> Most importantly, Fast Grants didn’t change the vaccine timeline, and vaccines were clearly the most important component of the response.
They are being really intellectually honest here. One thing you couldn't apply for for Fast Grants was a media effort to convince people to take the vaccine.
And speaking of the power of individuals, Robert De Niro (https://www.latimes.com/entertainment/movies/moviesnow/la-et...) and other A-Listers actively campaign against vaccines. Fauci said he wishes DiCaprio would endorse the vaccine - as Fast Grants said, pretty obvious - and of course DiCaprio hasn't, he thinks vaccines cause autism.
Were there any institutions who were adversaries to vaccine adoption?
Not recommended to take any kind of advice from the news media. It's not even recommended to consume much news media. The less you're exposed to that garbage, the better.
Taking advice directly from the reporter is as ridiculous as taking advice from celebrities.
Taking advice from the health officials/professionals the reporter is quoting... well as long as you trust the reporter to be quoting them accurately that's about as reasonable as taking advice directly from the health officials/professionals. Advice can roughly speaking be evaluated as [probability it was quoted correctly] * [probability you should be taking advice from that health official/professional]... (that's only rough, because you also have to account for reporters doing things like selectively quoting bad advice... but it's a reasonably first estimate)
> Taking advice directly from the reporter is as ridiculous as taking advice from celebrities.
Agreed, though I don't see reporters offering health advice. They do what you say.
Though a health reporter probably knows far more than a random famous person, having spent a career learning about health care and days/weeks/months studying the specific issues at hand. Look at the amount of research involved in a serious news publication - often many experts interviewed, studies reviewed, and that's just what made it into print.
DeNiro continued: “In the 15 years since the Tribeca Film Festival was founded, I have never asked for a film to be screened or gotten involved in the programming. However, this is very personal to me and my family and I want there to be a discussion, which is why we will be screening “Vaxxed.” I am not personally endorsing the film, nor am I anti-vaccination; I am only providing the opportunity for a conversation around the issue.”
“Tribeca, as most film festivals, are about dialogue and discussion. Over the years we have presented many films from opposing sides of an issue. We are a forum, not a judge,” a spokeswoman said in a statement on behalf of the festival earlier this week.
GOOD. If you're correct your viewpoint will stand up to dialogue.
That seems like an odd thing for them to say, since they are judges. They "curate" the entries that come in, and then celebrity judges award prizes.
They're not really a discussion forum. They're mostly about just showing things. They have some panels, but mostly any discussions kicked off by films are arranged by the attendees for themselves.
There are truly unjuried festivals, but they're much less high profile because the quality will be very uneven. That's not what Tribeca is about at all. So I don't know why she would say that.
I'm certain they do. So I'd be curious to know what's on their mind when they said that.
The cynical view would be that they were looking to stir up controversy, and pretending they weren't. A less cynical view is to take them at their word, even though it's not entirely truthful since they do, in fact, regularly exercise their judgment. There are thousands of filmmakers who would have loved to have been in the theater that day instead.
I don't think that "It's an alternate viewpoint therefore it should be heard" is a very good argument, just because there are a lot of viewpoints that are Just Plain Bad. You pick and choose. I'd be curious to know why they chose this one -- because they did make a choice, and if they're saying otherwise, that's curious.
Choosing just gives the idea a platform for discussion.
If it's a truly terrible idea then it will be laughed out.
Many ideas that turned out to be significant in the world were considered crazy by society. Flight, The idea of hand washing, etc.
Also, many terrible ideas were considered acceptable ideas: tobacco, lobotomies, etc.
Discussing the idea is what revealed the truth.
Just because an idea is considered 'fringe' in society doesn't mean it's wrong. Ideas deserve a platform for discussion, they may turn out to be right.
Apparently, some ideas have gathered enough steam and collected enough initial evidence to deserve discussion.
There's a difference between people who don't think vaccines are good as a whole...and people who question a rushed vaccine developed with no FDA oversight or testing by companies who have absolutely no liability if things go wrong for a disease that has 99.99% survival rate for most people.
And then there are questions about it even WORKING fully and one still has to wear a mask and you can still be contagious and it may not protect against other strains!
If that doesn't ring critical thinking bells in your brain then you're operating based on unquestioning BELIEF in the GOOD of the experts, gov't, and people in general which doesn't seem to always have worked out the best throughout history.
> There's a difference between people who don't think vaccines are good as a whole...and people who question a rushed vaccine developed with no FDA oversight or testing by companies who have absolutely no liability if things go wrong for a disease that has 99.99% survival rate for most people.
>
> And then there are questions about it even WORKING fully and one still has to wear a mask and you can still be contagious and it may not protect against other strains!
Yes, there's a difference between people who question vaccines as a whole and... a fabricated reality/false narrative.
The survival rate is not 99.99%, and the outcomes for "survivors" are all too often debilitating. The demand on our healthcare infrastructure is potentially crippling, as we've seen.
There has been FDA oversight... indeed the vast majority of the time from development to release of the vaccines in the US has been getting clearance from the FDA (you may recall the J&J vaccine was even paused by the FDA).
...and the liability shield is due to the never-ending unjustified legal claims that companies are invariably subjected to when they operate in this space.
There's a difference between critical thinking bells and having your bell rung. ;-)
We've had to ask you multiple times before not to break the site guidelines like this. You've been posting lots of flamewar comments lately. I don't want to ban you but you're not making this easy. Would you please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and fix this?
Dude had an implication with a threat to 'ring my bell' which is an actual violent threat..they get no warning...and you're telling me I'm in the wrong?
It was certainly a lame thing to put in an HN comment but (a) you're misquoting it and (b) I don't think most people would read it as "an actual violent threat".
I'm really at a loss for how it came across as any kind of suggestion about something that might happen in the future (a key perquisite for anything to be a threat). Even that aside, for it to be a threat, that would somehow mean the original statement it was referring to was threatening people with critical thinking bells... that seems nonsensical to me.
So again: I definitely screwed up here, and I'm horribly embarrassed by it all, but I'm at a loss to see how this could have been interpreted as a threat of any kind. I'm really sorry that it was.
"""There's a difference between critical thinking bells and having your bell rung. ;-)"""
This is essentially your argument:
"""
There's a difference between critical thinking bells and having your brains blown out with a critical thinking shotgun and some eight gauge ideas and buried in an unmarked grave of introspection!
Can't IMAGINE how you could interpret that in a negative way!
"""
You're either calling me stupid.... or implying that you're going to violently attack me.
You are correct, you did screw up...what you said is flamebait bannable offense and you deserve to be permanently banned immediately
for violent threats to others or insulting others baselessly.
Please ban this person immediately @dang.
There should be ZERO tolerance for violence or insults.
I was definitely implying there your thinking on this matter was impaired (which isn't the same as calling you stupid, but it is close), and I thought even if you had blanked out the "having your bell rung" that part would have been pretty obvious from the context. Clearly I was very wrong.
Again, I'm sorry. I clearly didn't phrase things well, and I shouldn't have made the statement regardless. I would remove that sentence from the comment if I could.
I'm sorry, but I have to call em as I see em and it seems to me that you're the person who's out of line here. cbsmith obviously didn't mean the comment the way you took it (nor do I believe most people would read it that way), and then tried extra hard to apologize and all you've done is pile on.
I understand how random things on the internet can be triggering but it's each of our responsibility to process those reactions in ourselves and not just vent them into the commons. Please stop posting like this.
You're the commenter that I warned because, as I explained in the warning (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27524628), you have a history of breaking the site guidelines. I mean, I had to tell you this 8 months ago (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24594431) and you've just kept doing it and we've had to warn you several times since then. This is not cool.
I do not think you're a bad HN user (otherwise we'd have banned you a long time ago). The problem is that you have a history of overreacting and then taking it out on other users. That's not cool and needs to stop.
You've responded to this latest request to stop posting flamewar comments by posting a whole flurry more of them. I'm not going to ban you for that because, like I said, I know how things can be activating, and everyone goes on tilt sometimes. But please fix this going forward. I don't want to ban you but we can't have accounts making a habit of breaking the rules here.
> cbsmith obviously didn't mean the comment the way you took it (nor do I believe most people would read it that way), and then tried extra hard to apologize and all you've done is pile on.
Thanks for saying that dang. I really screwed up and I'm trying my best to make up for it, but I was starting to question whether I was even doing that right.
You must have missed it, but I also said, multiple times, I was wrong for making a derogatory statement.
I will also emphasize again that I never said you were stupid. I implied some of your statements indicated flawed thinking, and explained the flaws I perceived. As you yourself have pointed out, smart people can be wrong; pointing out a perceived mistake in your thought process isn't saying anything about you.
You've been pretty incendiary in your comments about what I've written. Applying the same standard here, do you feel you've been engaging in personal attacks?
> He apologized... by saying that his comment meant that I was STUPID..and wasn't a violent threat!
So I've got to ask this, because I'm curious: is it inconceivable to you that someone could have made a mistake in their reasoning, and pointing that out wouldn't constitute a personal attack or a violent threat?
I'd point out that you've made a LOT of statements about me being wrong (and lot of other more colourful language). Did I misunderstand? Were you making personal attacks or violent threats towards me?
Right... so that's how many people are still alive right now with most people never getting infected, many still hospitalized, vaccinations, mitigation measures, etc., etc.
Disease survival rates are computed based on how many people survive long term as a percentage of people who develop the disease.
But you knew that.
What's amazing though is your case for NOT doing a thing is based on stats that are optimistic even if one DOES do the thing.
Go ahead and compute the mortality numbers if everyone in the country gets infected. Then compute the rates of people who need long term medical care. Take a look at those numbers and then figure out how you make a society function under those circumstances.
> Most of what you said is false information and the idea of a 'having my bell rung' appears to be a subtle violent threat!
It was not a threat. It was a reference to pre-existing "critical thinking bells" in your brain. It was a subtle implication that perhaps you weren't thinking straight because you'd been hit in the head, and that was the bells ringing in your head. Clearly I didn't phrase it well.
I'm sure you feel that I'm wrong about everything. It's even possible I am wrong. Consider the possibility that you might be wrong; I mean, you were wrong about the "having your bell rung", so anything is possible right?
You're telling me that I'm wrong for believing the collectively agreed up English language definition of the term 'ring your bell' that has been around for hundreds of years... in favor of your brand new definition?
"To strike someone with a violent blow to the head, especially as might stun or concuss."
No. I'm agreeing with you about the "ring your bell" definition. What you clearly misunderstood (and I'll take the blame for not wording it well if that helps you) was the time of the "ringing of the bell". I was suggesting that your bell had already been rung, and it was impacting your thinking.
I also didn't say I'd "ring your bell", I referred to having had "your bell rung" (which would mean to have had your head struck, not necessarily by any person). There was no implication of any action on my or anyone else's part at all.
To me you were talking about critical thinking you'd already done in the past, and that others should have done in the past, not the future. Consequently, saying that what had happened in the past wasn't critical thinking but rather impaired thinking.
Obviously, I really failed to convey the message well and I'll totally take the blame for that, but I really was not making a threat. I'm very sorry that you felt threatened. That was not at all what I was trying to convey.
No, I was saying your thinking on the matter was flawed; "baselessly" is in the eyes of the beholder, but even if I am wrong I think I had a pretty good basis for saying so. As I said in my original comment, I feel you were presenting a false narrative.
> Even though I posted numerous references while your ideas were unsourced false fear mongering information?
As I felt I was responding to a Gish Gallop, I didn't provide any references either, though I made references to facts that are easily verifiable from a number of sources. Is there something specific I said that you cannot verify?
Now you are claiming the information I provided in my response was false, but you haven't made any specific claims about a statement I made that was false. The closest you came to such a statement would be be your reiteration about the disease's survival rate (and if you're looking for a citation on how disease survival rate is computed: https://www.cancer.gov/publications/dictionaries/cancer-term...).
In general, "unsourced false fear mongering information" feels like a case of projection. Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you saying we should be fearful of the vaccines by making unsourced statements that at the most charitable could be described as misleading?
> You should be banned from this site forever for posting Facebook science and attacking people.
Again, this feels like projection, but I'm not sure what "Facebook science" is. Can you define it and provide an example of something I've posted that is "Facebook science"?
Again, I made a comment I shouldn't have, and I understand you read it as a personal attack. It was a derogatory statement (which again, I should not have done), but it was derogatory towards the comments you made, and not you personally. If anything, I was assuming you to be a reasonable and good person who had fallen prey to faulty reasoning and misinformation.
"was assuming you to be a reasonable and good person who had fallen prey to faulty reasoning and misinformation."
"feels like a case of projection"
You're saying in so many words I'm stupid and not in control of my thoughts.
You have NO citations for anything you have said except for survival rate and you're manipulating that survival rate number by using people who are already infected versus general population survival rate.
You're spending all of your time telling me I'm projecting and not enough time having an actual valid point.
Not a single hospital was overwhelmed in the United States and numerous other countries.
Almost every state in the country has seen through the faulty science that you're promoting...and eliminated most of not all Covid restrictions and we're not even at a 50% vaccination rate and fatality and infection rates are at record lows and not a single hospital has overflowed or will.
> "was assuming you to be a reasonable and good person who had fallen prey to faulty reasoning and misinformation."
If assuming you are a reasonable and good person constitutes a personal attack, then I apologize and I withdraw the comment.
> "feels like a case of projection"
> You're saying in so many words I'm stupid and not in control of my thoughts.
No.
If I thought you were stupid I'd not make reference to projection, as understanding cognitive bias and the ability to be self-aware enough to understand and/or perceive one's own cognitive bias requires a non-trivial amount of intelligence. If I thought you were stupid, I'd have expected that sentence to mean nothing to you... and cognitive bias, and in particular projection, doesn't mean someone isn't in control of their thoughts. Indeed, it means their thinking is very much driven by them.
> You have NO citations for anything you have said except for survival rate and you're manipulating that survival rate number by using people who are already infected versus general population survival rate.
First off: how is it not hypocritical & dishonest to be after me about not providing citations, claiming that you have "posted numerous references", while not actually providing references to anything about vaccines or covid?
I think you've forgotten the context of your statement. You said the "a disease that has a 99.99% survival rate". You weren't making a statement about general population survival rate, but about disease survival rate. General population survival rate isn't even relevant to the discussion. How would that even be relevant?
> Not a single hospital was overwhelmed in the United States and numerous other countries.
Again, a statement without references or citations. Allow me to Google "hospitals overwhelmed by covid-19" for you:
At various times during this crisis, hospitals been transferring patients to other hospitals because of lack of capacity. They've been treating patients in emergency rooms instead of of ICUs. Across the country, field hospitals have been set up (at multiple points in time) because extant hospitals were overwhelmed. There's been a tremendous amount of effort put in to collating the data. Datasets on individual hospital capacity are available here: https://healthdata.gov/Hospital/COVID-19-Reported-Patient-Im.... You can read about some of the work collecting and collating the data here: https://github.com/CareSet/COVID_Hospital_PUF.
To provide some specific data from my neighbourhood (and from references provided above): in LA County, at the end of last year, five hospitals closed their facilities to all ambulance traffic (normally they do qualified restrictions). To be specific, MLK Jr. has a capacity for 131 patients, but had 215 patients (not the highest they reported either) reported in the new year: https://apnews.com/article/public-health-immunizations-coron.... The CMO at the USC Medical Center, Brad Spellberg, specifically said "When you walk into the ICU, and you see every bed occupied by a ventilated COVID patient...". LA PHS Directory Christina Ghaly said, "Ambulances are still having to wait many hours to offload patients to the emergency room."
> So what you're saying is straight up wrong.
>
> That's Facebook science.
Okay, so "Facebook science" is when someone says something that is "straight up wrong", as evidenced by... nothing beyond your assertions? What does that have to do with Facebook or science?
They are being really intellectually honest here. One thing you couldn't apply for for Fast Grants was a media effort to convince people to take the vaccine.
And speaking of the power of individuals, Robert De Niro (https://www.latimes.com/entertainment/movies/moviesnow/la-et...) and other A-Listers actively campaign against vaccines. Fauci said he wishes DiCaprio would endorse the vaccine - as Fast Grants said, pretty obvious - and of course DiCaprio hasn't, he thinks vaccines cause autism.
Were there any institutions who were adversaries to vaccine adoption?