3 ms·

I’m sorry, don’t want to ban other (especially qualified) viewpoints just because they are “likely wrong”. To his point and yours, how does this compare to nor

I’m sorry, don’t want to ban other (especially qualified) viewpoints just because they are “likely wrong”. To his point and yours, how does this compare to normal flu? I don’t know, I don’t see that example in your data. The problem as this highly qualified individual states it, is that they’re looking for a diagnosis and are changing the number of times amplification of the dna occurs over time. Am I sure of his claims, no. But either way, I appreciate hearing both view points. Having minored in bioengineering in school I can understand both arguments and make the determination myself... provided I have the info.

spion 6y ago
I don't think bans are the answer, but see my other comment about how social networks end up generating the perfect bullshit and make it hard for scientists to go back on their theory and to realize whether they're wrong or not. Bans don't solve the issue. We have to invent better social networks, where scientists can be free to theorize and be connected with their peers, without getting false awards (retweets, likes). In general as humanity we also need to be more aware of the nature of social networks and how they don't always elevate the best content. As for credentials, you have to realize that the mechanics of social networks are very good at finding and amplifying the few individuals with credentials that have something wrong (but interesting) to say. What you don't get to hear about are the dozens of reviews of that theory, also by experts, that show how its wrong. Because thats just not interesting for a retweet, and its kind of a downer, too.
- lettergram 6y ago
  I’m fully aware, I actually built something that quantifies what other experts think of your opinion. It’s called InsiderOpinion (insideropinion.com). That being said, the reality is that social media has over stepped as late. I’m literally being forced to “thedonald.win” or some other sh to find broadened perspectives. Perhaps some insight as to why people have trouble believing scientists at the moment... they told everyone “masks and gloves don’t work” (to keep supply for essential workers) then told everyone “make your own masks” (btw studies going back to the early 1900s says masks will work if it’s droplet based) we also now have evidence masks don’t work. We knew this would be the case because back in January and February they confirmed it was airborne. Multiple studies since confirmed this. Basically the virus can survive in the air and our cloth masks aren’t good enough. Part of Biden’s transition team said that on Joe rogan’s podcast in March. Then we had the whole “don’t go into crowds” followed by “oh protests are for a good cause, so it’s okay” and stuff like that. The reality is that the public shouldn’t trust what they are being told. Literally everything has been a lie thus far.
  - spion 6y ago
    I can't resist correcting some of that, sorry! :) * WHO recommended that sick people wear (surgical) masks since February at home to reduce the chances of spreading the virus in the household - if they can't fully isolate. (You can check this using archive.org - I don't have the link readily at hand, unfortunately) * Yes, PPE was a concern but also it was thought that there is no spread without symptoms initially. Which was the main reason why masks were not recommended for the wider population: * non-respirators don't really *protect* the wearer * respirators like N95 do but PPE is in short suply * if you have symptoms, wearing a mask helps, sure, but best to fully isolate as much as possible. * Opinion largely changed due to incoming evidence of presymptomatic spread - and yes, some campaigning by various groups like masks4all. I'm sure there were some people and groups that connected the PPE and "masks don't work and thats why they are not recommended" but it was certainly not a blatant lie - it was really thought they wouldn't help and isolation for the infected is much better. With presymptomatic (and therefore possibly asymptomatic) spread and the realization of millions infected everywhere, everyone wearing masks became a viable option. Aerosols are a whole other topic I won't get into (and I don't really have the expertise for it either!) but suffice to say from my understanding its not really as simple as "works" / "doesn't work". Yes there is a problem with science failing us here as well, as the bar for evidence is simply set too high and the processes are too slow to deal with a pandemic. This is true for medications too...
spion 6y ago
Also, here is a counterpoint that you may have not seen because its just not as interesting to retweet (I applaud Ian for the effort with the GIFs but while that helps, its not enough to offset the novelty/interestingness factor of the original theory): https://twitter.com/MackayIM/status/1331440271716827137 https://twitter.com/MackayIM/status/1331440271716827137
tigershark 6y ago
Would you please stop spreading misinformation? We are not on Facebook or whatever place you get this kind of stuff.
DanBC 6y ago
> how does this compare to normal flu? Flu is really serious, which is why we have nationally co-ordinated campaigns of surveillance and monitoring, and then rapid vaccination development, and then programmes to immunise as many vulnerable people as possible. So far, we think covid-19 is about 10 times worse than flu. On an average year in the UK flu kills about 10,000 people. So far Covid has killed many more - at least 50,000. But this is using an inclusive definition for "killed by flu" that will include many people, and it's using a restrictive definition for "killed by covid" that will undercount deaths. To give an idea of how flu in the UK is counted you can look at this report: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/526405/Flu_Annual_Report_2015_2016.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...
bjourne 6y ago
> they’re looking for a diagnosis and are changing the number of times amplification of the dna occurs over time. What does this mean?
- mensetmanusman 6y ago
  He is alluding to the number of cycles: https://bitesizebio.com/24581/what-is-a-ct-value/ https://bitesizebio.com/24581/what-is-a-ct-value/ If you have to cycle 40 times for example, that is like finding a needle in a haystack, i.e. not understood how relevant such high precision is in terms of weather someone is actively spreading, or had it a month ago, etc.

spion 6y ago

I don't think bans are the answer, but see my other comment about how social networks end up generating the perfect bullshit and make it hard for scientists to go back on their theory and to realize whether they're wrong or not. Bans don't solve the issue. We have to invent better social networks, where scientists can be free to theorize and be connected with their peers, without getting false awards (retweets, likes). In general as humanity we also need to be more aware of the nature of social networks and how they don't always elevate the best content. As for credentials, you have to realize that the mechanics of social networks are very good at finding and amplifying the few individuals with credentials that have something wrong (but interesting) to say. What you don't get to hear about are the dozens of reviews of that theory, also by experts, that show how its wrong. Because thats just not interesting for a retweet, and its kind of a downer, too.

lettergram 6y ago
I’m fully aware, I actually built something that quantifies what other experts think of your opinion. It’s called InsiderOpinion (insideropinion.com). That being said, the reality is that social media has over stepped as late. I’m literally being forced to “thedonald.win” or some other sh to find broadened perspectives. Perhaps some insight as to why people have trouble believing scientists at the moment... they told everyone “masks and gloves don’t work” (to keep supply for essential workers) then told everyone “make your own masks” (btw studies going back to the early 1900s says masks will work if it’s droplet based) we also now have evidence masks don’t work. We knew this would be the case because back in January and February they confirmed it was airborne. Multiple studies since confirmed this. Basically the virus can survive in the air and our cloth masks aren’t good enough. Part of Biden’s transition team said that on Joe rogan’s podcast in March. Then we had the whole “don’t go into crowds” followed by “oh protests are for a good cause, so it’s okay” and stuff like that. The reality is that the public shouldn’t trust what they are being told. Literally everything has been a lie thus far.
- spion 6y ago
  I can't resist correcting some of that, sorry! :) * WHO recommended that sick people wear (surgical) masks since February at home to reduce the chances of spreading the virus in the household - if they can't fully isolate. (You can check this using archive.org - I don't have the link readily at hand, unfortunately) * Yes, PPE was a concern but also it was thought that there is no spread without symptoms initially. Which was the main reason why masks were not recommended for the wider population: * non-respirators don't really *protect* the wearer * respirators like N95 do but PPE is in short suply * if you have symptoms, wearing a mask helps, sure, but best to fully isolate as much as possible. * Opinion largely changed due to incoming evidence of presymptomatic spread - and yes, some campaigning by various groups like masks4all. I'm sure there were some people and groups that connected the PPE and "masks don't work and thats why they are not recommended" but it was certainly not a blatant lie - it was really thought they wouldn't help and isolation for the infected is much better. With presymptomatic (and therefore possibly asymptomatic) spread and the realization of millions infected everywhere, everyone wearing masks became a viable option. Aerosols are a whole other topic I won't get into (and I don't really have the expertise for it either!) but suffice to say from my understanding its not really as simple as "works" / "doesn't work". Yes there is a problem with science failing us here as well, as the bar for evidence is simply set too high and the processes are too slow to deal with a pandemic. This is true for medications too...

spion 6y ago

Also, here is a counterpoint that you may have not seen because its just not as interesting to retweet (I applaud Ian for the effort with the GIFs but while that helps, its not enough to offset the novelty/interestingness factor of the original theory): https://twitter.com/MackayIM/status/1331440271716827137 https://twitter.com/MackayIM/status/1331440271716827137

tigershark 6y ago

Would you please stop spreading misinformation? We are not on Facebook or whatever place you get this kind of stuff.

DanBC 6y ago

> how does this compare to normal flu? Flu is really serious, which is why we have nationally co-ordinated campaigns of surveillance and monitoring, and then rapid vaccination development, and then programmes to immunise as many vulnerable people as possible. So far, we think covid-19 is about 10 times worse than flu. On an average year in the UK flu kills about 10,000 people. So far Covid has killed many more - at least 50,000. But this is using an inclusive definition for "killed by flu" that will include many people, and it's using a restrictive definition for "killed by covid" that will undercount deaths. To give an idea of how flu in the UK is counted you can look at this report: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/526405/Flu_Annual_Report_2015_2016.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...

bjourne 6y ago

> they’re looking for a diagnosis and are changing the number of times amplification of the dna occurs over time. What does this mean?

mensetmanusman 6y ago
He is alluding to the number of cycles: https://bitesizebio.com/24581/what-is-a-ct-value/ https://bitesizebio.com/24581/what-is-a-ct-value/ If you have to cycle 40 times for example, that is like finding a needle in a haystack, i.e. not understood how relevant such high precision is in terms of weather someone is actively spreading, or had it a month ago, etc.