4 ms·

Reading that article left me worried. It's not very factual, it has many errorneous statements, and, honestly, it looks like propaganda. Seems to me like Natur

Reading that article left me worried. It's not very factual, it has many errorneous statements, and, honestly, it looks like propaganda. Seems to me like Nature is not worried about losing credability.

rich_sasha 6y ago
+1. Had they limited themselves to the critique of Trump, it would be fine. But they actually take the step forward and bathe Biden in glory. He may be a good guy, all I know is he isn't Trump, and says some of the right things, ahead of an election. This could translate to absolutely anything.
- dekhn 6y ago
  Biden has been a politician for decades. It's not hard to figure out what Biden is.
  - rich_sasha 6y ago
    It's very different once you get the top job. And Nature, as a scientific publication, shouldn't be in the business of predicting that.
    - dekhn 6y ago
      Politicians don't suddenly change when they're elected president (it's not like the powers of the president would really permit that, either). Nature, as a scientific publication, is probably one of the best at predicting that, given it's run by scientists, who have deep history in analyzing how policy decisions affect science.
  - stefantalpalaru 6y ago
    > It's not hard to figure out what Biden is. You're right. Biden is the warmonger who pushed an approval for the invasion of Iraq through the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, back in 2002: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhcuei8_UJM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhcuei8_UJM Meanwhile, Trump is the war-shy buffoon who failed to deliver a single new war to the military-industrial complex. No wonder he has to go. War is good for business (and research grants).
jensgk 6y ago
> it has many errorneous statements Do you have any examples?
- mikelothar 6y ago
  For an organization who one would think care deeply about science, I'd say statements like this is problematic. "With the nation’s death toll now exceeding 215,000, the coronavirus has killed more people in the United States than anywhere else." It's problematic because it's not very clear how this number has been calculated. CDC themselves say this about their own number: "For 6% of the deaths, COVID-19 was the only cause mentioned. For deaths with conditions or causes in addition to COVID-19, on average, there were 2.6 additional conditions or causes per death." Also, from the same page: "When COVID-19 is reported as a cause of death – or when it is listed as a “probable” or “presumed” cause — the death is coded as U07.1. This can include cases with or without laboratory confirmation." https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm So, 94% had other additional conditions (including heart disease, diabetes, and sepsis). And even then, not all cases had been confirmed/ It seems to me like 215,000 (probably/presumably) died _with_ COVID-19, but not necessarily from it. In some countries in Europe, including the UK and some Scandinavian countries (I haven't been able to find the method for US), the number of deaths are counted in the following way: "Deaths = the statistics on fatalities include deaths recorded within 30 days of the detection of COVID-19 infection in the individual. However, COVID-19 is not necessarily the cause of death." https://www.sst.dk/en/English/Corona-eng/Status-of-the-epidemic/COVID-19-updates-Statistics-and-charts https://www.sst.dk/en/English/Corona-eng/Status-of-the-epide... I believe this number was previously 90 days, but in my opinion, it's not a very scientific way to calculate the severity of COVID-19. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying nobody dies from COVID-19. Even numbers from Europe shows this clearly: https://www.euromomo.eu/graphs-and-maps https://www.euromomo.eu/graphs-and-maps But when Nature is using the number 215,000 in the way they did, it does not look very credible. Take a look at the whole statement: "With the nation’s death toll now exceeding 215,000, the coronavirus has killed more people in the United States than anywhere else. Even adjusting for population size, the country has fared spectacularly badly. Despite having vast scientific and monetary resources at his disposal, Trump failed catastrophically when it mattered most." To me that looks more like it's driven by Orange Man Bad, than by science.

rich_sasha 6y ago

+1. Had they limited themselves to the critique of Trump, it would be fine. But they actually take the step forward and bathe Biden in glory. He may be a good guy, all I know is he isn't Trump, and says some of the right things, ahead of an election. This could translate to absolutely anything.

dekhn 6y ago
Biden has been a politician for decades. It's not hard to figure out what Biden is.
- rich_sasha 6y ago
  It's very different once you get the top job. And Nature, as a scientific publication, shouldn't be in the business of predicting that.
  - dekhn 6y ago
    Politicians don't suddenly change when they're elected president (it's not like the powers of the president would really permit that, either). Nature, as a scientific publication, is probably one of the best at predicting that, given it's run by scientists, who have deep history in analyzing how policy decisions affect science.
- stefantalpalaru 6y ago
  > It's not hard to figure out what Biden is. You're right. Biden is the warmonger who pushed an approval for the invasion of Iraq through the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, back in 2002: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhcuei8_UJM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhcuei8_UJM Meanwhile, Trump is the war-shy buffoon who failed to deliver a single new war to the military-industrial complex. No wonder he has to go. War is good for business (and research grants).

jensgk 6y ago

> it has many errorneous statements Do you have any examples?

mikelothar 6y ago
For an organization who one would think care deeply about science, I'd say statements like this is problematic. "With the nation’s death toll now exceeding 215,000, the coronavirus has killed more people in the United States than anywhere else." It's problematic because it's not very clear how this number has been calculated. CDC themselves say this about their own number: "For 6% of the deaths, COVID-19 was the only cause mentioned. For deaths with conditions or causes in addition to COVID-19, on average, there were 2.6 additional conditions or causes per death." Also, from the same page: "When COVID-19 is reported as a cause of death – or when it is listed as a “probable” or “presumed” cause — the death is coded as U07.1. This can include cases with or without laboratory confirmation." https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm So, 94% had other additional conditions (including heart disease, diabetes, and sepsis). And even then, not all cases had been confirmed/ It seems to me like 215,000 (probably/presumably) died _with_ COVID-19, but not necessarily from it. In some countries in Europe, including the UK and some Scandinavian countries (I haven't been able to find the method for US), the number of deaths are counted in the following way: "Deaths = the statistics on fatalities include deaths recorded within 30 days of the detection of COVID-19 infection in the individual. However, COVID-19 is not necessarily the cause of death." https://www.sst.dk/en/English/Corona-eng/Status-of-the-epidemic/COVID-19-updates-Statistics-and-charts https://www.sst.dk/en/English/Corona-eng/Status-of-the-epide... I believe this number was previously 90 days, but in my opinion, it's not a very scientific way to calculate the severity of COVID-19. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying nobody dies from COVID-19. Even numbers from Europe shows this clearly: https://www.euromomo.eu/graphs-and-maps https://www.euromomo.eu/graphs-and-maps But when Nature is using the number 215,000 in the way they did, it does not look very credible. Take a look at the whole statement: "With the nation’s death toll now exceeding 215,000, the coronavirus has killed more people in the United States than anywhere else. Even adjusting for population size, the country has fared spectacularly badly. Despite having vast scientific and monetary resources at his disposal, Trump failed catastrophically when it mattered most." To me that looks more like it's driven by Orange Man Bad, than by science.