4 ms·
A bigger problem on HN these days is the highbrow lowbrow dismissal, wherein people come up with fancy-sounding reasons for rejecting comments, that are actuall
by irq11 6y ago
A bigger problem on HN these days is the highbrow lowbrow dismissal, wherein people come up with fancy-sounding reasons for rejecting comments, that are actually themselves lazy/incorrect arguments.
For example: when the paper itself says that the cognitive declines seen in people who don’t spend time hospitalized are a small fraction of the magnitude of the cognitive declines seen in hospitalized patients (Figures 2, 3; in some cases a cognitive benefit is seen in mild cases), yet a comment observing that the effects are confined to a small population is dismissed for the reason that “professional medical researchers would have thought of that”.
- rfrey 6y agoI was specifically referring to the claim the effects were probably due to sedation, etc. , not the observation that the study was of hospitalized cases.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- irq11 6y agoSo? The OP observed that the most severe effects were in a very small population of hospitalized patients. You fixated on a (plausible) hypothesis made that this could be due to sedation, and used it to reject the entire argument, even though the OP’s point is right, and your argument is a lowbrow dismissal that “experts would have thought of it”. By the way: as far as I can tell, the paper doesn’t discuss this issue anywhere.
- rfrey 6y agoGiven that nearly every one of your comments over the last 8 months had to do with denying Covid is an issue, claiming it is milder than the flu, or claiming that statistics about Covid are inflated and/or fabricated, I'd say the fervor of your response falls under the descriptor of "it’s generally a dismissal of something that disagrees with the reader’s bias".
- irq11 6y agoSo, your only response is to make an insult based on my comment history. What a compelling, “high brow” response.