The News Thread

[CiG]

I'm talking about the restrictions. I haven't been following protest news. I thought the Commonwealth was taking all the lockdowns just laying flat.

Don't worry about us, we're doing great.

 

[Slammed]

Well you lot over in the west are doing great, the majors in the east are pretty fucked because idiots can't follow a few rules. But to call them a police state is a bit ridiculous.

 

[CiG]

Relative to the US, you cunts on the other side of Australia are doing fine.

 

[Slammed]

Living it large in lockdown number 7
Everytime I look out the window all I see is tanks and other military vehicles cruising the streets shooting anyone that even dares to go out and check their mail box.

 

[Dak]

It's back to business as normal in the non-neurotic parts of the US. Literally haven't needed a mask except on federal property and like 1-2 businesses in about 8mos.

 

[Einherjar86]

Non-neurotic places like Florida?

I’m glad I live in a “neurotic” part of the country.

 

[Dak]

Non-neurotic places like Florida?

I’m glad I live in a “neurotic” part of the country.

Yeah, your chance of dying from COVID-19 variant whatever went from 99.9999999 to 99.99999999. Meanwhile, fuck everyone. The virus is endemic. Everyone is going to get it. Stop being neurotic.

 

[Dak]

Early on, the play was to be cautious. The vaccines were always a moonshot and the masks were a stopgap. The power mongers don't understand any of it but they sure do love bad science and a lack of statistical understanding.

 

[Einherjar86]

Yeah, your chance of dying from COVID-19 variant whatever went from 99.9999999 to 99.99999999. Meanwhile, fuck everyone. The virus is endemic. Everyone is going to get it. Stop being neurotic.

It's not about dying. Stop being so obtuse.

Early on, the play was to be cautious. The vaccines were always a moonshot and the masks were a stopgap. The power mongers don't understand any of it but they sure do love bad science and a lack of statistical understanding.

lol the arrogance on you. You're so smart that you know better than an entire community, which has obviously been corrupted by its ties to higher ed and scientific consensus, amirite? I don't know what your PhD program did to you, but I'm sorry you feel so backed into a corner that the entire institution of knowledge production offends your principles of understanding.

You think climate models are "bad science," you think predictive/diagnostic epidemiological models are "bad science." These things aren't worth debating with one single contrarian who's not a part of the process.

 

[Dak]

If you're familiar with the work of Ioannidis and Arbsman, among others, you would know most published science is false or out of date. To ignore this is baserate neglect.

Its not arrogance to disagree with "consensus", it's literally the only way actual progress occurs, although of course it doesn't guarantee it. There are far more ways to be wrong than right.

 

[Einherjar86]

If you're familiar with the work of Ioannidis and Arbsman, among others, you would know most published science is false or out of date. To ignore this is baserate neglect.

It's so typical of you to find the major contrarian voices in a wealth of scientific and meta-scientific discourses--Ioannidis, Arbsman, Judith Curry, etc.--overhype them dramatically, and then scoff at others with "Well, if you'd read so-and-so then you'd know..."

Your resentment and objections to contemporary epidemiological science re. COVID 19 are not supported by findings of flawed research methods. No study is perfect. In the universe of studies conducted on, for the purpose of our conversation, COVID 19, imperfections will abound. The likelihood that this means science is moving in an inaccurate direction or producing overwhelmingly flawed results is still astronomically small. I realize science isn't necessarily self-correcting, but it is almost certainly self-correcting.

You clutch at your preconceived notions by finding theoreticians and critics who spend their every waking hour nitpicking the inconsistencies or irregularities of scientific research--but this does not mean that "most published science is false or out of date." That's an irrational interpretation of the situation.

Its not arrogance to disagree with "consensus", it's literally the only way actual progress occurs, although of course it doesn't guarantee it. There are far more ways to be wrong than right.

It's arrogant for someone who's not a participant in the processes of gathering and analyzing data. Any schmuck can say science is bunk, and plenty do. You're not contributing to progress by reading Ioannidis and saying "Aha! It's all wrong."

No, it's not all wrong. Some of it's wrong, and a lot of it is right. Get over yourself.

 

[Dak]

It's so typical of you to find the major contrarian voices in a wealth of scientific and meta-scientific discourses--Ioannidis, Arbsman, Judith Curry, etc.--overhype them dramatically, and then scoff at others with "Well, if you'd read so-and-so then you'd know..."

Your resentment and objections to contemporary epidemiological science re. COVID 19 are not supported by findings of flawed research methods. No study is perfect. In the universe of studies conducted on, for the purpose of our conversation, COVID 19, imperfections will abound. The likelihood that this means science is moving in an inaccurate direction or producing overwhelmingly flawed results is still astronomically small. I realize science isn't necessarily self-correcting, but it is almost certainly self-correcting.

You clutch at your preconceived notions by finding theoreticians and critics who spend their every waking hour nitpicking the inconsistencies or irregularities of scientific research--but this does not mean that "most published science is false or out of date." That's an irrational interpretation of the situation.

I was trained as a social scientist, and specifically was referred in training to Ioannidis' and Arbsman's work , among others, to help improve scientific output. I didn't merely "seize" them.

I'm not criticizing every scientist or every epidemiologist etc. But I can criticize faulty logic, conclusions, and recommendations. COVID 19 is a real public health problem, just not a big one. That's where the point of departure on this issue is.

It's arrogant for someone who's not a participant in the processes of gathering and analyzing data. Any schmuck can say science is bunk, and plenty do. You're not contributing to progress by reading Ioannidis and saying "Aha! It's all wrong."

No, it's not all wrong. Some of it's wrong, and a lot of it is right. Get over yourself.

I didn't say it's all wrong. I said most is either wrong or outdated. I'm a published social scientist. I know, from experience, how challenging and messy producing and publishing science is, and the additional challenge of translating research into functional use. Agreed, any schmuck can simply dismiss the entire enterprise. Our epistemological difference is that I see that as a more useful heuristic than trusting any consensus, for just about anything that isn't an engineering problem.

 

[Einherjar86]

I was trained as a social scientist, and specifically was referred in training to Ioannidis' and Arbsman's work , among others, to help improve scientific output. I didn't merely "seize" them.

And you assume that those working in fields of COVID research are ignorant of this work?

I don't know Ioannidis or Arbsman, but I'm not surprised at all to learn that they (or at least the former) have mischaracterized their findings. Scientific methods can be improved, yes; and inconsistencies and oversights skew results. But inconsistencies and oversights aren't all the same, and when you compile the vast output of scientific research you don't wind up with science moving in a wrongheaded direction (or rather, the likelihood that you do wind up with that is very small).

You've implied that most current science on COVID is "bad" and that you know how to do it properly. I think that's pretty arrogant, since I doubt you've actually read the majority of studies conducted on COVID.

I'm not criticizing every scientist or every epidemiologist etc. But I can criticize faulty logic, conclusions, and recommendations. COVID 19 is a real public health problem, just not a big one. That's where the point of departure on this issue is.

I don't understand the difference you're insinuating between a "real" health problem and a "big" one. Do you think other researchers don't think it's a "real" problem?

I didn't say it's all wrong. I said most is either wrong or outdated. I'm a published social scientist. I know, from experience, how challenging and messy producing and publishing science is, and the additional challenge of translating research into functional use.

I know you said "most." That's clear from the first thing I quoted. "Most" is no better. "Most" science isn't outdated or wrong, unless we want to entertain the nearly pointless adage that scientific findings are outdated as soon as they're published.

Agreed, any schmuck can simply dismiss the entire enterprise. Our epistemological difference is that I see that as a more useful heuristic than trusting any consensus, for just about anything that isn't an engineering problem.

"That" being that anyone can dismiss the entire enterprise? That's one of the most nihilistic and anarchistic notions I think you've ever expressed--and we're talking about you, here. It's an objectionable position. The average armchair luddite watching YouTube videos about the dangers of vaccination or mask-wearing isn't qualified to dismiss scientific findings or consensus. It's hardly a useful heuristic.

Do you think the majority of scientists don't know the challenges of conducting research? Do you think most of them are unaware of the pitfalls of their methods? And do you think that most science is so negligently poor that the consensus is telling us something wildly inaccurate?

Finally, your accusation of mask-wearing being "neurotic" is absurd considering it's possibly the least invasive thing that could be required of you. It's hilarious to me that you and others go apeshit over it. Personally, I'd be fine if indoor spaces made mask-wearing a regular practice, whether there's a pandemic or not.

 

[Blurry_Dreams]

@Einherjar86
I agree with @Dak here

 

[CiG]

@Einherjar86
I agree with @Dak here

Dak loses.

 

[Einherjar86]

@Einherjar86
I agree with @Dak here

 

[Dak]

And you assume that those working in fields of COVID research are ignorant of this work?

I don't know Ioannidis or Arbsman, but I'm not surprised at all to learn that they (or at least the former) have mischaracterized their findings. Scientific methods can be improved, yes; and inconsistencies and oversights skew results. But inconsistencies and oversights aren't all the same, and when you compile the vast output of scientific research you don't wind up with science moving in a wrongheaded direction (or rather, the likelihood that you do wind up with that is very small).

You've implied that most current science on COVID is "bad" and that you know how to do it properly. I think that's pretty arrogant, since I doubt you've actually read the majority of studies conducted on COVID.

I figured you would attack Ioannidis. Not going to bother to address that. Not sure where you got this big hardon for "knowledge producers" from. They are a part of Foucault's "power structure" don't you know.

There's science and there's interpretation and there's translation. "Science moving in the (right) direction" is an extremely low bar. There are 179.9 degrees of freedom to move in the "right" direction. That doesn't even touch the interpretation and translation.

I haven't implied I can "do COVID research properly"; I'm not an epidemiologist. What I can do is read the plain english discussion/conclusion sections of papers, as well as look at prediction/outcome data of public health initiatives, and make quite informed decisions.

I don't understand the difference you're insinuating between a "real" health problem and a "big" one. Do you think other researchers don't think it's a "real" problem?

You and the publicized public health officials claim it's a "big" problem. I disagree. Then I get accused of claiming it's fake. The virus exists. Just like the many other viruses there was no shut down over, for good reason.

I know you said "most." That's clear from the first thing I quoted. "Most" is no better. "Most" science isn't outdated or wrong, unless we want to entertain the nearly pointless adage that scientific findings are outdated as soon as they're published.

Outdated = not useful. You call it pointless, but many bad or outdated studies get (repeatedly, in some cases) cited because there's no incentive for retraction or updating old papers. Ioannidis and others have called at least 50% of social and medical science research into question, than you add the outdating via age, and the given paper you might read loses the coin flip for any impact on your decision making.

"That" being that anyone can dismiss the entire enterprise? That's one of the most nihilistic and anarchistic notions I think you've ever expressed--and we're talking about you, here. It's an objectionable position. The average armchair luddite watching YouTube videos about the dangers of vaccination or mask-wearing isn't qualified to dismiss scientific findings or consensus. It's hardly a useful heuristic.

Do you think the majority of scientists don't know the challenges of conducting research? Do you think most of them are unaware of the pitfalls of their methods? And do you think that most science is so negligently poor that the consensus is telling us something wildly inaccurate?

Finally, your accusation of mask-wearing being "neurotic" is absurd considering it's possibly the least invasive thing that could be required of you. It's hilarious to me that you and others go apeshit over it. Personally, I'd be fine if indoor spaces made mask-wearing a regular practice, whether there's a pandemic or not.

Three separate issue here: Mask wearing, vaccinations, and dismissing "experts".

Mask wearing: I was wearing a mask before basically anyone, when at the same time the US SG and everyone else was saying don't do it/it doesn't work etc. The research I could find early on suggested it would work to reduce risk. Then the "official guidance" flipped on a dime, with little change in published research. As more research on COVID came out, turns out masks don't do much, particularly most non KN95 variants. Yet any sort of masking was encouraged. I could go on about this but won't. This is part of the issue with "interpretation and translation". I don't dismiss the guy in the lab near as much as what happens after that. The whole writeup on Gellman Amnesia covers the gist of this issue.

I can't for the life of me understand why you would want mask wearing normal practice but you're free to keep it up. Just don't demand it of others.

Vaccinations: The reason there was never a previous vaccine for a coronavirus aka "the cold" was because all the research over the last ~20 years showed a split issue of cost/benefit ratio failure and limited short term efficacy along with no long term efficacy. I don't have time to pull the papers about this now but I got this straight from papers off OVID/MEDSCAPE. Voila, despite assurances that this time it was different, same issue for COVID 19 vaccines. Luddite wins.

"Experts": Who gets to decide who the experts are? When it's peers in a non-politicized area, there's probably relatively strong fidelity to competency. As soon as money/politics enters, the smart money asks "cui bono?", never mind that the people selecting "experts" aren't peers.

 

[Einherjar86]

I figured you would attack Ioannidis. Not going to bother to address that. Not sure where you got this big hardon for "knowledge producers" from. They are a part of Foucault's "power structure" don't you know.

Discursive power is a good thing; it means convincing people through communication. Read Karen Litfin's Ozone Discourses.

I don't think I attacked Ioannidis. I said he mischaracterized his findings. Based on what little I've read, that seems to be a widely accepted impression.

There's science and there's interpretation and there's translation. "Science moving in the (right) direction" is an extremely low bar. There are 179.9 degrees of freedom to move in the "right" direction. That doesn't even touch the interpretation and translation.

I haven't implied I can "do COVID research properly"; I'm not an epidemiologist. What I can do is read the plain english discussion/conclusion sections of papers, as well as look at prediction/outcome data of public health initiatives, and make quite informed decisions.

If I'm making a decision, as someone who doesn't participate in the research or feel overly qualified to judge the conclusions: your sole interpretation doesn't supersede the growing consensus of interpretations presented by the epidemiological community.

You and the publicized public health officials claim it's a "big" problem. I disagree. Then I get accused of claiming it's fake. The virus exists. Just like the many other viruses there was no shut down over, for good reason.

It's a big problem when it overloads hospitals. I don't see how that's objectionable or false.

COVID doesn't kill a lot of people. I'm not scared of dying from it. I'm worried that we'll overburden hospitals which will lead to people dying of other things that shouldn't kill them.

This all seems fairly elementary to me.

Outdated = not useful. You call it pointless, but many bad or outdated studies get (repeatedly, in some cases) cited because there's no incentive for retraction or updating old papers. Ioannidis and others have called at least 50% of social and medical science research into question, than you add the outdating via age, and the given paper you might read loses the coin flip for any impact on your decision making.

They haven't called all the data into question, based on my understanding. They've called elements of the methodology into question. In some cases this might compromise the entire set of results, in others it might skew them slightly. They don't lose all value for decision-making, and claiming they do is irresponsible.

I applaud that you judge studies and findings critically, but your reservations shouldn't yield outright condemnation (which is what it sounds like, to me). It should yield a measured response of what fails in a study and what we can take away from it. This is what practically-minded scientists do, and it's what we can take from something like Johns Hopkins' accumulation of studies on COVID.

Three separate issue here: Mask wearing, vaccinations, and dismissing "experts".

Mask wearing: I was wearing a mask before basically anyone, when at the same time the US SG and everyone else was saying don't do it/it doesn't work etc. The research I could find early on suggested it would work to reduce risk. Then the "official guidance" flipped on a dime, with little change in published research. As more research on COVID came out, turns out masks don't do much, particularly most non KN95 variants. Yet any sort of masking was encouraged. I could go on about this but won't. This is part of the issue with "interpretation and translation". I don't dismiss the guy in the lab near as much as what happens after that. The whole writeup on Gellman Amnesia covers the gist of this issue.

I think you're wrong about masking, and I think you haven't read enough. Masks do enough to warrant wearing them. Despite the studies that cast doubt, there are as many to suggest that they disperse droplets and scatter viral particles. They don't keep them from spreading, but they do de-densify them. That alone should be enough.

I can't for the life of me understand why you would want mask wearing normal practice but you're free to keep it up. Just don't demand it of others.

lol because they don't hurt you and at the very least they break your shit up when you exhale. I'm not demanding it of others, but I'm totally fine if establishments refuse service unless you mask up indoors.

I can't for the life of me understand why you're so up in arms about this, of all things. It strikes me as the most immature form of social protest.

Vaccinations: The reason there was never a previous vaccine for a coronavirus aka "the cold" was because all the research over the last ~20 years showed a split issue of cost/benefit ratio failure and limited short term efficacy along with no long term efficacy. I don't have time to pull the papers about this now but I got this straight from papers off OVID/MEDSCAPE. Voila, despite assurances that this time it was different, same issue for COVID 19 vaccines. Luddite wins.

There are far more viral variations that cause the common cold than those that cause the the disease we call COVID-19. That's why there's no vaccine.

You don't need to pull the papers on this; I've read enough to know this isn't accurate. The reason we're seeing ineffectiveness with vaccines now isn't that the vaccines themselves aren't working--it's because a bunch of people are refusing to get them. Higher vaccination rates could have headed off variants at the pass, whereas with the common cold there were already so many variants at large.

Luddite doesn't win here, sorry.

"Experts": Who gets to decide who the experts are? When it's peers in a non-politicized area, there's probably relatively strong fidelity to competency. As soon as money/politics enters, the smart money asks "cui bono?", never mind that the people selecting "experts" aren't peers.

This is all such anti-institutional bullshit. I'm sorry that money comes into it--but hey, that's capitalism I guess. By and large, people doing this research aren't out to make a quick buck. These aren't Wall Street gamblers here.

I'm also sorry you have so little faith in the scientific community, but this kind of distrust is debilitating. It gives you an easy out to dismiss anything if it don't feel like agreeing with it.

 

[Dak]

I don't think I attacked Ioannidis. I said he mischaracterized his findings. Based on what little I've read, that seems to be a widely accepted impression.
..........
They haven't called all the data into question, based on my understanding. They've called elements of the methodology into question. In some cases this might compromise the entire set of results, in others it might skew them slightly. They don't lose all value for decision-making, and claiming they do is irresponsible.

I applaud that you judge studies and findings critically, but your reservations shouldn't yield outright condemnation (which is what it sounds like, to me). It should yield a measured response of what fails in a study and what we can take away from it. This is what practically-minded scientists do, and it's what we can take from something like Johns Hopkins' accumulation of studies on COVID.

Methodology absolutely calls data into question, as well as implications. There are multiple points in the research process where methodology will push data into different directions. It's incredibly messy and difficult when doing anything involving human participants, to limit it to what I do know about directly.

I don't "condemn" research (although there are outright frauds out there, different issue and not the primary source of problems). It's where it goes from there.

If I'm making a decision, as someone who doesn't participate in the research or feel overly qualified to judge the conclusions: your sole interpretation doesn't supersede the growing consensus of interpretations presented by the epidemiological community.

It's a big problem when it overloads hospitals. I don't see how that's objectionable or false.

COVID doesn't kill a lot of people. I'm not scared of dying from it. I'm worried that we'll overburden hospitals which will lead to people dying of other things that shouldn't kill them.

This all seems fairly elementary to me.

The data on COVID deaths is absolutely terrible quality. But, there was not the demand for care/types of care originally predicted (emergency hospitals set up and unused, ventilators actually increasing mortality, etc).

I think you're wrong about masking, and I think you haven't read enough. Masks do enough to warrant wearing them. Despite the studies that cast doubt, there are as many to suggest that they disperse droplets and scatter viral particles. They don't keep them from spreading, but they do de-densify them. That alone should be enough.

lol because they don't hurt you and at the very least they break your shit up when you exhale. I'm not demanding it of others, but I'm totally fine if establishments refuse service unless you mask up indoors.

I can't for the life of me understand why you're so up in arms about this, of all things. It strikes me as the most immature form of social protest.

Public policy shouldn't be driven by mixed data and then claim it's "following the science". If people want to wear masks I have no issue with it. I have an issue with the new "War on COVID" security theater, which has so far proven to be as effective as all the other Forever Wars. We still have the DEA, TSA, DHS, etc. We also still have cartels and the Taliban. Political power grabs with poor justification. Your objections are running into "Why do you hate the troops?" territory.

There are far more viral variations that cause the common cold than those that cause the the disease we call COVID-19. That's why there's no vaccine.

You don't need to pull the papers on this; I've read enough to know this isn't accurate. The reason we're seeing ineffectiveness with vaccines now isn't that the vaccines themselves aren't working--it's because a bunch of people are refusing to get them. Higher vaccination rates could have headed off variants at the pass, whereas with the common cold there were already so many variants at large.

Luddite doesn't win here, sorry.

I'd be curious where you found data to conclusively blame the unvaccinated. Furthermore, oh no, people might get sick for a little bit! The hedonic goalpost moving is out of control.

This is all such anti-institutional bullshit. I'm sorry that money comes into it--but hey, that's capitalism I guess. By and large, people doing this research aren't out to make a quick buck. These aren't Wall Street gamblers here.

Like I said, I'm not attacking the guy in the lab working 60hrs a week for pennies or whatever stereotype one wants to conjure. They are likely trying their best. Doesn't mean that much/most of the product is good, doesn't mean they can interpret it well, doesn't mean it translates, doesn't mean anything that is translated is translated well, etc. The sane response to whatever the latest "ground breaking research" says, in most cases, is to just ignore it until the evidence is overwhelming or there are concrete products, which takes years. Otherwise you're just going to get yanked in a million different directions to no benefit to anyone - especially at the policy level.

I had one class specifically on the practical problems of public health policy and the overriding message is "most people fail to properly identify problems and/or most proposed solutions won't work regardless". Overconfidence in the power and validity of Good Ideas is squandering time and money all over this country.

I'm also sorry you have so little faith in the scientific community, but this kind of distrust is debilitating. It gives you an easy out to dismiss anything if it don't feel like agreeing with it.

What must I do to be saved? Ask the scientific community into my heart?

 

[Einherjar86]

"Faith" has meaning beyond the religious, Dak. Your whole "religion by another name" schtick is pretty boorish.

I'm done debating this. We've clogged the thread enough. Like the good ol' times, right?

EDIT: I do want to respond to this, so others reading aren't misinformed:

I'd be curious where you found data to conclusively blame the unvaccinated. Furthermore, oh no, people might get sick for a little bit! The hedonic goalpost moving is out of control.

To conclusively blame, as in proof? There's no such thing as definitive proof in the sciences, as came up already in this conversation. But there's a lot of evidence suggesting vaccine hesitancy perpetuates outbreaks, as per the HRSA, The Lancet (here and here), and Harvard school of public health, among others.

It's not "getting sick for a little bit"--it's getting sick and needing hospitalization. I'm not moving the goalposts, and I've already clarified this.