3 ms·

> But Vince from YouTube was of course completely wrong there. Claiming Vince was wrong in the video also means the researchers that discovered the variant wer

> But Vince from YouTube was of course completely wrong there. Claiming Vince was wrong in the video also means the researchers that discovered the variant were wrong. After all he was just parroting their findings in the video.

lozenge 5y ago
This article was on the same day as your YouTube video and paints a very different picture. So what's your source that the YouTuber has accurately parroted scientific findings? https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/dec/21/calls-for-national-lockdown-in-england-to-curb-spread-of-new-covid-strain https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/dec/21/calls-for-n...
- cinntaile 5y ago
  Vincent Racaniello is a professor of virology. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincent_Racaniello https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincent_Racaniello
  - spiderice 5y ago
    So Vincent wasn't wrong, because he was just parroting the experts.. but Vincent is the expert? Am I understanding the logic correctly?
    - cinntaile 5y ago
      No you're not understanding the logic correctly. The GP was wondering why he has to trust a YouTuber to accurately parrot a research article and I point out that he's not a random YouTuber. Of course he can still be wrong?
      - netizen-936824 5y ago
        Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, no? Because that's exactly what the claim is. I understand that it makes him less likely to misunderstand the research (probably) but its not a guarantee and is naive to depend on that fact.
        cinntaile 5y ago
        Where is the appeal to authority? I made no such claim and have explained what I meant in considerable detail? I have explicitly mentioned several times that he can be wrong. Appeal to authority means authority isn't wrong because authority.
        netizen-936824 5y ago
        lozenge stated: "So what's your source that the YouTuber has accurately parroted scientific findings?" To which you replied: "Vincent Racaniello is a professor of virology. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincent_Racaniello https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincent_Racaniello" This is an appeal to the authority of Vincent's position as a professor
        cinntaile 5y ago
        On its own you can interpret it like that, but this is a bit unfair. I have already explained what I meant with my comment, I even have a comment that predates the one you cite where I explicitly claim that he can be wrong... My point was not to say that he's right because he's a professor. It was to clarify that he's not a random YouTuber.
        netizen-936824 5y ago
        It seems silly, to me at least, to take external statements to this given thread and apply them as if they were said here. I took your comment at face value, all seven words and the URL. That was the entire statement, there was no mention of "he's an expert but he could be wrong" When asked for evidence, the ONLY evidence that you provided, was that he IS an expert. Full stop.
        cinntaile 5y ago
        At the time the message tree was vastly different. The messages were next to each other. It looked like this: GP /\ Comment. My 2nd reply with link. / My first reply where I said he could be wrong.
  - netizen-936824 5y ago
    Professors can be wrong or misunderstand things. They are human too. Is there any evidence besides an appeal to authority?
    - themitigating 5y ago
      An expert in the field is more likely to be right compared to someone who isn't an expert. Their opinion should carry greater weight
      - cpncrunch 5y ago
        Vince kind of lost his credibility when he allowed David Tuller to post on his blog.
      - austinjp 5y ago
        If a thousand people point to expert A, and a single person points to expert B, does that tell us anything useful about expert A or B?
        z3t4 5y ago
        expert A has thousands of twitter followers, while expert B does not use social media.
      - Bobylonian 5y ago
        The modern issue is that most of experts are with very narrow expertise, which is not carrying that great weight as you might think and such expertise also doesn't mean that much in responsibilities. My mother at 14 after a car accident was considered as lost cause and by opinion of expert she should be dead, but survived only because her relative with much less medical expertise believed in second opinion and got her in different hospital. Sometimes, these stupid parroted ideas about expert opinions can only be proven wrong by personal experience only. But quite many people do not learn from their own mistakes, so, meh - there is no cure for stupid people, who can't think by themselves. PS Every covid mutation so far has put scientists on alert...
      - 5y ago
  - lozenge 5y ago
    17 minutes in, dismissing the R value that the UK scientific advisors calculated based on unpublished data, that we now know was correct: "you can't use epidemiological data to prove a biological effect of an amino acid..." Yeah, that's a virology point of view all right. That something has to have a proven biological mechanism before it can be taken as fact, or even considered as a risk. That's bad public policy though. With his reasoning there would have been no reason to increase restrictions in the UK in Dec/Jan, but in fact the restrictions were extremely necessary and the variant caused tens of thousands of extra deaths.
    - native_samples 5y ago
      The R numbers coming out of UK epidemiology are garbage, Racaniello is right about that. They aren't physically grounded in any way, they're just arbitrary fudge factors brute forced to make their equations plot graphs that look like reported government stats so far. The same model will routinely calculate totally different values of R for different areas of the same country at the same time, without variants or anything like that. Also the claims about variants being "more infectious" are - when you dig in - hopelessly confounded by seasonal effects that many epidemiological papers were at that time still ignoring.
      - jsnell 5y ago
        The seasonal effects are trivially controlled for by comparing the growth rate of the variant to the growth rate of the wildtype at the same time. And that's exactly how the original analysis was done, because the people doing it were not incompetent. For your seasonal effect explanation to make any sense, the effect would have to have only applied to Alpha but not to baseline Covid at the same time. And then it's not a seasonal effect, is it? It's an actual difference in the behavior of the two variants. The same goes for any other similar confounder that you try to manufacture.
        native_samples 5y ago
        Not the analysis I saw, where Delta's growth rate was compared to Alpha in the same time window, not the start of alpha's own growth period. Because yes, they are totally incompetent. You can look at graphs of the changing proportions to see visually that that's not much difference in how fast they took over.
- wnevets 5y ago
  > So what's your source that the YouTuber has accurately parroted scientific findings? The parts of the video where he literally quotes the original findings.
  - lozenge 5y ago
    And then dismisses their findings as "that's a flawed argument and not how we do science" (17 minutes in).
cinntaile 5y ago
Why does it matter? Researchers are wrong all the time, improving upon that is kind of the point of science. It's a bit unfair that the GP calls him Vince from Youtube. He's a professor of virology so not just some nobody giving his opinion on Youtube. This doesn't mean he can't be wrong of course.
- givemeethekeys 5y ago
  I think it matters that he’s wrong because you’ve already given him such a high stature. Him being wrong means a policy that depends on him being right should also be reinspected. But policies aren’t that flexible.
- wnevets 5y ago
  > Why does it matter? because the science matters. This new SA variant could be more transmissible or it could not be. Lets stick to the actual data and go from there.
  - nicoburns 5y ago
    The question is: what do you do in the absence of data, or with only very preliminary data? By the time the scientists have had chance to fully investigate the moment for action has often passed.
    - hellbannedguy 5y ago
      You say you don't know.
    - wnevets 5y ago
      Probably the same thing as if a new variant didn't exist. Get vaccinated, wear mask, etc.
    - landemva 5y ago
      '... what do you do in the absence of data, or with only very preliminary data?' Stop shoveling carbs at every meal. Lose 30 pounds. Start to exercise and increase cardio-pulmonary performance. It appears most people in developed countries became couch potatoes and gained fat. To each his own. My body, my choice. Your body, your choice.

lozenge 5y ago

This article was on the same day as your YouTube video and paints a very different picture. So what's your source that the YouTuber has accurately parroted scientific findings? https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/dec/21/calls-for-national-lockdown-in-england-to-curb-spread-of-new-covid-strain https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/dec/21/calls-for-n...

cinntaile 5y ago
Vincent Racaniello is a professor of virology. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincent_Racaniello https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincent_Racaniello
- spiderice 5y ago
  So Vincent wasn't wrong, because he was just parroting the experts.. but Vincent is the expert? Am I understanding the logic correctly?
  - cinntaile 5y ago
    No you're not understanding the logic correctly. The GP was wondering why he has to trust a YouTuber to accurately parrot a research article and I point out that he's not a random YouTuber. Of course he can still be wrong?
    - netizen-936824 5y ago
      Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, no? Because that's exactly what the claim is. I understand that it makes him less likely to misunderstand the research (probably) but its not a guarantee and is naive to depend on that fact.
      - cinntaile 5y ago
        Where is the appeal to authority? I made no such claim and have explained what I meant in considerable detail? I have explicitly mentioned several times that he can be wrong. Appeal to authority means authority isn't wrong because authority.
        netizen-936824 5y ago
        lozenge stated: "So what's your source that the YouTuber has accurately parroted scientific findings?" To which you replied: "Vincent Racaniello is a professor of virology. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincent_Racaniello https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincent_Racaniello" This is an appeal to the authority of Vincent's position as a professor
        cinntaile 5y ago
        On its own you can interpret it like that, but this is a bit unfair. I have already explained what I meant with my comment, I even have a comment that predates the one you cite where I explicitly claim that he can be wrong... My point was not to say that he's right because he's a professor. It was to clarify that he's not a random YouTuber.
        netizen-936824 5y ago
        It seems silly, to me at least, to take external statements to this given thread and apply them as if they were said here. I took your comment at face value, all seven words and the URL. That was the entire statement, there was no mention of "he's an expert but he could be wrong" When asked for evidence, the ONLY evidence that you provided, was that he IS an expert. Full stop.
        cinntaile 5y ago
        At the time the message tree was vastly different. The messages were next to each other. It looked like this: GP /\ Comment. My 2nd reply with link. / My first reply where I said he could be wrong.
- netizen-936824 5y ago
  Professors can be wrong or misunderstand things. They are human too. Is there any evidence besides an appeal to authority?
  - themitigating 5y ago
    An expert in the field is more likely to be right compared to someone who isn't an expert. Their opinion should carry greater weight
    - cpncrunch 5y ago
      Vince kind of lost his credibility when he allowed David Tuller to post on his blog.
    - austinjp 5y ago
      If a thousand people point to expert A, and a single person points to expert B, does that tell us anything useful about expert A or B?
      - z3t4 5y ago
        expert A has thousands of twitter followers, while expert B does not use social media.
    - Bobylonian 5y ago
      The modern issue is that most of experts are with very narrow expertise, which is not carrying that great weight as you might think and such expertise also doesn't mean that much in responsibilities. My mother at 14 after a car accident was considered as lost cause and by opinion of expert she should be dead, but survived only because her relative with much less medical expertise believed in second opinion and got her in different hospital. Sometimes, these stupid parroted ideas about expert opinions can only be proven wrong by personal experience only. But quite many people do not learn from their own mistakes, so, meh - there is no cure for stupid people, who can't think by themselves. PS Every covid mutation so far has put scientists on alert...
    - 5y ago
- lozenge 5y ago
  17 minutes in, dismissing the R value that the UK scientific advisors calculated based on unpublished data, that we now know was correct: "you can't use epidemiological data to prove a biological effect of an amino acid..." Yeah, that's a virology point of view all right. That something has to have a proven biological mechanism before it can be taken as fact, or even considered as a risk. That's bad public policy though. With his reasoning there would have been no reason to increase restrictions in the UK in Dec/Jan, but in fact the restrictions were extremely necessary and the variant caused tens of thousands of extra deaths.
  - native_samples 5y ago
    The R numbers coming out of UK epidemiology are garbage, Racaniello is right about that. They aren't physically grounded in any way, they're just arbitrary fudge factors brute forced to make their equations plot graphs that look like reported government stats so far. The same model will routinely calculate totally different values of R for different areas of the same country at the same time, without variants or anything like that. Also the claims about variants being "more infectious" are - when you dig in - hopelessly confounded by seasonal effects that many epidemiological papers were at that time still ignoring.
    - jsnell 5y ago
      The seasonal effects are trivially controlled for by comparing the growth rate of the variant to the growth rate of the wildtype at the same time. And that's exactly how the original analysis was done, because the people doing it were not incompetent. For your seasonal effect explanation to make any sense, the effect would have to have only applied to Alpha but not to baseline Covid at the same time. And then it's not a seasonal effect, is it? It's an actual difference in the behavior of the two variants. The same goes for any other similar confounder that you try to manufacture.
      - native_samples 5y ago
        Not the analysis I saw, where Delta's growth rate was compared to Alpha in the same time window, not the start of alpha's own growth period. Because yes, they are totally incompetent. You can look at graphs of the changing proportions to see visually that that's not much difference in how fast they took over.
wnevets 5y ago
> So what's your source that the YouTuber has accurately parroted scientific findings? The parts of the video where he literally quotes the original findings.
- lozenge 5y ago
  And then dismisses their findings as "that's a flawed argument and not how we do science" (17 minutes in).

cinntaile 5y ago

Why does it matter? Researchers are wrong all the time, improving upon that is kind of the point of science. It's a bit unfair that the GP calls him Vince from Youtube. He's a professor of virology so not just some nobody giving his opinion on Youtube. This doesn't mean he can't be wrong of course.

givemeethekeys 5y ago
I think it matters that he’s wrong because you’ve already given him such a high stature. Him being wrong means a policy that depends on him being right should also be reinspected. But policies aren’t that flexible.
wnevets 5y ago
> Why does it matter? because the science matters. This new SA variant could be more transmissible or it could not be. Lets stick to the actual data and go from there.
- nicoburns 5y ago
  The question is: what do you do in the absence of data, or with only very preliminary data? By the time the scientists have had chance to fully investigate the moment for action has often passed.
  - hellbannedguy 5y ago
    You say you don't know.
  - wnevets 5y ago
    Probably the same thing as if a new variant didn't exist. Get vaccinated, wear mask, etc.
  - landemva 5y ago
    '... what do you do in the absence of data, or with only very preliminary data?' Stop shoveling carbs at every meal. Lose 30 pounds. Start to exercise and increase cardio-pulmonary performance. It appears most people in developed countries became couch potatoes and gained fat. To each his own. My body, my choice. Your body, your choice.