6 ms·

How can you be sure of your assertions? Have you done a randomized controlled trial? I don't think you have tested the alternative.

musingsole 5y ago
The GP's point isn't something that is verified with controlled randomized data...And moreso, it's about what happens after the controlled trial. Communicating science is about taking it from a controlled lab and moving it into the real world where unfortunately politics purposefully muddies all the waters. The point is that WHO is a political organization with a political mission that needs science to get it done. While it employs and funds countless great scientists doing meticulous work...the people you will see and hear from at WHO are international politicians.
dekhn 5y ago
romeros is right. public health people have to do third-order thinking to maximize the overall health impact. I haven't done RCTs but we studied them in detail in my stats class in grad school.
- dnautics 5y ago
  no they don't. They just need to be honest about what they do know and what they don't and don't assert something is true when it's "we're not sure". Just do zero-order thinking. Don't patronize the public. Guess what. If you don't trust the public. Why should the public trust you?
  - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
    The public has been taught by people who don't do science that knowledge and truth are supposed to be immutable. When faced with scientists who acknowledge that their understanding and advice is contingent, the public as a statistical entity says "WTF?" and chooses not to trust.
    - jacquesm 5y ago
      Precisely. Just observe the discussion about scientific theories and you can see firsthand that the public wants simple and clear black-and-white stuff (and to be told what to do) and not some kind of qualified statement that turns 99.9% certainty into something that can be spun as 50/50.
    - mistermann 5y ago
      What percentage of the public thinks in this way?
    - dnautics 5y ago
      You are bootstrapping your understanding of society on that assumption itself and thus begging the question. Do you actually get out and talk to people? Most people are ok with nuance. Most things we consume as entertainment, from lowbrow housewives of Atlanta to highbrow pbs space time are full of dizzying nuance and unknowable truths (but not star trek. Star trek no longer has nuance).
      - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
        We're fine with nuance in entertainment, in romance, in food, in professional team sports, in many things. I would dispute that the same level of comfort extends to "when elected (or not) leaders tell us what we should do."
        dnautics 5y ago
        > I would dispute Why? Because it makes you feel good to think everyone else is dumber than you?
        PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
        I'm just as subject to this effect as anyone else.
  - mcguire 5y ago
    Remember when the COVID vaccines were in trials and the news were all reporting that they were "80-90+%" effective on the then-current strains? Why, then, do I keep seeing arguments from people about the vaccines not being perfectly effective?
    - judahmeek 5y ago
      No, I don't remember that. Can you link to an archived news article saying this?
      - mcguire 5y ago
        "In another promising medical development, the biotechnology company Moderna has announced its COVID-19 vaccine could be up to 94.5% effective. The news comes a week after Pfizer announced its vaccine could be up to 90% effective based on a similar, early analysis from its Phase 3 trial." (https://abcnews.go.com/Health/moderna-announces-initial-phase-data-showing-covid-19/story?id=74227175 https://abcnews.go.com/Health/moderna-announces-initial-phas...) "And then there were three. U.K. pharmaceutical giant AstraZeneca, along with its partners at Oxford University, became on Monday the third team to announce positive late stage trial results for a COVID-19 vaccine. The "AZD1222" vaccine was "highly effective'' in preventing disease, with up to 90% efficacy in patients receiving one of the dose regimens used in trials, AstraZeneca announced." (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/covid-vaccine-oxford-astrazenca-90-percent-effective-trial/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/covid-vaccine-oxford-astrazenca...) PFIZER: COVID VACCINE OVER 90% EFFECTIVE IN EARLY DATA [video] (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CG8U3OWSV4o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CG8U3OWSV4o) ABC, CBS, NBC.
        jacquesm 5y ago
        Note the 'could'. Which of course everybody skips.
        glenneroo 5y ago
        According to this (scroll down to panel #5 about Vaccines): https://informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/covid-19-coronavirus-infographic-datapack/ https://informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/covid-19-c... Last updated July 2021 but the data from multiple studies for multiple strains seems to support the initial claims.

musingsole 5y ago

The GP's point isn't something that is verified with controlled randomized data...And moreso, it's about what happens after the controlled trial. Communicating science is about taking it from a controlled lab and moving it into the real world where unfortunately politics purposefully muddies all the waters. The point is that WHO is a political organization with a political mission that needs science to get it done. While it employs and funds countless great scientists doing meticulous work...the people you will see and hear from at WHO are international politicians.

dekhn 5y ago

romeros is right. public health people have to do third-order thinking to maximize the overall health impact. I haven't done RCTs but we studied them in detail in my stats class in grad school.

dnautics 5y ago
no they don't. They just need to be honest about what they do know and what they don't and don't assert something is true when it's "we're not sure". Just do zero-order thinking. Don't patronize the public. Guess what. If you don't trust the public. Why should the public trust you?
- PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
  The public has been taught by people who don't do science that knowledge and truth are supposed to be immutable. When faced with scientists who acknowledge that their understanding and advice is contingent, the public as a statistical entity says "WTF?" and chooses not to trust.
  - jacquesm 5y ago
    Precisely. Just observe the discussion about scientific theories and you can see firsthand that the public wants simple and clear black-and-white stuff (and to be told what to do) and not some kind of qualified statement that turns 99.9% certainty into something that can be spun as 50/50.
  - mistermann 5y ago
    What percentage of the public thinks in this way?
  - dnautics 5y ago
    You are bootstrapping your understanding of society on that assumption itself and thus begging the question. Do you actually get out and talk to people? Most people are ok with nuance. Most things we consume as entertainment, from lowbrow housewives of Atlanta to highbrow pbs space time are full of dizzying nuance and unknowable truths (but not star trek. Star trek no longer has nuance).
    - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
      We're fine with nuance in entertainment, in romance, in food, in professional team sports, in many things. I would dispute that the same level of comfort extends to "when elected (or not) leaders tell us what we should do."
      - dnautics 5y ago
        > I would dispute Why? Because it makes you feel good to think everyone else is dumber than you?
        PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
        I'm just as subject to this effect as anyone else.
- mcguire 5y ago
  Remember when the COVID vaccines were in trials and the news were all reporting that they were "80-90+%" effective on the then-current strains? Why, then, do I keep seeing arguments from people about the vaccines not being perfectly effective?
  - judahmeek 5y ago
    No, I don't remember that. Can you link to an archived news article saying this?
    - mcguire 5y ago
      "In another promising medical development, the biotechnology company Moderna has announced its COVID-19 vaccine could be up to 94.5% effective. The news comes a week after Pfizer announced its vaccine could be up to 90% effective based on a similar, early analysis from its Phase 3 trial." (https://abcnews.go.com/Health/moderna-announces-initial-phase-data-showing-covid-19/story?id=74227175 https://abcnews.go.com/Health/moderna-announces-initial-phas...) "And then there were three. U.K. pharmaceutical giant AstraZeneca, along with its partners at Oxford University, became on Monday the third team to announce positive late stage trial results for a COVID-19 vaccine. The "AZD1222" vaccine was "highly effective'' in preventing disease, with up to 90% efficacy in patients receiving one of the dose regimens used in trials, AstraZeneca announced." (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/covid-vaccine-oxford-astrazenca-90-percent-effective-trial/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/covid-vaccine-oxford-astrazenca...) PFIZER: COVID VACCINE OVER 90% EFFECTIVE IN EARLY DATA [video] (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CG8U3OWSV4o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CG8U3OWSV4o) ABC, CBS, NBC.
      - jacquesm 5y ago
        Note the 'could'. Which of course everybody skips.
        glenneroo 5y ago
        According to this (scroll down to panel #5 about Vaccines): https://informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/covid-19-coronavirus-infographic-datapack/ https://informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/covid-19-c... Last updated July 2021 but the data from multiple studies for multiple strains seems to support the initial claims.