Comment by unethical_ban | Hacker News Reader

Comment by unethical_ban | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Good-faith vs. bad faith.

I hate that the CDC did that action, only because it gave skeptics another reason to distrust them. But it is 100% clear to anyone who, you know, was alive when it happened that they did that to prevent a mask shortage for those who needed them most.

I would rather have seen some emergency declaration that N95s must be seized from stores and go to healthcare workers, but that would have caused perhaps an even bigger panic. Because then, everyone would have freaked out, vs. what they did. Now, we only have people who were already going to distrust government giving a shit about the mask declaration last year.

Back to good-faith vs. bad-faith: I'm not certain there is more than a hair's worth of anti-vaccine content that is produced with good intention or even attempted to be backed by statistics. Put simply, I wager there is no anti-vaccine content produced out of a legitimate, well-founded public interest. It's charlatans, fools, anti-science and anti-authority interests.

What's your position on the current third shot issue? Should we listen to the scientist panel that said no, or the government that said yes?

What is youtube's position? Will it delete all government communications because the scientists said on, or will it delete all scientific discussion because the government said yes?

Let’s not add misinformation here. It was a panel of researches at the CDC that said the evidence for boosters for under 65 at risk individuals was marginal that the thought it wasn’t worth it. A similar panel of researches at the FDA said it was a close call but they said it was worth it. The CDC panel is advisory to the FDA panel, not the other way around. The debate here is specifically for under 65 at risk individuals.

Besides, the official recommendation was more on the line of "a 3rd dose is much less useful than applying those vaccines on the antivaxers". What is very clearly correct, but is of a laughable political naivety, because the preferred goal is practically impossible to reach.

That's irrelevant, as I understand it. The debate wasn't about the scientific merits of a third shot - the debate was on the prioritization of whether the limited resource (the vaccine) was best allocated for a larger set of boosters, or if they should be used for others who are not yet vaccinated (perhaps worldwide).

Anyway, like I've said in another post and in a blog before, I think Youtube has less responsibility to be a neutral platform than ISPs and registrars do. If you want to host content, you should be able to do it yourself with Internet connectivity and DNS - IMO those should be "common carriers" that don't get the privilege of bias the same way platforms like Youtube do.

Think swallowing a tube of veterinary-grade medicine is safer than an injection that hundreds of millions of people have gotten with few problems? Go for it, on your home server with a domain name.

Now, I'm gonna get some coffee.

> What's your position on the current third shot issue? Should we listen to the scientist panel that said no, or the government that said yes?

We should listen to ourselves. If we don't have enough information to make an informed decision, then study and acquire that information. No one is responsible for you except for you - with the caveats of children/dependents being not responsible for themselves.

What Youtube or any other internet information says is irrelevant until you decide otherwise.

And how do we get information if only one side isn't censored?

Go read the studies directly and see if you can spot a mistake in their methodology that would undermine the study.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com