301–310 of 337 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>If this is true, why is it when showing a chart of data it is almost impossible to pick when any of these measures went into effect? Quite exactly the opposite is actually true: it's always very clear from such charts that the measures are very effective. Some examples: https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/phac-aspc/images/corporate... https://www.nejm.org/na101/home/literatum/publisher/mms/jour... https://coronavirus.…
Correlation does not equal causation. And of course studies done by people with a vested interest in proving all this worked will say this worked. You’d be hard pressed to find studies that say none of this worked. Such researchers would destroy their careers and be labeled as kooks.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>If this is true, why is it when showing a chart of data it is almost impossible to pick when any of these measures went into effect? Quite exactly the opposite is actually true: it's always very clear from such charts that the measures are very effective. Some examples: https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/phac-aspc/images/corporate... https://www.nejm.org/na101/home/literatum/publisher/mms/jour... https://coronavirus.…
It's not nearly as straightforward as you're pointing out because people voluntarily change their behaviour in response to circumstances, like case numbers, deaths, etc. Your big assumption is that top-down policies/controls are the biggest factor causing delayed change in numbers, but that isn't at all clear from the data alone.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>The grim reality is that there hasn't been a single policy that's been shown to have made any difference at all. NONE. BULLSHIT. How delusional can you be? There is plenty of evidence that masks and contact reduction in various forms have a massive effect on how quickly the virus spreads. Infection numbers and their development over time varied wildly between countries, clearly correlated with such measures, long be…
Show me. Let’s go. Show me. Skip the tough guy talk and connect the dots. Go. See, if it was so blindingly obvious people like you wouldn’t scream indiscriminately, you’d just give us your mathematical proof and we’d all agree because it wouldn’t be disputable. But that data doesn’t exist, there isn’t even faint circumstantial evidence, so we get yelling and swearing instead. Look, if I claimed the sun rises in the w…
Let's turn the tables: if you claim that contact reduction measures and mask mandates don't work, show me the evidence. Show me a place where they were implemented, and there was no effect on case numbers after 2 to 4 weeks. Go. I'm waiting.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
o micron literally means "small o" and o mega literally means "big o", but those computer scientists, when they use "big O notation" they write it with an O. Omega is sad :(
Is that how it's pronounce? Letter O + micron like size? My first read was ohm eh cron, like the job
Omicron = o + mikron = small o Omega = o + mega = big o
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>The grim reality is that there hasn't been a single policy that's been shown to have made any difference at all. NONE. BULLSHIT. How delusional can you be? There is plenty of evidence that masks and contact reduction in various forms have a massive effect on how quickly the virus spreads. Infection numbers and their development over time varied wildly between countries, clearly correlated with such measures, long be…
> BULLSHIT. How delusional can you be? The comment you responded to asked for an honest, intellectual response but your response was reactionary, rude, and provided no insight. The links you supplied in your other comment do not show a clear causal effect of mandates and restrictions on case rates. Outbreaks are known to follow a pretty clear 45 day cycle; the onset of restrictions usually occur as rates are exponent…
They do. It's not mathematically-clean, but that is just not what you get in a messy reality.
>Outbreaks are known to follow a pretty clear 45 day cycle; the onset of restrictions usually occur as rates are exponentially increasing and theres no evidence that such restrictions taper infections to a degree discernible from the normal cycle.
What is the mechanism behind this cycle that you claim? How do you conclude that it's not the typical beaurocratic reaction time to rising case numbers and implementation of restrictions that cause the cycle?
We know how the virus spreads. How contact reduction and masks prevent that is simple enough for a preschooler to understand. We have strong empirical evidence that it works at scale. Claiming anything else is simply reality denial.
>Furthermore, observational evidence from states like Florida, a state that has zero restrictions or mandates and yet currently has the lowest case rate in the United States, make the idea that such measures have a “massive effect” on spread dubious at best.
How so? How can development in a state that has no restrictions prove anything at all about how effective they are?
At most, the example can prove that there are other things that can reduce case numbers. I never said there weren't. Now go and tell me what they are, how they work, and how they can be transferred elsewhere. Because if the answer turns out to be "warm climate" that is not very useful.
It's totally worth looking at. But not as a diversion to avoid doing things we know to work at preventing hundreds of deaths every day.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
His argument is fallacious. He's saying that since there all other variants we're susceptible to the vaccine, it's unlikely that this one is. ...and goes on to list the high number of different markers the vaccines target. Unfortunately, vaccines largely target the spike proteins, and sequencing of omicron is demonstrating that every single protein marker on the spike is changed. Vaccines will likely have a very smal…
We also don't know what the mortality rate is. Suppose it has 100% vaccine escape but 0% mortality. Would it be "BAD"?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
100 days + XXX days for the new approval of the vaccine.
Yes. Although variations on the vaccine require less approval than a totally new one. This process takes place every year for flu vaccines.
Twitter thread from a vaccine developer: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1464222680731820043.html A lot of speculation still, but it's not all bad so far.
His argument is fallacious. He's saying that since there all other variants we're susceptible to the vaccine, it's unlikely that this one is. ...and goes on to list the high number of different markers the vaccines target. Unfortunately, vaccines largely target the spike proteins, and sequencing of omicron is demonstrating that every single protein marker on the spike is changed. Vaccines will likely have a very smal…