5 ms·

[flagged]

by nuerow 5y ago

[flagged]

angelzen 5y ago
A candid quote from a virologist in a recent Nature covid paper: "We’re flying by the seat of our pants trying to figure this stuff out." https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02795-x https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02795-x
- nuerow 5y ago
  > A candid quote from a virologist in a recent Nature covid paper: "We’re flying by the seat of our pants trying to figure this stuff out." I really don't know what you were trying to say. The article you linked was about how those who have previously recovered from COVID-19 have a stronger immune response after being vaccinated than those who have never been infected.
  - angelzen 5y ago
    It is not a partisan point in favor of one course of action or another. Though not surprising that it is read as one. We have barely started to understand long term implications of covid infection, mRNA / classic vaccines or various treatments. For example, we are almost a year after mass vaccination campaigns started. We still don't know if/how many boosters are required for optimal vaccine performance. Nobody can cite 5-year effectiveness number for mRNA vaccines, which are by far the most popular vaccines in the West. This should raise red flags to any critically thinking person. By necessity, we are operating in "faith" mode. And that's ok. Often times faith is a good enough action guide.
    - gfodor 5y ago
      We are operating on faith mode, but authoritarians are treating the situation increasingly as though we aren't. If you have to take a drug that still be proven to hurt specific subpopulations (as any drug could fairly be expected to in eg phase 4 trials) to get a job or go to the store, something is very wrong.
    - nuerow 5y ago
      > We have barely started to understand long term implications of covid infection (...) I fail to see the point of your remark, as it reads like a non-sequitur. I mean, the discussion was about the difference between those who listen to public health experts and the anti-intellectual covid denialists/anti-masks/anti-vaxers. Where do epistomological arguments lend any credence to anti-intellectual militants that try to counter science and public health safeguards with conspiracy theories?
      - angelzen 5y ago
        What is the 5 year effectiveness of the Pfizer covid vaccine? Please break it down by infection / symptomatic disease / hospitalization / death, then by age group, then compare it with a sizable unvaccinated control group.
        gfodor 5y ago
        Also, what subpopulations in 5 years will be advised not to take the vaccine (such as those with certain chronic illnesses, pregnancy etc), or do so with specific safety protocols, as is the case for other vaccines given the long term understanding we have gleaned.
- SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
  Relevance? Also, are there other procedures to be employed on a _novel_ virus pandemic? Doesn't the "novel" part literally mean "it's new to us and needs figuring out" ?
  - gfodor 5y ago
    One big problem is that that the CDC and other authorities failed miserably at reminding the public that their guidance was often based on weak, but directional evidence. The net result given other dynamics was people taking it to be gospel or bullshit, and when reversals occurred it was memory holed by the former and taken as vindication by the latter.
- geofft 5y ago
  I am guessing you're trying to say that "flying by the seat of our pants" is somehow bad. (Maybe you're not and that sentence is just too short for me to understand what you mean, in which case I apologize.) But to expand this analogy, if you're in a plane in conditions nobody has seen before, where the pilots are desperately trying to save as many people as they can before they run out of fuel - do you want the pilot who is open to the reality of the situation and constantly learning new things, or the pilot who confidently follows the nearest checklist without asking if it even works? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_232 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_232
  - angelzen 5y ago
    I merely expect said pilots to not pretend 'we are flying according to time tested FAA rules and regulations'.
gfodor 5y ago
you're just writing nice frames that reveal your bias. a lot of people who questioned health authorities throughout this have been vindicated on various things, including the threat of COVID itself. similarly, the "good" tribe you highlight in a) has members who post things on the internet about "what is to be done" about the unvaccinated that would make your skin crawl. the reality is that there are many perspectives on many issues, and by bucketing things the way you have, you are re-enforcing bad mental models.
- nuerow 5y ago
  > you're just writing nice frames that reveal your bias. a lot of people who questioned health authorities throughout this have been vindicated on various things, including the threat of COVID itself. I feel you're being disingenuous. I mean, where exactly do you see any "vindication" regarding the real threat of covid19 when in 2020 it was already the third leading cause of death in the US and it already overtook the 1918 flu as the deadliest pandemic[¹] ? This assertion is even more ridiculous given that those criticising the initial covid19 response tried to downplay it as nothing more than a harmless mild flu, and now we're seeing in the US alone over 700 thousand deaths. [1] https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/article/covid-19-is-now-the-deadliest-pandemic-in-us-history https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/article/covid-19-...
  - gfodor 5y ago
    The vindication I am referring to is the vindication of the people who were saying COVID-19 was dangerous in December of 2019. This group of people were told to calm down by the authorities and media. I know it's hard to remember, but it's important to not forget. If you recall, Nancy Pelosi went out of her way to go for a photoop in crowded SF Chinatown when the administration was calling for flights from China to be restricted, and Bill DeBlasio (of NYC mandate fame) was encouraging people to go out to the theater even after COVID was in the US. Here's one media article trying to frame tech people who were worried as overreacting: https://www.vox.com/recode/2020/2/13/21128209/coronavirus-fears-contagion-how-infection-spreads https://www.vox.com/recode/2020/2/13/21128209/coronavirus-fe.... I believe this article has been quietly edited to undermine the claim that it was so, so wrong, but unfortunately I can't dig it up on the internet archive.
hagbard_c 5y ago
Let's rephrase your category b and see it it sticks: b) the tribe that reacts to any criticism of public health experts with hostility and threats of violence, pushes an anti-intellectual agenda, pushes pseudo-treatments that are at best not known to work or at worst a health hazard, and tries to fill in the gap between their beliefs and reality with conspiracy theories? Yep, fits like a glove and with that shows it is unwise to try to frame one of the sides of a polarised discussion. If you truly want to engage in a debate on such subjects the first thing to do is to leave your bias at the door, otherwise you'll only add fuel to the fire. Whether Ivermectin works or not is something which can be found out through the scientific (with a small 's') process, is it not up to 'The Science' to decide this upfront. If it does work this would be a good thing given the relative safety and low price of the preparation. If it does not work, well, that's too bad, hopefully something else will be found which does work while having the same advantages - safety and low price - as Ivermectin has.
- mr_overalls 5y ago
  > the tribe that reacts to any criticism of public health experts with hostility and threats of violence. . . The thing with playing syntactic games like this is that your altered sentence. . . isn't actually true. The two sides in relation to COVID research and official guidelines actually do behave differently.
  - hagbard_c 5y ago
    It is as true as the parent version in the sense that neither are absolutely true and both contain a core of truth. Also, there are more than "two sides", it is actually part of the problem that people keep on insisting that everyone who is not "with my side" is "on the other side". The SARS2-related rhetoric has largely been turned into a live role playing version of Twitter with two camps shouting at each other.
chrismcb 5y ago
Which side is which? Neither side has really followed the science. And it's not like the scientist concur. The CDC and who offered contradictory advice. In addition research isn't being done, some isn't even allowed. How is that science?

[flagged]

by nuerow 5y ago

[flagged]

A candid quote from a virologist in a recent Nature covid paper: "We’re flying by the seat of our pants trying to figure this stuff out." https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02795-x https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02795-x

nuerow 5y ago
> A candid quote from a virologist in a recent Nature covid paper: "We’re flying by the seat of our pants trying to figure this stuff out." I really don't know what you were trying to say. The article you linked was about how those who have previously recovered from COVID-19 have a stronger immune response after being vaccinated than those who have never been infected.
- angelzen 5y ago
  It is not a partisan point in favor of one course of action or another. Though not surprising that it is read as one. We have barely started to understand long term implications of covid infection, mRNA / classic vaccines or various treatments. For example, we are almost a year after mass vaccination campaigns started. We still don't know if/how many boosters are required for optimal vaccine performance. Nobody can cite 5-year effectiveness number for mRNA vaccines, which are by far the most popular vaccines in the West. This should raise red flags to any critically thinking person. By necessity, we are operating in "faith" mode. And that's ok. Often times faith is a good enough action guide.
  - gfodor 5y ago
    We are operating on faith mode, but authoritarians are treating the situation increasingly as though we aren't. If you have to take a drug that still be proven to hurt specific subpopulations (as any drug could fairly be expected to in eg phase 4 trials) to get a job or go to the store, something is very wrong.
  - nuerow 5y ago
    > We have barely started to understand long term implications of covid infection (...) I fail to see the point of your remark, as it reads like a non-sequitur. I mean, the discussion was about the difference between those who listen to public health experts and the anti-intellectual covid denialists/anti-masks/anti-vaxers. Where do epistomological arguments lend any credence to anti-intellectual militants that try to counter science and public health safeguards with conspiracy theories?
    - angelzen 5y ago
      What is the 5 year effectiveness of the Pfizer covid vaccine? Please break it down by infection / symptomatic disease / hospitalization / death, then by age group, then compare it with a sizable unvaccinated control group.
      - gfodor 5y ago
        Also, what subpopulations in 5 years will be advised not to take the vaccine (such as those with certain chronic illnesses, pregnancy etc), or do so with specific safety protocols, as is the case for other vaccines given the long term understanding we have gleaned.
SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
Relevance? Also, are there other procedures to be employed on a _novel_ virus pandemic? Doesn't the "novel" part literally mean "it's new to us and needs figuring out" ?
- gfodor 5y ago
  One big problem is that that the CDC and other authorities failed miserably at reminding the public that their guidance was often based on weak, but directional evidence. The net result given other dynamics was people taking it to be gospel or bullshit, and when reversals occurred it was memory holed by the former and taken as vindication by the latter.
geofft 5y ago
I am guessing you're trying to say that "flying by the seat of our pants" is somehow bad. (Maybe you're not and that sentence is just too short for me to understand what you mean, in which case I apologize.) But to expand this analogy, if you're in a plane in conditions nobody has seen before, where the pilots are desperately trying to save as many people as they can before they run out of fuel - do you want the pilot who is open to the reality of the situation and constantly learning new things, or the pilot who confidently follows the nearest checklist without asking if it even works? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_232 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_232
- angelzen 5y ago
  I merely expect said pilots to not pretend 'we are flying according to time tested FAA rules and regulations'.

gfodor 5y ago

you're just writing nice frames that reveal your bias. a lot of people who questioned health authorities throughout this have been vindicated on various things, including the threat of COVID itself. similarly, the "good" tribe you highlight in a) has members who post things on the internet about "what is to be done" about the unvaccinated that would make your skin crawl. the reality is that there are many perspectives on many issues, and by bucketing things the way you have, you are re-enforcing bad mental models.

nuerow 5y ago
> you're just writing nice frames that reveal your bias. a lot of people who questioned health authorities throughout this have been vindicated on various things, including the threat of COVID itself. I feel you're being disingenuous. I mean, where exactly do you see any "vindication" regarding the real threat of covid19 when in 2020 it was already the third leading cause of death in the US and it already overtook the 1918 flu as the deadliest pandemic[¹] ? This assertion is even more ridiculous given that those criticising the initial covid19 response tried to downplay it as nothing more than a harmless mild flu, and now we're seeing in the US alone over 700 thousand deaths. [1] https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/article/covid-19-is-now-the-deadliest-pandemic-in-us-history https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/article/covid-19-...
- gfodor 5y ago
  The vindication I am referring to is the vindication of the people who were saying COVID-19 was dangerous in December of 2019. This group of people were told to calm down by the authorities and media. I know it's hard to remember, but it's important to not forget. If you recall, Nancy Pelosi went out of her way to go for a photoop in crowded SF Chinatown when the administration was calling for flights from China to be restricted, and Bill DeBlasio (of NYC mandate fame) was encouraging people to go out to the theater even after COVID was in the US. Here's one media article trying to frame tech people who were worried as overreacting: https://www.vox.com/recode/2020/2/13/21128209/coronavirus-fears-contagion-how-infection-spreads https://www.vox.com/recode/2020/2/13/21128209/coronavirus-fe.... I believe this article has been quietly edited to undermine the claim that it was so, so wrong, but unfortunately I can't dig it up on the internet archive.

hagbard_c 5y ago

Let's rephrase your category b and see it it sticks: b) the tribe that reacts to any criticism of public health experts with hostility and threats of violence, pushes an anti-intellectual agenda, pushes pseudo-treatments that are at best not known to work or at worst a health hazard, and tries to fill in the gap between their beliefs and reality with conspiracy theories? Yep, fits like a glove and with that shows it is unwise to try to frame one of the sides of a polarised discussion. If you truly want to engage in a debate on such subjects the first thing to do is to leave your bias at the door, otherwise you'll only add fuel to the fire. Whether Ivermectin works or not is something which can be found out through the scientific (with a small 's') process, is it not up to 'The Science' to decide this upfront. If it does work this would be a good thing given the relative safety and low price of the preparation. If it does not work, well, that's too bad, hopefully something else will be found which does work while having the same advantages - safety and low price - as Ivermectin has.

mr_overalls 5y ago
> the tribe that reacts to any criticism of public health experts with hostility and threats of violence. . . The thing with playing syntactic games like this is that your altered sentence. . . isn't actually true. The two sides in relation to COVID research and official guidelines actually do behave differently.
- hagbard_c 5y ago
  It is as true as the parent version in the sense that neither are absolutely true and both contain a core of truth. Also, there are more than "two sides", it is actually part of the problem that people keep on insisting that everyone who is not "with my side" is "on the other side". The SARS2-related rhetoric has largely been turned into a live role playing version of Twitter with two camps shouting at each other.

chrismcb 5y ago

Which side is which? Neither side has really followed the science. And it's not like the scientist concur. The CDC and who offered contradictory advice. In addition research isn't being done, some isn't even allowed. How is that science?