Comment by legobmw99 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by legobmw99 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

There are a lot of claims in the article besides COVID policy effectiveness, for starters. They present the racism of the MAGA movement through a single debunked anecdote, rather than hate crime statistics. Policy brutality is presented not as a reality which has numbers and history but as an event that happened one time to one man, etc.

As for COVID data, it would be foolish to claim that the data we have is perfect. After all, we had a seemingly official policy of “if we don’t do tests more, we won’t have more cases” for the first month of the spread in the US. And without a doubt, there are people with stuff to gain by artificially inflating the numbers (incendiary media, etc) and artificially suppressing them (governors, etc). But, I think it’s also difficult to form a coherent claim that the data available is, in aggregate, completely bogus. If you slap an error bar of even 20% on the case numbers, I don’t think my ultimate interpretation of that would not change very much, but YMMV

Yes, the average, everyday person's perspectives on the goings-on are informed primarily by the big news stories that have been rammed down their throats. That's the point of the article.

Well, off subject, but hate crime data isn't exactly the whole picture either, as this article (paywall, sadly) explains: https://reason.com/2021/09/19/do-we-really-need-new-anti-asi... (in general physical violence down, 'uncomfortable' situations or words may be up past year, yet all down over like 20 years)

Back on subject, seems like it's possible though, even if the rest of this article is wrong about COVID, it does mention the fake epidemic at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, where the PCR testing was 100% wrong: https://blog.plan99.net/pseudo-epidemics-7603b2da839

It really doesn't help either that dissenting data is auto-flagged as 'disinformation' now either.

And finally 'the data' is just part of the equation. It has justified lockdowns that have a 100% real negative effect on people's lives, whereas for healthy adults COVID has a far less than 1% effect. Plus I'll note that those that most strongly advocate for lockdowns are the least affected by them - media, academics, medical personnel, politicans, tech and other white-collar workers, public school teachers, etc.

It really shows a selfishness, and a careless disregard for fellow citizens who might not be as fortunate. Is it any wonder 'the data' is not to be believed?

I dissent on the claim that medical personnel are least affected. Is there some subset you're envisioning? Do you somehow mean only particular kinds of affect?

I don't know of any hospitals that were closed due to a lockdown, do you?

the pandemic's affected them a lot, yes, I'm just talking about government imposed lockdowns, which have little in the way of data backing them up.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com