Zuckerberg Admits White House Pressured Facebook to Censor COVID-19 Content

[Human Mint]

13 minutes ago, Joshe said:

It's not easy at all. You have to delude the fuck out of yourself to turn it into that. 

Many of the same people who are saying it's government overreach/authoritarian censorship/control are the same people who thought the government was overstepping with mask mandates. 

Then why so many people are deluded?

[Joshe]

24 minutes ago, Human Mint said:

Then why so many people are deluded?

I guess you're right. It is easy for many. I guess I just wanted to lash out against it.

[Raze]

2 hours ago, BlueOak said:

Several Millennia of recorded human history in dealing with crises.
Countless thousands of virus and disease outbreaks before it.
Most dangerous situations the public are exposed to.

If you give me a more specific question I'll answer it with a more specific answer.

Is the question, why does controlling the information given to the public in a crisis or even dangerous situation save lives? I can also focus it specifically on disease or virus outbreaks if that's more useful.

There is no recorded history showing Facebook censoring pandemic info saved lives.

If you mean it stopped people from undoing the lockdown, there isn’t proof of that, and even if it did:

Quote

The present coronavirus crisis caused a major worldwide disruption which has not been experienced for decades. The lockdown-based crisis management was implemented by nearly all the countries, and studies confirming lockdown effectiveness can be found alongside the studies questioning it. In this work, we performed a narrative review of the works studying the above effectiveness, as well as the historic experience of previous pandemics and risk-benefit analysis based on the connection of health and wealth. Our aim was to learn lessons and analyze ways to improve the management of similar events in the future. The comparative analysis of different countries showed that the assumption of lockdowns’ effectiveness cannot be supported by evidence—neither regarding the present COVID-19 pandemic, nor regarding the 1918–1920 Spanish Flu and other less-severe pandemics in the past. The price tag of lockdowns in terms of public health is high: by using the known connection between health and wealth, we estimate that lockdowns may claim 20 times more life years than they save. It is suggested therefore that a thorough cost-benefit analysis should be performed before imposing any lockdown for either COVID-19 or any future pandemic.

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9368251/

[Consept]

The reason why so many are living in maga fairy land and other conspiracy rabbit holes is because of the poor regulation of social media companies. Bad actors were given complete free reign to propagate whatever bullshit they wanted to serve their interests. 

Here's the thing, if you're dealing with large groups and societies, you need regulation. What peoples fear is, is that the government are bad and they're gonna takeaway our freedom. If you seriously don't trust your government that much then you probably should just move. No government is perfect but you have to put people in power that you at least believe have the peoples best interests at heart. If that's the case then yeah they may get things wrong but they are actually trying to do what works for everyone.

If we take covid, the gov received information from leasing scientists, epidemiologists etc about how to handle a potentially highly dangerous virus. Even if the argument was 'oh its not that dangerous' (which i would argue against), that is still the information at the time. Science is always changing as more information comes in that is the nature of science. So to have the argument that random people on the Internet should be able to proliferate misinformation either through genuine fear or trying to provoke fear to get famous/make money as a better alternative just doesn't make sense. 

You may say 'well the misinformation was right sometimes', I'm not sure there are many instances of it being right but even if it was, there were so many instances of just complete, unverified bullshit, personally I was seeing it daily from family members even. So would it be worth having 90% bulkshit presented as truth just to get maybe 10% truth? To me it's just not an effective way of getting to good information. 

If scientists disagree then they should argue, if people are interested enough they should read up on papers and whatnot. People are too hung up on 'freedom', well your freedom will be compromised if bullshit is allowed to fly everywhere, look at what literally happened Jan 6th. 

[BlueOak]

On 02/09/2024 at 3:06 AM, Raze said:

There is no recorded history showing Facebook censoring pandemic info saved lives.

If you mean it stopped people from undoing the lockdown, there isn’t proof of that, and even if it did:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9368251/

In an uncertain situation where a large number of lives are at risk, the procedure is to control information given to the public, both for their safety and for the people affected. This has always been the policy of governments. Given the way information has developed to be shared so freely and easily I can understand the innate resistance there is in people toward this procedure.

The point is we don't know. In a crisis situation often we don't know, and because we didn't know I feel there should have been a stronger lockdown, and that Sweden got it right in protecting their elderly nursing homes above all else, but that is my view, and above is your view.

My government's view is:

Here is the relevant sub document: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/communicable-disease-outbreak-management-operational-guidance/communicable-disease-outbreak-management-operational-guidance

From: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/communicable-disease-outbreak-management-operational-guidance

With passages such as:

Recognition of an outbreak and initial response

Outbreaks may be recognised by UKHSA, local authorities, NHS or public health microbiologists, FSA or service providers. Each organisation has its own procedures for surveillance, detection and control. Immediate contact between these parties is essential as soon as it becomes apparent that an outbreak may exist, so that the parties can share situational awareness, undertake a risk assessment, and agree lead responsibilities, timelines and level of response required.

Immediate control measures should be implemented as per relevant guidance, and investigation to clarify the nature of the outbreak should begin within 24 hours of receiving the initial report. The following steps should be undertaken to establish significant facts and inform the decision to declare an outbreak:

confirm the validity of the initial information (for example, ascertainment bias, laboratory false positives)

consider the tentative diagnosis and whether all cases have the same diagnosis

conduct preliminary interviews with cases to gather basic information including any common factors

collect relevant clinical and/or environmental specimens

form preliminary hypotheses

consider the likelihood of a continuing risk to public health

carry out an initial risk assessment (see Appendix 6)

manage initial communication issues

 

Declaration of an outbreak

Locally confined outbreaks will usually be recognised and declared by the CHP or senior health protection practitioner. Where appropriate this will be following consultation with a consultant microbiologist or relevant environmental health officer (EHO) and occasionally the DPH.

For more widespread outbreaks, such as those that are national or regional, the outbreak may be recognised by FS, a consultant or senior epidemiologist, national UKHSA disease expert or the FSA. It is possible that a widespread outbreak may be initially recognised as sentinel ‘local’ outbreaks.

For local incidents the UKHSA HPT region should inform the DPH and, if required, ICBs. For standard and enhanced incidents (Appendix 3) relevant external bodies such as NHS England should be notified. NHS England will provide oversight and support to ensure that alerts from UKHSA are actioned.

Convening an outbreak control team

Following the recognition and declaration of an outbreak, a decision regarding the need and urgency to convene an OCT is required. This decision should be guided by a risk assessment. The rapid establishment of an OCT is particularly appropriate if an outbreak is characterised by:

immediate or continuing significant risk to the health of the population

one or more cases of serious communicable disease

a large number of cases

cases identified over a large geographical area suggesting a dispersed source

significant public, political or reputational interest

If no formal OCT is convened, it is likely it will still be necessary to take public health actions and liaise with partners and stakeholders.

When a decision has been made not to declare an outbreak, the responsible CHP should review the situation at appropriate intervals and be prepared to declare an outbreak if required. This may involve consulting with the other parties to assist with ongoing surveillance.

End quote.

This is a portion of that subdocument, and there is a lot more to read.

Are you beginning to see how information is vetted for accuracy and delivered in an effective and useful form to the public during a crisis situation?

It isn't some guy heard something and then decided to tell everyone to do it. Its a 1000 experts in their field working together for the good of the public. To say there is no evidence that these methods save lives after millennia of disease outbreaks is absurd. 

It's to stop it spreading. It's to stop people dying so they can have the best chance to get through it. It's to track where the disease is. It's to evacuate places if they need to be evacuated. To track how it came about and if it's likely to mutate. It's to limit panic and damage to the economy or people's day-to-day lives, to stop large-scale public unrest or the breakdown of social order etc.. 
 

Edited September 4 by BlueOak

[BlueOak]

On 02/09/2024 at 0:32 AM, What Am I said:

I don't necessarily mean for this to be a gotcha, but more a genuine question of how far we should go in the West. During covid in China, the doors to some peoples' domiciles were welded shut to prevent anyone from coming and going. There's a possibility this saved some of their lives, as they may have otherwise left home and became infected and/or spread it to others. Is this something you'd be in favor of? If not, why not?

Depends on the severity of the illness.

If people are dying in a day and the infection rate is very high, yes

If there is plenty of time for treatment and the risk factor is manageable, then it is manageable. If it's lethal and whoever is coming into contact is dying off, then yes, it needs to be controlled. China has too many people in too little space, and from what I have seen its food standards are not particularly high in terms of cleanliness. I apologize to any Chinese people if that is a poor choice of words, but the markets there do not look clean in my eyes and so disease spreads more easily. China also tends to just hide its problems away and pretend they don't exist to the world, which is the sad reality of some of those choices they make.

This is one of those decisions where you have to weigh individual liberties vs the good of the community. There is no correct answer, just what protects the community hopefully balanced by the civil rights upheld by the state, if that state is somewhere I would consider living anyway.
 

Edited September 4 by BlueOak

[What Am I]

1 hour ago, BlueOak said:

Depends on the severity of the illness.

If people are dying in a day and the infection rate is very high, yes

Pretty reasonable answer, I agree. If an illness was severe enough, people would likely lock themselves down out of fear without needing additional "encouragement". I guess in the case of covid, it was in too much of a gray area to where the risk was clearly there, but it was not at all on the level of something like the Black Death. So a full consensus among the populace never formed and many were far more willing to accept the level of risk.

Edited September 4 by What Am I

[Consept]

2 hours ago, What Am I said:

Pretty reasonable answer, I agree. If an illness was severe enough, people would likely lock themselves down out of fear without needing additional "encouragement". I guess in the case of covid, it was in too much of a gray area to where the risk was clearly there, but it was not at all on the level of something like the Black Death. So a full consensus among the populace never formed and many were far more willing to accept the level of risk.

Those are actually the more dangerous diseases. Think about if the disease is contagious and super lethal and kills people very quickly, it wont really have time to spread because a few people will die and everything will just get locked down but youll know who exactly is infected. When Ebola happened a few years ago it only killed a few thousand people, even though it was very lethal and contagious. With covid it spread so easy and although it didnt kill most people, because everyone got it the death rate was going to be higher. 

Mathematically its like if ebola is 80% lethal but only capable of infecting 10 people, then 8 will die. If covid is only 1% lethal but capable of infecting 100k people then 1000 are gonna die, so covid is actually more dangerous. Virus' in this spot of being not as lethal but very contagious are the most dangerous 

[What Am I]

35 minutes ago, Consept said:

Those are actually the more dangerous diseases. Think about if the disease is contagious and super lethal and kills people very quickly, it wont really have time to spread because a few people will die and everything will just get locked down but youll know who exactly is infected. When Ebola happened a few years ago it only killed a few thousand people, even though it was very lethal and contagious. With covid it spread so easy and although it didnt kill most people, because everyone got it the death rate was going to be higher. 

Mathematically its like if ebola is 80% lethal but only capable of infecting 10 people, then 8 will die. If covid is only 1% lethal but capable of infecting 100k people then 1000 are gonna die, so covid is actually more dangerous. Virus' in this spot of being not as lethal but very contagious are the most dangerous 

Good point. I suppose it's all very nuanced, and sometimes the outcomes are counterintuitive. I don't envy the people who have to plan for such events. But I also don't envy the masses who will be subject to those plans. All we can hope for is intelligent and selfless leadership.

[ryandesreu]

On 9/1/2024 at 7:32 PM, What Am I said:

I don't necessarily mean for this to be a gotcha, but more a genuine question of how far we should go in the West. During covid in China, the doors to some peoples' domiciles were welded shut to prevent anyone from coming and going. There's a possibility this saved some of their lives, as they may have otherwise left home and became infected and/or spread it to others. Is this something you'd be in favor of? If not, why not?

What if there was a fire or other emergency in the domicile?

[What Am I]

10 minutes ago, ryandesreu said:

What if there was a fire or other emergency in the domicile?

I'm with you on the welding of doors being an incredibly dangerous and irresponsible solution. It's almost surprising they'd go to those lengths, but I think China is kind of unique among developed nations in caring less how their actions look to the outside world.

Edited September 4 by What Am I