5 ms·

Not a very useful article.. i cannot read the report as I don't speak the language and the graph shown is so low resolution i can't read it thus there is no evi

Not a very useful article.. i cannot read the report as I don't speak the language and the graph shown is so low resolution i can't read it thus there is no evidence presented that i can agree to with as to what is written jn the article. Can anyone help with this?

badRNG 6y ago
The Spectator is a right wing oped paper that is focused on signal boosting narratives that are in line with a pro-business, anti-regulation position. It's a shame they've decided to take the anti-science route here, as they've been a good paper for a conservative perspective for as long as I've been alive.
- jrfinkel 6y ago
  How is it anti-science when they are literally quoting a report from the Norwegian public health authority: ‘It looks as if the effective reproduction rate had already dropped to around 1.1 when the most comprehensive measures were implemented on 12 March, and that there would not be much to push it down below 1… We have seen in retrospect that the infection was on its way down.’ Are you saying that their public health authority is anti-science?
- bleah1000 6y ago
  Evidence is starting to trickle out that a lot of the lock downs may not have been the best move. Like the 66% of New York City people getting covid at home during the lock down. The problem is that most of the lock downs weren't actually lock downs. They funneled people into a few big stores (where everyone else was). I don't know if the Norway lock down was similar, but if so, that's not a lock down, that's a great way to spread the disease. This is a problem that I see a lot, people attack the source and say, they are terrible people so they must be wrong. That's not how you win an argument, that's how you get your tribesmen to agree with you, and nobody is better off. If you have some science to back up your claims that they are wrong, great. If you have evidence that the paper is playing fast and loose with the numbers, or taking the numbers out of context, or something else great. Right now they appear to have some data to back their claims, so dismissing them out of hand makes it looks like you are the anti-science person.
  - badRNG 6y ago
    This feels somewhat akin to the discussion about whether or not climate change is a hoax. In both cases, the overwhelming majority of experts in each field respectively hold a position about each issue. That's where I defer to their judgment. Then, on the other hand, you have conservative papers, economics journals and cable shows implying or stating that those experts are wrong. Having beliefs that align with the consensus of experts isn't "tribalism" nor is it political just because there is a tribal anti-science perspective. That's a false dichotomy.
jrfinkel 6y ago
You must not be trying very hard. Open the report and zoom in on the graph if you want better resolution. Its pretty clear that the red bars are deaths, the blue bars are cases, and the grey curve is the R0 (range).

badRNG 6y ago

The Spectator is a right wing oped paper that is focused on signal boosting narratives that are in line with a pro-business, anti-regulation position. It's a shame they've decided to take the anti-science route here, as they've been a good paper for a conservative perspective for as long as I've been alive.

jrfinkel 6y ago
How is it anti-science when they are literally quoting a report from the Norwegian public health authority: ‘It looks as if the effective reproduction rate had already dropped to around 1.1 when the most comprehensive measures were implemented on 12 March, and that there would not be much to push it down below 1… We have seen in retrospect that the infection was on its way down.’ Are you saying that their public health authority is anti-science?
bleah1000 6y ago
Evidence is starting to trickle out that a lot of the lock downs may not have been the best move. Like the 66% of New York City people getting covid at home during the lock down. The problem is that most of the lock downs weren't actually lock downs. They funneled people into a few big stores (where everyone else was). I don't know if the Norway lock down was similar, but if so, that's not a lock down, that's a great way to spread the disease. This is a problem that I see a lot, people attack the source and say, they are terrible people so they must be wrong. That's not how you win an argument, that's how you get your tribesmen to agree with you, and nobody is better off. If you have some science to back up your claims that they are wrong, great. If you have evidence that the paper is playing fast and loose with the numbers, or taking the numbers out of context, or something else great. Right now they appear to have some data to back their claims, so dismissing them out of hand makes it looks like you are the anti-science person.
- badRNG 6y ago
  This feels somewhat akin to the discussion about whether or not climate change is a hoax. In both cases, the overwhelming majority of experts in each field respectively hold a position about each issue. That's where I defer to their judgment. Then, on the other hand, you have conservative papers, economics journals and cable shows implying or stating that those experts are wrong. Having beliefs that align with the consensus of experts isn't "tribalism" nor is it political just because there is a tribal anti-science perspective. That's a false dichotomy.

jrfinkel 6y ago

You must not be trying very hard. Open the report and zoom in on the graph if you want better resolution. Its pretty clear that the red bars are deaths, the blue bars are cases, and the grey curve is the R0 (range).