom free out of 3300 positive https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-prison...

April 26: 17,000 healthcare workers tested positive, 60 dead in Italy

https://www.epicentro.iss.it/coronavirus/bollettino/Bolletti...

April 26: Seroprevalence in Kobe Japan 300x to 800x higher then expected

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.26.20079822v...

April 26: 25% of seroprevalence in Iran, 0.08 to 0.12% IFR. 518k to 777k infected

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.26.20079244v...

April 24: between 123k and 221k cases in Miami-Dade

https://www.miamidade.gov/releases/2020-04-24-sample-testing...

April 24: Denmark 1.7% seroprevalence 0.082% death rate among 17-70 real-time screening / antibodies test

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.24.20075291v...

April 23: governor of ny tweets that 13.9% of the state could have virus https://twitter.com/NYGovCuomo/status/1253352837255438338

April 22: Sweden health official claims 20% of Stockholm could be infected, weeks away from herd immunity

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/22/no-lockdown-in-sweden-but-st...

April 22: LA County could have between 223k and 442k cases. Mortality between 0.1% and 0.3%

http://publichealth.lacounty.gov/phcommon/public/media/media...

April 22: 5.5% of residents could be positive in Geneva county

https://www.hug-ge.ch/medias/communique-presse/seroprevalenc...

April 22: 20% of Stockholm infected, heard immunity weeks away

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/22/no-lockdown-in-sweden-but-st...

April 20: Up to 10% of the people in Wuhan developed antibodies. 1.2M

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jmv.25904

April 19: 49% of the population of Orties developed antibodies. About 50x official stats.

https://www.stol.it/artikel/chronik/flaechendeckende-tests-i...

April 17: 32% of the residents tested for antibodies in Chelsea Massasuchets could have had Covid

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2020/04/17/business/nearly-third...

April 16: 3% of blood donors have antibodies in Netherlands

https://nltimes.nl/2020/04/16/3-dutch-blood-donors-covid-19-...

April 15: 50% homeless test positive in a Boston Shelter

https://www.boston25news.com/news/cdc-reviewing-stunning-uni...

April 15: Coronavirus probably dozens of times more common then official stats

https://thl.fi/en/web/thlfi-en/-/number-of-people-with-coron...

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#912

Post by Fjolsvith »

Supermancho wrote: post #866
Fjolsvith wrote: post #795

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Im still wondering why anyone expects this of youtube but would never ever expect it of the bar down the street. I haven't been in a bar where the patrons were told they couldn't discuss quack medicine.

> I haven't been in a bar where the patrons were told they couldn't discuss quack medicine. That's over specific. All bars (even the worst ones I could find) usually have unspoken rules about what can be discussed, until you start to talk about those subjects (eg drug dealing, weapons dealing, planned violence, etc) openly. Of course you can't effectively restrict communication between individuals, but that's also no…

Maybe. I was in a Bait and Tackle shop yesterday that had a sign on the door warning of a $100 fine for speaking the word "coronavirus" inside.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#913

Post by joshuamorton »

stateofnounion wrote: post #911
joshuamorton wrote: post #588

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There are large swathes of the population that have been infected asymptomatically: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/23/nyregion/coronavirus-anti... . No, there are tests that have high false-positive rates. The studies in both the US and Europe used similarly flawed tests and didn't correctly account for the false-positive rates of those tests. [0] There are two ways to think through how these results are flawed: t…

Are you equally skeptical that we have a test that reliably detects Covid? And I suppose all of the 2+ dozen studies done are completely inaccurate as well? List below includes the revised study from Ioannidis. Your criticisms are from a preprint. May 4: 370 workers test positive in Missouri. None had symptoms. https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/04/us/triumph-foods-outbreak-mis... May 1: revised Santa Clara study: 2.8% of t…

Right, and my entire point is that most of the antibody tests appear to be inaccurate with false positive rates that are egregiously high. Quoting a bunch of antibody tests with egregiously high false positive rates doesn't address that at all. You'd need to show that the antibody tests are accurate, and independent tests have shown that they aren't.[0]

The conclusion there is that the serological tests have false-posdtive rates of 15-20% in the worst cases, and 2-3% in the best cases, on blood samples from before covid-19 existed.

So using those tests, on a population where not a single person has covid-19, you'd see results showing that 2-20% of the population was previously infected.

These independent numbers often differ from the official reported numbers from the test makers. And the seroprevalence studies you cute either use those numbers, or worse just ignore the possibility of false positives entirely.

Again, if 20% of New Yorkers had covid, (much more than) 20% of people tested using reliable tests would show that.

> Are you equally skeptical that we have a test that reliably detects Covid?

No, because we have evidence that the seroprevalence tests are god awful. We don't have that for viral presence tests, unless you believe the god awful seroprevalence tests.

To humor you, I'll run through some of the links you posted:

May 4: 370 workers test positive in Missouri. - Reliable (PCR, not serological) tests, people may be presymptomatic, since this just happened.

May 1: revised Santa Clara study - From the paper There is one important caveat to this formula: it only holds as long as (one minus) the specificity of the test is higher than the sample prevalence. If it is lower, all the observed positives in the sample could be due to false-positive test results, and we cannot exclude zero prevalence as a possibility.

May 1: Dutch Royal Institute - Unreliable sero test

May 1: 15.5% seroprevalence in German Community - Unreliable sero test

April 30: partial results give 61% of population infected - Unreliable sero test (likely compounded by bad stats, but I can't read french)

April 27: 36% infected in homeless shelters - Reliable test, but unclear if the people were asymptomatic or presymptomatic. Needs followup.

April 27: Governor of NY claims their study indicate 24.7% - Based on sero test

April 26: 96% symptom free out of 3300 positive - No info on which to base an opinion

April 26: 17,000 healthcare workers tested positive - Unclear, can't read french

April 26: Seroprevalence in Kobe Japan 300x to 800x - Seroprevalence says it all

April 26: 25% of seroprevalence in Iran - "Seroprevalence"

April 24: between 123k and 221k cases in Miami-Dade - Blood (sero) test

April 24: Denmark 1.7% seroprevalence - Sero test

April 23: governor of ny tweets that 13.9% of the state could have virus - Based on sero testing

April 22: Sweden health official claims 20% of Stockholm could be infected - Based on sero testing

April 22: LA County could have between 223k and 442k cases - Based on sero testing

April 22: 20% of Stockholm infected - Based on sero

April 20: Up to 10% of the people in Wuhan developed antibodies - Antibodies (sero)

April 19: 49% of the population of Orties developed antibodies - Sero

April 17: 32% of the residents tested for antibodies - Sero

April 16: 3% of blood donors have antibodies - Sero

April 15: 50% homeless test positive in a Boston Shelter - You cited this already

April 15: Coronavirus probably dozens of times - Sero

So, removing duplicates and serological tests, we're left with 3 things:

May 4: 370 workers test positive in Missouri. - Reliable (PCR, not serological) tests, people may be presymptomatic, since this just happened.

April 27: 36% infected in homeless shelters - Reliable test, but unclear if the people were asymptomatic or presymptomatic. Needs followup.

And one more, that you didn't mention: https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2020/05/417356/initial-results-mis...

This third study is by far the most reliable, and it's conclusions were that 50% experienced no symptoms, and 1.4% of a working class population (the 2.1% included non-residents, which is less controlled) was infected, which would trend higher than average (Ninety percent of the people who were PCR positive had no capability of working from home during shelter in place.)

The other two studies just show that people in close proximity can all be infected quickly, and so be presymptomatic at the same time.

[0]: https://covidtestingproject.org/index.html

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#914

Post by pas »

someguyorother wrote: post #894
pas wrote: post #742

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You'll instead find the artisanal hand-crafted propaganda, and you won't find constructive criticism. Usually you'll find massive tomes of apologetics full of self-pity and victimization, and of course absolute hope that Dear Leader will still solve this even if the world is against him. Is there some kind of "list of prohibited books" in NK (like the Index Librorum Prohibitorum in the 16th century)? I guess not, bec…

> I guess not, because anything that's not allowed is by default prohibited? Yes, at least for online content. As far as I understand it, a researcher who wants access to some out-of-country material has to manually submit a request. The censors then download the article or page, go through it, and pass it on if it's found acceptable. In addition, no single computer has access both to the global internet and to the i…

I meant physical books, or whatever. I mean is there some contrived reasoning on why those books are too dangerous, or otherwise prohibited? (Like it was with the Papal Index.)

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#915

Post by stateofnounion »

joshuamorton wrote: post #913
stateofnounion wrote: post #911

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you equally skeptical that we have a test that reliably detects Covid? And I suppose all of the 2+ dozen studies done are completely inaccurate as well? List below includes the revised study from Ioannidis. Your criticisms are from a preprint. May 4: 370 workers test positive in Missouri. None had symptoms. https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/04/us/triumph-foods-outbreak-mis... May 1: revised Santa Clara study: 2.8% of t…

Right, and my entire point is that most of the antibody tests appear to be inaccurate with false positive rates that are egregiously high. Quoting a bunch of antibody tests with egregiously high false positive rates doesn't address that at all. You'd need to show that the antibody tests are accurate, and independent tests have shown that they aren't.[0] The conclusion there is that the serological tests have false-po…

Can you provide evidence that every antibody test used in all of the studies above are as inaccurate as you claim? Your 1-word opinion on each of them is useless.

> We don't have that for viral presence tests, unless you believe the god awful seroprevalence tests.

https://www.livescience.com/covid19-coronavirus-tests-false-...

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#916

Post by joshuamorton »

stateofnounion wrote: post #915
joshuamorton wrote: post #913

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, and my entire point is that most of the antibody tests appear to be inaccurate with false positive rates that are egregiously high. Quoting a bunch of antibody tests with egregiously high false positive rates doesn't address that at all. You'd need to show that the antibody tests are accurate, and independent tests have shown that they aren't.[0] The conclusion there is that the serological tests have false-po…

Can you provide evidence that every antibody test used in all of the studies above are as inaccurate as you claim? Your 1-word opinion on each of them is useless. > We don't have that for viral presence tests, unless you believe the god awful seroprevalence tests. https://www.livescience.com/covid19-coronavirus-tests-false-...

> Can you provide evidence that every antibody test used in all of the studies above are as inaccurate as you claim? Your 1-word opinion on each of them is useless.

To my knowledge, there are basically no reliable antibody tests, which is the problem. Some are more reliable, but most are terrible, and there are very few places that publish exactly which test they use have, from my reading, used unreliable tests.

The point, which you seem to keep ignoring is that seroprevalence tests aren't reliable. So citing a bunch of them doesn't convince me. You're just citing something which I've already explained isn't reliable.

> https://www.livescience.com/covid19-coronavirus-tests-false-....

So let's assume this is true. My understanding is that PCR tests have gotten a bit better since February when that paper was published, but it sets a decent lower bound.

Let's assume the test has a 30% false-negative rate, and a .05% false-positive rate. If 1% of people are infected, and you test everyone, you'll find that (.01 * .70) + (.99 * .0005) = .75% of the population will test positive.

What about 10% of the population? (.1 * .70) + (.9 * .0005) = 7% of the population is infected according to the test. Given that PCR tests are reporting ~1% of the population is infected, we can expect that no more than 2% of the population is infected. And that assumes an incredibly good false-positive rate.

If instead the PCR test has a more reasonable false-positive rate of half a percent, and we assume an underlying 1.5% infection rate, then with a 30% false negative rate, then P(FP|N) > P(FN|P), or in other words, your test would overestimate the true infection rate (to be 1.54%, precisely).

That is to say, when the underlying infection rate is relatively low, false-positives are much more impactful than false negatives, because there are many more chances to be a false positive. This is the base rate fallacy in action.

So the upshot? Even assuming a better than real world[0] false-positive rate of the PCR tests, and a likely worse than real world false-negative rate, the PCR tests show that the true infection rate is still far below what serological tests show.

[0]: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.26.20080911v... suggests that PCR tests have a false-positive rate of ~4%, on average.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#917

Post by xpaqui »

Frondo wrote: post #848
BurningCycles wrote: post #548

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Why are calls to violence bad, but spreading misinformation about a pandemic How do you know what is 'misinformation' ? WHO claimed that face masks were worthless, now you are forced to wear them in lots of places. WHO also claimed that there was no human to human transmission of COVID-19, etc. The powers that be will not stop spreading misinformation when it suits them, they just want no one to be able to question…

I don't know how to define what is "misinformation" but I could surely call out a couple examples. Maybe we can figure out what makes them misinformation. 1) 5G causes COVID-19 2) COVID-19 doesn't exist, i.e. it's all a hoax 3) Aquarium cleaning solution is a cure for COVID I don't know what makes those different from "masks are worthless" but they seem qualitatively different. Maybe for a couple of reasons. Maybe fo…

For me misinformation as a characteristic is a big umbrella, that the discretion for it depends on the measurer. Which makes it an unreliable characteristic to censor content by.

As an example of things that can follow into the misinformation umbrella parody, humour, good/bad science, good/bad journalism, misinterpretation of intent, paranormal reports, religion. It done for the greater good. People have done surgeries in their garage, I can't believe it's from lack of credible information, and that making a general policy from the exception is a sign of a bad design.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#918

Post by xpaqui »

dredmorbius wrote: post #895
ggreer wrote: post #850

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Good arguments can come from poor sources. All the more reason to not silence cranks and conspiracy theorists. From John Stuart Mill's On Liberty : > But the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of th…

"the dictum that truth always triumphs over persecution, is one of those pleasant falsehoods which men repeat after one another till they pass into commonplaces, but which all experience refutes. History teems with instances of truth put down by persecution. If not suppressed forever, it may be thrown back for centuries." – John Stuart Mill, On Liberty https://www.utilitarianism.com/ol/two.html

That's what I would argue If I had a conspiracy in mind.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#919

Post by xpaqui »

nojito wrote: post #898
colejohnson66 wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And who decides what’s damaging?

A court of your peers. We live in a society.

Have you seen Twitter? The mass flagging of banalities as offensive? Online shaming? This isn't as practical as stated.

Re: YouTube has deleted the account of David Icke

#920

Post by ryankemper »

tw04 wrote: post #858
ryankemper wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, by not addressing that I put myself in the trap where I was forced to respond to it anyway in a later comment. So, in order to avoid repeating myself, I believe I addressed that notion here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23063309 In short, I am not saying that the truth will necessarily "win out" over the false. Rather I am saying - and this was my fault for not being clear enough - that I reject the noti…

So we should expect schools to teach our schools that the earth is flat, and the earth is round, and hope the kids pick the right option? Or where exactly do you draw the line in "we shouldn't suppress speech, just because it's provably false?"

Just saw this comment. Saying "don't censor expression of opinions on online platforms" is not saying "teach creationism" in schools, nor "teach that the earth is flat".

In other words I think that's very much a red herring.

Post reply on HN