561–570 of 805 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, I would definitely make an effort to explain it to him in ways he could understand. I mean, that's half the job of a professional programmer right there.
Not really, that's the job of a technical writer. The job of a programmer is implementation to spec.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When the same people (and more) that are in the fringe groups try to create a storm of complaint when scientific/medical advice/understanding changes, it's non-trivial for decision-makers to figure out what to say.
Scientific consensus didn't change on masks. It was known very early that they best prevent the spread of Covid. When Western governments lied to get around supply issues, while distracting people with quasi-religious rituals around hand hygiene, they not only caused preventable deaths among populations at risk, they planted the seed for long term education and trust issues. More than a year later westerners still ha…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Now, the GOP has leaned into anti-scientist, anti-elitist sentiments, fed by Fox News and others.. I wouldn't fault them for your view of their broad sentiments on this trend but I think if you went back over the last twenty years, these sentiments were more often aligned for the left-wing. "The real conversation has to be about what solutions we're in favor of." -- Dan Crenshaw, on the Daily Show https://youtu.be/…
The last twenty years gives us a few administrations from which we can asses policy making decisions: Bush; Obama; Trump; and now Biden. Of those four, I don't think it's possible to make a good-faith argument that Obama and Biden administrations have been more anti-science than either Bush's or Trump's. A single sound bite from Dan Crenshaw talking about shifting the focus of conversation towards solutions doesn't r…
I cannot as I'm only learning of this now and reflecting on what I've known from before. Trump directing "the EPA to remove statements about climate change" is largely irrelevant (to me personally) when there are active industries apart from politics that are striving for "greener" technologies.
Take for example the transition from Toyota's hybrid vehicles to Tesla's or, solar array proliferation seen from Google Maps timeline.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I changed my mind. I was making pro-Ivermectin comments just yesterday. This is the first serious anti-Ivermectin argument I've seen.
>Ivermectin doesn’t reduce mortality in COVID a significant amount (let’s say d > 0.3) in the absence of comorbid parasites: 85-90% confidence That simply armchair science blogging psychiatrist's hypothesis. He even admits as much, >But this theory feels right to me. It feels right to me because it’s the most troll-ish possible solution. Everybody was wrong! None of the studies looked at worms. It is correlation == c…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
WHO has no other option than being inaccurate. Society needs a simple answer. Do this. Do that etc. Put on a mask. Wash your hands. Practice social distancing. Use approved vaccines. Take booster shots etc are pretty simple to follow. Likewise don't take non approved stuff. Easy to understand and simple to follow. Nuances will likely hurt and confuse the common man. That's why the news and celebs and politicians etc…
> Likewise CNN made fun of Joe Rogan for taking Ivermectin because we don't want general public to experiment with alternative medicine. It's better to just stick to the proven stuff. Ivermectin is not alternative medicine. Ivermectin used for COVID symptoms is off-label use. CNN made fun of him because he dared stray from the official narrative and he dared try doing something through his own research rather than do…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
no they don't. They just need to be honest about what they do know and what they don't and don't assert something is true when it's "we're not sure". Just do zero-order thinking. Don't patronize the public. Guess what. If you don't trust the public. Why should the public trust you?
The public has been taught by people who don't do science that knowledge and truth are supposed to be immutable. When faced with scientists who acknowledge that their understanding and advice is contingent, the public as a statistical entity says "WTF?" and chooses not to trust.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> is both reasonable and moderately convincing No it isn't, it's full of obvious fraud! That's what the entire rest of the article points out. And they put an unwarranted warning against one of the few non-fraudulent studies because it doesn't go their way: [re: Lopez-Medina et al] > "I’m making a big deal of this because ivmmeta.com - the really impressive meta-analysis site I’ve been going off of - puts a special w…
> "full of obvious fraud" That's a pretty sensational claim. Who benefits from this fraud? The ivermectin manufacturers, researchers receiving funding from pharmaceutical company or the government, or the ivmmeta.com website itself (I see no third party ads or assets at all -- not even GA)? Meanwhile, back at the Pfizer ranch, they just bought a few small countries for cash.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
no they don't. They just need to be honest about what they do know and what they don't and don't assert something is true when it's "we're not sure". Just do zero-order thinking. Don't patronize the public. Guess what. If you don't trust the public. Why should the public trust you?
The public has been taught by people who don't do science that knowledge and truth are supposed to be immutable. When faced with scientists who acknowledge that their understanding and advice is contingent, the public as a statistical entity says "WTF?" and chooses not to trust.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am a doc. I am also a medical researcher, but you (and most other people here) _have_ to realize that the vast majority of practicing MDs are _not_ scientists, and understand almost nothing when reading medical studies. And that's fine, because it's not their job. The profession is bound by guidelines and expert opinion. Experts do research, formulate guidelines, and guidelines get applied by practitioners. And no,…
As someone who is actually an expert in a subfield of medicine, not only do doctors not understand it at all, but the experts making guidelines often recommend the exact opposite of what is the best treatment for the patient, usually for liability reasons, but occasionally for true lack of understanding. The quality of research is so poor that often times there are more flawed studies showing X than proper studies wh…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The real story (in my opinion) behind Ivermectin are the studies not being conducted. Here you have a ton of studies claiming to have found benefit with a worldwide, massively available drug that has practically zero risks for most people (and it's an extremely well understood drug) and we don't have first world countries conducting RCTs to understand it better. First world countries are in the process of conductin…
> The thing to learn here is that there's no conspiracy, trials are underway, and science is already working properly. Thank God! I was worried it may be a nuanced situation full of brazen conflicts of interest.