3 ms·
If this is meant to be salient to the current situation e.g. with hydroxychloroquine, I'm afraid it has missed the mark by a long distance. In Bayesian terms, t
by asdfasgasdgasdg 7y ago
If this is meant to be salient to the current situation e.g. with hydroxychloroquine, I'm afraid it has missed the mark by a long distance. In Bayesian terms, the prior for parachutes helping when falling from great heights is extremely strong. It would take extraordinarily strong evidence to dissuade us from the idea that they are effective, given our prior knowledge of physics and the effect of high velocity collisions on the human body. The priors for a particular immunosuppressant being effective against a particular virus are not nearly so strong.
Fortunately, some folks are doing actually high quality research on this right now, so we should have more solid evidence on this topic soon.
- ceejayoz 7y ago> Published 13 December 2018 It probably has nothing to do with the current situation, barring a time machine, which should probably get its own article.
- asdfasgasdgasdg 7y agoI know the published study has nothing to do with the current situation. I'm referring to the motivation for posting/upvoting/commenting on it right now. For context, there is a significant push in the online COVID discussion space for discarding rational methods when evaluating potential COVID treatments. I've seen comments in this direction both here and on Reddit. That's the only reason I brought it up. For anyone just upvoting or discussing this because they thought it was funny or interesting, more power to them.
- ceejayoz 7y agoMy motivation in posting it was that I stumbled across it and found it funny.
- asdfasgasdgasdg 7y agoAwesome! Again, my comment is not directed at any particular person. It's directed at a particular motive. If you don't have that motive, my comment isn't talking about you and you can feel free to ignore it if it doesn't bring value into your life. :)