311–320 of 341 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Almost everyone was pretty wrong about COVID, at least at some points in time. But it's very rare for anyone to admit it. I'll admit I was wrong, between sanitizing my hands when it was really in the air, to assuming the vaccines would end it. Lots of mistakes on my end!
Sanitizing your hands, that must really haunt you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Doctors depend on the free exchange of information to help their patients. It is one of the pathways that medicine advances. Covid was managed in a top down, hierarchical mode. Doctors who questioned it were threatened and punished by medical boards, some lost their licenses. Had a non-vaccine treatment for covid been discovered via clinical practice it would have destroyed the EUA for the covid vaccine, i.e. that's…
Like most conspiracy theories, you've managed to construct a hypothesis that is impossible to disprove. My favorite part is how the western pharmaceutical companies were able to convince the CCP to suppress non-vaccine treatments. But that's as far as they could go. They weren't able to convince China to allow them to actually sell their vaccines there.
A myriad of psychological experiments, e.g. Milgram, show that people are easily influenced to do unethical things if the incentives are set right and an acceptable rationalization is provided.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You seem to have lived through a different pandemic than the rest of the world. It's hard to say the GBD was wrong when Sweden didn't lock down and they weren't exactly seeing bodies pile up in the street. Covid is now here to stay, ranking somewhere in severity between the common cold, flu or pneumonia.
I think the severity of long Covid might be more debilitating as it is my understanding that the long-term consequences of pneumonia is not as long lasting. I've not known of people that have had to change their whole way of life, and possibly their career, because of pneumonia or flu but have met a few that have had to do so as a consequence of long Covid.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you find any recent dictionary with your definition, or modern printed example of the word used in this way? Etymonline cites a 1640s dictionary with the present-day definition: https://www.etymonline.com/word/arbitrary
> Can you find any recent dictionary with your definition, or modern printed example of the word used in this way? sure, https://www.wordnik.com/words/arbitrary : "Based on or subject to individual judgment or preference." is the second definition on the page. You clearly didn't even bother googling. Regardless, I'd argue that arbitrary as distinct from "random" only has one definition—the one where judgement, choice…
"The judge is giving out random sentences" means the judge is rolling a die or something, literally randomizing each sentence.
"The judge is giving out arbitrary sentences" means the judge is sentencing based on how they feel in morning, or the opinion of the last person they talked to. The decisions are not random, but they aren't based on any coherent set of rules or logical framework. The judge could have made a different decision and it would have made just as much (or just as little) sense.
Another common usage is calling something an "arbitrary distinction". For example, skyscrapers are often defined as buildings that are at least 100 meters tall. That is an arbitrary distinction, in that there is no significant difference between a 99 meter and 101 meter building. It's obviously not random, it was picked because 100 is a nice round number, but when we say it's arbitrary that means we could have drawn the line at any other number and it would have worked fine. In fact, some people define skyscrapers as being at least 150 meters tall, and there is no logical reason that either of these number are better. They are both arbitrary, and saying that "your 23-story building is a high-rise but my 24-story building is a skyscraper" is making an arbitrary distinction.
So back to Nate Silver's quote:
> I don’t think it’s quite right to say these decisions are arbitrary. Ideally they’ll reflect a statistician’s judgment, experience and familiarity with the subject matter.
If these decisions were arbitrary, that would mean the statistician isn't making educated choices. They're thinking "I just saw a cool article on this regression technique, let me try that", or "my favorite programming language is good at X technique", or "I've been wanting to practice Y technique". When asked why they made a particular decision, the statistician might not have a logical explanation.
If the decisions are not arbitrary, that would mean that other statisticians are likely to agree with the decision, or at least understand the logic behind it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am a little frustrated over an apparent lack of curiosity around mask effectiveness. * If you think they're an effective measure for the public in general (which is probably closest to my position), then the variation in studies seems like it should still give you pause because it seems like the way mandates and messaging are implemented could undermine the usefulness. * If you think they're effective in individual…
what variability? AFAIK in controlled studies masks work (as in when you actually test things in a lab rather than looking at population statistics), are more effective when both people in the room are wearing them, we know the size of particle they filter and we know the viruses are bigger than that. there's 0 doubt at this point they do what they are supposed to do.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Like most conspiracy theories, you've managed to construct a hypothesis that is impossible to disprove. My favorite part is how the western pharmaceutical companies were able to convince the CCP to suppress non-vaccine treatments. But that's as far as they could go. They weren't able to convince China to allow them to actually sell their vaccines there.
Like many corruption deniers you assume everyone is basically good and that the insiders don't rig the game, because... no reason given. A myriad of psychological experiments, e.g. Milgram, show that people are easily influenced to do unethical things if the incentives are set right and an acceptable rationalization is provided.
This fact is incidentally how I proved that moon landing was faked and that 911 was a hoax designed by the Bush administration. Very encouraging to see great ideas being recycled.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My brother has it. Persistently elevated heart rate and breathing issues, to the point that walking up a flight of stairs would leave him winded when he was suffering the worst. I believe he's gotten a bit better since, but not fully recovered. His resting heart rate is up 20bpm, and it can take 10-15 minutes after exerting himself for it to return to that new normal. He's almost certainly at risk for a stroke due to…
I'm not saying it doesn't exist, I'm saying it's a lot, lot rarer than the COVID alarmists seem to think. People also get post viral fatigue from other virii.
There are certainly post viral complications like ards but we already have names for those things.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Almost everyone was pretty wrong about COVID, at least at some points in time. But it's very rare for anyone to admit it. I'll admit I was wrong, between sanitizing my hands when it was really in the air, to assuming the vaccines would end it. Lots of mistakes on my end!
This "everybody was wrong" and "whoopsie!" self-absolution is some of the ugliest and most hypocritical parts of the entire Covid phenomenon. No -- plenty of people were ardently against lockdowns, vaccine mandates, and school shutdowns, but all kinds of pundits and self-selected rule enforcers loudly lambasted and insulted them endlessly. Many, many lives were permanently affected in multiple, very negative ways, wi…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> we know the size of particle they filter and we know the viruses are bigger than that. If we're talking cloth masks as most people are, the viruses are actually way smaller.
Do viruses float freely in the air, or are they mostly in aerosolized bodily fluids when from an infected persons coughs and sneezes? Cloth masks are great at trapping those and greatly reducing the "muzzle velocity" of droplets that do escape.
Test 1, spray from 2 feet. Of course the paper was soaked.
Test 2, a cloth mask placed on the paper. It gets damp, especially if left in place.
Test 3, a cloth mask over the spray bottle. The mask blocks almost all of the spray.
We did not bother with test 4 (2 masks) after the 3rd, but I think they understood the point.
We did retry 3 with a medical mask, with 0 spray through.