As it should be.
>He is hoping that Spotify will give him more creative freedom
Spreading pseudoscience isn't creative, its destructive.
How is contrarian coverage "pseudoscience"?
An example of contrarian coverage is the suicide rate rising due to the Bay Area stay-at-home order: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23269396
Thus, evidence of the harm of lockdowns can be considered contrarian, regardless of whether it comes from medical professionals.
Ignoring mental health consequences of difficult times is foolish, but this sounds much more like it was a "well, actually" sort of conversation meant to stroke people's egos.
Then they'd collect advertising revenue based on all the eyeballs they can get.
This is not the flu, it is much worse, but we are generally not enforcing "seat belts" to protect the vulnerable even close to as much.
Furthermore, economic depressions lead to suffering and death. This is a fact that's widely known and studied. Ignoring all the coming secondary effects to focus on only acute deaths from a single cause is clearly not scientific either.
I'm not sure what exactly you're suggesting (if anything).
But he did compare harm rates, for example of alcohol, which is perfectly legal and is sold in abundance EVEN during this health crisis and weed.
* Masks do not work on corona virus
* Taiwan is a Chinese province, not an independent country
* Corona virus does not transmit between people.
The very first signs of human-to-human transmission in the epidemic were on Jan 14th, as some family members of the initially-identified cluster began to fall ill. At this time, there were about ~50 identified cases, and zero deaths.
On January 20th, one single incubation period later, as healthcare workers began falling ill, both China and the WHO confirmed human-to-human transmission.
There are large numbers of examples of respiratory illnesses that do not easily transmit between humans. Most commonly, there are frequently outbreaks of H1N1 influenza from farms, with animals as the primary vector. Among coronaviruses, MERS transmits very poorly between people.
Would you have preferred the WHO loudly proclaim the virus easily transmits between people when there was no evidence that it did? That would be absurd.
Please stop spreading this misinformation.
Taiwan informed the WHO in December that person to person transmission was likely taking place[0]. The only sense in which it hadn’t been confirmed is in a tautological sense the WHO hadn’t confirmed it. Doctors in Wuhan were getting infected and Taiwan had proof of that.
[0] https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.ft.com/content/2a70a02a-644...
China notified the WHO on December 31st of a cluster of cases of pneumonia of unknown cause, and noted that the patients had been isolated.
Taiwan's health minister then emailed the WHO, suggesting that the unknown illness might well be SARS, and made note of China's acknowledgement that the patients had been put in isolation.
Taiwan had zero first hand knowledge of the the virus, and zero information on the virus beyond what China had provided to the WHO and what had been reported in social media.
Taiwan's health minister's email to the WHO was literally based on nothing more than China's own statements to the WHO, and social media rumors. That is it in its entirety.
Again, like I suggested to the original commenter, please stop spreading misinformation.
Taiwan had no proof, they just did not trust China.
If you're referring to the case covered by the article published in The Lancet[1], those patients were admitted to hospital between Jan 10 and Jan 15.
Yet, prior to that date there were already reports the virus spread between humans.
[1] https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...
There is a lot of diplomatic weasel words and trade offices instead of embassies to keep that up but it suports the One China policy.
It may not work if too many people are too stupid. But it may work if enough people are smart enough. And it's the only way to have a free society.
That's his appeal--few people would be interested in hearing him grill his guests. We have CNN for that. Saying he "lobs softball after softball at them" is true but not really a bad thing given that he doesn't claim to do otherwise.
You're free to listen to the uninterrupted hours of talk directly from the guest and form your own opinion. That's usually a far better way to learn about someone than following an opinionated interviewer asking "hardball" questions that don't get clear answers anyway and will reduce the caliber of guests to appear in the first.