7 ms·

> Some guy says it's overblown and this is ranking on HN? The guy quoted for said statement is a professor of medicine of a reputable university, so he does ha

by nuerow 5y ago

> Some guy says it's overblown and this is ranking on HN? The guy quoted for said statement is a professor of medicine of a reputable university, so he does have the authority thing sorted out. Also, I feel the quote means something different than the original interpretation. After reading the article, it seems that John Bell simply states that a) long Covid is "more complicated than people assume", and b) it's incidence is lower than initial (and conservative) estimates. The article mentions that "half of people suffering from long Covid may not have it." And that's pretty much it. There is no harm in improving our understanding of the real world effects of a disease.

Pokepokalypse 5y ago
>"half of people suffering from long Covid may not have it." That's a completely baseless statement, and there is some serious fuckery going on here, either with the article, or the supposed expert they're citing.
noduerme 5y ago
Oh he's got the "authority thing sorted out" eh? Like every doctor who ever claimed females who were hysterical needed to be vibrated to orgasm to cure their disease...? Or is his authority just on the limited level of chiropractors who spread antivax disinformation on YouTube? Just wondering what level of trust one should place in a man who suddenly catapults into world headlines by claiming millions of people are mistaken on experiencing symptoms of a novel virus.
- nuerow 5y ago
  > Oh he's got the "authority thing sorted out" eh? Yes, he's no rando posting stuff on his Facebook page, nor is he a rapper or media personality. He's an expert from a reputable university that made solid contributions to the fight against COVID-19 , and he is quoting data from the Office for National Statistics. In the very least we should give him the benefit of the doubt. Even though it's true that appeals to authority don't cut it, that does not mean you are entitled to dismiss any comment you don't like by resorting to personal attacks.
  - noduerme 5y ago
    It wasn't a personal attack. I don't know the guy from Adam. It was a response to someone writing that the authority thing was "sorted out."
    - nuerow 5y ago
      > It wasn't a personal attack. Either way, spinning the debate to try to focus it on the messenger instead of the message is not a productive or honest way to debate a subject. We should try our best to keep the signal/noise ratio up, specially in topics so prone to disinformation.
kergonath 5y ago
> The guy quoted for said statement is a professor of medicine of a reputable university, so he does have the authority thing sorted out. That’s fallacious. There are loads of professors spewing bullshit, including about their field, including at Oxford. It says nothing about the validity of the point they are making. Particularly after the point has been filtered through journalists with a questionable understanding of science.
- rich_sasha 5y ago
  Well, quoting him is not major-breakthrough-worthy but I reckon he deserves an article based on the quote. Toutes proportions gardees ofc.
- nuerow 5y ago
  > That’s fallacious. There are loads of professors spewing bullshit, No, not really. The fallacious bit is blindly and outright dismissing any statement, along with attacking and accusing anything a researcher says as being "spewing bullshit", just because you didn't liked hearing it. Eve though I agree that appeals to authority are no way to get close to the truth, what we are seeing here is pure denialism and a primal anti-intellectual attitude directed towards a researcher from a reputable university just because he dared point out that initial conservative estimates might have been conservative. To be quite clear, John Bell does not dictate the truth just because he is a professor of medicine at Oxford. But that is not the problem. The problem is actually trying to attack him just because he had the audacity to quote statistics on the real-world incidence of long Covid and state that initial estimates were off.
celticninja 5y ago
https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n490 https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n490 Sounds like the BMJ dont trust this chap and are questioning his financial interests. Therefore I would question his motives with regard to this article, he isnt very forthcoming which is usually indicative of having something to hide.
- nuerow 5y ago
  > Sounds like the BMJ dont trust this chap and are questioning his financial interests. The article you mentioned only refers to stock portfolio and potential conflicts of interest regarding policy decisions on performing antibody tests. The statement that was quoted in this discussion is about an entirely unrelated subject: the prevalence of long Covid. The initial claim is that the statement is supported by data from the Office for National Statistics. If you want to question John Bell's claim regarding the prevalence of long Covid, just check if his statement is corroborated by the data. Either it's supported or not.
  - celticninja 5y ago
    I question his impartiality on making statements such as this. I wonder about what he gains from making statements like this? If he was open about questions put to him in the past then I would be less suspect, but given he has hidden his financial interests related to his work then I suspect he has some hidden motivation here too.
    - nuerow 5y ago
      > I question his impartiality on making statements such as this. There is a very good way to verify the claims: check the data. Dragging in questions regarding antibody test policies, stock portfolios, and potential conflicts of interest just sound like cheap character assassination attempts that have absolutely no relation with the prevalence of long Covid.
      - celticninja 5y ago
q1w2 5y ago
> a professor of medicine of a reputable university That is not nearly good enough. This is HN. We should be posting peer-reviewed research results, not just-any-professor-in-the-field's-feelings.

by nuerow 5y ago

Pokepokalypse 5y ago

>"half of people suffering from long Covid may not have it." That's a completely baseless statement, and there is some serious fuckery going on here, either with the article, or the supposed expert they're citing.

noduerme 5y ago

Oh he's got the "authority thing sorted out" eh? Like every doctor who ever claimed females who were hysterical needed to be vibrated to orgasm to cure their disease...? Or is his authority just on the limited level of chiropractors who spread antivax disinformation on YouTube? Just wondering what level of trust one should place in a man who suddenly catapults into world headlines by claiming millions of people are mistaken on experiencing symptoms of a novel virus.

nuerow 5y ago
> Oh he's got the "authority thing sorted out" eh? Yes, he's no rando posting stuff on his Facebook page, nor is he a rapper or media personality. He's an expert from a reputable university that made solid contributions to the fight against COVID-19 , and he is quoting data from the Office for National Statistics. In the very least we should give him the benefit of the doubt. Even though it's true that appeals to authority don't cut it, that does not mean you are entitled to dismiss any comment you don't like by resorting to personal attacks.
- noduerme 5y ago
  It wasn't a personal attack. I don't know the guy from Adam. It was a response to someone writing that the authority thing was "sorted out."
  - nuerow 5y ago
    > It wasn't a personal attack. Either way, spinning the debate to try to focus it on the messenger instead of the message is not a productive or honest way to debate a subject. We should try our best to keep the signal/noise ratio up, specially in topics so prone to disinformation.

kergonath 5y ago

> The guy quoted for said statement is a professor of medicine of a reputable university, so he does have the authority thing sorted out. That’s fallacious. There are loads of professors spewing bullshit, including about their field, including at Oxford. It says nothing about the validity of the point they are making. Particularly after the point has been filtered through journalists with a questionable understanding of science.

rich_sasha 5y ago
Well, quoting him is not major-breakthrough-worthy but I reckon he deserves an article based on the quote. Toutes proportions gardees ofc.
nuerow 5y ago
> That’s fallacious. There are loads of professors spewing bullshit, No, not really. The fallacious bit is blindly and outright dismissing any statement, along with attacking and accusing anything a researcher says as being "spewing bullshit", just because you didn't liked hearing it. Eve though I agree that appeals to authority are no way to get close to the truth, what we are seeing here is pure denialism and a primal anti-intellectual attitude directed towards a researcher from a reputable university just because he dared point out that initial conservative estimates might have been conservative. To be quite clear, John Bell does not dictate the truth just because he is a professor of medicine at Oxford. But that is not the problem. The problem is actually trying to attack him just because he had the audacity to quote statistics on the real-world incidence of long Covid and state that initial estimates were off.

celticninja 5y ago

https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n490 https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n490 Sounds like the BMJ dont trust this chap and are questioning his financial interests. Therefore I would question his motives with regard to this article, he isnt very forthcoming which is usually indicative of having something to hide.

nuerow 5y ago
> Sounds like the BMJ dont trust this chap and are questioning his financial interests. The article you mentioned only refers to stock portfolio and potential conflicts of interest regarding policy decisions on performing antibody tests. The statement that was quoted in this discussion is about an entirely unrelated subject: the prevalence of long Covid. The initial claim is that the statement is supported by data from the Office for National Statistics. If you want to question John Bell's claim regarding the prevalence of long Covid, just check if his statement is corroborated by the data. Either it's supported or not.
- celticninja 5y ago
  I question his impartiality on making statements such as this. I wonder about what he gains from making statements like this? If he was open about questions put to him in the past then I would be less suspect, but given he has hidden his financial interests related to his work then I suspect he has some hidden motivation here too.
  - nuerow 5y ago
    > I question his impartiality on making statements such as this. There is a very good way to verify the claims: check the data. Dragging in questions regarding antibody test policies, stock portfolios, and potential conflicts of interest just sound like cheap character assassination attempts that have absolutely no relation with the prevalence of long Covid.
    - celticninja 5y ago

q1w2 5y ago

> a professor of medicine of a reputable university That is not nearly good enough. This is HN. We should be posting peer-reviewed research results, not just-any-professor-in-the-field's-feelings.