Hacker News Reader

Comment by ceejayoz | Hacker News Reader

> Are the doctors in the video saying untruths or misrepresenting data?

Yes, they are.

https://www.dailynews.com/2020/04/28/california-doctors-with...

> But public health experts were quick to debunk the doctors’ findings as misguided and riddled with statistical errors — and an example of the kind of misleading information they are forced to waste precious time disputing.

> The doctors should never have assumed that the patients they tested — who came for walk-in COVID-19 tests or who sought urgent care for symptoms they experienced in the middle of a pandemic — are representative of the general population, said Dr. Carl Bergstrom, a University of Washington biologist who specializes in infectious disease modeling. He likened their extrapolations to “estimating the average height of Americans from the players on an NBA court.” And most credible studies of COVID-19 death rates in reality are far higher than the ones the doctors presented.

> In a rare statement late today, the American College of Emergency Physicians and the American Academy of Emergency Medicine declared they “emphatically condemn the recent opinions released by Dr. Daniel Erickson and Dr. Artin Messihi. These reckless and untested musings do not speak for medical societies and are inconsistent with current science and epidemiology regarding COVID-19. As owners of local urgent care clinics, it appears these two individuals are releasing biased, non-peer reviewed data to advance their personal financial interests without regard for the public’s health.”

View on HN

I don't understand what's wrong with the data they presented. That article doesn't explain it, it just says it's wrong. There applications of data make perfect sense to me, that's how I'd use the data they presented.

That article makes inaccurate statements like, "basically hyped a bunch of data and weren’t transparent about their methods" which is not true. There were 100% transparent about where there information was from and how they were presenting it.

> That article makes inaccurate statements like, "basically hyped a bunch of data and weren’t transparent about their methods" which is not true. There were 100% transparent about where there information was from and how they were presenting it.

I can vouch for their transparency. The speed with which I was able to see that their statistical methods were totally wrong was almost entirely due to their transparency. The only fact I had to find outside of what they said was the criteria for testing in the county for which they cited statistics, which I found at https://kernpublichealth.com/coronavirus-disease-2019-covid-...

"Testing is NOT indicated for asymptomatic persons."

The doctors' statistics in the quote below don't work because of sampling bias.

“In Kern County, we’ve tested 5,213 people and we have 340 positive COVID cases. Well, that’s 6.5 percent of the population. Which would indicate a widespread viral infection similar to the flu,”

Did you watch the video or are you just basing this on out of context quotes? What you're quoting was a brief anecdote about what those doctors were seeing on the ground. Their extrapolations are based on state-level aggregates in New York and California. Sample sizes of 300-650K patients.

I did not get the chance to see the video before it was taken down, but I got the content of their arguments here: http://www.tathasta.com/2020/04/watch-er-doctors-urge-reopen...

They use the same logic for Kern County, California, and New York. Their logic is, that if you test N people and find M positive cases, that in the population at large you'll have an infection rate of M/N. This would be true if the N tests were performed on random members of the population. But because the tests are only performed when there's reason to suspect infection, M/N is a higher infection rate than in the population at large. Their inflated number for total infected persons makes the death rate appear smaller.

FYI the full video is available at the website of the news station that uploaded it to YouTube (where it was removed):

https://www.turnto23.com/news/coronavirus/video-interview-wi...

Thanks. 51 minutes is too long for me to watch. Anybody who knows of anything in there that addresses the sampling bias issue, please point me to how far in it is.

> I did not get the chance to see the video before it was taken down

I suppose that’s the real problem, in so many words...

I did watch the video and the critique by brlewis is perfectly accurate.

But why should we believe you? Why can't we watch and make our own judgements?

Because, I’m Youtube, why would I ever lie to you. I have your best interest in mind, and trust me, this shits gonna get us all killed if we watch this.

> But why should we believe you?

Because you have a basic understanding of statistics.

> Why can't we watch and make our own judgements?

You can. The video is available in many places.

I did watch the video. At about the 5-minute mark, they make a huge error in extrapolating the percent positive of tests to the general population (in California, 12% positive test rate). As many others have pointed out, that is an inexcusable error that leads them to an wildly erroneous conclusion about the mortality rate of COVID-19. Recent antibody tests in Santa Clara County and Los Angeles showed a rate around 2-4%, and those studies were criticized because those percentages are close to the levels of false positives one could expect in the antibody tests. So at best, the conclusions in the video are off by a factor of three, and most likely, more.

I'm not saying these doctors are correct in their statistical extrapolations. What I am saying is the Kern County anecdote being spread around to discredit them by people who haven't even seen the video are practicing in the disinformation that they accuse these doctors of perpetrating.

As I fully explained in a nearby comment, the logic in their Kern County anecdote is representative of their logic for California and New York statistics as well. I am not misrepresenting anything or practicing any form of disinformation.

>I am not misrepresenting anything or practicing any form of disinformation.

I'm not saying that you are misrepresenting or disinforming people. But, how would you know unless someone told you?

Answered in nearby comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23014548

> The American Academy of Emergency Medicine (AAEM) and the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) jointly and emphatically condemn the recent opinions released by Dr. Daniel Erickson and Dr. Artin Massihi. These reckless and untested musings do not speak for medical society and are inconsistent with current science and epidemiology regarding COVID-19.

https://www.aaem.org/resources/statements/joint-endorsed/phy...

I did watch it. Their extrapolations were wrong. You can't just multiply positivity rate found in a biased sample by the whole population. That's not a meaningful extrapolation. Then using that extrapolation to say the death rate is low is just building up the error even more.

And then, comparing that to the flu and saying this isn't much worse, we're now well into the "this video is a potentially a public health hazard" territory.

No, you just debate it. A follow up video where there's a debate. Simple.

That puts you in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop territory, where watching hours of video and an epidemiology and stats degree is needed to tease out the truth.

And then, comparing that to the flu and saying this isn't much worse, we're now well into the "this video is a potentially a public health hazard" territory.

No, lockdowns are the public health hazard. The data is quite clear at this point that what's going on here is no worse than the flu. Here's a simple graphic from the UK to make that point clear:

http://inproportion2.talkigy.com/

And if you look at when lockdowns could have possibly started working given incubation and death lags, you'll see that most countries seem to have peaked before the lockdowns could have started working. Implication: they weren't responsible for the peak and decline.

But the more important point is that it's critical such things can be debated. Simply assuming you're right and anyone who disagrees is a "public health hazard" is totalitarianism. You won't have any ability to defend yourself, or even any right to, next time someone erases you because e.g. Trump declared your views to be dangerous.

Well, i don't know about the us you probably have more hospital beds than us, but in france it was absolutely criticla to enforce a lockdown at the time we did. Even with this timely lockdown, we still had to stop intubating >90 yo patients for two weeks (it's getting better). And bear in mind that only a part of one region (1/13th of France basically, not really true but...), not even the whole area, and all the hospital in the region (not the hot area) were so full they had to transfert arounf 20 patients abroad and hundreds to hospital in other regions. My cousin in Colmar, eastern France (SMUR chief) has transfered around 20 people to my other cousin (intensive care anesthetist) in western Brittany. If you have a map: its basically the longest East-West travel you can do in France. In Colmar they also had to close almost all of their non-maternity, non-urgency service, and the number of people dying of overdoses or of too much alcohol (don't have the english word sorry) is at least twice as high (we will have the true numbers in a few months).

Also i've said it here before, but young, healthy people who did not had to have invasive respiration (so no ICU) still got out of their sickness with lingering asthma, possibly caused by a pulmonary fibrosis. I found this [0] in English if you don't know what it is. In five to seven years (assuming we find a vaccine for sras-cov2 in two year) we will really start counting our dead, unless we find a non-chirurgical fibrosis cure.

[0] https://lungdiseasenews.com/2017/06/16/12-facts-pulmonary-fi...

I did watch the video and I can safely say that these doctors make massive and very convenient statistic mistakes throughout.

Sample size doesn't help if the sampling method is biased. Even if tests were available to everyone regardless of symptoms, you would still have a selection bias that would skew the numbers. The only way to accurately estimate overall infection rates in the general population is to test a random sampling.

Then there is the "comparison" of Sweden (no lock down) and Norway/California. They mention the death counts and population of these countries in another attempt to show that the "number of cases is high and the number of deaths is small regardless of lockdown" but completely gloss over the fact that Sweden has more that 5x the covid deaths per capita that Norway and California have.

Regardless of if this video should be censored, these guys are awful scientists.

> Regardless of if this video should be censored, these guys are awful scientists.

This is the exact reason why it shouldn't be censored. Because if their science is bad then it needs to be available for people who know better to tear it to shreds.

If you take it down then the story can't be "this is why they're wrong" because what they said isn't available anymore, so a rebuttal isn't believable because you can't tell if it's an accurate representation of the original presentation.

So then the story becomes about censorship and you're making it all too easy for motivated people to spin a conspiracy theory about how these scientists are speaking truth to power and getting oppressed, even if they are in actual fact totally wrong.

Yet if you look at the comment sections for this video, there isn't anyone tearing it to shreds.

This isn't something I have been able to confidently form an opinion on; it's a hard topic. I think we will be strugging with how to balance bias, deliberate misinformation and freedom of speech for a long time.

But I think at the very least, YouTube needed to put up prominent disclaimers and links to limit the harm that this content can cause.

> Yet if you look at the comment sections for this video, there isn't anyone tearing it to shreds.

I count several detailed criticisms of it just in this thread. Do none of them have a YouTube account?

Why don't the people proposing to censor it post their own rebuttal?

> I think at the very least, YouTube needed to put up prominent disclaimers and links to limit the harm that this content can cause.

Which is totally different. Leaving the video up while posting a prominent link to a rebuttal isn't censorship, it's more speech.

> I count several detailed criticisms of it just in this thread. Do none of them have a YouTube account?

I did post a rebutal in some of the duplicates I found on YouTube. YouTube comments are not really a great platform for debate and the way their algorithm works tends pull videos like this into an echo chamber that avoids the exact types of critical discussion you are calling for.

So, given the (artificial) choice between leaving the video up as is and taking it down, I suspect that in this particular case, the practically beneficial choice for society (in the short term at least) is to take it down precisely because of how YouTube works as a platform and community.

> Which is totally different. Leaving the video up while posting a prominent link to a rebuttal isn't censorship, it's more speech.

Yes, I am a big fan of free speech. However it has become increasingly clear that simply making speech as free as possible in as many places as possible is not enough (by itself) to solve the problems of misinformation, partisanship and radicalization that we are facing as a society. We can't just dismiss those problems, so as advocates for free speech, we need to find non-censorship ways to help solve those problems.

> YouTube comments are not really a great platform for debate and the way their algorithm works tends pull videos like this into an echo chamber that avoids the exact types of critical discussion you are calling for.

This seems like a YouTube-specific problem that should have solutions not involving censorship.

> I don't understand what's wrong with the data they presented.

They took stats from a massively self-selecting population - people seeking out COVID-19 testing at their facilities - and extrapolated to the general public.

That's inexcusably dumb.

As the bit I quoted states, that's like "estimating the average height of Americans from the players on an NBA court".

> That's inexcusably dumb.

Even if that’s true, what does it have to do with banning the video and preventing the public from making their own decision?

Right this moment I can go on youtube and look up a million rap videos that talk about guns, violence, murder, and more. I can look at videos that would lead me to harm myself in all sorts of ways if I didn’t have a brain. By picking and choosing like they’re doing, it leads one to distrust the company which will ultimately hurt them.

Come on. Rap videos are often grotesque but it’s entertainment, like a horror film.

This video was more like yelling fire in a theater. I’m willing believe the doctors were sincere, but they were gravely wrong, and their misinformation was endangering the public.

YouTube was correct to turn off the alarm they erroneously turned on.

Granted, YouTube’s method of throwing up a standard “violation of community guidelines” message is crude, and leads to suspicion. Then again, so was ABC’s editorial judgment. It’s a hard problem.

can you or anyone factually prove that they’re wrong? 99% of the internet and “experts” said HCQ is dangerous and ineffective, then it just came out that a leading group of ER docs say it’s effective in ~90% of cases.

The point is that even if they’re wrong, youtube and others are playing a dangerous Orwellian game and it’s going to harm their reputability in the end.

"Even if that’s true, what does it have to do with banning the video and preventing the public from making their own decision?"

Research done on fake news illustrates why ordinary consumers of news cannot be trusted to make informed judgements.

"Right this moment I can go on youtube and look up a million rap videos that talk about guns, violence, murder, and more. I can look at videos that would lead me to harm myself in all sorts of ways if I didn’t have a brain."

Exactly this. This is why it is irresponsible for a global platform to promote this tripe.

Did you watch the video? That is not what they did. What you're describing is a brief anecdote they shared about what they were seeing on the ground. Their statistics are based on state level aggregates for New York and California.

State level data is collected using the exact same methods. In many places people with symptoms are told to self isolate until they have difficulty breathing etc. This makes state level data a highly biased sample.

There are a few population studies for very specific areas, but no widespread statewide sampling anywhere.

PS: The US has ~50,000 Coronavirus deaths. Assuming a very optimistic mortality rate of 0.5% suggests at most 10 million infections out of 330 million people or 3.3%. A higher mortality rate of say 5% would mean total infections are possibility as low as 0.3% of the US population.

Given the delay between catching it and dying, a lot of the people who have it and will die from it are not currently counted in your deaths.

This could mean that substantially more Americans have it. (Though on current projections, less than a factor of 2.)

I was including that for my optimistic 0.5%. South Korea with a younger population, good healthcare system far from maximum capacity, and very good but not perfect testing has a CFR of 2.3% and rising. Diamond Princess has 14deaths out of 712cases, while not a representative sample it’s still conformation that a high percentage of even young healthy people need hospitalization.

The biggest question IMO is how much we are undercounting fatalities. NYC lists Confirmed deaths at 11,820 plus Probable deaths at 5,395. They also add: Due to delays in reporting, recent data are incomplete. https://www1.nyc.gov/site/doh/covid/covid-19-data.page

Your 'very optimistic mortality rate' makes a number of assumptions about the rate of asymptomatic cases, the population which experiences asymptomatic cases, etc. It ignores data coming out which suggest that interventions like ventilators may be harming more than helping.

Making any assumptions about the mortality rate with the abysmal state of testing in the US and around the world is guesswork.

Making assumptions based on the horrific codebase that's spawned our most cited models should also give anyone in software at least a twinge of anxiety.

Diamond Princess had a slightly older population but healthy population, tested everyone, provided good medical care. They still hit 14 deaths out of 712 infected or ~2% and only had 20% asymptotic cases. South Korea has very good testing, a younger than US population, similar rates of hospitalization to DP and a slightly worse mortality rate likely due to missing some people but having a more at risk population.

The US has an older and sicker population than SK, and in NYC an overworked healthcare system. So, a 1% US mortality rate discounted to 0.5% due to recent infections not having time to die is extremely optimistic. It would also mean testing was only discovering 10% of cases.

PS: Many more people are exposed without having sufficient infections to trigger long term immunity. But, it’s herd immunity or deaths/long term issues we care about making such cases irrelevant as their still at risk.

Using state level data is exactly like sampling MBA heights. A biased sample is a biased sample.

So, no I don’t see how it’s misinformation.

I watched the videos. Just like many others have said in this thread, the doctors took the percent of people who tested positive for covid and assumed that percent of people overall in the whole state had covid. Then they took the total number of deaths from covid, and divided that number by the population of the state.

It isn't exactly what they did but it is fairly close. They consistently incorrectly extrapolate the covid positive test rate from a biased sample (biased by both the testing guidelines and self-selection) to the general population, not just for their county, but also for California, New York, the United States, Italy, Sweden and Norway.

They then use this to massively misrepresent the lethality of Covid 19.

People will always put their fingers in their ears and not read/watch the source because it is easier to bash someone than to actually do the work that may change your beliefs

Well, it’s also hard to watch the source video when YouTube goes out of their way to delete it. So here in this very thread, is a great example of the harms of taking down the content. It makes it hard to even have a discussion about its merits.

I don’t understand why YouTube couldn’t leave the video up, and put some kind of warning or interstitial advising of problems with the content. I would have problems with that approach too, but certainly less so than I do with the wholesale deletion of the video.

Anyway, you can find it hosted here: https://www.turnto23.com/news/coronavirus/video-interview-wi...

The source is gone.

They compared them to several countries as well, so your statement is misleading.

People should be able to see all the opinions of various experts; doctors in NYC, doctors in Minnesota. Just them on their merits and examine the evidence.

By pulling videos, YouTube/Google is saying they don't trust people to be able to discern anything or do research among several dissenting opinions. And yes, it's their platform and yada yada .. they still allow a lot of content to be uploaded and they have become the most typical/standard centralized source of videos.

I will admit, they might be right to not trust people ... at which point why do we even care about humanity anymore? Are those with more power and influence always going to think the rest of the world are sheep who can't think for themselves and need to be led around?

This time sets all kinds of dangerous prescients. I wish Orwell was still alive.

"People should be able to see all the opinions of various experts; doctors in NYC, doctors in Minnesota. Just them on their merits and examine the evidence."

Most people are not qualified to "examine the evidence" and make public health policy decisions. This is why we rely upon the experts. Otherwise you have measles outbreaks in Beverly Hills.

You mean the experts that said no human to human transmission? or the experts that called for maska being ineffective? or the experts that didnt know how to store and deploy resources as they needed? or the experts that miscalculated projected infection rates?

> You mean the experts that said no human to human transmission?

Perfect example, no expert said there was no human to human nor is there any chance of it. The only language close to that was "there isn't any proof of it now" which might have been informed by CCP misinformation.

Even though they were misinformed, any true expert should have known not to make any definitive statement either way. If you have such a quote, it was not made by an expert.

So doctors aren't experts in health now. That's what it's come to?

Do you think epidemiologists are? The people who have apparently never predicted a disease outbreak successfully, ever? Why are they experts but not these doctors?

And what makes YouTube employees believe they're qualified to decide who's right? They're experts in HTML5 video serving, not health.

> So doctors aren't experts in health now.

Even doctors generally recognize that public health (of which epidemiology is only a part) is a separate domain of expertise. There are doctors who specialize in infectious disease who need some public-health training, but there's no reason to expect that e.g. a oncologist or trauma surgeon would know more than the average scientifically-literate person about a different profession.

From the video around 4:40:

> 33,865 COVID cases out of a total of 280,900 total tested--that's 12% of Californians were positive for COVID.

This would only be true if those tested were randomly selected. Even in the most optimistic Santa Clara County study prevalence was estimated at under 5%. 1

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

The point here is that youtube is not a harbinger of scientific truth. These doctors present their findings with their collected data to come to this conclusion that the according to them, this virus is not dangerous and the quarantine should end.

Does Youtube also censor videos where plumbers present an incorrect way to install a toilet that can lead to backflow and flooding.

The point to make here is that Youtube is NOT the New England Journal of Science and should not act like one for just one topic - Coronavirus.

If anybody feels that their data or interpreation of the data is incorrect, they should post their own video on Youtube, refuting their claims.

Instead what Youtube is doing is just silencing them.

Does Youtube also censor videos where plumbers present an incorrect way to install a toilet that can lead to backflow and flooding.

1) They probably would censor the plumber, if they received enough complaints about it, and 2) an incorrectly installed toilet doesn't have the potential to kill tens of thousands of people, whereas erroneous information about the danger of COVID-19 very well could. So they're not waiting for the complaints.

> The point to make here is that Youtube is NOT the New England Journal of Science and should not act like one for just one topic

Nor is cnn, fox news, msnbc, etc. They all exercise editorial control over what goes on their channel however.

The rules by which youtube exercises its editor control is its guidelines and policies from my understanding.

> The rules by which youtube exercises its editor control is its guidelines and policies from my understanding.

Which may be the result of its execs being dragged before congress about "fake news" -- hence the allegations of censorship.

Is that analogy sincere? YouTube itself has channels, no? Youtube is the TV. Wouldn’t it be fair to say you can exercise editorial control over your channel, but television manufacturers shouldn’t come with it’s own defined restrictions on content?

It would suck if a firmware upgrade goes out to all LG TVs disabling certain content. It’s within LG’s right, but what a betrayal of the customer who was sold a non universal television.

> The point to make here is that Youtube is NOT the New England Journal of Science

Exactly! So why are the doctors using it as a platform when they should be going through reputable peer-reviewed channels?

What about evidence that the Jews created and disseminated Covid-19? Should I be able to present that evidence even though it's flawed and full of incorrect data?

Youtube owns the platform, we allowed it to become the largest and most powerful platform but there are others out there. Youtube (and google, and bing) have no reason to have to host misleading, wrong, or hurtful opinions/websites.

> Does Youtube also censor videos where plumbers present an incorrect way to install a toilet that can lead to backflow and flooding.

This is more akin to YouTube removing a “I’m a plumber, trust me, clean your bathroom by mixing bleach and ammonia in your toilet” video.

    The point here is that youtube is not a harbinger of 
    scientific truth.

    The point to make here is that Youtube is NOT the New 
    England Journal of Science and should not act like one 
    for just one topic - Coronavirus.

    If anybody feels that their data or interpreation of the 
    data is incorrect, they should post their own video on 
    Youtube, refuting their claims.

But this interpretation is wrong.

A scientific journal has a panel, which are qualified experts in the field or related fields, that read and pick up on statistical errors, and other errors, and decide whether or not to publish the paper. Youtube does not.

Peer review as a whole, means that your work gets assessed by experts, and they decide before publication if your paper is of the right quality to enter the journal.

'Peer Review' =/= 'Allowing everyone to post and the truth will be found out or agreed upon in the end'

'Peer Review' == 'Having your work assessed by equally or more skilled people, who then decide if your work is good enough to publish'

Youtube operates in a fundamentally different way to peer review, it allows anyone to post, then retroactively decides if that work meets guidelines. This means that not only is it not possible to immediately filter work that is submitted, it also does not go through proper assessment of it's validity by a panel of specialists and experts. Youtube could not operate with it's current business model using that method, and so is forced to choose another. Just because it's retroactive enforcement, doesn't mean that the terms of the service and guidelines are not in force, or should be considered censorship. Nobody is actually censoring these people, they are free to post their video literally anywhere else, but they broke the terms of the Youtube service.

As many other people have pointed out, the work produced and hosted on Youtube does contain errors, these are statistical errors that would have been caught had they submitted this to an academic journal, however the video's makers explicitly decidedin to publish it on Youtube. There is very little reason to do that, other than to market this information to others.

As this information is dubious at best, it is fundamentally and ethically irresponsible of them, as scientists, as medical workers who have taken an oath to do no harm, to publish this work on Youtube and to the public without going through the basic step that is peer review. The comments section does exist, but has no value, because you cannot count on the general public to be as informed in the subject matter as a peer review panel would be.

Many studies across the world are showing infection rates for Covid-19 are far higher than official numbers indicate. These studies appear to support the spirit of their statements.

AFAIK, there is not a single study that "[shows] infection rates for Covid-19 are far higher than official numbers indicate". There is no place in the world (again, afaik) that is attempting to report the number of infected people, all the "official numbers" are roughly either "confirmed infected" or clinically-confirmed infected. All health experts (as far back as early january when we just had numbers from Wuhan) were saying that the actual number of infected will be much higher than those confirmed infected. There are a lot of studies that indicate that those experts are correct (and I am, maybe unfairly, assuming that those are the studies that you are misrepresenting).

Confirmed infected is being used for the mortality rate. Confirmed infected is not being updated to take advantage of serological data which shows percentage prevalence tens of times higher than the official confirmed count.

If we were talking an order of double, I think people would be a bit less ruffled. We're not though. We're talking 50-85 times in places like Santa Clara.

Same with the death rate. Covid is most always a co-factor in the death along with other reasons. Like a smoker with emphysema who was dying anyway and the virus is the trigger. They really died from smoking their whole life. Another virus or bacteria could've killed them.

It doesn't matter. Why is YouTube policing speech? If anything, this will give "incorrect ideas" more attention than letting them be heard.

That does not logically follow if the general public does not have the expertise to evaluate public health policy discussions and decisions.

> if the general public does not have the expertise to evaluate public health policy discussions and decisions

But you're now asking people to trust experts, which in 2020 is apparently crazy-talk

The problem is that the people who made this video are by definition experts. Experts are often wrong and disagree, so if the public listens to the wrong experts and silence the right experts we have a problem. Therefore it is better to not try to decide which experts are right or wrong so we can silence them, since chances are that the people doing the evaluation are the ones in the wrong.

> The problem is that the people who made this video are by definition experts.

They are experts in an entirely different field.

You don't need any training in statistics, epidemiology, public health, etc. to be an urgent care doc. They're experts in diagnosing and fixing ailments (at an individual level) that don't require a full-blown ER visit or hospitalization.

It doesn’t help that the experts started 2020 by downplaying the threat and telling people not to wear masks.

"Experts" in 2020 are merely washed up mathematicians and Ethiopian politicians who have no incentive to be correct, only to speak, and who have spent a lot of time publicly arguing with each other and producing completely contradictory advice and predictions. Of those predictions they all had severe and deep flaws, like the Imperial paper that assumed hospital capacity was entirely static and couldn't increase at all. That's an assumption any working nurse could have corrected immediately but the team responsible didn't bother asking them.

There are no experts in this disease, only people trying to control other people through false proclamations of authority.

Why does the UW doctor's opinion supercede that of the doctors in the removed videos?

The answer of course is ideology. These are two experts giving two different opinions based on different sets of similarly poor evidence. The fact that a doctor goes against consensus does not necessarily mean he's wrong and it certainly does not warrant censorship, all else considered.

Youtube is making a dangerous mistake.

It has nothing to do with opinions, and it has nothing to do with ideology, except insofar as these two doctors were motivated by their ideology to profoundly misunderstand or misrepresent statistical sampling.

It’s not one side thinks this, the other side thinks that, it’s that their video is factually wrong, and in being wrong encourages dangerous behavior.

Really? Are you really so arrogant as to ignore that YouTube is far more likely to be making an ideological decision here?

An expert made a statement. YouTube went out of its way to find a doctor who supported YouTube's ideological slant and used that as justification for taking action.

This obliviousness. This is why we must restrict power. This is why we can't have nice things.

What makes these two doctors experts in epidemiology and statistics?

Do you really trust YouTube to make that decision? That's the whole point. I'm not actually interested in the credentials on either side - merely pointing out that YouTube is doing far more harm than good in choosing a side. Society would be far better off without their curation.

No, you claimed "an expert made a statement". I want to clarify. No expert made a statement on youtube. Two nonexperts made statements, and Youtube removed them, presumably at the behest of experts (like the WHO, whom youtube is using to set guidelines on removable content).

A doctor on the frontlines is an expert. He may not specialize in epidemiology or virology, but his credentials are sufficient that the difference between credibility between the scientists and the doctors is too small for youtube to reliably choose one over the other. YouTube is not an accreditation agency or an arbiter of credibility.

YouTube has no authority to suppress credible doctors from going against the consensus. The fact that this particular decision agrees with what the majority of us think is right doesn't mean that YouTube is right to choose.

> He may not specialize in epidemiology or virology

Exactly, so he should not be speaking on epidemiology. And it's even more dangerous because people, like you, believe he could be an expert.

> YouTube has no authority to suppress credible doctors from going against the consensus.

But the WHO does.

Great, and the WHO is welcome to keep the doctors video off of their platform.

Ignoring ramifications of politicization, How many developments will be missed if we embark on a campaign to suppress all dissenting opinions?

You don't think a doctor on the front line is qualified to make inferences about the disease that he is literally treating en masse? You don't think direct observation and experimentation with hundreds of patients could provide valuable insight into the properties of this disease or potential working treatments and/or best practices? How far backwards are you going to bend to defend this position?

Again, the fact that this particular decision agrees with your preconceived notions does not mean that YouTube's emerging practice of choosing truth is good for society. The WHO is also not the only qualified body, nor is it a final authority, yet here YouTube is suddenly treating it as one and, conveniently, YouTube's political slant is aligned with this particular decision. If we allow this behavior, it won't be the last time that YouTube picks a winner and shapes the reality perceived by millions of people. This is a possibly unprecedented amount of soft power and it is being used without oversight or control by the society that is being influenced by it.

I'm not suggesting we make it illegal but educated citizens should be at least resistant to the idea, not welcoming of it because it happens to agree with their politics now. The same goes for Google and FB and any other platform that acts as a window to information - these corporations are not authorities and should not be gatekeeping information. Long term that's a far greater danger to society than COVID19.

> Ignoring ramifications of politicization,

Let's not. It's relevant to real world actions.

> You don't think a doctor on the front line is qualified to make inferences about the disease that he is literally treating en masse?

About symptoms or specific treatment plans, perhaps. About government response? No. It's the difference between macro and micro scale approaches. The front line doctors are experts at mirco-scale treatment. Epidemiologists are best at macro-scale treatments. The two skillsets are not the same. An expert at one is not an expert at the other, and no amount of repeating that belief will change that.

> Again, the fact that this particular decision agrees with your preconceived notions does not mean that YouTube's emerging practice of choosing truth is good for society.

Correct. I just happen to believe that suppressing lies that can kill people if they believe them is also a good thing. Or do you think that "take Hydroxychloroquine, it's a miracle drug" should be posted on the youtube homepage?

> The WHO is also not the only qualified body, nor is it a final authority, yet here YouTube is suddenly treating it as one and, conveniently, YouTube's political slant is aligned with this particular decision

What is the political slant you're describing? The WHO, CDC, and pretty much every expert body on epidemiology in the world, in every nation, from Iran to Argentina to Germany to China are doing approximately the same thing. The political spectrums in those nations cross the gamut. Yet they're all following the same treatment plan for the pandemic response. What is the political slant?

> If we allow this behavior, it won't be the last time that YouTube picks a winner and shapes the reality perceived by millions of people.

They already do that. They're just doing so with a bit of morality instead of hoping that unmonitored algorithms will lead to the best outcomes for society.

> these corporations are not authorities and should not be gatekeeping information.

Information is relative. Google's mission statement is "organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful". So which is more in line with that mission: providing a platform for lies, or curating correct information?

Is "up is down" information? Or is it something else? I don't think lies (or perhaps less aggressively, falsehoods) are "information", they're something else. If the doctors are correct (they aren't, but assuming they were), they'd have evidence they could share and that actual experts would agree with. Then the expert consensus would change.

Either that or you think there's a worldwide conspiracy to keep us in our homes, hurting the economy and millions, or even billions, so that...as far as I can tell, the best guess is so that governments can replace the batteries in the birds. There's nothing for the WHO or CDC to gain by suppressing these guys. There's nothing for Google to gain by suppressing these guys. And yet, they do because it's morally right to keep people safe from disinformation.

>And yet, they do because it's morally right to keep people safe from disinformation.

This is literally why we have the first amendment. Because, as you say, information is relative; that also means it is relative in time. And we can only come to a correct consensus if we allow all voices to be heard.

This is an excellent example of a time not to suppress dissidents. The doctors on the front line are just as likely, if not moreso, to come up with potential treatments or policies, because this is happening in real time and the information arbitrage lends extra credibility to the doctor's words. Do you see how subjective this decision of censorship is? And any subjective decision is subject to bias, political or otherwise.

>There's nothing for Google to gain by suppressing these guys.

It's no secret Google leans left. It's no secret that protestors of the lockdown lean right. You don't see a conflict of interest here?

What if the WHO and CDC are in conflict? Who decides then? YouTube? What about platforms that are partly owned by China? Conflict of interest?

What about elections? You think it's OK for a platform like Google or YouTube to pull ads that fail "fact checks"? What about viral posts? You don't think it'll be a partisan shitshow?

If not then we have no reason to continue this discussion because we will not agree.

> It's no secret Google leans left. It's no secret that protestors of the lockdown lean right. You don't see a conflict of interest here?

No. I'd see a conflict of interest if this were a political issue. But it's not. Making something political by spouting a bunch of lies until people believe them doesn't change the science.

>What if the WHO and CDC are in conflict?

But they're not. So we're well into the realm of irrelevant hypotheticals.

> treatments or policies

Treatments, yes. Policies, no. Because as I keep saying, they're different things. You're comparing, in essence, the skills of a software engineer and a CEO. Drop either into the others' chair and they'll flounder.

> What about elections? You think it's OK for a platform like Google or YouTube to pull ads that fail "fact checks"?

They already have policies that disallow lying in political ads: https://www.blog.google/technology/ads/update-our-political-...

> It’s against our policies for any advertiser to make a false claim—whether it's a claim about the price of a chair or a claim that you can vote by text message, that election day is postponed, or that a candidate has died.

> You don't think it'll be a partisan shitshow?

I mean, I expect that no matter what people will complain that it'll be a partisan shitshow. Given that like I said these policies already exist and I didn't notice any obvious political shitshow, only the usual suspects complaining, no.

> What about platforms that are partly owned by China?

They can make their own policies, and I'm free to use them, or not.

> This is literally why we have the first amendment.

And I fully support both the doctor's right to exercise it by spouting bullshit, and Youtube's right to exercise it by removing said bullshit from their platform.

I don't think you understand that in a reality with limited information, it is impossible for humans to know objective truth. And further you underestimate the degree of uncertainty regarding lockdown measures.

This uncertainty is an avenue for bias. I don't think you understand the dangers of giving a handful of people the power to censor and curate the material that reaches a majority of the eyes in the US. You'll change your mind when they bend against your own leanings though, I guarantee that. It's the spirit of the first amendment, because this is an enormous power that affects all of us, without our consent.

The CDC and the WHO were in conflict at one point regarding mask usage. As it happens, they are arguably in conflict today, as the WHO has praised Sweden's model which, in case you're not aware, is not a lockdown. So what now? Will you be expecting YouTube to remove any videos from the WHO suggesting people adopt the policy of Sweden?

How can you even put faith in authority right now after so many nations, organizations, hospitals, the world over, totally failed in responding to or preparing for this pandemic? And you think YouTube is in a position to choose? It's bad for society.

It's equally impossible for humans to know objective truth if all information is presented with no way to determine authority. If I present you with all possible 25 word sentences containing "covid-19", you have all of the conceivable information at your fingertips, but you can't draw any conclusions.

But that's mostly beside the point. No one is preventing these two doctors from determining the truth. If they think they have a breakthrough, they can present it in a paper, to other experts, who are capable of analyzing it.

> I don't think you understand that in a reality with limited information, it is impossible for humans to know objective truth. And further you underestimate the degree of uncertainty regarding lockdown measures.

Conventional news is far worse than Google both in terms of the things and, at least currently, in terms of reach. I'd much prefer if Fox news presented actual experts on subjects, instead of political pundits or "Dr. Phil" when discussing COVID-19. I am not and have not taken any political side anywhere in this conversation. I've been on the side of scientific consensus. I don't expect that will change.

> As it happens, they are arguably in conflict today, as the WHO has praised Sweden's model which, in case you're not aware, is not a lockdown.

Let's talk when the WHO releases official guidance to end lockdowns. Until then you're just trying to create conflict where there isn't any.

> How can you even put faith in authority right now after so many nations, organizations, hospitals, the world over, totally failed in responding to or preparing for this pandemic?

Because I trust the institutions of government (and their access to experts) more than I trust hucksters on the internet. While I don't expert the average person to be able to discern an expert from a huckster on the internet, especially due to the actions of certain politicians.

That's why you should always get a second opinion.

> The fact that a doctor goes against consensus does not necessarily mean he's wrong and it certainly does not warrant censorship, all else considered.

It's not the unpopularity of the views of the doctors in the video that makes them wrong, it is their complete misapplication of statistics. The analogy of “estimating the average height of Americans from the players on an NBA court.” is very apt.

It may not mean that they should be censored, but at a minimum they deserve to be called out and ridiculed.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com