4 ms·

The article is a summary of research findings over the course of the pandemic. What makes you think the research is happening in a silo? it's not. Medical resea

by rpearl 6y ago

The article is a summary of research findings over the course of the pandemic. What makes you think the research is happening in a silo? it's not. Medical researchers, just like, uh, that guy you saw on YouTube, are quite capable of reading the research on nih.gov and capable of discussing and sharing findings with each other. The article even says "By June, clinicians were swapping journal papers, news stories, and tweets describing more than three dozen ways that COVID-19, the disease the coronavirus causes, appears to manifest itself."

LinuxBender 6y ago
I see each group reaching the same or similar conclusions, but months apart. This suggest to me they are not collaborating with one another. It feels to me like there is a gap. Think of it this way. If there were a giant asteroid heading towards earth and we have a limited time to solve this problem, would I want 500 teams all operating by themselves and using the incredibly slow process of sharing data via NIH / NIST and other research paper repositories, or would I want them all in a war room (virtual or physical) and someone coordinating the effort to risk rank all the solutions and quickly form action plans? My vote is the latter. It feels like the scientific community may have artificially painted themselves into a corner because of something like the banana ladder conundrum. [1] meaning, doing it that way because that is the way it has always been done. [1] - https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/33470/what-technical-reasons-are-there-to-have-low-maximum-password-lengths/33471#33471 https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/33470/what-tech...
- b1ur 6y ago
  Peer review is the heart and soul of scientific research. I do think there is room to speed up collaboration, but we should not compromise the rigidity of the scientific method, especially with as many unknowns as with the current coronavirus, establishing definite knowns is very valuable.
- rpearl 6y ago
  they're not _independently_ reaching similar conclusions months apart, they're strengthening (and writing about) the same conclusion from the same and more data.
- graeme 6y ago
  This is a summary article. Those clinicians reached their conclusions months ago.
- bart_spoon 6y ago
  I think the issue here is less that they are arriving at the same conclusion months apart, and more that the reporting makes it sound like a sudden, recent revelation rather than a consensus that has been building for months and months.

by rpearl 6y ago

LinuxBender 6y ago

I see each group reaching the same or similar conclusions, but months apart. This suggest to me they are not collaborating with one another. It feels to me like there is a gap. Think of it this way. If there were a giant asteroid heading towards earth and we have a limited time to solve this problem, would I want 500 teams all operating by themselves and using the incredibly slow process of sharing data via NIH / NIST and other research paper repositories, or would I want them all in a war room (virtual or physical) and someone coordinating the effort to risk rank all the solutions and quickly form action plans? My vote is the latter. It feels like the scientific community may have artificially painted themselves into a corner because of something like the banana ladder conundrum. [1] meaning, doing it that way because that is the way it has always been done. [1] - https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/33470/what-technical-reasons-are-there-to-have-low-maximum-password-lengths/33471#33471 https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/33470/what-tech...

b1ur 6y ago
Peer review is the heart and soul of scientific research. I do think there is room to speed up collaboration, but we should not compromise the rigidity of the scientific method, especially with as many unknowns as with the current coronavirus, establishing definite knowns is very valuable.
rpearl 6y ago
they're not _independently_ reaching similar conclusions months apart, they're strengthening (and writing about) the same conclusion from the same and more data.
graeme 6y ago
This is a summary article. Those clinicians reached their conclusions months ago.
bart_spoon 6y ago
I think the issue here is less that they are arriving at the same conclusion months apart, and more that the reporting makes it sound like a sudden, recent revelation rather than a consensus that has been building for months and months.