4 ms·

you should reread what you've just written and think a bit about who you think the problem is we were having a conversation pretty tightly scoped to PCR tests

by toolz 5y ago

you should reread what you've just written and think a bit about who you think the problem is we were having a conversation pretty tightly scoped to PCR tests that got loosened up (by you) to include lockdowns. Now you're talking about Q-Anon among other unrelated things. If you want to have meaningful conversation that changes minds by informing people - this isn't the way to do it. It very much seems like you just lump everything into one big ball of political hot topic and leave very little room for nuance from people who disagree with you. That's very unproductive and I'd suggest this mentality of assuming someone elses position based on political hot topics de jour is exactly why so many people are tribalistic when it comes to choosing what they believe with science.

thebruce87m 5y ago
You’re right about some of the things you are saying, I’ve maybe lumped you unfairly due to first hand experience. Unfortunately, with my sample size of 2, I have seen the Q-Anon stuff happening real time. Note that I’m not even in America! Both people are engineers. One is an Albanian living in London and I can’t even compute how he’s so wired in to it all. They don’t even know each other but are lockstep with all the COVID stuff they say, now even on to the anti-vaxx angle.
- toolz 5y ago
  I am american, but to be honest I don't quite know exactly what Q-Anon even is - I just never cared to read up on it I guess As far as covid stuff I was basically unemployed for the first three months of the pandemic (only having a small workload) so I got super interested in reading white papers etc. you wouldn't believe the amount of absolutely terrible science that got pushed through the peer review process during covid. In another thread I detail a study someone used as evidence to support their opinion on asymptomatic thread. The study was a model where they chose 75% asymptomatic spread relative to symptomatic spread for their model - the model unsurprisingly found asymp. spread to be roughly the same as symp. spread IIRC - now where did that 75% come from? I came from three studies they cite....2 of those 3 studies they cite do not have anything resembling the number they came up with. In one of the citations it was so bewilderingly wrong I can only conclude they cited the wrong study or they just made the number up entirely. Back to the topic of PCR - I've seen zero literature to date that suggests a PCR with a CT>40 is beneficial. Further we have many studies that show false positives are absurdly high for many viruses well before CT40 So for someone to claim it's reasonable to use CT40, I believe the burden is on them to prove it since all literature I've seen suggests otherwise. here's the garbage study: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2774707 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle...

by toolz 5y ago

thebruce87m 5y ago

You’re right about some of the things you are saying, I’ve maybe lumped you unfairly due to first hand experience. Unfortunately, with my sample size of 2, I have seen the Q-Anon stuff happening real time. Note that I’m not even in America! Both people are engineers. One is an Albanian living in London and I can’t even compute how he’s so wired in to it all. They don’t even know each other but are lockstep with all the COVID stuff they say, now even on to the anti-vaxx angle.

toolz 5y ago
I am american, but to be honest I don't quite know exactly what Q-Anon even is - I just never cared to read up on it I guess As far as covid stuff I was basically unemployed for the first three months of the pandemic (only having a small workload) so I got super interested in reading white papers etc. you wouldn't believe the amount of absolutely terrible science that got pushed through the peer review process during covid. In another thread I detail a study someone used as evidence to support their opinion on asymptomatic thread. The study was a model where they chose 75% asymptomatic spread relative to symptomatic spread for their model - the model unsurprisingly found asymp. spread to be roughly the same as symp. spread IIRC - now where did that 75% come from? I came from three studies they cite....2 of those 3 studies they cite do not have anything resembling the number they came up with. In one of the citations it was so bewilderingly wrong I can only conclude they cited the wrong study or they just made the number up entirely. Back to the topic of PCR - I've seen zero literature to date that suggests a PCR with a CT>40 is beneficial. Further we have many studies that show false positives are absurdly high for many viruses well before CT40 So for someone to claim it's reasonable to use CT40, I believe the burden is on them to prove it since all literature I've seen suggests otherwise. here's the garbage study: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2774707 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle...