4 ms·
So you disregard the Nature study because being peer reviewed does not imply quality, you disregard the non-peer-reviewed studies because they aren’t peer revie
by ubercow13 5y ago
So you disregard the Nature study because being peer reviewed does not imply quality, you disregard the non-peer-reviewed studies because they aren’t peer reviewed and therefore are low quality, and you cite an article about how ‘scientists are baffled’ at data showing lockdown might not have had an effect despite your assertion that there ample scientific studies showing that lockdowns have no effect already and that it is already ‘proven beyond doubt’.
> This has no more validity than an HN post linking to a bunch of blogs. They were probably forced to rely on such papers to try and get their desired result.
How is this different to you linking to a news article with about the same level of analysis as a blog post, that specifically says no conclusions can be drawn from the reported observations. One that you have also clearly selected to support your own desired result.
- native_samples 5y agoYou're suggesting I'm inconsistent, but the position is internally consistent: - Looking at real world data and using some common sense is sufficient. - Peer review, studies, being published in Nature etc are not especially useful. I mentioned other studies that contradict it to show this. - Nonetheless, you're presenting such a study implicitly claiming that its institutional/peer reviewed/expert origins make it useful. This doesn't make sense though, because the study is a meta-study that includes papers that haven't been so blessed by the system. The proof I'm talking about is proof-by-data.
- ubercow13 5y agoYes I guess your position is internally consistent if you consider the doubt you were referring to to be only your own doubt.