6 ms·

Read the article. This claim is adressed. It‘s scientific consensus.

by JanSt 5y ago

deadmutex 5y ago
Ironically, this post is next to: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29493241 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29493241.
- sharken 5y ago
  I can only speak for myself, but i always assume that i don't have all the answers. Facts that points to a faulty conclusion on my part, will be enough to change the conclusion. Failure to change views based on facts, is a strange concept when dealing with scientific concepts.
disambiguation 5y ago
Yup, case closed. And on a completely unrelated note: https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/09/13/493739074/50-years-ago-sugar-industry-quietly-paid-scientists-to-point-blame-at-fat https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/09/13/493739074...
- V__ 5y ago
  This is such a dumb whataboutism point. Either discredit the data or the argument.
  - disambiguation 5y ago
    No this isn't whataboutism. My point is simply that "scientific consensus" has lost some of its brand value. Further, I'm not an "expert" so even if I did challenge the data or argument, I would be dismissed for being unqualified.
    - ziddoap 5y ago
      > "Here is the scientific consensus." >> "What about sugar." Is the definition of whataboutism. >Further, I'm not an "expert" so even if I did challenge the data or argument, I would be dismissed for being unqualified. Not always true. You just need to provide data (or identify an error in their data/methodology/etc.) that is convincing enough to overcome the difference in weight afforded to an expert opinion and non-expert opinion. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. This is not to say that you are wrong, you very well could be correct, but the onus is on you to prove why your non-expert opinion should be weighted higher than hundreds of experts from various countries.
      - lolsal 5y ago
        I don't think the parent is saying "what about sugar?", I think the parent is saying "why should we buy that this is consensus when consensus can be bought and paid for, as evidenced by this story about sugar and scientific consensus?"
        ziddoap 5y ago
        In other words, "what about the the time when consensus was bought?". And my reply would be: if you have evidence that the current consensus has been purchased, I am all ears.
        kcplate 5y ago
        And my reply would be that evidence is not always immediately apparent, but that doesn’t mean evidence doesn’t exist. The commenter’s point was that due to other scandal, “scientific consensus” doesn’t hold the same weight it once might have held. Especially when powerful industries and Lot’s O’Money are involved. Not just sugar, but energy, tobacco, and yes…even other pharmaceuticals. TBH there seems to be a pretty direct correlation between any industry that tends to be regularly described as “Big [name of industry]” and these sort of scientific oopsies that turn up a decade or so later. I’m fully vaccinated and boosted, but I am not going to be at all surprised if 10 years from now there is an “oops” with this too.
akomtu 5y ago
It's not a consensus when anyone who objects is fired from academia.
mjfl 5y ago
the science says that one vaccination is still sufficient to prevent severe disease, and that it is uncertain that additional boosters will reduce transmission on a country wide basis- things will still spread among the unvaccinated, booster hold outs, and those whos antibody titers have gone down after 3 months. It is absolutely not scientific consensus, then, that universal boosters are necessary or would be sufficient to end the pandemic. I absolutely would not recommend getting a vaccine booster shot every 3 months. Your plasma cells are not meant to proliferate to that extent.
- 1123581321 5y ago
  Yes, and in addition to that, the regimen of shots and boosters becomes too much for unvaccinated to contemplate. They are more being asked to enter into a new lifestyle, now, contrasted with the request a year ago to take one simple protective action. In the US, I would like to see the recommendation change to a single Pfizer shot with second shot and booster language changed to that of optimization, rather than necessity. The single shot, even after several months, is still very effective against severe cases. I believe the vaccination rate would increase and that pressing to get our 1+ shot rate above 90% could be a genuine bipartisan rally.

Read the article. This claim is adressed. It‘s scientific consensus.

by JanSt 5y ago

Read the article. This claim is adressed. It‘s scientific consensus.

Ironically, this post is next to: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29493241 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29493241.

sharken 5y ago
I can only speak for myself, but i always assume that i don't have all the answers. Facts that points to a faulty conclusion on my part, will be enough to change the conclusion. Failure to change views based on facts, is a strange concept when dealing with scientific concepts.

disambiguation 5y ago

Yup, case closed. And on a completely unrelated note: https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/09/13/493739074/50-years-ago-sugar-industry-quietly-paid-scientists-to-point-blame-at-fat https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/09/13/493739074...

V__ 5y ago
This is such a dumb whataboutism point. Either discredit the data or the argument.
- disambiguation 5y ago
  No this isn't whataboutism. My point is simply that "scientific consensus" has lost some of its brand value. Further, I'm not an "expert" so even if I did challenge the data or argument, I would be dismissed for being unqualified.
  - ziddoap 5y ago
    > "Here is the scientific consensus." >> "What about sugar." Is the definition of whataboutism. >Further, I'm not an "expert" so even if I did challenge the data or argument, I would be dismissed for being unqualified. Not always true. You just need to provide data (or identify an error in their data/methodology/etc.) that is convincing enough to overcome the difference in weight afforded to an expert opinion and non-expert opinion. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. This is not to say that you are wrong, you very well could be correct, but the onus is on you to prove why your non-expert opinion should be weighted higher than hundreds of experts from various countries.
    - lolsal 5y ago
      I don't think the parent is saying "what about sugar?", I think the parent is saying "why should we buy that this is consensus when consensus can be bought and paid for, as evidenced by this story about sugar and scientific consensus?"
      - ziddoap 5y ago
        In other words, "what about the the time when consensus was bought?". And my reply would be: if you have evidence that the current consensus has been purchased, I am all ears.
        kcplate 5y ago
        And my reply would be that evidence is not always immediately apparent, but that doesn’t mean evidence doesn’t exist. The commenter’s point was that due to other scandal, “scientific consensus” doesn’t hold the same weight it once might have held. Especially when powerful industries and Lot’s O’Money are involved. Not just sugar, but energy, tobacco, and yes…even other pharmaceuticals. TBH there seems to be a pretty direct correlation between any industry that tends to be regularly described as “Big [name of industry]” and these sort of scientific oopsies that turn up a decade or so later. I’m fully vaccinated and boosted, but I am not going to be at all surprised if 10 years from now there is an “oops” with this too.

akomtu 5y ago

It's not a consensus when anyone who objects is fired from academia.

mjfl 5y ago

the science says that one vaccination is still sufficient to prevent severe disease, and that it is uncertain that additional boosters will reduce transmission on a country wide basis- things will still spread among the unvaccinated, booster hold outs, and those whos antibody titers have gone down after 3 months. It is absolutely not scientific consensus, then, that universal boosters are necessary or would be sufficient to end the pandemic. I absolutely would not recommend getting a vaccine booster shot every 3 months. Your plasma cells are not meant to proliferate to that extent.

1123581321 5y ago
Yes, and in addition to that, the regimen of shots and boosters becomes too much for unvaccinated to contemplate. They are more being asked to enter into a new lifestyle, now, contrasted with the request a year ago to take one simple protective action. In the US, I would like to see the recommendation change to a single Pfizer shot with second shot and booster language changed to that of optimization, rather than necessity. The single shot, even after several months, is still very effective against severe cases. I believe the vaccination rate would increase and that pressing to get our 1+ shot rate above 90% could be a genuine bipartisan rally.