4 ms·

OK, here's a peer reviewed paper for you, from the International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0924857920

OK, here's a peer reviewed paper for you, from the International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0924857920300972 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S092485792... In OECD countries. the mortality rate for SARS-CoV-2 (1.3%) is not significantly different from that for common coronaviruses identified in public hospitals of Marseille, France (0.8%; P=0.11). The problem of SARS-CoV-2 is probably overestimated, as 2.6 million people die of respiratory infections each year compared with less than 4000 deaths for SARS-CoV-2 at the time of writing. So this paper agrees with the ones in the page you cited as nonsense. Will you now do an about-face and demand Twitter erase tweets by public scientists demanding mass lockdowns? Peer review is no panacea. It can rapidly become a circular argument - someone is an expert because some experts say they're an expert. OK, who says those people are experts? Ah, the first set of people we're trying to evaluate. Peer review lets all sorts of rubbish slip through because the peers doing the reviewing aren't usefully different to the people being reviewed (same background, same education, same social circles, same incentives structure). But it can be great at shutting down outside voices and reinforcing groupthink. When there's expert disagreement about something important, there's typically no substitute for just letting people wade in there and form their own opinions. Twitter (of all companies!) is nowhere near intelligent enough a group of people to resolve every controversy in every field of study in the world, indeed the fact that they're even trying suggests serious deficiencies of institutional analysis!

kazinator 7y ago
The simple fact is that the paper is outdated. A lot of sensible people were thinking along the same lines around that time. That was published before the WHO even declared COVID-19 a pandemic. "The problem of SARS-CoV-2 is probably overestimated" means that it might not be, and there is even a slim chance it could even be underestimated.
- thu2111 7y ago
  Outdated? It was published on the 19th March, the data is from the 2nd of March. The virus hasn't changed since then. Look, you keep moving the goalposts. First you were sure Twitter should take down links to the page because it was "nonsense". Your own hot take on Coronaviruses was so vastly superior you were convinced censorship was justified. After it was pointed out you were arguing with medical professionals and researchers, your position became "experts are only experts if peer reviewed". That's clearly wrong but whatever. After you were given a bunch of medical professionals and researchers who were peer reviewed and saying the exact same thing, now you write them off because their paper is a few weeks old? Peer review fundamentally introduces latency, so you've set up a Kafka-esque "heads I win, tails you lose" situation there. Either you're not peer reviewed and thus not an expert, or you are and thus your paper is outdated. Come on, knock it off. You've gone full Orwell in the space of about 3 posts - under your preferred regime there'd be literally no way anyone could ever speak if they disagreed with you regardless of who they were or their background. You'd just constantly redefine "expert" to exclude them. This thread is a textbook example of why platforms should not be censoring information on COVID-19 under any circumstances.
  - kazinator 7y ago
    Yes, predictions made from March 2 data about the COVID-19 are objectively outdated, because it's a rapidly changing situation. By March 2, 4000 died around the world. Today, more than 1200 residents of just Queens, New York have died. Lots of leaders around the world made the wrong guess with overly optimistic thinking, like what is in that paper. > Look, you keep moving the goalposts. Based on the March 2 view of the situation, what it says is not without justification. The paper doesn't claim to be asserting unvarnished truths. It makes some forward looking statements that are in the rational range, based on what was known. The arguments in that paper do not hold today; it is not appropriate to wield that paper due to its connection to expertise. It's like referring to last month's weather forecasts in the middle of a hurricane.
    - thu2111 7y ago
      So, I don't agree at all that the paper is wrong. The results are about the virus itself, which would scale up. You seem to be arguing their data was totally wrong but haven't explained why, other than it's a month old, although the virus had been around for three months by then. But the core argument here isn't actually about the virus. It's epistemological. You have been arguing for censorship on an exceptionally weak basis and haven't acknowledged that. Every criteria you've put forward for deciding what experts should be allowed to speak is invalid or unusable. That's more relevant than this specific paper, which was simply an example to disprove your position.
      - kazinator 7y ago
        I don't agree with censorship (of which a private sector site deleting some article or post is not an example, by the way). The example paper should continue to be available. In fact, it is important that it be available; it has historical interest going forward. > Every criteria you've put forward for deciding what experts should be allowed to speak is invalid or unusable. That's hardly the case.

kazinator 7y ago

The simple fact is that the paper is outdated. A lot of sensible people were thinking along the same lines around that time. That was published before the WHO even declared COVID-19 a pandemic. "The problem of SARS-CoV-2 is probably overestimated" means that it might not be, and there is even a slim chance it could even be underestimated.

thu2111 7y ago
Outdated? It was published on the 19th March, the data is from the 2nd of March. The virus hasn't changed since then. Look, you keep moving the goalposts. First you were sure Twitter should take down links to the page because it was "nonsense". Your own hot take on Coronaviruses was so vastly superior you were convinced censorship was justified. After it was pointed out you were arguing with medical professionals and researchers, your position became "experts are only experts if peer reviewed". That's clearly wrong but whatever. After you were given a bunch of medical professionals and researchers who were peer reviewed and saying the exact same thing, now you write them off because their paper is a few weeks old? Peer review fundamentally introduces latency, so you've set up a Kafka-esque "heads I win, tails you lose" situation there. Either you're not peer reviewed and thus not an expert, or you are and thus your paper is outdated. Come on, knock it off. You've gone full Orwell in the space of about 3 posts - under your preferred regime there'd be literally no way anyone could ever speak if they disagreed with you regardless of who they were or their background. You'd just constantly redefine "expert" to exclude them. This thread is a textbook example of why platforms should not be censoring information on COVID-19 under any circumstances.
- kazinator 7y ago
  Yes, predictions made from March 2 data about the COVID-19 are objectively outdated, because it's a rapidly changing situation. By March 2, 4000 died around the world. Today, more than 1200 residents of just Queens, New York have died. Lots of leaders around the world made the wrong guess with overly optimistic thinking, like what is in that paper. > Look, you keep moving the goalposts. Based on the March 2 view of the situation, what it says is not without justification. The paper doesn't claim to be asserting unvarnished truths. It makes some forward looking statements that are in the rational range, based on what was known. The arguments in that paper do not hold today; it is not appropriate to wield that paper due to its connection to expertise. It's like referring to last month's weather forecasts in the middle of a hurricane.
  - thu2111 7y ago
    So, I don't agree at all that the paper is wrong. The results are about the virus itself, which would scale up. You seem to be arguing their data was totally wrong but haven't explained why, other than it's a month old, although the virus had been around for three months by then. But the core argument here isn't actually about the virus. It's epistemological. You have been arguing for censorship on an exceptionally weak basis and haven't acknowledged that. Every criteria you've put forward for deciding what experts should be allowed to speak is invalid or unusable. That's more relevant than this specific paper, which was simply an example to disprove your position.
    - kazinator 7y ago
      I don't agree with censorship (of which a private sector site deleting some article or post is not an example, by the way). The example paper should continue to be available. In fact, it is important that it be available; it has historical interest going forward. > Every criteria you've put forward for deciding what experts should be allowed to speak is invalid or unusable. That's hardly the case.