5 ms·

I agree with your analysis you are correct to put these ideas forward, it does not mean the paper is incorrect. I personally think we should think of this paper

I agree with your analysis you are correct to put these ideas forward, it does not mean the paper is incorrect. I personally think we should think of this paper as really useful datapoint rather than a set in stone conclusion either way. For me it's really interesting rather than to be dismissed as being completely not probable. Let's see and wait for other research, but I think it's a great theory that needs a lot for it to be fact (as close as we have to one). What is a fact (again, as close as we can get to one...) is that obese people die a lot more readily from COVID and anyone over say 30 BMI (because of fat) should undoubtedly assess the risk of any vaccine as being massively in their favour!

lamontcg 5y ago
Hard disagree. There's so much junk science that articles need to be treated skeptically, particularly if they have strong headline claims that reinforce some common belief combined with details which are hazy and unexplained. Being totally open minded is actually not a virtue, you can be so open minded that you'll start to believe any sort of drivel you pour into your head because it sounds persuasive rather than being correct. I will happily flip my impression of this paper on a dime if someone who is actually qualified to review the actual lab methods and procedures (and if adequate controls were used, etc) pops up to defend it and to explain how cells that don't express ACE2 could possibly be important in COVID-19 pathogenesis, but until then my default setting is to be critical since the paper "smells" bad. It is not a particularly "great" theory, its a very fishy smelling theory.
- andy_ppp 5y ago
  Are you qualified to judge either way?
  - lamontcg 5y ago
    What are your qualifications for being able to judge this as a "great theory"? You seem to think that you're free to think very highly of this paper on zero experience because the headline is appealing, while someone critical of the paper needs to be an expert.

lamontcg 5y ago

Hard disagree. There's so much junk science that articles need to be treated skeptically, particularly if they have strong headline claims that reinforce some common belief combined with details which are hazy and unexplained. Being totally open minded is actually not a virtue, you can be so open minded that you'll start to believe any sort of drivel you pour into your head because it sounds persuasive rather than being correct. I will happily flip my impression of this paper on a dime if someone who is actually qualified to review the actual lab methods and procedures (and if adequate controls were used, etc) pops up to defend it and to explain how cells that don't express ACE2 could possibly be important in COVID-19 pathogenesis, but until then my default setting is to be critical since the paper "smells" bad. It is not a particularly "great" theory, its a very fishy smelling theory.

andy_ppp 5y ago
Are you qualified to judge either way?
- lamontcg 5y ago
  What are your qualifications for being able to judge this as a "great theory"? You seem to think that you're free to think very highly of this paper on zero experience because the headline is appealing, while someone critical of the paper needs to be an expert.