
YouTube removed a viral video of two doctors calling for an end to quarantine - s9w
https://www.theblaze.com/news/youtube-removed-viral-doctor-video-end-quarantine
======
cowholio4
Not only were they completely wrong with their numbers, they even were wrong
in their assessment of Fauci. They said they “are actually seeing the
patients, Dr Fauci hasn’t seen a patient in 20 years.”

In 2015, Dr Fauci personally helped take care of an Ebola patient when most of
the world was terrified of Ebola.

[https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/03/why-nihs-anthony-
fau...](https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/03/why-nihs-anthony-fauci-
treating-ebola-patients-himself)

~~~
blisterpeanuts
Suppose you're right. Does it justify censorship? Fauci can defend himself,
and the docs are welcome to express their opinions. What gives Google/YouTube
the justification to silence them?

~~~
aliminator8
YouTube has the right to censor anything it likes. It's their platform. If you
don't like it, don't use YouTube.

~~~
dilap
Should they have that right though?

YouTube is owned by a Google, a massive, publicly-traded corporation with
near-monopoly power.

Are the best interests of society served by allowing it to be governed in an
authoritarian, totalitarian fashion, or would it make sense, considering it is
one of the most powerful mediums of speech ever created, to let it be governed
by rules somewhat approximating the much-lauded, traditional, western liberal
values of free speech?

~~~
montroser
The idea a private company should be forced to use their resources to host
content they deem harmful to humanity seems obviously wrong. Of course they
should have the right.

YouTube is not a public service.

"Free speech" does not mean you also are entitled to a platform and an
audience.

~~~
autoexec
> "Free speech" does not mean you also are entitled to a platform and an
> audience.

"Free speech" is a right but also an ideal. When speech is being silenced (de-
platformed) or people (the audience) are forbidden from hearing it even when
they want to, it violates those principles.

> YouTube is not a public service.

Youtube is a powerful and unique resource without meaningful competition which
I think does give them a certain level of responsibility to uphold the ideals
of free speech.

Personally, I think that education is always better than suppression. Rather
than remove these videos, a better option would simply be to inform users that
the video contains false information and where they can find the truth.

~~~
wvenable
> "Free speech" is a right but also an ideal.

The problem with the ideal is that most people have it wrong. "Free speech" is
not speech without consequences.

Nobody here thinks that speech should be criminalized but that doesn't mean
you have the right to be heard. If nobody wants to associate with you because
of your speech, that's their right. You are not entitled to a soapbox.

~~~
dependenttypes
> "Free speech" is not speech without consequences

This is literally what free speech is. "You can speak your mind or I will kill
you" or "You can speak your mind but if I disagree with you I will make sure
that nobody can hear you again (by de-platforming you)" is not very free
speech-y.

> but that doesn't mean you have the right to be heard

You should certainly have the right to be heard by these that want to hear
you.

~~~
skuthus
It's more like 'I have the right to choose which voices get heard on my
private platform'

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Yeah no. YouTube is arguably a very, very public platform. Open to the public;
entirely populated and funded by the public (i.e. millions of content
providers and viewers generate all the income).

Its reasonable to have different rules for a local newspaper vs a worldwide
monopolist.

~~~
wvenable
> entirely populated and funded by the public

You just described every single business in the whole world except those
funded by taxpayer money (which is generally what is meant by "funded by the
public"). Actually, YouTube isn't even funded by the public -- they're funded
by advertisers.

> Its reasonable to have different rules for a local newspaper vs a worldwide
> monopolist.

All local newspapers are owned by large companies. As for monopolist, you
can't just throw that around without argument. YouTube is _far_ _far_ from the
only provider of online video.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
YouTube is almost the exclusive (by daily views) provider. How can that be in
question?

~~~
wvenable
That doesn't make it a monopoly! My local big box grocery store has more
visitors than my local corner store.

Any other video provider on the Internet is just as accessible. If YouTube
went away tomorrow, videos would still exist on the Internet. Most videos
posted to YouTube of any value would immediately show up elsewhere.

Have you considered YouTube is popular because it's at least a little bit
curated? Heck, YouTube wouldn't even exist without ContentID.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Ok, overwhelming market leader then.

The rules for it should be carefully considered, since it is a unicorn.

~~~
wvenable
You're begging the question. Overwhelming market leader means nothing -- it
doesn't automatically create any new obligations or responsibilities.

You actually have to make the argument that an overwhelming market leader in
an otherwise niche market requires them to give up their free speech,
marketing ability, hosting limits, income, etc.

Even having a monopoly isn't illegal; a company actually has to be convicted
of abusing a monopoly position for anything to be required of them.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Sure it does. It's called a 'trust', and its well-covered in corporate law.

And no, I don't have to prove anything. Just that a reasonable congress should
have oversight over the single most watched communications channel on the
planet.

This is just dead obvious. I can't believe there's any good faith in this
discussion any more. Signing off.

~~~
whatisaquiche
A reasonable congress should have oversight?

What do you mean by that?

------
gmfawcett
This is lazy reporting. It's not wrong, but there's no insight here. No
critical assessment of the claims made in the video nor the Youtube T&C, just
a few clickbaity excerpts and some reaction comments.

Compare with this excellent piece by the CBC on a somewhat similar viral video
in Canada:

[https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/u-of-r-
biology-p...](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/u-of-r-biology-prof-
draws-ire-of-sask-scientists-1.5541748)

~~~
forgot_my_pwd
But that misses the point. The very fact that a few people at Google/Youtube
have the power to censor whomever they want for whatever reason they choose is
a problem in itself.

Are the doctors in the video saying untruths or misrepresenting data? I think
what they said in the video was eminently reasonable. But perhaps I'm wrong.
Luckily we have the freedom to publicly critique their claims - assuming our
critiques aren't censored by major internet companies - which is how
falsehoods and untruths should be dealt with, not with censorship.

~~~
senectus1
I dont get this mindset.

They aren't stopping them voicing their opinions or views... they're just
stopping them posting it on THEIR service.

Newspapers do that all the time, TV and Radio does it all the time. Why is
this different?

~~~
busymom0
> Newspapers do that all the time, TV and Radio does it all the time.

And that's why newspapers are classified as publishers and therefore are able
to be sued. "Platforms" like YouTube are can't be sued because they are
supposed to act like platforms - which they are not. Right now YouTube is
acting like publishers while using the advantage of being called a platform.
This is the Communications Decency Act section 230.

~~~
olliej
That would mean compelling them to host _all_ content, including child
pornography and calls to commit terrorism.

That is clearly nonsense.

The CDA doesn’t say “in order to not be liable you must host _everything_
regardless of what it is” it allows you to host _potentially_ anything that is
uploaded without being considered directly liable for that (which would be far
more censorious)

~~~
perf1
No Platdforms still have to delete illegal content and react to take down
notices.

~~~
olliej
Ok, pornography then, that’s legal. Content that promotes terrorism is (to my
understanding) not illegal, because that we shut down all those freedom loving
“militias”.

------
ColanR
It's too bad that we are so quick to silence those who we perceive as wrong.
Apparently, the doctors in the video were using incorrect facts; I wouldn't
know, the video is gone. Discussion is being prohibited, wherever there is an
approved expert to say the viewpoint is wrong.

If dissention is labelled dangerous, and dissenting voices on important
subjects are silenced, then we are creating an echo chamber with no respect
for anyone but those who accept the perspective of the majority. How will we
ever discover if the official message is wrong?

~~~
notechback
There is a difference between silencing dissenters in a scientific discussion
and silencing dissenters trying to push a viewpoint to the masses that may or
may not result in tens of thousands of deaths if it gets sufficient traction.
This is exactly the kind of thing Russian propaganda always tries to achieve:
provide confusion and semi-legitimate experts spreading false narratives so
that the population does not believe the government anymore - or simply
doesn't believe anyone anymore.

See eg the EU's take on it:

[https://euvsdisinfo.eu/eeas-special-report-disinformation-
on...](https://euvsdisinfo.eu/eeas-special-report-disinformation-on-the-
coronavirus-short-assessment-of-the-information-environment/)

[https://euvsdisinfo.eu/](https://euvsdisinfo.eu/)

~~~
RonanTheGrey
> There is a difference between silencing dissenters in a scientific
> discussion and silencing dissenters trying to push a viewpoint to the masses
> that may or may not result in tens of thousands of deaths if it gets
> sufficient traction

Interesting.

So.... forbid all speech that could result in a revolution, then? Say... An
American one? Or maybe a Spring one. Or a French one.

I mean.. that's the standard you set up. In before "ARE YOU COMPARING A VIRUS
TO A REVOLUTION?" blah. At the risk of overstating my case, life isn't the
only valuable thing on earth.

------
anigbrowl
Blaze media is an overtly ideological outlet. In my experience when any such
outlet (regardless of the particular persuasion) makes a headline out of a
'viral' video or social media post, it's as part of a structured social media
campaign: put the media up, drive some traffic to it, run a story about how
it's 'going viral' leveraging people's preference for social proof, and so on.

With anything where there's significant political, economic, or social capital
riding on the outcome, astroturfing is a sad reality that must be considered.
One way to mitigate its effects is to look for reports from some disinterested
source and see if you can find the same facts presented with less urgency and
the determination of significance being left to the reader.

~~~
TechBro8615
Here is a link to the news site which originally uploaded the press conference
to YouTube, along with a statement from YouTube, and re-hosted version of the
video:

[https://www.turnto23.com/news/coronavirus/video-interview-
wi...](https://www.turnto23.com/news/coronavirus/video-interview-with-dr-dan-
erickson-and-dr-artin-massihi-taken-down-from-youtube)

Hopefully this solves your problem with the “overtly ideological outlet.”

(Edit: originally had copy pasted wrong link)

~~~
JKCalhoun
"Overtly idealogical" doesn't have to mean falsehoods, it can also mean
selecting only content that reinforces a specific narrative.

------
ThisIsTheWay
One of the comments made in the video (referenced in the article as well) is

"We always have between 37,000 and 60,000 deaths in the United States, every
single year. No pandemic talk. No shelter in place. No shutting down
businesses."

Since early Feb we've seen ~54K deaths from Coronavirus alone (excluding
influenza deaths) [0]. The argument that this is just part of the normal flu
cycle doesn't make any sense.

[0] [https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-
updates/case...](https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-
updates/cases-in-us.html)

~~~
joshuamorton
And that's despite nearly nationwide shelter in place measures. If those
hadn't been implemented, the toll could well be an order of magnitude higher.

~~~
manfredo
Are infections and death tolls in the countries with much less restrictive
measures an order of magnitude higher?

~~~
jaggederest
Yes, actually. Here's an example, probably the best natural experiment we're
going to see in this context. Five times more, depending on your idea of
"order of magnitude".

[https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/28/europe/sweden-coronavirus-
loc...](https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/28/europe/sweden-coronavirus-lockdown-
strategy-intl/index.html)

~~~
joshuaheard
An order of magnitude usually means 10x, ie 140 vs 14. According to your
article, Sweden has had a lower death rate than the UK, Spain, or Italy.

~~~
kaitai
One can compare it to its immediate neighbors (Finland, Denmark, Norway) and
get your order of magnitude right there. Norway: 206 deaths, population a bit
over 5.8 million. Finland: 199 deaths, population a bit over 5 million.
Sweden: 2,355 deaths, population a bit over 10 million. I'll let you carry out
the division yourself.

Comparing to its geographical and cultural neighbors helps deal with
differences in city structure, public health system, trust in government,
population density, etc.

~~~
postalrat
Can we compare New York with its neighbors?

~~~
kaitai
Compare it with equally dense neighbors, sure!

------
axguscbklp
I wonder why Google's decision-makers decided to censor stuff that doesn't
follow WHO guidelines. Is it because they actually care about the mass of the
population? Is it because they want to minimize the economic damage caused by
the crisis? Is it because they're scared to get sick themselves? Is it because
they want to avoid possible legal liability? Is it due to political pressure
on them? Is it because they want to exploit the crisis for reasons of politics
and social engineering? Some combination of the above?

~~~
saltedonion
Because dominant media platforms have a huge crosshairs on their backs, with
different groups criticizing they aren’t doing enough to remove
misinformation, and at the same time, they are too heavy handed.

The consensus is that the platforms have to do SOMETHING, because if not, it
becomes a national security issue and regulation is going sweep through the
industry.

At the same time, the platforms can’t be seen as enforcing government
censorship, so they choose WHO, an independent international organization as
the information fact checker.

Who knows, maybe they also want to win some brownie points with china. I
wouldn’t be surprised.

~~~
busymom0
WHO isn't independent. They have been looking out for China's talking points
for a while.

~~~
themacguffinman
Sure, but the WHO is still ostensibly a global organization that dispenses
credible medical advice. Whatever I may think of the WHO, I'm not sure what
org could possibly be a better choice to follow for a multinational service.

------
foolinaround
Youtube has actually been censoring content it does not agree with for quite a
while, and unless it hurts us in some personal way, we have been ok with it
getting away.

eg., Youtube has been censoring a lot of conservative content. They won in
court[1]

Youtube cannot have it both ways. Either they are a publisher and if so, must
be fully responsible for the content they host. Or they are a platform, and
they need to be neutral.

[1] [https://www.businessinsider.com/youtube-google-censor-
court-...](https://www.businessinsider.com/youtube-google-censor-court-
prageru-first-amendment-2020-2)

~~~
akersten
> Youtube cannot have it both ways. Either they are a publisher and if so,
> must be fully responsible for the content they host. Or they are a platform,
> and they need to be neutral.

As demonstrated by the court case you mention, that is false. I am surprised
how tightly people cling to this notion, which has no basis in reality.

~~~
foolinaround
can you please be clearer? What is false?

Do you think youtube is a platform? even, a monopoly of sorts?

~~~
pw201
The publisher/platform distinction that you think exists in US law does not.
The CDA does not say what you think it does.
[https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/04/no-section-230-does-
no...](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/04/no-section-230-does-not-require-
platforms-be-neutral)

------
threatofrain
> We're actually seeing the patients. Dr. Fauci hasn't seen a patient for 20
> years... it's like the general contractor vs the sub. He's not seeing
> patients, he's in an ivory tower, and we have a world of respect for him,
> he's a world reknown immunologist, two different, he's an academic, and
> we've dealt with academics all of our lives... but academics and reality are
> two different things.

> Coronavirus lasts on plastics for 3 days, and we're all sheltering in place.
> Where'd you get your water bottles from? Costco. Where'd you get that
> plastic shovel from? Home Depot. Those are fomites and carries of disease...
> and if I swab things in your home, I would likely find COVID-19.

> When you go to Del Taco and you get a plastic bag or piece on your burrito
> from someone not wearing a mask who's just wiping their arm on your thing,
> do you think you're protected from COVID?

> We wear masks in an acute setting to protect us. We're not wearing masks,
> why is that? 'Cuz we understand microbiology, we understand immunology, and
> we want strong immune systems. I don't want to hide in my home, develop a
> weak immune system, and come out and get diseased.

> Is the flu less dangerous than COVID? Let's look at the death rates, no it's
> not. They're similar in prevalence and in death rate. So we're saying that
> our response now, now that we know the facts, it's time to get back to work,
> it's time to test people. But again, testing gives you a moment in time...

~~~
nikolay
If these are "doctors", I don't want them to treat me! ER is a different kind
of health care!

ER doctors are not virologists or epidemiologists. So, to use their own
example, you don't want a plumber to do your roof!

~~~
balls187
Apparently, they own a private Urgent Care center.

~~~
nikolay
Yeah, and the clinic is in the remote Bakersfield, California, not yet
affected by the epidemic [0] - many fail to notice that important fact!

[0]:
[https://kernpublichealth.com/covid-19_dashboard/](https://kernpublichealth.com/covid-19_dashboard/)

------
runawaybottle
This edges a little close to state media. Of course it’s not the same, but if
the guiding philosophy is ‘we cannot trust the public with certain
information, for it’s own good’, then we’ve adopted whatever the hell they do
in non-free countries.

Very bad precedent, very Un-American.

Edit: As an arrogant American, I forgot to consider that this might be a
global Youtube policy.

~~~
programmarchy
Either way, you’re not “free”.

At least with state censorship, there’s a formal hierarchy of authority.
There’s the law, and some semblance of duty to the public.

With corporate censorship, it’s ethereal, anarchic, and less accountable. The
rules are opaque, the deciders are unknown, and the only duty is maximizing
shareholder profit.

As a serf, I’d be happier knowing who to blame.

~~~
runawaybottle
I believe once upon a time we used to just call this ‘blaming _the man_ ’.

Edit: Anyway, I’ll add to your point. As a company, Google has no issue
censoring it’s product in China as opposed to other countries. It sounds
almost trite to bring up, but Google censors the Tiananmen Square massacre for
the CCP.

With this in mind, what sincere values does Google hold on censorship?

So ya, you’re right, corporate accountability on censorship is basically non
existent (and you can trace it back to the fact that they probably don’t have
values to even hold accountable).

------
fasteddie31003
I wish one reporter in that room would have pointed out that there was no
random sample. But it is very disturbing that YouTube pulled it down. Classic
Barbra Streisand effect.

~~~
shkkmo
There was a guy that tries to sort of bring it up when the doctor first starts
talking about the New York numbers, but he doesn't do a very good job and the
doctor just sort of claims that the sample bias doesn't matter because the
sample size is large.

------
samizdis
It's still live at this link (at the time of posting):

[https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/dr-erickson-
covid-19...](https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/dr-erickson-
covid-19-briefing/vi-BB133JTK)

~~~
s9w
I guess the bigger question about this is what possible reasons to remove
there could be. The video itself is pretty famous now and available in many
places.

~~~
ThisIsTheWay
It says right in the article:

"...noted relevant comments regarding censorship that YouTube CEO Susan
Wojcicki had recently made.

"Anything that would go against World Health Organization recommendations
would be a violation of our policy ... [removal] is another really important
part of of our policy," Wojcicki reportedly said."

~~~
eloff
By that logic can they remove videos claiming masks are effective at
protecting yourself and society from the virus? Because I seem to recall the
WHO (or I think it was the CDC?) blatantly lying about the efficacy of masks
in order to keep them available to health professionals.

I think this underscores why I'm so uncomfortable with YouTube doing
censorship (or anyone doing it). The official narrative is not always right.

In fact anytime we have a new discovery in science it starts out in contrary
to the official accepted explanation and only gradually and often grudgingly
gains acceptance over time. If you silence dissenting voices you also silence
progress. Which is maybe why China struggles to innovate compared to the West.

~~~
adamiscool8
My understanding has always been that good science is supposed to be
falsifiable. If the new rules are science can only be dictated by
authoritative institutions and cannot be publicly questioned, is it still
science?

~~~
kordlessagain
The primary issue is that "dictating" has been implemented with owning the
channels and making bad decisions with the channels consensus process. The
Internet needs to be reworked to get rid of these large corporations being
able to own channels, but Hell if I know how to do it.

------
ghthor
It's important that during these unprecedented times of censorship that we all
know how to use youtube-dl

~~~
walterbell
How to download the comments for video? Or the "live chat" on some videos?

~~~
beart
Honest question - what longtime value is there to youtube comments? The way
these are structured seems to inherently make them useless.

~~~
walterbell
If they are downloaded, they can be indexed by various parameters.

------
cycomanic
The problem with unrestricted free speach is that it's not the person who is
right who is heard, but the person who has the biggest pockets. It becomes
even easier if the message is a simple answer to a complex problem.

The noise with deep pocket can just drown out the voice of reason. So it ends
in the right of the strongest.

------
JPKab
I completely disagree with most of what the doctors in the video are saying.
However I really really don't like YouTube removing content like this.

~~~
milemi
I really really like it, just like I really really like what's his name being
deplatformed. I like it even more that I can't readily remember his name,
right, Alex Jones. YouTube has no duty to be a platform for Diamond and Silk
in scrubs.

~~~
strken
It has no _legal_ duty to be a platform, nor to deplatform. It arguably has
_moral_ duties: to facilitate free discussion, and to remove harmful material.
In this case there's a clear clash between the two that will make a lot of
readers nervous.

~~~
techntoke
Why does it have the moral duty, when you signed it away in the TOS when you
used their service? Host your own videos if you don't like it or better yet
build a better platform that is censorship-resistant.

~~~
milemi
A reminder that people have tried that, and it invariably turns into a chan.
Which is what YouTube would become if it went hands-off.

------
heddon
You make the excuse to remove the video with no actual proof that this is
dangerous misinformation. In fact, YouTube, and the media are the real
danger.The biggest threat to Americans in the history of all.

------
beart
I don't understand the censorship claims when you can freely watch this video
online right now.

------
54351623
If this was only about getting the information out, then they would have just
uploaded the video to a separate video hosting site. Instead they are
complaining about how one site is attempting to ensure potential
misinformation about a poorly understood virus isn't spread using said
platform. The fact that the narrative of personal liberties is being focused
on this while millions of poorly paid workers are forced to choose between
homelessness and putting themselves at risk is a cruel joke. I can't imagine
this is anything except narrative manipulation and not about presenting an
accurate portrayal of the erosion of personal liberties.

------
KKKKkkkk1
The idea that online platforms owe us a right to free speech makes sense
because there are so few platforms left online where one can speak. If we had
10 competing video hosting platforms rather than one, I think it would have
been great if each of them exercised its own editorial policies, and in fact
such policies would have been a competitive differentiating factor.
Unfortunately, since we have only one Facebook and only one YouTube and only
one Google, every editorial decision that they make immediately puts them in
hot water.

------
DanBC
Here's a useful twitter thread that talks about mistakes these doctors made:
[https://twitter.com/CT_Bergstrom/status/1254481543759683584?...](https://twitter.com/CT_Bergstrom/status/1254481543759683584?s=20)

> What they did was simple: they looked at the fraction of patients who tested
> positive for #COVID19 at the clinics they own. They found 340 out of 5213
> tests were postive, about 6.6%

> Then they assume the same fraction of the whole population are infected.

~~~
lurquer
That was an obvious error in their reasoning.

Not surprising, though.

Idiotic (and, yes, such an error IS idiotic) fumbling with statistics is
displayed on a daily basis.

It doesn't matter what 'side' you are on: idiots abound.

Doomer fallacies: Charts showing exponential growth of positives, without
taking into account the exponential growth of tests...

Flu-Bro fallacies: Antibody surveys that don't take into account false
positives and make no mention of the expected number of positives in a
population (both needed to make ANY sense of the results.)

Doomer fallacies: No distinction between dying 'with' versus dying 'from'.

Flu-Bro fallacies: Relying on death counts from the Chinese Communist Party.

Doomer fallacies: Comparing 'positive' test rates between populations and
countries with utterly different criteria for administering tests.

etc.

One thing you can count on, though: You will usually get a downvote on Hacker
News if you deviate from the mainstream.

~~~
chimprich
> One thing you can count on, though: You will usually get a downvote on
> Hacker News if you deviate from the mainstream.

Previously you were in a discussion with me arguing with great confidence that
the virus outbreak would be a distant memory in two months. I just looked it
up; it was 61 days ago.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22434499](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22434499)

You were using terms like "chicken littles" then. I'm all for reading
different viewpoints, but if you're going to throw around insults like
"doomer", you're not likely to get a civilised discussion going.

~~~
lurquer
Well, don’t known about your neck of the woods, but things are opening up here
in two days.

So, so I was a few days off in my estimate.

Statistically insignificant deaths, no overwhelmed hospitals, no body bags in
the hallways or rationing of ventilators. No millions of deaths now any other
of the nonsense being predicted here two months ago.

The talk now, as evidenced by the front page, is other topics... stimulus
checks and the like.

Are things as you feared two months ago?

------
imustbeevil
> "If you study the numbers in 2017 and 2018, we had 50 to 60 million with the
> flu," Erickson said. "And we had a similar death rate in the deaths the
> United States were 43,545"

For comparison, 1 million Americans (50x less) have had covid, and so far
59,225 have died (1.4x more) [0]. Their conclusion is that this is no worse
than the flu, even though those numbers show it being more than 60x more
deadly.

edit: Bringing this up from lower discussion: Even if you _assume_ 10x more
cases than reported, with 2x _observed_ excess deaths [1], that's 10 million
people sick and 100,000 dead; 5x less people sick and 2.5x more people dead
than the flu.

[0]
[https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/](https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/)

[1]
[https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2020/04/27/cov...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2020/04/27/covid-19-death-
toll-undercounted/?arc404=true)

~~~
htk
Confirmed cases are not the total number of cases.

~~~
imustbeevil
Yeah sorry I only have access to data that exists, as mentioned in the
original comment.

Weird how no one who brings up under-reported cases has any opinion about
under-reported deaths, since the insinuation you're making is that there are
statistically more unreported cases than deaths. That seems like a claim you
may want to justify.

~~~
orangecat
_the insinuation you 're making is that there are statistically more
unreported cases than deaths. That seems like a claim you may want to
justify._

Find any serious expert who does not believe that. Estimates have always been
that cases are underreported by 10-20x, and that's consistent with recent
serology tests.

~~~
imustbeevil
From this source [0] it looks like excess deaths are at least 2x higher than
those attributed to coronavirus. If you assume deaths would decrease with less
people driving / going in public, that could be even more.

Cases are _obviously_ under-reported. I'm making the claim that deaths are
also under-reported, and at a rate that could be consistent with the existing
known rate reported.

Even if there were 10x as many cases, that would be 10 million people and
100,000 deaths (based on the above 2x excess number). That's 5x less people
sick and 2.5x more people dead than the flu.

[0]
[https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2020/04/27/cov...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2020/04/27/covid-19-death-
toll-undercounted/?arc404=true)

~~~
dehrmann
> If you assume deaths would decrease with less people driving / going in
> public, that could be even more.

You can't make that assumption because of things like suicides and people
delaying treatment for serious acute health issues.

~~~
Zenbit_UX
To your point, cbc reported this week that some ~25 people are suspected of
dying due to postponed heart surgeries. Not a lot of people, but still sad.

------
0x8BADF00D
Now it is more important than ever to choose alternatives for YouTube. Vote
with your wallet by refusing to use their platform, or if you do, use
adblocking so they bleed financially.

------
gerash
The video is available at:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2h2QMkS5Ftw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2h2QMkS5Ftw)

------
dangus
A reminder that The Blaze is a conservative mouthpiece founded by Glenn Beck.
I’m astounded at the number of comments here that don’t seem to be considering
that.

The article is not worth clicking on based on that fact alone. It may or may
not be factual, but we can rest assured that it’s written in service of a very
specific agenda.

That agenda is the typical “we are being silenced” message pushed by the
regressive, extremist conservative faction of the Republican Party.

~~~
SpicyLemonZest
You don't think it's worth reading the article just because you don't agree
with the author's politics?

~~~
dangus
That is correct. That’s how reputation works.

Trusting Glenn Beck to report news to me would be like trusting Disney press
releases for all my info on copyright law.

------
bofadeez
It's literally terrifying that they removed this video. Someone uploaded a
copy:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25m0fm2LSIg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25m0fm2LSIg)

~~~
deminature
They said they're culling misinformation and they're doing it. I don't see
what's terrifying about this. Maybe unsettling if you're aggressively pro-free
speech, but 'terrifying' is very hyperbolic.

~~~
busymom0
Before WHO was saying there's no human to human transmission and masks don't
help. So anyone who created a video opposing that would get their video taken
down.

Later, WHO started claiming the exact opposite. Now anyone who created a video
previously will also get taken down.

How exactly do you propose deciding what's misinformation and what's not?

~~~
knzhou
> WHO was saying there's no human to human transmission

This is one of those completely false things that people only believe is true
by repetition. Go back and actually read the full set of WHO statements in
mid-January. They have a bunch of statements saying that nations should get
prepared, one saying that specific studies haven’t yet found hard evidence for
person-to-person transmission (because at that point most of the cases they’d
managed to find were tied to the market). The WHO never, ever said that it
can’t be transmitted, and they absolutely never said that people should do
nothing about COVID-19. They were urging nations to act for months before they
actually did.

~~~
lonelappde
Weekly reminder that WHO _still_ opposes restrictions on international travel,
and hasn't updated its advice since March 11.

[https://www.who.int/news-room/articles-detail/updated-who-
re...](https://www.who.int/news-room/articles-detail/updated-who-
recommendations-for-international-traffic-in-relation-to-covid-19-outbreak)

~~~
knzhou
That's not them bowing to China or "covering it up", that's just a statement
of their principles. The W stands for World.

------
chvid
Curious that this video gets removed given that YouTube is chuck full of
COVID19 videos that are wrong, dangerous, racist (often at the same time),
some with millions of views, all fully covered in random advertisement.

------
kyle_martin1
What do you expect out of a woke monopoly? If there were an alternative that
valued free-speech I’d ditch YouTube.

~~~
TechBro8615
I’ve seen people in conservative forums using BitChute. I’m not super familiar
with it, but it’s somehow peer to peer. Streamable also seems to be popular.

------
0xff00ffee
The number of people in this thread defending the right to spread billionaire-
funded lies, propaganda, and misinformation under the guise of free-speech is
drop-dead astonishing. Like, I can see why civilization could fail on a
massive scale if a critical mass of the population starts to believe the
opposite of the truth, and declares war on those trying to explain.

~~~
downerending
> billionaire-funded lies

Pretty sure most people are forming their opinions on their own. That some of
them you don't care for doesn't mean they've been bought by some mind-melding
monster.

~~~
0xff00ffee
Facts are different than opinions. When you lie you lie. If you're so
distorted by Trump's daily lies, then I pity you.

------
drummer
Elon Musk appears to like what they said as well:
[https://mobile.twitter.com/elonmusk/status/12544950502282608...](https://mobile.twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1254495050228260865)

~~~
javagram
Elon’s response since the beginning has been way off, “The coronavirus panic
is dumb” (March 6). I guess he doesn’t want to learn from his mistakes.

It’s somewhat incredible to see how the “just the flu” crowd doubled down on
their views despite the failure of containment in NYC (and high death tolls
overseas in the UK and elsewhere) making it clear how many more people would
have died if their plan of just letting the virus rip through the entire
country had been enacted in March.

Regarding the removal of the video from YouTube, i don’t like this. Even
though it’s clearly wrong, and is being used to push for something bad,
YouTube exercising this type of censorship over legal content worries me.

~~~
drummer
Elon is a good critical thinker and saw from the very beginning that the
response to COVID-19 was way out of proportion. Lots of other scientists and
doctors saw from the very beginning that COVID-19 was not worse than the flu,
most of whom have been censored again and again. There's even a paper
published about it early in March showing the new corona virus is not worse
than the ones before [1]. So Elon is being proven correct again and this is
not the first time this happens.

[1] Roussel et al., “SARS-CoV-2: fear versus data.”, Int J Antimicrob Agents.
2020 Mar 19:105947,
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32201354](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32201354)

“Under these conditions, there does not seem to be a significant difference
between the mortality rate of SARS-CoV-2 in OECD countries and that of common
coronaviruses (χ2 test, P=0.11). Of course, the major flaw in this study is
that the percentage of deaths attributable to the virus is not determined, but
this is the case for all studies reporting respiratory virus infections,
including SARS-CoV-2.”

“Under these conditions, and all other things being equal, SARS-CoV-2
infection cannot be described as being statistically more severe than
infection with other coronaviruses in common circulation.”

“Finally, in OECD countries, SARS-CoV-2 does not seem to be deadlier than
other circulating viruses.”

~~~
javagram
Your quoted paper is 5 weeks old, as shown by the excerpt “ compared with less
than 4000 deaths for SARS-CoV-2 at the time of writing.”

Now, today, we are at 50,000 confirmed COVID-19 deaths just in the USA, and an
analysis of excess mortality data already shows that a significant % of
COVID-19-related deaths are not included in that count.

This is with a massive mitigation campaign and nationwide social distancing.
The only place where the virus seems to have established itself is in NYC (20%
of people infected according to a recent study) where we have seen incredible
death tolls and overwhelmed morgues. (Edit, needless to say, none of the 4
common cold coronaviruses do this, ever.)

~~~
drummer
The data presented by the two doctors is fresh, and shows exactly what the
paper says. COVID-19 is not worse than the flu.

~~~
javagram
The “data presented by the two doctors” has obvious reasoning errors to anyone
who has taken even high school math.

At this point, how can you look at the number of people who died from COVID-19
in just the last month in NYC and claim this is no worse than the flu?
[https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/04/27/upshot/corona...](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/04/27/upshot/coronavirus-
deaths-new-york-city.html)

The last flu to cause such a severe spike in mortality statistics was the
devastating 1918 Spanish flu. Even the Asian Flu and Hong Kong Flu pandemics
didn’t do this.

Edit: corrected the Spanish flu year. My bad :-)

~~~
mikem170
>The last flu to cause such a severe spike in mortality statistics was the
devastating 1918 Spanish flu

The second wave of the 1918 flu killed between 17 to 50 million people,
perhaps as high as 100 million people, during the fall of 1918, with a higher
than expected mortality rate for the young and healthy. It killed between 1
and 6 percent of the world's population.

So far 200,000 people have died from the coronavirus.

The current coronavirus is 1/100 as deadly as the flu of 1918.

~~~
javagram
Your argument assumes that coronavirus deaths will stop tomorrow, and also
that mitigation measures used to reduce deaths from coronavirus via social
distancing don’t affect the evaluation of whether it is “deadly”.

It feels like you didn’t engage with the data I presented at all. (Edit:
removed sentences that would only apply if you had read my other post)

Edit 2: if your only argument is that COVID-19 is not worse than Spanish flu,
that’s something that is reasonable. It’s worse than any pandemic flu since
Spanish flu though, this is a once in a century occurrence.

~~~
mikem170
I apologize, there's a lot of numbers flying around and I probably did miss
the thrust of what you were saying. I shouldn't have focused on the comparison
with the 1918 flu.

Plus, as someone pointed out, drawing conclusions from the numbers we have so
far in comparison with the 1918 flu is difficult.

I've been working with NYC numbers. The link you gave was for NY State deaths.
NYC has reported about 12.3k deaths [1], has a population of about 8.4 million
[2] and 21% of people appear to have antibodies at this time.

Doing some math with the above numbers I end up with .14% dead so far with
1/5th of people exposed. From there I assume the amount of dead would
quadruple before we reach herd immunity. I also assume that antibodies provide
at least a handful of years of immunity, just like for other coronaviruses,
reducing the severity of future infections. A likely outcome is that this
becomes another variant of several coronaviruses that circulate with the
common cold.

I guess even for those who might agree with all of the above there still
exists differences in opinion on what actions should be taken. I personally
understand some people's comparison with the yearly flu, but realize that is
most definately not an apples to apples comparison.

[1]
[https://www1.nyc.gov/site/doh/covid/covid-19-data.page](https://www1.nyc.gov/site/doh/covid/covid-19-data.page)
[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City)
[3] [https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/23/nyregion/coronavirus-
new-...](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/23/nyregion/coronavirus-new-york-
update.html)

~~~
javagram
Thanks.

Yes I believe your rough math is matching others that are reported by the
scientific literature which is estimating around 0.7% infection fatality ratio
(IFR) for this virus, 4*0.14 would be on the low end of estimates but within
the consensus estimate. Seasonal Flu IFR is estimated to be between 0.04% and
0.1%, so by your numbers the coronavirus is, at a minimum, 5 times more deadly
than seasonal flu.

I also agree this virus will become a part of life in the future. Although
some Asia-Pacific countries seem to have successfully controlled the spread
(Vietnam, Taiwan, etc) the only way for them to keep it from spreading will be
to maintain a border closure until a vaccine can be developed to safely give
their populations herd immunity.

In the west, we let the virus run free for two months and it’s probably too
late to get it under control no matter what we do now.

------
amiantos
Just because someone is a “doctor” doesn’t mean they are a reputable,
trustworthy source of information. For example, there are doctors who promote
the idea that hydrogen peroxide can cure cancer, and that tens of thousands of
dollars worth of antibiotics can cure “chronic Lyme disease”. It seems absurd
with how hard it is to go to medical school and get a license, but people come
out the other side with the same intent to defraud, manipulate, and con people
out of their money.

But of course people who want to believe what they say will eat it right up
and point to their credentials as proof of what they believe.

~~~
Apaec
This is really a non-argument, as the WHO is also comprised of "doctors".

The belief of dishonesty could be applied both ways.

~~~
amiantos
In can go both ways, that's right, which is why we tend to trust the larger
collection of people who have also done more to verify and support their
claims. Two doctors in a YouTube video with anecdotal evidence that
contradicts what the rest of the medical establishment says doesn't bode well
for their believability.

~~~
busymom0
> Two doctors in a YouTube video with anecdotal evidence

The video was a news conference from Dr. Dan Erickson, who along with Dr.
Artin Massihi, own the largest COVID testing site in Kern County, Accelerated
Urgent Care, California. They have done more than half the testing there. It
wasn't some random joe making claims.

------
lonelappde
If you want to keep a video with fake medical advice up on YouTube, go the
Epoch Times or Homeopathy route and just buy ads.

------
blackrock
Come on folks. There is no magic to this. The science is already known by now.

Lock down hard for 4 weeks (or 28 days). The virus only has a safe maximum 21
day incubation period (the normal is 14 days).

By that point, you will know who is infected.

Get them isolated. You don’t need to do any blood tests, or PCR tests, or MRI
tests. Get everyone’s temperature taken daily, like a census.

For those that are showing signs of a fever, you isolate them in a LEVEL 1,
general population makeshift ward.

For those that have more severe cases, like difficulty breathing, you isolate
them in a LEVEL 2 quarantine zone.

For those that need hospitalization and invasive intubation, they go into the
LEVEL 3 zone and get ICU care.

Every state can set up multiple cities and regions for these facilities.
Transport the sick people to the given area, so that they can get the care
they need. Then transport them home, when they are recovered.

This sounds expensive, but it sure as hell, is far cheaper than the $4
Trillion to $10 Trillion dollar bailouts, that the Republicans are handing out
to their buddies, like candies.

Can you imagine? Trump just got another $569 Million [1] for his wall. Sneaky
bastard. How does this even help fight the coronavirus? By keeping out
infected Mexicans? (Well.. maybe..)

For everyone else, they must stay at home. Groceries will need to be pre-
packaged, and delivered to them. Or they drive up to the grocery store to pick
it up, and someone drops it into their trunk, with minimal human contact.

All of the infections in the community must be happening at supermarkets, or
public buses, subways, trains, and airplanes. Places where there is minimal
ventilation happening, and you can walk into someone’s death cloud, or breath
in their infected air. And make everyone wear masks.

The basic transmission science is already known. Now, we need to just do a
hard 4 week lockdown and make it happen.

[1] [https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/04/sorry-hospitals-
trum...](https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/04/sorry-hospitals-trumps-
border-wall-is-getting-another-half-billion-dollars)

------
tgafpc2
Listen to the medical experts! No, not those medical experts!

------
Psyladine
"There are lies, damned lies, and statistics."

------
drummer
It was a rather excellent presentation by these doctors. Honest and
courageous. Simply cannot argue with the data and reasoning.

~~~
henrikschroder
Except they're wrong.

A simple check of excess mortality shows that _something_ has already killed
more people than would normally die during a bad flu season in areas affected
by the virus, and we're nowhere near the end of the infection. And that's
_with_ lockdown measures that obviously suppress a bunch of common causes of
death.

To successfully argue that covid-19 is less bad than the flu, you would have
to show that all these extra dead people died of something other than
covid-19. Good luck with that.

~~~
busymom0
That's why they looked at the data comparison of Sweden vs Norway. Sweden
didn't do lockdown while Norway did. The difference is insignificant.

~~~
henrikschroder
Yes, and Sweden has excess mortality that is higher than a bad flu year for
Sweden, and the excess mortality matches up pretty well with the official
covid-19 death count.

Which means that covid-19 is deadlier than the flu.

Just look at the excess mortality statistics for a bunch of European
countries: [https://euromomo.eu/graphs-and-maps](https://euromomo.eu/graphs-
and-maps)

Many are seeing sharp increases in mortality, higher than normal flu years. If
covid-19 isn't deadlier than a normal flu, then death rates must have spiked
in all these countries because of something else. That is one extraordinary
claim if I ever saw one.

(In addition, it's false that Sweden isn't doing a lockdown. Sweden is simply
one of the countries that have enacted the _least harsh_ lockdown measures.
It's a grayscale, not binary.)

~~~
mixmastamyk
Deadlier but not excessively so. Flu is vaccinated against.

~~~
henrikschroder
This doesn't help your argument.

We accept people dying from the flu every year, because vaccines and other
measures have pushed the death rate low enough. It is also very rare that
young people die from the flu, and since there is a vaccine there is an
element of personal responsibility.

In comparison, unmitigated covid-19 seems to be 5x-10x deadlier than a regular
mitigated flu, and covid-19 cases requires a lot more healthcare resources in
the form of ICU beds and ventilators, which is a very limited resource. If we
run out of ICU beds, people will start dying of other preventable things like
heart attacks, strokes, and car accidents. In addition, covid-19 kills far
more young people than the flu does.

It is very probable that we'll live with a mitigated coronavirus for a long
time ahead, either by getting vaccines, or by discovering treatments that
reduce the fatality rate. But as long as we don't have those mitigation
strategies, lockdowns are all we have to reduce the fatality rate low enough
for us to accept it.

 _Right now_ covid-19 is excessively deadly, and that is why we are in
lockdown, and will remain in lockdown until it isn't, or until economic
desperation changes the tolerance for its fatality rate.

~~~
mixmastamyk
5x-10x * ~0 is not a huge difference in practice. Flu is also contained
towards the winter, what would it do for the whole year?

I've already had the virus and known several friends to have it, we're not
spring chickens, but were otherwise healthy. Our daughters didn't even get it,
sons were mild. So fear mongering about the young is not very compelling.

Lockdowns are useful in big dense cities, they make a lot less sense in
sparser areas. One size does not fit all.

------
ivanstame
Sorry for unpopular opinion but the whole world has gone nuts with corona.
Stop spreading fake news and creating panic. Why censoring...

~~~
xtracto
I'll tell you, I got the virus and it is no laughing matter. I got it at the
end of February, and these almost 8 weeks have been some of the worst time in
my life (and I was in the hospital as a kid for an accident where I lost a
body part, and later in life I had a chronic anal fissure for more than 3
years) .

Coronavirus is nasty, I'm still not recovered and feeling my lungs I am afraid
I'll have permanent sequels. I'm 39 y old non smoker , non overweight and with
decent activity (10,000 daily steps before this hit me).

I would do EVERYTHING in my power to prevent people from experiencing this.
Specially my family. Given how contagious it is I am afraid society is not
doing enough at the current panic level...

I hope you dont have to directly or indirectly suffer it.

~~~
lonelappde
Everything?

Would you jail people who challenge the official government statements?

------
togo
i personally believe that freedom of info it's my right, i decide what i
believe is true and what's fake or a lie, it's not for you tube to tell me
what i should believe or just feed me what they consider to be true not the
gov. just the fact that they gave themselves that job tells me that they are
trying hard to make me believe what they consider right, true, correct, or in
my best interest, which in my Case it's the opposite, there gov. business, is,
has been, and always will be TO LIE TO THE PEOPLE OR US, AND THE MEDIA THEY
CONTROL, WELL... COMMON, IS JUST IDIOTIC TO BELIEVE OTHER WISE, AND TRYING TO
DEFEND YOU TUBE, IT'S LIKE SAYING THAT YOU TUBE IS BEEN NOTHING BUT GOOD,
TRUTHFUL, NEVER MISTAKEN, common people, use your own head and come to your
own conclusions, that's why we are were we are in caos thinking that the gov
is trying to protect us and the news media are telling dinner truth and want
to help us!! you need to be a real idiot to still think or believe that.

------
bobrenjc93
Elon seems to think the "docs make good points"
[https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1254495050228260865](https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1254495050228260865)

~~~
foepys
Billionaire CEO of automotive company thinks quarantine should end to get
people out of their houses and drive somewhere. More at 11.

Can we please stop quoting Musk everywhere? He's not a medical expert and just
want people to buy his cars and pump his stocks.

------
throwawaysea
The fact that YouTube will remove any video for its content should concern
everyone. It is especially bad because YouTube has effectively made public
agencies like the WHO control what views and opinions are permissible when
those same agencies have been late or wrong numerous times just during this
coronavirus crisis. Reddit quarantining or banning various subreddits,
Facebook deleting protest events, Medium censoring/deleting covid posts, are
all signs of big tech becoming untrustworthy authoritarian rulers of a digital
public square that only has a few at its helm.

We need decentralization, and we need it now. We need to also reconsider
competition laws so this stale cartel of tech companies can be challenged.

------
walterbell
We need to ask about the unprecedented censorship at this time: _what is At
Stake?_ Is Google planning a new healthcare division that is invested in
specific viewpoints?

For decades, the US has provided the average citizen with limited/no
healthcare but freedom of speech and thought. In sudden weeks, this has been
inverted.

What is the prize hidden in the party cracker which justifies censorship of
speech and thought with the (implausible six months ago) claim by social media
companies to care about the health and wellness of the average person?

~~~
willis936
The prize of reducing the scenario where a tiny minority of people can legally
cause the deaths of thousands of people if their fantasies are fed by the
media they seek.

~~~
walterbell
We have laws for murder. And for constitutional protection of speech.

It's even more ludicrous that the alleged crime is _statistics_. Meanwhile,
Imperial College statistical models were proven wrong almost immediately by
Oxford University, but they are still allowed to speak after triggering hasty
decisions that affected millions of lives.

We are leaving unaccountable the people who literally yelled _" Fire!!"_ to
billions of people, but it's suddenly imperative to suppress speech that
informs collective decisions that are complex, regional and contextual? What
does Google have against learning?

It would take little effort to prepend a correction to the original video
and/or publish a revised version. This is Hacker News: surprise, _someone is
wrong on the internet!_ They get corrected. It's better than being wrong
offline and never being corrected.

~~~
willis936
Constitutional protection of speech does not force non-governmental entities
to grant a platform of speech to anyone.

Nobody is saying they have a crystal ball, but everyone is making decisions to
minimize damage to society, including private platforms.

~~~
walterbell
Some people will now work to minimize damage to society _by_ private
platforms.

Google can apply arbitrary rules, but they can't claim that their decisions
represent "society". There was no consultative process where society elected
Google or society was asked for their opinion on censoring this particular
video. In fact, "society" has immediately republished the video elsewhere.

In fact, the Streisand effect will guarantee more attention to the video (e.g.
this thread). Google destroyed a huge number of comments debating the merits
of the video. Previously, such destruction would have been done by book
burning.

Now the debate is scattered and it is harder to address any confused people,
instead of going to the number one web property for video. Way to miss the
point of both speech and censorship, Google.

~~~
willis936
You’re likening the deletion of a video on a private free video hosting site
to state-sponsored book burning?

The Streisand effect is a blip in popularity here. The point is to not
validate dangerous fantasies of people who are unwilling or incapable of
behaving in a safe and logical manner. Google succeeded in this endeavor,
despite what people paying close attention to things might argue about in side
channels.

~~~
throwawaysea
When a large private organization or a few of them control virtually all
public discourse (the digital public square), their choices are in effect as
dangerous and impactful as the government taking the same action.

Additionally, these tech platforms currently enjoy Section 230 protection. If
they’re now in the business of curating what they publish, they should no
longer be granted that protection.
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communica...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communications_Decency_Act)

~~~
pw201
This is not what Section 230 says, although it is a suspiciously popular
misunderstanding of it: [https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/04/no-
section-230-does-no...](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/04/no-
section-230-does-not-require-platforms-be-neutral)

------
victorbstan
The problem with with freedom to just post whatever by whoever, even if with
credentials (perhaps more so) is that it can influence people in the wrong
way, before it is criticized or debunked. Even so, there is ample evidence
that plenty of people take any info that supports their point or worldview and
stick with it and repeat it, even after it has been critiqued or shown to be
wrong, etc. So I don’t think complete freedom of speech is a good thing. You
have to consider the negative effects, as long as there are negative effects,
you can’t say it’s unanimously “good”. That being said, there already is a
channel for Doctors and researchers to publish: peer reviewed journals. Key
words here “peer review”, this is when other professionals in your field of
research review your work. And it’s not youtube or a blog post or social
media. The fact that they went around the peer review process should Make you
suspicious about their agenda.

~~~
alexfromapex
The Internet needs a novel way of establishing legitimacy since it’s much
harder to verify things seen online. I don’t know the solution but it seems
salient in today’s world where there’s so many fake news articles, etc. used
to influence the public for the sake of private interests.

------
sergiotapia
Are you OK with Google and other coorporations curating The Truth? Think about
your kids! Do you want these people shaping what your children think? Put your
money where your mouth is. Stop using them.

The time has come for a youtube alternative that can scale and is
decentralized.

[https://lbry.tv/Dr.-Erickson-
COVID-19-Briefing:e1](https://lbry.tv/Dr.-Erickson-COVID-19-Briefing:e1)

