4 ms·

It links to a column on the Science website, and only to take a picture from it. The blog post doesn't discuss the scientific article that picture originally co

by ufo 5y ago

It links to a column on the Science website, and only to take a picture from it. The blog post doesn't discuss the scientific article that picture originally comes from or even he column that they link to. It uses the picture to say "omicron is weird" and jumps straight to speculation from twitter. As for the news article from the Taiwan Times, it has nothing to do with omicron which is the main topic at hand.

verdverm 5y ago
If we don't know the answer, are all hypotheses "speculation" What is the differentiator?
- ufo 5y ago
  It depends on what kind of media we're talking about. A scientific article about the origin of omicron would be expected to provide citations and evidence behind everything it says. It would also be expected to discuss all the leading theories, as well as what additional information we need to figure out which theory is the one most likely to be correct. A news article from a journalist might interview the experts to get their opinion and summarize the scientific consensus to the general public. Ideally it should also allow an interested reader to identify what scientific publications the news is talking about, should the reader desire to find more info. This blog post is none of that. It ignores the leading theories in order to paint a biased picture that only a lab leak is possible. Their main "evidence" is someone on twitter. A close read reveals innumerable holes and red flags. For example, it when it says that omicron couldn't have evolved in an immunocompromised patient because they "don't have the antibodies". They actually do, it's just that they don't have as many! The whole point of the immunocompromised patient theory is that a long infection with a weak immune response provides selective pressure for immune evasion, while giving enough time for mutations to develop. Things like this demonstrate that this author has little idea of what they're talking about. Someone else made a comparison to arguments from creationists, which I think is apt. They throw a bunch of things at the wall, hoping that something sticks. But they don't paint a coherent picture and if we look close it's a mess.

by ufo 5y ago

verdverm 5y ago

If we don't know the answer, are all hypotheses "speculation" What is the differentiator?

ufo 5y ago
It depends on what kind of media we're talking about. A scientific article about the origin of omicron would be expected to provide citations and evidence behind everything it says. It would also be expected to discuss all the leading theories, as well as what additional information we need to figure out which theory is the one most likely to be correct. A news article from a journalist might interview the experts to get their opinion and summarize the scientific consensus to the general public. Ideally it should also allow an interested reader to identify what scientific publications the news is talking about, should the reader desire to find more info. This blog post is none of that. It ignores the leading theories in order to paint a biased picture that only a lab leak is possible. Their main "evidence" is someone on twitter. A close read reveals innumerable holes and red flags. For example, it when it says that omicron couldn't have evolved in an immunocompromised patient because they "don't have the antibodies". They actually do, it's just that they don't have as many! The whole point of the immunocompromised patient theory is that a long infection with a weak immune response provides selective pressure for immune evasion, while giving enough time for mutations to develop. Things like this demonstrate that this author has little idea of what they're talking about. Someone else made a comparison to arguments from creationists, which I think is apt. They throw a bunch of things at the wall, hoping that something sticks. But they don't paint a coherent picture and if we look close it's a mess.