nopie
1yr ago
Yes, a lot of people supported my idea that lockdowns are wrong and that vaccine mandates are wrong etc.
But if those people start repeating stories that are not based on facts, without any critical thinking, for example, that covid vaccines are poison, will shorten your life, cause turbo cancers (take your pick), I will not agree with them. Some even go as far as declaring this about all vaccines, good or bad.
In fact, the viewpoint that vaccines mandates are bad are almost universally interpreted as viewpoint that vaccines are bad. I don't know how to deal with that. People are not perceptive to details. But details are very important here.
nopie
1yr ago
First, Ukrainians, at least, the ones I spoke with mostly don't think it was intentional. Just a bad policy for which they blame Russians.
Second, it is not relevant. My argument is to show what Ukrainians feel and not if their feelings are morally justified.
Third, you are trying to be inflammatory. I refuse to discuss like that. I like motte. I can find really good information here, good gems. But please, avoid biting like that with lazy remarks.
nopie
1yr ago
I think you are trying to troll the discussion.
- no deeper insights
- not even relevant to what I was trying to say
I ask you to avoid remarks like this.
As for intellectual laziness, I work in healthcare sector and try to absorb current consensus that I use to form my beliefs.
Covid pandemic made many people scared. I do not blame if someone overreacted but gradually we have to come to common understanding what it all was instead of holding our biases forever.
My beliefs are as follows:
- Pandemic started either due to escaping from lab in Wuhan (50%) or naturally from somewhere (50%). If escaped from lab, it is more of a politic issue (lab security and scientific practices) than scientific because it doesn't change how we should have reacted to it.
- Masks have no evidence of effectiveness. Even real life mechanical models don't indicate effectiveness. Don't confuse with lab studies. Probably because, in real life means people don't put them on properly, simply it is not possible. People engage in wish-thinking and ignore this just like native speakers are unaware that they omit certain sounds.
- Lockdowns, school closures were bad policies and should not have been introduced. Sweden was the proper way how the world should have reacted. Australia had a moderate success but the cost was too high anyway.
- Covid vaccines were only moderately effective in elderly and risk groups. Were mostly useless for young people and children.
- We learned that covid vaccines don't stop infections in May 2021, full studies published on August, 2021. Most vaccine mandates introduced in October, 2021. It was a big unenforced policy error that didn't improve uptake in elderly and only caused resentment, unnecessary controversy and reduction of child vaccination rates.
- Politicians and public equally are very unwilling to admit all above.
- WHO does a good job in poor countries but they have to suck up to dictators. It is a big moral problem.
- The same in developed countries. Experts in public health are smart but they have to suck up to democratically elected politicians. It is a big moral problem. When Tegnell told the truth, he was called a nazi by politicians. Jayanta Bhattacharya was demonized etc. Most other experts yielded to the pressure of non-expert politicians and told them what they wanted to hear. Now people can laugh at those experts and distrust them but basically they themselves (via their elected officials) demanded experts tell the lies about masks and lockdowns etc.
nopie
1yr ago
It is mostly done with tribal mentality. It is common for people to have an idea, then search on pubmed scientific articles that support their idea.
I have to explain and again why this doesn't work. Mostly because you even start searching with keywords to support your idea. If you tried to search with keywords that would reject the idea, you would get articles that reject theses ideas.
The correct way is to start with neutral assumption and do real meta study. It is hard, very hard, take a lot of time. In most cases you are not able to do that. You have to admit that at some point that you don't have that much time, energy and probably even understanding to properly read even one study. Then you have to learn how to use secondary sources that summarizes meta studies, evaluate those sources, assign how much you trust them.
“Do your own research” is a good thing, but the problem with that is that you need to do your own research, correctly and not some half-assed version of it. Maybe laziness it is not the correct word. To me it is like building a house, you need to work hard, do it properly. Some people might just stick some wood in the ground, put a cover on top and call it a house. He just build a hut and even that was not good. You need an honesty to admit that you didn't do a good job. I don't know how to teach that. For me first it took 2 weeks to read one simple study. Even when it seems I understand it all, it wasn't the case. The scientific studies are written in a peculiar language and not a way that can be easily understood.
At university I started with simple assignments, like is polymorphism of beta-2 adrenoreceptors relevant for differentiating asthma treatments. Read a lot of studies, many positive. But the final conclusion, at current level of knowledge it cannot be done. You have to get used that most such searches will have negative result. It is easier if you start with null hypothesis. It is a hard work to find something. Scott Alexander is doing fantastic work with such reviews but I am afraid that even he doesn't have enough time and substitutes quality with quantity. I trusted his review of mask studies but it was incomplete. Cochrane review overturned his conclusions. But it wasn't possible for him to do in a few days what a group of dedicated and paid experts did during several months.
Contrarians sometimes challenge – how can you prove that earth is flat? It is actually a very good question in epistemology. You have limited resources to do actual experiments, travel to space and look at earth from outside. You only have access to the library. What are the methods to judge which information you can trust and why and which is not trustable. It opens whole philosophy of science, all about scientific paradigms and so on. Even scientists and engineers studying the actual things very deeply, like those who create and manage GPS system, haven't thought about these things. They are inside the paradigm but cannot describe it outsiders. Just like a native speaker often is unable to explain even simple phonetics of their own language. They have internalized them so deeply that they are unable to under realize that. Once I asked a native Japanese speaker, a linguist in fact, why I hear that in certain words they omit one sound. And his reaction was what? They never realized this omission.
You don't need to worry. Ukrainians will not surrender. I give greater chances that they will die out as a nation due to bad demographics than they would be living under Russian government.
Eastern regions are more Russian populated, the language is dialect continuum between Ukrainian and Russian and their loyalties might be more towards Moscow than Kyiv but the rest of Ukraine is strongly nationalistic.
Think about Palestine and Israel, unsolvable problem because Palestinians are imbued with hate towards Jews. They don't care about their own country, only how to harm Israel. That's how bad nationalism works but it is a reality that no one knows how to solve.
Ukraine is similarly 100% imbued with idea that Russians are their oppressors. Except that in this case they really are. Russification worked better during the Soviet times because technically it was an independent republic. I think it even had its own seat at the UN then. The Soviet government was more like a local tragedy (like Trump in America) and not occupation.
Anyone harbouring hopes that if we let Russia win and occupy whole Ukraine thus creating peace and stop people from dying does not know anything about Ukraine. They read dry analysis that doesn't tell what real people in Ukraine feel.
I learned about Ukrainians during my time with Hare Krishnas. When the movement sizzled in the US, it became very popular in Russia and other Soviet countries. Hare Krishnas are very apolitical, their only interest in politics is if the governments will let them do what they want to do – preach, sell books, distribute food, dance on streets etc. For many hinduism is not a religion you can convert to, it is something you are born into. With Hare Krishnas it is that they go deeper and consider that your material body, your family origin is temporary and irrelevant, you are eternal soul and your natural tendency is to be a Hare Krishna. Apparently putting on robes, dancing on streets, changing diet to strictly vegetarian, even leaving the family and practically becoming a monk requires strong determination to throw away previous conceptions and in practice I didn't observe any discrimination due to nationality, race or previous status in this movement. You could criticise them for many things but not for racism.
I was living among many Hare Krishna devotees for several years and the cooperation and trust between them was phenomenal. I have never seen a better community since then. But sometimes we talked about our origins which country we are coming and what traditions we used to practice before. Devotees from Central Asia told me about their islamic practices like ramadan etc. Georgians made hachapuris, their national dish. Ukrainians however mostly told stories about Russians, how they were suffering under their rule (Holodomor), different jokes that put Russians into bad light etc. It didn't create any enmity though. The understanding was that it is all past and nationalistic designations no longer apply to devotees and it seemed they had all overcome this.
But these Hare Krishnas are practically monks. They are not like regular people who still hold these grudges. I could better judge how deep this resentment against Russians goes into Ukrainian psyche because as devotees they became more open, more willing to share these stories, to analyse and discard them as material contamination on their path to spiritual uplifting. But when I had to travel to Lviv, they warned me not to speak Russian on the street because I might get beaten by locals. I speak Russian but not Ukrainian, so it would be better for me to pretend not speaking Russian and use English instead. I spoke Russian anyway and didn't get beaten and they were nice, probably they sensed that I have an accent in Russian.
In short: anybody who thinks that you can ask Ukrainians (Zelensky is irrelevant, any other leader will be required to do the same or will be removed by another maidan) to make peace with Russia, should first show that he can make Palestinians to make peace with Israel. I mean why this is even a problem? Invite them to come to the White House, sign the peace treaty and they live in peace forever, right? Build a high wall between both countries to avoid unintended incursions and everybody is happy. Where is the problem?
nopie
1yr ago
Believing ivermectin to be a cure for covid is intellectually lazy. Thanks for helping me to formulate what I meant with that.
But what does it mean to be intellectually dishonest? How is it different from just not being honest?
nopie
1yr ago
Thanks, really good numbers.
I think it would be even greater, a lot of civilians would be killed too. And indirect deaths from violent occupation should be counted too.
nopie
1yr ago
Most Ukrainians are not in army, it doesn't mean they wouldn't resist if suddenly Russians would appear to take their homes.
A lot of Ukrainians work for army, produce weapons etc. but not actively fighting.
Zelensky saved a lot of Ukrainians lives. Without his actions more deaths would have happened.
I have spent some time studying things outside my professional field, for example, about economics. I am not an expert, far from it, but I am quite confident about some basic principles in economy. I read Noah Smith, Marginal Revolution and some others. Anyone interested can gain a similar level of understanding without studying economics at school, just purely for interest, not too deep and because it is quite important in our society. I started with many false beliefs, but took time to read a lot of things online, and now I can see consensus about these basic principles and how things work. Obviously there are many opinions about certain policies etc., but they do not differ in a fundamental way.
But then there are others who haven't given any thought about things at all but who listen to some populists and immediately form an opinion that they proclaim loudly as irrefutable truth. For example, I have taken interest in Milei, the president in Argentina. His reforms generally are viewed as good and necessary. There is no resistance from mainstream economists. Even World Bank has recommended many things that Milei has undertaken. Milei words usually are stronger than his work but even that can be understood due to Argentina's long stagnation and lack of growth.
But then other people demand that we need Milei in our country (Latvia) because our economy is in tatters. It is not objectively true. There is objectively vast difference between GDP between Argentina and Latvia. For some reason Latvia has experienced significant growth, its GDP has grown about 10 times in the last 30 years. It started below Argentina and overtook it and succeeded while Argentina's GDP during this time has mostly stayed flat. Obviously, the situation is completely different that one needs to provide special arguments why it is similar to Argentina because by all measures it is not.
Maybe some smart people have some insights about corruption, growth retarders etc. But most will simply repeat some slogans they have heard from Milei and others, mix them with some vitriol against “establishment”, Word Forum, Bill Gates or whatever is popular each season. When probed, they will admit that they don't know much, it is probably the first time someone has told them what is Argentina's GDP, how GDP is calculated but definitely know that it is a false measure and should not be used because it only hides the truth which is that everything is bad and the elite should be exposed for their crimes etc.
I am tired discussing with people who only want to proclaim their opinions and don't want to learn.
nopie
1yr ago
It is a test if a person is serious and takes at least some time to check if their opinion about something, for example, his beliefs about ivermectin are valid. If I had never known anything about ivermectin, just read something on internet that it is good for covid or that is a poison that kills you, I wouldn't trust it too much, maybe with 5% confidence. If I was asked to provide an opinion, I would do some research, starting from wikipedia, Scott Alexander's article etc. If one cannot bother to do that, why should I listen to his or her opinion about ivermectin and other things?
nopie
1yr ago
Ivermectin is a good test how serious the person is. Obviously we all might have different beliefs, some of them will be wrong and others will be correct. I wouldn't disqualify anyone on that. But ivermectin issue is such a low bar that I use it as a filter whether a person takes time to verify his own opinions. I am sorry if it offends some.
nopie
1yr ago
I don't know the history well. FUD just means Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt. When internet was started (dialling in), everybody thought it will be a revolution but then spammers and FUD started. It can be about anything. It became clear that with open communications it is not easier to get true information as people are not inherently searching for truth but just want to express their opinions.
The great example is ivermectin effectiveness. Why this should be controversial? The story is very simple – we tried many things at the start of pandemic including ivermectin. There were some signals that it could be useful. But more studies were done and the signal disappeared. It happens with a lot of potential medicines. In about 10 prospective treatments only 1 passes final studies and are approved. Everybody can read data and this story. Starting from wikipedia and then Scott Alexander article for deeper interested laypersons. Specialists will simply read original sources. We have no controversy. Even Scott's assertion that it was ivermectin's anti-parasites effect that worked is a stretch and might not be true but I will assume that it is real.
Any information that somehow ivermectin effect is not resolved is FUD. I don't know why people continue bringing it up. Maybe they are really confused, maybe they have poor skills distinguishing real data from garbage, maybe they are propagandists or grifters. I don't care even if they are true believers. It is such a non-issue, not as close to that the earth is round but not that far either.
Obviously, sometimes we have to discuss things that the earth is round or that ivermectin is not effective. Usually with children or some learners. But it is boring to have such discussion in serious forums.
nopie
1yr ago
As I said, I rest my case. You will probably ask next why no neutral party investigates ivermectin?
nopie
1yr ago
No, it is not. First of all, it is not of the same scale. Not of the same time, and not of the same magnitude either. Details are important.
nopie
1yr ago
This is from the section: yes, bad things happened, but elsewhere even worse things happened...
nopie
1yr ago
Sorry, I don't engage in obvious falsehoods.
I have so many Kremlin apologists doubting that MH17 happened. I don't have time and energy to respond to all this. It is not very productive use of my time.
Doubting Bucha when we have so much confirmed evidence is pointless. It is what before we used to call FUD at the start of internet. I am that old.
Russians do not slaughter more civilians in Ukraine because they are not able to. That's how powerful Zelensky's defence is.
Obviously, Russia is still very powerful and is able to take over more territory but it is relatively small size.
Not believing that Bucha is reality is like believing that ivermectin is effective in treating covid and covid vaccines are pure poison (instead of not very effective in stopping infection but moderately effective in elderly reducing death and severe outcomes).
It doesn't get worse.
Before invasion in February 2022 certain western leaders offered Zelensky a ride. Basically they told him not to resist to save human lives. The reality was that Ukrainians would have resisted anyway but most probably would have lost. It would have led to terrible retributions from Russia. Think about Bucha multiplied hundreds of times.
Obviously, we cannot with 100% confidence say what would have happened but the idea is that Zelensky saved a lot of lives. Now pacifists are angry with him that he didn't save all lives. A lot of Ukrainians still perished and still dying on the battlefield.
It is a very hard concept for many to accept.
P.S. Unrelated to the war, but the same unwillingness to accept that some deaths will happen anyway let to higher mortality during covid pandemic. Still majority haven't accepted that despite clear data that Sweden fared best of all. They had about the same mortality from covid that the UK or any other western country and yet their excess mortality was practically zero whereas it was very high in the US. Why? The secret was to tolerate some deaths from covid as inevitable. There was no need to call Tegnel a nazi like some politicians did it hastily.
nopie
1yr ago
We have gone through this many times. No one stopped Berenson to tell that covid vaccines don't stop infection. It is just that twitter was not the right forum for this. Yet, such limitation (orchestrated by the WH) is 100% of free speech issue.
The same happens here, except that happens in the WH. And even without all these legalistic details, this is simply a case when the WH doesn't want to hear something. Nothing else.
nopie
1yr ago
Also, I think that Vance's critique about Europe lacking free speech is overrated. It is true that Europe has some issues. But the US has even bigger issues. During covid pandemic it was twitter and other social networks censured correct scientific information, apparently due to the pressure from the White House. Also, the US had very strict vaccine mandates that were completely unjustified. Even the UK managed to largely avoid them (with some exceptions).
The US probably has even stringer free speech restrictions that Europe but they frame them differently. I am not free speech absolutist and understand that sometimes free speech can be limited and the discussion is more about grey area what is and is not unacceptable. But the US is a leader in social networks and have much greater impact on limiting free speech than Europe, respectively it has more power to restrict and most probably it uses it more than Europe.
nopie
1yr ago
I don't understand you. It IS a free speech issue. Yes, if Trump considered it wrong, he could have refused to sign a deal. I am not saying that free speech should free one from consequences. That I can understand. But be so much against Zelensky speaking his mind that you have to thrown him out immediately? It seems to be overreaction and signal that free speech is for me and not for you!
Medical profession is a wide term. Most doctors are not scientists, not even engineers, they are more auto mechanics who fix your car. If the manufacturer provides false information, they cannot independently check this. Think about diesel exhaust scandal where biggest Germany companies were involved.
The part that would be responsible for lockdowns is called public health. That is a small part of all medical field. And most of them actually knew that lockdowns and masks were ineffective. Somehow they were ostracized due the initial panic and had suck up to the politicians or be fired just as happened with Jay Bhattacharya.
More options
Context Copy link