Coronavirus Outbreak

[Josh]

If you don't have the mathematical background or education to verify empirical studies, then you basically have to decide who you believe.

Please show me your analysis, include whatever math you want, I have some background in these things. Just as you seem to disagree with the people who wrote the study you chose to cite, we might find we disagree with your analysis, but we haven't even seen it.

I think I also know how to read studies. They tell you what they found. If you disagree with a study, then you shouldn't cite it in support of a position that disagrees with the conclusion of the study. If you do your own analysis, you should show it. That's how the research world works. In a research paper or even a class project, citing a paper as though it reached a different conclusion would be seen as dishonest or at least sloppy.

Boot,

Do you agree that it's impossible to get any paper published that doesn't uphold the narrative that "vaccines are best"?

Or do you think it's perfectly reasonable to think that scientists are eager to publish a paper showing, for example, that vaccines are ineffective, or that natural immunity is superior to vaccines (including boosters)?

[Bootstrap]

Do you agree that it's impossible to get any paper published that doesn't uphold the narrative that "vaccines are best"?

No, I do not agree with that. You just need the data to back up your conclusions - if you have solid data for a surprising result, that often becomes the scientific paper that the whole scientific community talks about. And it may take longer, because people want to be sure, but data does come through in science. But I do think that propaganda claims like that often trump whatever the scientific literature and the data are finding. Instead of looking at the data, people get all upset about how victimized they feel because the data isn't backing up the conclusion they want. And they keep claiming it's the other side that is doing it.

If you've got the data, show it.

All these vivid emotional stereotypes people keep pushing, the constant claims of victimhood and persecution, inserting political identity politics into every single issue ... that keeps people from looking at the data and the scientific literature. Or from the data on other topics.

And it lets them feel they are so much smarter than all those deluded scientists - even though most people don't know the first thing about how scientific research is done.

But to do that you have to keep trolling, make sure that it's not allowed to be a discussion about the evidence. Which happens repeatedly on so many topics.

[Valerie]

What if a large part of the population has lost "trust" in those with the "supposed" data because of reports of falsehoods- which then seems to support the very agendas that caused people to be skeptical/suspicious in the first place?

[nett]

If you don't have the mathematical background or education to verify empirical studies, then you basically have to decide who you believe.

Please show me your analysis, include whatever math you want, I have some background in these things. Just as you seem to disagree with the people who wrote the study you chose to cite, we might find we disagree with your analysis, but we haven't even seen it.

I think I also know how to read studies. They tell you what they found. If you disagree with a study, then you shouldn't cite it in support of a position that disagrees with the conclusion of the study. If you do your own analysis, you should show it. That's how the research world works. In a research paper or even a class project, citing a paper as though it reached a different conclusion would be seen as dishonest or at least sloppy.

No thanks, I did that last time, after being accused of all manner of deceit, your response was

As you did above - thanks for that, I'll take a look at it when I get time.

and I never heard anything further on it.

It's not really worth my time, because statistics and my backing up those statistics don't actually change anyone's mind when I'm up against an ideology. I could post line after line of formulas, basic equivalencies, and conclusions from those equivalencies, but if the abstract doesn't report the same conclusions, people like you won't care.

I would question whether you actually have the capability you think you do when it comes to interpreting studies, since you've called me multiple times on reaching different conclusions than an abstract. Abstract skimming is almost always a sign of academic negligence. In my senior seminar, one of my classmates received an F on an assignment for citing an abstract that turned out to be unsupported by the study's data.

[Bootstrap]

It's not really worth my time, because statistics and my backing up those statistics don't actually change anyone's mind when I'm up against an ideology.

This is how you often respond. It's a combination of "look how smart I am, I know more than the scientist" and "no, I shouldn't have to provide the kind of evidence that a scientist would, I just have to accuse you of being biased". Stop playing games, if you have actually found statistical flaws in these studies, show us what they are.

Because to be blunt, I think the research science community knows a whole lot more than the average person boasting on a forum. And we are simply promoting ignorance if we insist that everyone who makes bold emotional claims is therefore a scientist. People are dying as a result.

I could post line after line of formulas, basic equivalencies, and conclusions from those equivalencies, but if the abstract doesn't report the same conclusions, people like you won't care.

Oh, I would. But I haven't seen you do that yet. I don't think you have the level of understanding you claim to. And I wish you would stop pretending, or at least stop insulting people who ask you to provide the level of information you claim to have mastered. All you need to do is provide simple, direct answers.

It's easy to prove me wrong. Provide the analysis you claim to have done. Just like the scientists you criticize have to do.

And really, stop making claims with a link to a study that does not agree with your claims. Or else point out the fact that it disagrees with you, but you have done your own analysis and found it wrong, showing the analysis you did. Without that, you are implying that the study agrees with you. Is that hard to grasp?

[Soloist]

It's not really worth my time, because statistics and my backing up those statistics don't actually change anyone's mind when I'm up against an ideology.

This is how you often respond. It's a combination of "look how smart I am, I know more than the scientist" and "no, I shouldn't have to provide the kind of evidence that a scientist would, I just have to accuse you of being biased". Stop playing games, if you have actually found statistical flaws in these studies, show us what they are.

Because to be blunt, I think the research science community knows a whole lot more than the average person boasting on a forum. And we are simply promoting ignorance if we insist that everyone who makes bold emotional claims is therefore a scientist. People are dying as a result.

I could post line after line of formulas, basic equivalencies, and conclusions from those equivalencies, but if the abstract doesn't report the same conclusions, people like you won't care.

Oh, I would. But I haven't seen you do that yet. I don't think you have the level of understanding you claim to. And I wish you would stop pretending, or at least stop insulting people who ask you to provide the level of information you claim to have mastered. All you need to do is provide simple, direct answers.

It's easy to prove me wrong. Provide the analysis you claim to have done. Just like the scientists you criticize have to do.

And really, stop making claims with a link to a study that does not agree with your claims. Or else point out the fact that it disagrees with you, but you have done your own analysis and found it wrong, showing the analysis you did. Without that, you are implying that the study agrees with you. Is that hard to grasp?

You could just respond with the data again from the other post and see if he fails to respond to you again. Boot, you could respond to the data... then we can not spend so much time arguing about nothing.

[Bootstrap]

No thanks, I did that last time, after being accused of all manner of deceit, your response was

As you did above - thanks for that, I'll take a look at it when I get time.

and I never heard anything further on it.

If you would really like me to, I can go back and respond to that in depth.

[Bootstrap]

You could just respond with the data again from the other post and see if he fails to respond to you again. Boot, you could respond to the data... then we can not spend so much time arguing about nothing.

But isn't that the gambit? Flood the zone so that it's almost impossible to have a simple, direct conversation about what the scientific research has shown. Insist that you know better than the scientists. Insist that you shouldn't have to prove it. Provide links that actually disagree with the point you are making, the flood the zone further when someone points that out.

If we care about basic truthfulness, we shouldn't be so protective of that kind of behavior.

[nett]

You could just respond with the data again from the other post and see if he fails to respond to you again. Boot, you could respond to the data... then we can not spend so much time arguing about nothing.

But isn't that the gambit? Flood the zone so that it's almost impossible to have a simple, direct conversation about what the scientific research has shown. Insist that you know better than the scientists. Insist that you shouldn't have to prove it. Provide links that actually disagree with the point you are making, the flood the zone further when someone points that out.

If we care about basic truthfulness, we shouldn't be so protective of that kind of behavior.

So now I have to provide links that interpret the study? Talk about moving the goalposts.

My own analysis of empirical data is good enough? You don't have to be a epidemiologist to divide numbers, and figure out ratios, or or maybe you do in your mind.

I don't care to argue with you, I posted a detail analysis with all of my formulas, and numbers taken straight out of the study. I also don't care to discuss credentials with you, as that always turns out badly.

[nett]

It's not really worth my time, because statistics and my backing up those statistics don't actually change anyone's mind when I'm up against an ideology.

This is how you often respond. It's a combination of "look how smart I am, I know more than the scientist" and "no, I shouldn't have to provide the kind of evidence that a scientist would, I just have to accuse you of being biased". Stop playing games, if you have actually found statistical flaws in these studies, show us what they are.

Because to be blunt, I think the research science community knows a whole lot more than the average person boasting on a forum. And we are simply promoting ignorance if we insist that everyone who makes bold emotional claims is therefore a scientist. People are dying as a result.

I could post line after line of formulas, basic equivalencies, and conclusions from those equivalencies, but if the abstract doesn't report the same conclusions, people like you won't care.

Oh, I would. But I haven't seen you do that yet. I don't think you have the level of understanding you claim to. And I wish you would stop pretending, or at least stop insulting people who ask you to provide the level of information you claim to have mastered. All you need to do is provide simple, direct answers.

It's easy to prove me wrong. Provide the analysis you claim to have done. Just like the scientists you criticize have to do.

And really, stop making claims with a link to a study that does not agree with your claims. Or else point out the fact that it disagrees with you, but you have done your own analysis and found it wrong, showing the analysis you did. Without that, you are implying that the study agrees with you. Is that hard to grasp?

Since you apparently only believe that abstract conclusions are valid, let's just look at that.

Protection from reinfection decreases with time since previous infection, but is, nevertheless,
higher than that conferred by vaccination with two doses at a similar time since the last
immunity-conferring event

I believe when I made this claim in the past, you and Dan Z both said I was wrong, and again complained that I was citing data from studies but disagreeing with the authors. Are you willing to admit you were wrong, since the abstract conclusions in this empirical study directly states this?