Pages: 1 … 104 105 106 107 108 … 401

 

2020-05-05 04:40:49
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5608|London, England

uziq wrote:

scientists are not 'tricking' anyone. again, what is it with your wilful misunderstanding? nobody is publishing deceitful models or disingenuous research.

you're more hung up on one researcher at imperial who provided one (of several) early models than anyone else. why is it that your niche think-tank are seizing upon this strand of argument so assiduously? because that's not how science works. maybe they're putting ideology before honesty?
He was the one you used to try to beat me over the head with, with his fearful prognostication, and used it to whine about herd immunity. I guess you only like him when his numbers tell a story that you want to push. 2.2 million American dead!
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2020-05-05 04:41:17
uziq
Member
+497|3702
that's a very silly understanding of how research is funded and how much influence the media has (hint: next to zero).

it's true that lots of studies fail a few of popper's criteria. that's why meta-studies are now so frequently a feature of the research landscape. a valid criticism, but definitely no reason to discount 'experts' or the scientific consensus. it's the best we have at the moment and is open to criticism/improvement. definitely a hell of a lot better than listening to political ideologues who hope the world will magically confirm to their precepts, which seems to be your approach.

your anecdote about peer-review mostly applies to the 'social sciences', by the way, which are far more nebulous and over-extend their limit, stretching their claims to scientific credibility. peer-reviewed physics and pure sciences are far more repeatable.

Last edited by uziq (2020-05-05 04:45:01)

2020-05-05 04:42:37
uziq
Member
+497|3702

Jay wrote:

uziq wrote:

scientists are not 'tricking' anyone. again, what is it with your wilful misunderstanding? nobody is publishing deceitful models or disingenuous research.

you're more hung up on one researcher at imperial who provided one (of several) early models than anyone else. why is it that your niche think-tank are seizing upon this strand of argument so assiduously? because that's not how science works. maybe they're putting ideology before honesty?
He was the one you used to try to beat me over the head with, with his fearful prognostication, and used it to whine about herd immunity. I guess you only like him when his numbers tell a story that you want to push. 2.2 million American dead!
i mentioned the imperial college study once, never mentioned him by name (because who the fuck follows academic research based on author), and, yet again, for the fourth time in this thread, the imperial college model was there to estimate how many people would be be infected/die if governments did nothing. so what, the guy is an idiot because governments did something and the numbers are different? wowsers!!!
2020-05-05 04:43:06
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5608|London, England

uziq wrote:

scientists are not 'tricking' anyone. again, what is it with your wilful misunderstanding? nobody is publishing deceitful models or disingenuous research.

you're more hung up on one researcher at imperial who provided one (of several) early models than anyone else. why is it that your niche think-tank are seizing upon this strand of argument so assiduously? because that's not how science works. maybe they're putting ideology before honesty?
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-39054778
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2020-05-05 04:45:45
uziq
Member
+497|3702
your anecdote about peer-review mostly applies to the 'social sciences', by the way, which are far more nebulous and over-extend their limit, stretching their claims to scientific credibility. peer-reviewed physics and pure sciences are far more repeatable.
that's also stretching the limit of what the word 'tricking' implies.

do you think because someone can't replicate a study on anxiety that climate science is wrong? that coronavirus is being hijacked by 'tricking' scientists to their own ends? righty-o.

Last edited by uziq (2020-05-05 04:46:43)

2020-05-05 04:47:22
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5608|London, England
And what exactly do you think epidemiology is? It's a social science, not a hard science.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2020-05-05 04:52:13
uziq
Member
+497|3702
yes, many of the models are provisional and are improved as and according to the data that's plugged into them.

what are you getting at? we can't predict human behaviour like we can the actions of an atom, so we shouldn't bother? just conclude that all areas of human endeavour are gnomic, inalienable mysteries?

i know, maybe we should read political pundits with as much experience of research as a hot-dog vendor, and just hope everything turns out all right and conforms to their political ideas.

south korea and taiwan have all but eradicated coronavirus by following the guidance of epidemiologists. i wonder how?

Last edited by uziq (2020-05-05 04:52:56)

2020-05-05 05:07:02
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5608|London, England

uziq wrote:

yes, many of the models are provisional and are improved as and according to the data that's plugged into them.

what are you getting at? we can't predict human behaviour like we can the actions of an atom, so we shouldn't bother? just conclude that all areas of human endeavour are gnomic, inalienable mysteries?

i know, maybe we should read political pundits with as much experience of research as a hot-dog vendor, and just hope everything turns out all right and conforms to their political ideas.

south korea and taiwan have all but eradicated coronavirus by following the guidance of epidemiologists. i wonder how?
No, what you need to do is take every sort of projection when it comes to human behavior with a huge grain of salt. Waving around projection models like they are anything more than guesses is a good way to look like a fool. Even with something as simple as a sensor system on a car, you can only really control for a single variable. Everything else needs to be a constraint. When you are talking about human behavior, you're trying to predict with 7.4 billion variables. This is why I scoffed at your predictions of exponential growth. People react and change their behavior based on stimuli.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2020-05-05 05:08:53
Larssen
Member
+99|2138
With already over 60,000 dead in the US I expected Jay to be a little deterred, but no, it emboldened him.

'Few ppl are dead so that means the quarantine is BS'

Just lol man.
2020-05-05 05:09:51
uziq
Member
+497|3702
jay.

the imperial college model to which you keep referring.

was only ever offered as a first forecast.

and it was there to estimate what would happen based on very simple modelling criteria.

the estimated infectiousness (r0 factor) of the disease..

and it estimated.

what would happen.

if governments took no action and let it spread freely.
2020-05-05 05:11:48
uziq
Member
+497|3702
This is why I scoffed at your predictions of exponential growth.
the coronavirus has spread exponentially in every single country that has seen cases, up to and until serious control measures have been put in place. keep scoffing, because you are illiterate.

novel viral spreads are exponential, it's such a fundamental aspect of epidemiology that even maths courses at university take them as examples. that you struggle with it is really puzzling. i guess you skipped the high-school classes on the human immune system.

i didn't predict exponential growth, i said exponential growth was what would happen if we 'did nothing' and 'let it take its course', in response to your assertions of what we should do. don't take me out of context.

Last edited by uziq (2020-05-05 05:14:44)

2020-05-05 05:17:17
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5608|London, England

uziq wrote:

This is why I scoffed at your predictions of exponential growth.
the coronavirus has spread exponentially in every single country that has seen cases, up to and until serious control measures have been put in place. keep scoffing, because you are illiterate.

novel viral spreads are exponential, it's such a fundamental aspect of epidemiology that even maths courses at university take them as examples. that you struggle with it is really puzzling. i guess you skipped the high-school classes on the human immune system.

i didn't predict exponential growth, i said exponential growth was what would happen if we 'did nothing' and 'let it take its course', in response to your assertions of what we should do. don't take me out of context.
Yes, the initial growth curve will look exponential for a short bit until the population reacts, and the virus begins running into immune people. It's the very tip of the spear, and you're waving it around like it's going to explode exponentially forever and kill everyone. Just admit you were wrong and overreacted and we can move on.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2020-05-05 05:20:21
uziq
Member
+497|3702
jay.

there is no proof.

of lasting and useful herd-immunity to coronavirus.

certainly no proof that it would quickly kick in by month three and save everyone.

we don't develop meaningful herd immunity to the common cold, another coronavirus.

it's entirely possible that those infected in winter 2019/20 could be reinfected again in winter 2020/21, with the same serious consequences.

we have been over this multiple times before.

amazing that you criticize the peer-review process but then rely on prognostications and half-guesses about herd immunity, for which there are NO meaningful studies and NO data whatsoever.

and no, i predicted that, left uncontrolled, it would spread exponentially until 80-90% of the population were finally infected. which is the ordinary assumption in any basic model. and, from that, taking a death rate higher than flu, it would be an unmitigated disaster. i never said 'it would kill everyone'. why are you willfully being such a clown? who do you think is reading your posts and thinking you are making points?

the growth rate was slowed and curbed by social distancing and lockdown, not by herd immunity. herd immunity is still some hoped-for future mitigation at this point, something we can perhaps incidentally use as an aid in bringing this thing under control. it is not a prevention strategy.

Last edited by uziq (2020-05-05 05:29:49)

2020-05-05 05:42:47
uziq
Member
+497|3702

Larssen wrote:

With already over 60,000 dead in the US I expected Jay to be a little deterred, but no, it emboldened him.

'Few ppl are dead so that means the quarantine is BS'

Just lol man.
jay is going to keep concluding that expert opinion is worthless because action was taken and the alarming numbers about what would happen if no action were taken have thankfully been avoided.

yep that's really what is happening.
2020-05-05 06:18:46
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5608|London, England

Larssen wrote:

With already over 60,000 dead in the US I expected Jay to be a little deterred, but no, it emboldened him.

'Few ppl are dead so that means the quarantine is BS'

Just lol man.
60,000 people isn't that many in a country of 330,000,000. It's a statistical blip.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2020-05-05 06:29:38
uziq
Member
+497|3702
60,000 in 4 months.

and again the total US population. your favourite statistic.

remember when you argued that several million died a year in US car accidents and that was also a statistical blip? fun times.
2020-05-05 06:45:53
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,815|6356|eXtreme to the maX

Jay wrote:

Tens of thousands of experiments have been shown to be completely unreproduceable and yet they received the peer reviewed badge of honor.
Name one.
Fuck Israel
2020-05-05 06:47:15
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5608|London, England

uziq wrote:

60,000 in 4 months.

and again the total US population. your favourite statistic.

remember when you argued that several million died a year in US car accidents and that was also a statistical blip? fun times.
It is a blip, yes.

Are you familiar with the concept of the seen and the unseen? The seen consequences are easy to contemplate because you have empirical records of damages. The unseen are a mix of all the potential alternative outcomes as well as the tangential consequences. The seen in this case are the 60,000 deaths. The unseen are the millions of lives that have been irreparably harmed because of the shutdown economies. The unseen is the emotional toll the reaction has had on the population. It's all the increased domestic violence, and the suicides, and the home foreclosures. The unseen costs are the loss of trust that people now have; the fear they experience when near other people.  It's all the kids who never got to have their high school graduation or their prom. Some of this stuff is petty, yes, but it factors into the overall burden.

Tens of thousands of people die every year from the flu but we would never dare shut down our economy for something so commonplace. People, rational people, are now looking at the numbers coming in showing tens of millions of people infected with only tens of thousands dead, and they're smart enough to do the math and compare it to past epidemics. They're now looking to hang the people that scared the populace into accepting a shutdown. Those people, like Neil Ferguson, have real blood on their hands. But hey, I'm sure his second fifteen minutes of fame, and all the increased ratings for TV stations was worth it. People who already distrusted the media now have hatred for it. To paraphrase Yoda, being manipulated into fear leads to anger directed at the manipulator when found out.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2020-05-05 06:48:54
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5608|London, England

Dilbert_X wrote:

Jay wrote:

Tens of thousands of experiments have been shown to be completely unreproduceable and yet they received the peer reviewed badge of honor.
Name one.
Human Reactions to Rape Culture and Queer Performativity at Urban Dog Parks in Portland, Oregon

Submitted as a hoax and dutifully peer reviewed.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog … eer-review
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2020-05-05 06:56:27
uziq
Member
+497|3702
hoax articles are a different matter to the reproducibility and verifiability of an experiment a la popper, though.

scholars do this sort of thing all the time. it's a mini-sport in academia. none of them are arguing that scholarship and expertise are invalid, though. none of them are seriously arguing that peer-review is a waste of time and worthless.

i know of a history academic who has for the entire duration of his career submitted a 'shadow bibliography' of fake articles, even writing hoax books, as a 'test' of scholarship. does he seriously think that the writing of history as a result is a total waste of time? no.

of course simpletons like you latch onto the odd peccadillo like this as an excuse to dismiss research entirely. down with experts!

Last edited by uziq (2020-05-05 07:08:28)

2020-05-05 07:01:05
uziq
Member
+497|3702

Jay wrote:

uziq wrote:

60,000 in 4 months.

and again the total US population. your favourite statistic.

remember when you argued that several million died a year in US car accidents and that was also a statistical blip? fun times.
It is a blip, yes.

Are you familiar with the concept of the seen and the unseen? The seen consequences are easy to contemplate because you have empirical records of damages. The unseen are a mix of all the potential alternative outcomes as well as the tangential consequences. The seen in this case are the 60,000 deaths. The unseen are the millions of lives that have been irreparably harmed because of the shutdown economies. The unseen is the emotional toll the reaction has had on the population. It's all the increased domestic violence, and the suicides, and the home foreclosures. The unseen costs are the loss of trust that people now have; the fear they experience when near other people.  It's all the kids who never got to have their high school graduation or their prom. Some of this stuff is petty, yes, but it factors into the overall burden.

Tens of thousands of people die every year from the flu but we would never dare shut down our economy for something so commonplace. People, rational people, are now looking at the numbers coming in showing tens of millions of people infected with only tens of thousands dead, and they're smart enough to do the math and compare it to past epidemics. They're now looking to hang the people that scared the populace into accepting a shutdown. Those people, like Neil Ferguson, have real blood on their hands. But hey, I'm sure his second fifteen minutes of fame, and all the increased ratings for TV stations was worth it. People who already distrusted the media now have hatred for it. To paraphrase Yoda, being manipulated into fear leads to anger directed at the manipulator when found out.
ah, yes, yoda. good to know what level of thinking you're on. very wise, you are!

tens of thousands die every year from flu after the combined efforts of the entire health system and widespread vaccination. we put a great amount of energy and resources into combatting the flu. yes, sadly 10,000s still die as an unavoidable consequence. it would be far worse if we didn't treat or vaccinate for flu. the human cost annually would be enormous -- and all the more tragic because it was avoidable.

coronavirus is N O T comparable to the flu. for the 27th time. it would kill far more than 10,000s if left to rampage. the flu outcome is the grudging result of a huge public health effort every year, combined with residual immunity built up over years, if not decades. the coronavirus is a completely different scenario and the stakes are F A R higher. how you have not grasped this yet with your inane comparisons, i do not know. it's like talking to a rock.

tens of millions of people infected with only tens of thousands dead
made up stats combined with incomplete stats. what a 'reasonable' person you are. we don't know how many have died, only a minimum of those counted in hospitals and care homes. italy just added another 16,000 to its estimated death toll yesterday, in one day. that's the sort of sober accounting that takes place after the peak has been managed. we have no idea how many have been infected. so please stop making up guff.

Last edited by uziq (2020-05-05 07:12:02)

2020-05-05 07:13:52
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5608|London, England

uziq wrote:

Jay wrote:

uziq wrote:

60,000 in 4 months.

and again the total US population. your favourite statistic.

remember when you argued that several million died a year in US car accidents and that was also a statistical blip? fun times.
It is a blip, yes.

Are you familiar with the concept of the seen and the unseen? The seen consequences are easy to contemplate because you have empirical records of damages. The unseen are a mix of all the potential alternative outcomes as well as the tangential consequences. The seen in this case are the 60,000 deaths. The unseen are the millions of lives that have been irreparably harmed because of the shutdown economies. The unseen is the emotional toll the reaction has had on the population. It's all the increased domestic violence, and the suicides, and the home foreclosures. The unseen costs are the loss of trust that people now have; the fear they experience when near other people.  It's all the kids who never got to have their high school graduation or their prom. Some of this stuff is petty, yes, but it factors into the overall burden.

Tens of thousands of people die every year from the flu but we would never dare shut down our economy for something so commonplace. People, rational people, are now looking at the numbers coming in showing tens of millions of people infected with only tens of thousands dead, and they're smart enough to do the math and compare it to past epidemics. They're now looking to hang the people that scared the populace into accepting a shutdown. Those people, like Neil Ferguson, have real blood on their hands. But hey, I'm sure his second fifteen minutes of fame, and all the increased ratings for TV stations was worth it. People who already distrusted the media now have hatred for it. To paraphrase Yoda, being manipulated into fear leads to anger directed at the manipulator when found out.
ah, yes, yoda. good to know what level of thinking you're on. very wise, you are!

tens of thousands die every year from flu after the combined efforts of the entire health system and widespread vaccination. we put a great amount of energy and resources into combatting the flu. yes, sadly 10,000s still die as an unavoidable consequence. it would be far worse if we didn't treat or vaccinate for flu. the human cost annually would be enormous -- and all the more tragic because it was avoidable.

coronavirus is N O T comparable to the flu. for the 27th time. it would kill far more than 10,000s if left to rampage. the flu outcome is the grudging result of a huge public health effort every year, combined with residual immunity built up over years, if not decades. the coronavirus is a completely different scenario and the stakes are F A R higher. how you have not grasped this yet with your inane comparisons, i do not know. it's like talking to a rock.

tens of millions of people infected with only tens of thousands dead
made up stats combined with incomplete stats. what a 'reasonable' person you are. we don't know how many have died, only a minimum of those counted in hospitals and care homes. italy just added another 16,000 to its estimated death toll yesterday, in one day. that's the sort of sober accounting that takes place after the peak has been managed. we have no idea how many have been infected. so please stop making up guff.
Ok
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2020-05-05 07:18:34
uziq
Member
+497|3702
you are thick as a plank.

10,000s of people still die from flu every year after near-universal vaccination for those at-risk.

that's the ideal fix we're looking for for coronavirus. a vaccine. near-universal vaccination. preventative measures.

it's very likely that, in the long-run in a post-vaccine future, with no social distancing/quarantine measures and low-level 'management' of coronavirus, it will kill 10,000s of people annually too.

we don't have a vaccine yet. why you're still comparing the outcome of flu, a disease that is controlled, vaccinated for, and seldom ever reaches pandemic levels, is bizarre. the coronavirus is a totally different scenario. you couldn't reason your way out of a supermarket aisle.
2020-05-05 07:27:36
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5608|London, England

uziq wrote:

you are thick as a plank.

10,000s of people still die from flu every year after near-universal vaccination for those at-risk.

that's the ideal fix we're looking for for coronavirus. a vaccine. near-universal vaccination. preventative measures.

it's very likely that, in the long-run in a post-vaccine future, with no social distancing/quarantine measures and low-level 'management' of coronavirus, it will kill 10,000s of people annually too.

we don't have a vaccine yet. why you're still comparing the outcome of flu, a disease that is controlled, vaccinated for, and seldom ever reaches pandemic levels, is bizarre. the coronavirus is a totally different scenario. you couldn't reason your way out of a supermarket aisle.
I'm going to respond in short sentences for you so you can understand, ok?

The reason they don't know if antibody testing is helpful is because coronaviruses mutate constantly.

This is why there is no vaccine for the common cold and why you can get a cold over and over and over.

Any vaccine they do develop will likely be several generations behind whatever form the virus is currently in when the vaccine arrives.

Holding out hope for a vaccine and waiting out the storm until it arrives is demented.

The more testing that is performed, the more we see that the virus isn't that bad and mostly impacts the very old, like every other virus.

This testing has shown that the shutdown was largely pointless.

The unfortunate reality is that, like you, politicians can never admit when they are wrong because they are terrified it will be used against them.

They would rather continue down whatever current path they are on rather than changing course because to do so is to admit a flaw.

This is why, when they first started talking about shutdowns, I asked what the exit strategy was.

There is still no exit strategy because to possess one and publish one is an intellectual liability.

If one person dies after a politician agrees to open up the economy, the image of that dead person will be weaponized by people like you, people that demand total safety in everything, for the rest of that politicians career.

Total safety is an impossibility, and it's not a goal worth striving towards.

Last edited by Jay (2020-05-05 07:28:19)

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2020-05-05 07:38:24
uziq
Member
+497|3702
no one is asking for total safety. can you ever construct an argument without giving into the bloviator's temptation for straw men and red herrings? keep to the topic at hand and address what people are saying ffs.

all viruses mutate. the question is to what degree. covid-19's RNA structure actually makes it less prone to mutation than other known coronaviruses, which is a small blessing.

flu is a virus that mutates very often. we still vaccinate for the major strains of flu with a decent rate of success. the fact that it mutates doesn't mean that virologists throw up their hands in the air and surrender. that's not how vaccination works.

a vaccine is the best way to get it under control, however tenuous and imperfect that may be. nobody is expecting a vaccine to be a miracle cure. maybe you parody it as such, but the medical community have a perfectly realistic assessment of what it can do. the alternative is running a human experiment on the entirety of society and seeing how many die. maybe 250,000, maybe 2.5 million. do you want to be the leader making that call? ok.

here's the thing with your herd immunity claims: vaccines and herd immunity work the exact same. if according to your logic, a vaccine is impossible because of the mutability of covid-19 (which we don't know yet), herd immunity is also an impossibility. you do know what a vaccine is, right? if it becomes an inevitability like common cold, we are in for a very bad ride. people will get sick every year, or maybe more often even, ~2.5% of them will die, our hospitals will be inundated with the numbers involved, and only those who have recently recovered from a bout of covid will be immune in any way (to what extent and for how long, we don't know).

not 'every other virus' mostly affects the old. every virus has different effects on different demographics. the spanish flu epidemic mainly affected the young and middle-aged. polio, measles, chickenpox, and any other number of viruses mostly affect children.

the US (and the UK) shut down far too late. it's no secret. it has been much less effective as a result and the results have been far worse. other countries which shut down or imposed strict measures from the get-go have done much, much better at it. you didn't address my point earlier about countries which followed the good epidemiological advice with much greater success, such as south korea and taiwan. i wonder why?

you've been quite literally wrong and miseducated on every single point you made. it's not surprising but i do hope you go read something soon that isn't sourced from right-wing think-tanks.

Last edited by uziq (2020-05-05 08:16:59)

 

Pages: 1 … 104 105 106 107 108 … 401

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard