PyPy - Python 3k Status #5 update  - <AUTHOR> http://morepypy.blogspot.in/2012/07/py3k-status-update-5.html

<comment><USER2> Paths and file names on Unix fundamentally do not have encoding: the filesystem represents them as sequences of bytes, and it is entirely possible to have a directory full of folders where there is no codec that is capable of faithfully or even reasonably decoding all of the names contained (or even that Unicode itself is capable of representing the semantically correct decoding of the filenames if you knew what theoretical codec represented them in the first place).

It is therefore a fundamental mistake and a misinterpretation of the semantics of filesystems by Python 3 to insist that file names are represented by Unicode strings with a locale-sensitive encoding; in fact, I question whether there are interesting security ramifications inherent in this mistake (such as allowing me to change the locale in which a process is running and thereby remap its import path; this coming up, of course, as this article is largely about sys.path and Unicode).

<comment><USER3> Well, it's a misinterpretation of the semantics of traditional Unix filesystems. Other filesystems used by other operating systems (such as Windows' NTFS and OS X's HFS+) genuinely do store filenames as Unicode strings, so on those platforms (or on Unix, if you've mounted one of those filesystems) Python 3.x's approach is exactly correct.

That said, recent versions of Python 3 include a workaround for exactly the problem you describe: when the interpreter gets a byte-sequence value from the OS, filenames that decode to Unicode cleanly will be represented as proper Unicode strings, while filenames that can't be decoded will have the raw bytes represented as code-points in Unicode's Private Use Area. That way, even if Python can't decode the contents of a string, you can still, say, get a parameter from the command-line, pass it to open(), and be confident that you'll actually get the file the user intended.

<comment><USER2> While I reference the issue of a mixed-codec directory in order to make clear the flaw in the operating assumption, the actual problem I am interesting in here, and which I conclude my statements with a reference to, is handling things like sys.path (hence this being a reply to the article).

To respond to your comments, however: actually, the behavior on, let's say a Linux box, if you mount one of those aforementioned filesystems, will not be "exactly correct". Python 3 will attempt to encode the Unicode string using the current locale, pass it to the underlying Unix open() function, which will then have no clue what to do as it hits the filesystem.

In fact, rather than just idly claiming this, I went ahead and set up exactly this test setup on one of my servers. I created a python3 script in a known specific source encoding (UTF-8) and asked it, in each of two different locales, to make a file that included an accented character, while mounted on an HFS+ disk image.

        hfs+# mount | grep hfs
        /.../hfs+.img on /.../hfs+ type hfsplus (rw,force)
        hfs+# cat test.py
        #!/usr/bin/python3
        # -*- coding: utf-8 -*-
        open("helloä", "w")
        hfs+# LANG=en_US.UTF-8 ./test.py
        hfs+# LANG=fr_FR.ISO-8859-1 ./test.py
        hfs+# LANG=en_US.UTF-8 ls -la
        -rw-r--r-- 1 root root  0 2012-07-11 00:57 hello?
        -rw-r--r-- 1 root root  0 2012-07-11 00:57 helloä
        -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 64 2012-07-11 00:56 test.py*
        hfs+#

As you can see, the behavior here is really poor for something that claims to support Unicode. What we would expect to have happen is that, as I opened the file with a Unicode name on a Unicode filesystem that I would actually get the specific Unicode string that I had wanted.

Instead, because Python 3 is only pretending to understand the semantics of filesystems with regards to character sets, and in fact has no way of taking advantage of the Unicode support in HFS+, we ended up with the encoding of the user's locale environment breaking our filenames.

This would be akin to me doing JSON.encode() in a browser, and having a Unicode JavaScript string get converted into different JSON (which is also represented as a Unicode JavaScript string) depending on what language the user's browser is configured to use: that is a miserable Unicode failure, and not a success story.

FWIW, the exact same code _does_ work on Mac OS X (using the correct locale name of fr_FR.ISO8859-1): both versions of the script get the exact same filename. To be honest, I was somewhat surprised that they got that right ;P. I sadly do not have a Windows computer handy, as I'd love to see how it handles NTFS (which is technically UCS-2 and doesn't have the weird canonicalization behavior that HFS+ sometimes does: I can easily imagine broken corner cases with invalid UTF-16 surrogate pairs).

Regardless, I really do not believe that you need to break the behavior on Linux in order to make Mac OS X work correctly. Even if such a tradeoff were required, I question whether it should be resolved with Linux on the losing end. I am not going to say that the correct solution doesn't even use Unicode strings: it just needs to more intelligently handle who is in charge of the encodings and what they semantically mean than Python 3 is prepared to do.

As far as possible solutions go, I certainly do not believe that the private Unicode codepoint solution is either sufficient (as it doesn't solve the de novo filename creation problem) nor even remotely reasonable (as if I attempt to then communicate these filenames with other systems, or heaven-forbid wanted to store a filename with a private Unicode codepoint in it, I'm now screwed).

(edit: Wow, BTW. They added this "solution" after I had already given up on Python 3k, so I hadn't followed up to see what they did. It seems like they ended up not using "private codepoints" as they were considering in 2008, but are instead using surrogate-halves: they are encoding "malformed UTF-8 sequences as malformed UTF-16 sequences"[1]. Given that you are allowed to store malformed UTF-16 on NTFS, I wonder how they expect that to work. Still doesn't solve either of my complaints, though.)

1: [http://hyperreal.org/~est/utf-8b/releases/utf-8b-20060413043...](http://hyperreal.org/~est/utf-8b/releases/utf-8b-20060413043934/kuhn- utf-8b.html)

<comment><USER4> If you set LANG=fr_FR.ISO-8859-1 you are declaring that you want your filenames encoded as ISO-8859-1; the behaviour sounds like exactly what I'd expect. It's certainly not "broken on linux"; at worst it's "broken on linux when not using a utf-8 locale", and frankly I'd expect most things to break under that circumstance.

<comment><USER2> You seem to be missing the point of this exercise: HFS+ is a Unicode-aware filesystem, so the idea that "you want your filenames encoded as ISO-8859-1" is fundamentally invalid and unimplementable. You can't specify an encoding for the files you are saving, as they are semantically "Unicode" and saved by the filesystem as UTF-16 on disk as an implementation detail.

The reason that HFS+ came up is that, as a filesystem that stores filenames as actual "strings" as opposed to "arrays of bytes", you actually get the correct behavior now on OS X with Python 3 (which you also seem to have missed); thristian contended that this behavior would also work correctly if I mounted the HFS+ image on Linux, and it does not.

To explicitly demonstrate this on Mac OS X (where the filename will be sent as Unicode through to the Unicode filesystem API and then saved correctly through HFS+ to disk with the original name, no matter what encoding you happen to have set as part of your locale, as your locale truly should be irrelevant in this specific situation, just as in my JSON analogy):

        mac$ cat test.py
        #!/Library/Frameworks/Python.framework/Versions/3.2/bin/python3
        # -*- coding: utf-8 -*-
        import locale
        print(locale.getpreferredencoding())
        open("testä", "w")
        mac$ LANG=en_US.UTF-8 ./test.py
        UTF-8
        mac$ LANG=fr_FR.ISO8859-1 ./test.py
        ISO8859-1
        mac$ ls -la
        total 8
        drwxr-xr-x    4 saurik  staff   136 Jul 11 00:36 ./
        drwxr-xr-x+ 278 saurik  staff  9452 Jul 11 00:28 ../
        -rwxr-xr-x    1 saurik  staff   159 Jul 10 18:07 test.py*
        -rw-r--r--    1 saurik  staff     0 Jul 11 00:36 testä
        mac$

<comment><USER4> >HFS+ is a Unicode-aware filesystem, so the idea that "you want your filenames encoded as ISO-8859-1" is fundamentally invalid and unimplementable

Sure. But it's still the idea that linux would apply, and how linux APIs (that expect a filename to be a stream of bytes) work. I really think this is a linux/locale problem rather than a python problem.

<comment><USER2> I will yet again repeat: the reason for this excursion into HFS+ semantics on Linux was caused by thristian's insistence that Python's behavior would handle HFS+'s Unicode behavior when mounted on Linux in the same correct way it does on Mac OS X. This is, in fact, false. This then nullifies the argument that this is a filesystem-specific issue.

You seem to be refusing to track this conversation's multiple thoughts: there is the underlying argument "Python 3 is making unreasonable assumptions" with a specific argument "these assumptions are reasonable on OS X" followed by an aside "incidentally, this behavior actually is not related to operating systems but is related to filesystems: as proof I cite HFS+ mounted on Linux" with an error pointed out in the aside "no: in fact HFS+ on Linux has the same behavior as any other filesystem on Linux".

I then separately respond to the point about "these semantics work on OS X" (ceding, in fact, albeit explicitly remaining skeptical on Windows), saying that the tradeoffs of "works worse on Linux" (which I get to assume, as my earlier arguments that this is the case were not actually challenged: that on Linux the concept of encodings does not apply to filenames and causes problems like locale-specific sys.path) seems like the wrong direction to lean (which is an opinion, of course).

However, to make that claim, I need to defend against a new point that is brought up: that thristian believes that an epicycle added to the algorithm (the PUA "save the problem for later" mechanism) is sufficient to mitigate the Linux problems. I claim that it is not, and I bring up a few reasons why (de novo filenames, interop with non-Python systems, existing usages for PUA): reasons which, incidentally, were also discussed as open problems on the Python mailing list.

Finally, I also explained that the PUA solution isn't even being used anymore, but was actually replaced by UTF-8b. As this solves one of my complaints (existing usages for PUA) I then have to first admit that (although I defend that I believe that invalid surrogate pairs are not invalid on Windows, leading to a similar problem) and then, for clarity, mention that my other arguments are not affected by UTF-8b.

<comment><USER4> So, in the interests of being perfectly clear: I am challenging your claim that python 3's approach works worse on Linux; I assert that its semantics under linux are correct (i.e. what a well behaved program running under linux- the-system should do). Conceptually, a program should tell the operating system to save a filename under a given name (unicode string); it is then the operating system's responsibility to translate that to and from bytes on disk.

What you have observed, and demonstrated with your example, is the behaviour of linux running with LANG=fr_FR.ISO-8859-1, which is to represent filenames that contain characters not representable in ISO-8859-1 as ?s. Any well- behaved linux program will exhibit the same behaviour, because it is not program behaviour but OS behaviour. Programs that ignore LANG and do their own filename encoding will appear better under your test, but such programs are misbehaving; by declaring LANG=fr_FR.ISO-8859-1 the user has made an explicit declaration that they wish for their filenames to be encoded as ISO-8859-1, and should expect as much.

That filenames of files stored on HFS+ under linux still have linux semantics despite the filesystem's semantics being different is an interesting accident of history but really neither here nor there. The idea that you want your filenames encoded as ISO-8859-1 may indeed be fundamentally invalid and unimplementable on HFS+, but it remains the semantics of setting LANG=fr_FR.ISO-8859-1 on linux, and as such it should be expected that linux would attempt to follow this behaviour as closely as possible.

Really the whole excursion into filesystems is irrelevant. Python 3 behaves correctly operating systems which provide unicode filenames, i.e. "OSX" and "Linux with a UTF8 locale", and as well as could be expected on operating systems where filenames are only permitted to be strings in a particular encoding i.e. "Linux with a non-UTF8 locale".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> When do you think Py3K will be main stream ? I'm afraid this might be a failing effort. Is there any company out there using Py3K in production ?

<comment><USER6> Do we really need to rehash this tired argument over every single post that references Python 3? You can look at any other Python 3 related post in the last couple of years on HN and Reddit to find endless arguments about this topic.

How about a comment thread that actually talks about the post contents for once?</comment></comment>


How to Fix PHP's Most Annoying Error - <AUTHOR> http://www.airpair.com/php/fatal-error-allowed-memory-size

<comment><USER2> "Your first course of action is to increase your memory limit" \- No. First thing you do is baseline your server and figure out how much max memory you want to allocate to PHP given the maximum that can be used from the other processes. OP's advice is a recipe for oom'ing your VPS. Also if there are more developers, hiding the memory allocation in code instead of setting file is going to be fun.

<comment><AUTHOR> I mention: "never do these tests on a production server unless you're sure you have plenty of RAM and you fully understand how web server processes consume memory. You could easily bring a server to its knees if there are many concurrent processes running, each using a high amount of memory." It's a temporary debugging procedure. The obvious goal to reduce memory usage.

Later on I say: "If by increasing the memory limit you have gotten rid of the error and your code now works, you'll need to take measures to decrease that memory usage. Here are a few things you could do to decrease it:"

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Setting a 1gb memory limit is a great way to hide the problem and dramatically reduce the maximum number of concurrent requests to your website, and drain resources from any other services running on the box(es).

<comment><USER4> Being massively pedantic for a moment; he didn't set the memory limit to 1GB but instead to 0.9765625GB:

        <?php
            ini_set('memory_limit', '1000M'); // or you could use 1G
        ?>

Joking aside, do most people these days just use MB (1000^n) instead of MiB (1024^n) when working with RAM? Is this now the standard way to calculating memory?

<comment><AUTHOR> Good call. Minor oversight. Just updated that. I think if your NOT a hardcore technologist you probably think of megabytes as as 1000^n. It's really easy to forget too for the rest of us.

<comment><USER5> Über-pedantry: It's "you're" and not "your".

<comment><AUTHOR> Unfortunately, HN doesn't have an edit function for comments. ;)

<comment><USER4> It does, but only for comments that haven't been replied to

<comment><AUTHOR> More pedantry ;)

<comment><USER4> I was actually trying to be helpful there :(

<comment><AUTHOR> Hehe. Based on the previous pendantry, it blended in. I'll take it as help then. :D

<comment><USER4> The previous pedantry wasn't me though; only the MiB / MB comment. And that was partly out of curiosity if 1000MB == 1GB was a deliberate rounding.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This should be titled "how to find a memory leak". It's a very basic article on memory management and how to find a memory leak.

<comment><USER4> It's not technically a memory leak though. It's more to do with finding errors in your code that use unexpectedly large quantities of memory. But since everything is being allocated and deallocated correctly, you're not actually leaking any memory (which I guess you could argue, makes the article even more basic).

In any case, you're right that the title is a little misleading, but pedantry aside, it's still a useful resource.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Good lord.

</comment><comment><USER8> fixing things like this often means going round the houses, nice to have a debugging checklist like this!</comment>


Talent shortage? What talent shortage? - <AUTHOR> http://lostinjit.blogspot.com/2011/12/talent-shortage-what-talent-shortage.html

<comment><USER2> Good article, the most important being, their is not a talent shortage, their is just a shortage of talent that is willing to give up themselves to join your organization, letting people be themselves attracts talented people to your organization.

It also shows why the whole H1B thing is crap. Companies hiring is completely one sided, and on their terms. The H1B program is more of their terms. Locking labor into regional markets and therefore ably to constrain that labor and that labors compensation. Contrast that will a company that allows remote work, and they have no need for the H1B argument, they can literately access that talent on that talents terms. They have happier employees and those employees don't feel like they are a slave to the machine.

I actually used to be an opponent of remote work when it was in it's infancy, I thought it would isolate individuals and disconnect the vision of the company. My view on the subject over time has turned around as I now see that it created happier individuals that are willing to contribute more effort than is required of them. Technologies such as Skype have done a lot to prevent the disconnectedness that I thought remote work would create.

<comment><USER3> Totally. It's ridiculous, the number of companies that aren't open to remote workers! If you want top people, you have to make some concessions! Demanding that every employee "take one for the team" to relocate is foolish.

<comment><USER4> I've been telecommuting for a decade now. Before that, I grew up on a farm where everyone I was surrounded with also worked from home. Working in an office, or other away-from-home location, is a _very_ strange concept to me.

With that said, it seems like this is something that is easily sorted by the market. If top talent want to work from remote locations, top talent will make telecommuting-friendly businesses rise to hire even more workers.

If the on-site businesses hiring B and C players, for lack of a better description, are still winning in the marketplace, perhaps it is the telecommuting that is the downfall?

<comment><AUTHOR> I don't think it works that way. People who are good at coding are not necesarilly people who are good at creating businesses (not always, but usually).

<comment><USER4> Sorry if I didn't make myself clear.

My post was made under the common assumption that top developers/engineers/etc. drive the success of the business just as much as the business people. It is why companies go looking to hire the very best programmers, engineers, etc. Otherwise everyone would hire the not-so-good, but inexpensive people.

If we assume the top people are choosing to telecommute, yet the best companies do not allow telecommuters, it means that those businesses are succeeding in spite of not having the very best people.

Since telecommuting is still not common in our industry, either:

A. Not hiring top employees does not impact the success of a business. In fact, top businessmen might have a better chance of success hiring poorer talent.

\- or -

B. Telecommuting is preventing some companies, that would otherwise be successful, from succeeding.

\- or -

C. Top talent would rather work on-site, and are choosing to work for the companies that support that kind of culture instead.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Why would you censor BS as B*shit?

<comment><USER6> Possibly because he's not a native English speaker.</comment></comment>


One Change Is Not Enough - <AUTHOR> http://www.aeracode.org/2012/11/13/one-change-not-enough/

<comment><USER2> Nice to see this appear here! Probably worth pointing out that we spent a few weeks preparing for this move - it's not something you can pull together in a few days (unless you're very laissez-faire about your data).</comment>


YouTube removed a viral video of two doctors calling for an end to quarantine - <AUTHOR> https://www.theblaze.com/news/youtube-removed-viral-doctor-video-end-quarantine <comment><USER2> 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)

<comment><USER3> 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?

<comment><USER4> YouTube has the right to censor anything it likes. It's their platform. If you don't like it, don't use YouTube.

<comment><USER5> 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?

<comment><USER6> 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.

<comment><USER7> > "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.

<comment><USER8> > "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.

<comment><USER9> > "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.

<comment><USER10> It's more like 'I have the right to choose which voices get heard on my private platform'

<comment><USER11> 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.

<comment><USER8> > 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.

<comment><USER11> YouTube is almost the exclusive (by daily views) provider. How can that be in question?

<comment><USER8> 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.

<comment><USER11> Ok, overwhelming market leader then.

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

<comment><USER8> 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.

<comment><USER11> 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.

<comment><USER12> A reasonable congress should have oversight?

What do you mean by that?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> 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)

<comment><USER14> 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.

<comment><USER15> 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?

<comment><USER16> > 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.

<comment><USER17> 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)

<comment><USER18> No Platdforms still have to delete illegal content and react to take down notices.

<comment><USER17> 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".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> 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?

<comment><USER20> 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/)

<comment><USER21> > 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.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> 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.

<comment><USER23> 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)

<comment><USER24> "Overtly idealogical" doesn't have to mean falsehoods, it can also mean selecting only content that reinforces a specific narrative.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> 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)

<comment><USER26> 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.

<comment><USER27> Are infections and death tolls in the countries with much less restrictive measures an order of magnitude higher?

<comment><USER28> 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)

<comment><USER29> 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.

<comment><USER30> 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.

<comment><USER31> Can we compare New York with its neighbors?

<comment><USER30> Compare it with equally dense neighbors, sure!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> 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?

<comment><USER33> 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.

<comment><USER16> WHO isn't independent. They have been looking out for China's talking points for a while.

<comment><USER34> 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.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> 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)

<comment><USER36> > 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.

<comment><USER35> can you please be clearer? What is false?

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

<comment><USER37> 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)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> > 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...

<comment><USER39> 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!

<comment><USER40> Apparently, they own a private Urgent Care center.

<comment><USER39> 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/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> 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.

<comment><USER42> 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.

<comment><USER41> 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).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> 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.

<comment><USER44> 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.

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> 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)

<comment><AUTHOR> 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.

<comment><USER25> 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."

<comment><USER46> 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.

<comment><USER47> 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?

<comment><USER48> 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.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> It's important that during these unprecedented times of censorship that we all know how to use youtube-dl

<comment><USER50> How to download the comments for video? Or the "live chat" on some videos?

<comment><USER51> Honest question - what longtime value is there to youtube comments? The way these are structured seems to inherently make them useless.

<comment><USER50> If they are downloaded, they can be indexed by various parameters.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER52> 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.

</comment><comment><USER53> 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.

<comment><USER54> 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.

<comment><USER55> 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.

<comment><USER56> 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.

<comment><USER54> 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.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> I don't understand the censorship claims when you can freely watch this video online right now.

</comment><comment><USER57> 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.

</comment><comment><USER58> 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.

</comment><comment><USER59> 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.

<comment><USER60> 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.

<comment><USER61> > 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.

<comment><USER60> 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?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER62> > "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)

<comment><USER63> Confirmed cases are not the total number of cases.

<comment><USER62> 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.

<comment><USER64> _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.

<comment><USER62> 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)

<comment><USER65> > 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.

<comment><USER66> 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.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER67> 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.

</comment><comment><USER68> The video is available at: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2h2QMkS5Ftw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2h2QMkS5Ftw)

</comment><comment><USER69> 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.

<comment><USER70> You don't think it's worth reading the article just because you don't agree with the author's politics?

<comment><USER69> 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.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER71> 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)

<comment><USER72> 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.

<comment><USER16> 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?

<comment><USER73> > 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.

<comment><USER74> 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)

<comment><USER73> That's not them bowing to China or "covering it up", that's just a statement of their principles. The W stands for World.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER75> 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.

</comment><comment><USER76> 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.

</comment><comment><USER77> What do you expect out of a woke monopoly? If there were an alternative that valued free-speech I'd ditch YouTube.

<comment><USER23> 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.

</comment></comment><comment><USER78> 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.

<comment><USER79> > 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.

<comment><USER78> Facts are different than opinions. When you lie you lie. If you're so distorted by Trump's daily lies, then I pity you.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER74> 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.

</comment><comment><USER80> 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)

</comment><comment><USER81> Elon Musk appears to like what they said as well: [https://mobile.twitter.com/elonmusk/status/12544950502282608...](https://mobile.twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1254495050228260865)

<comment><USER82> 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.

<comment><USER81> 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."

<comment><USER82> 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.)

<comment><USER81> The data presented by the two doctors is fresh, and shows exactly what the paper says. COVID-19 is not worse than the flu.

<comment><USER82> 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 :-)

<comment><USER83> >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.

<comment><USER82> 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.

<comment><USER83> 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)

<comment><USER82> 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.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER84> 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.

<comment><USER85> This is really a non-argument, as the WHO is also comprised of "doctors".

The belief of dishonesty could be applied both ways.

<comment><USER84> 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.

<comment><USER16> > 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.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER86> Listen to the medical experts! No, not those medical experts!

</comment><comment><USER87> "There are lies, damned lies, and statistics."

</comment><comment><USER81> It was a rather excellent presentation by these doctors. Honest and courageous. Simply cannot argue with the data and reasoning.

<comment><USER88> 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.

<comment><USER16> 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.

<comment><USER88> 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.)

<comment><USER89> Deadlier but not excessively so. Flu is vaccinated against.

<comment><USER88> 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.

<comment><USER89> 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.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER90> Sorry for unpopular opinion but the whole world has gone nuts with corona. Stop spreading fake news and creating panic. Why censoring...

<comment><USER91> 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.

<comment><USER74> Everything?

Would you jail people who challenge the official government statements?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER92> 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.

</comment><comment><USER93> Elon seems to think the "docs make good points" [https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1254495050228260865](https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1254495050228260865)

<comment><USER94> 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.

</comment></comment><comment><USER95> 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.

</comment><comment><USER50> 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?

<comment><USER96> 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.

<comment><USER50> 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.

<comment><USER96> 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.

<comment><USER50> 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.

<comment><USER96> 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.

<comment><USER95> 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)

<comment><USER37> 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)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER97> 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.

<comment><USER98> 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.

</comment></comment><comment><USER99> 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)</comment>


A Great Survey of Logic and It's Evolution - <AUTHOR> https://www.fs.blog/2018/05/deductive-inductive-reasoning/ <comment><USER2> Its.</comment>


Measuring Online Applications – Structuring a Measurement Interface - <AUTHOR> http://semphonic.blogs.com/semangel/2009/10/measuring-online-applications-structuring-a-measurement-interface.html

<comment><USER2> This is just the sort of thing that can be done cleanly with <http://jshub.org/></comment>