4 ms·

Well let's test this theory out then. Would you say I was being ridiculous if I told you that the number of people who drown in a year is linked to how many mov

by toolz 4y ago

Well let's test this theory out then. Would you say I was being ridiculous if I told you that the number of people who drown in a year is linked to how many movies nicolas cage appears in? If so, then you might not actually believe linked is simply a synonym for correlation. I know I certainly would think that was a ridiculous way to phrase it.

MrsPeaches 4y ago
> the number of people who drown in a year is linked to how many movies nicolas cage appears in For those who don't know the reference: http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations
2muchcoffeeman 4y ago
That's just being facetious though. We've all seen that website with funny correlations. This line of argument while an important lesson to look deeper into systems before claiming a correlation doesn't really add much here. Loads of people get the flu vaccine. Enough that I'd imagine the sample size is representative of the population at large. A large number of people also don't get the flu vaccine. So this is a surprising result. Especially since we are injecting a liquid into the people so there could reasonably be some effect we never thought of. Which is the whole point. These people aren't correlating things in completely unrelated fields and claiming a link.
- native_samples 4y ago
  It's not facetious. It's quite the stretch to say that if you assume literally any injection could cure any disease, it's OK to describe any found correlation as a "link". This sort of intellectual looseness is not free. People are learning to treat claims by scientists as untrue, and it's partly because of this sort of press release/paper hacking. Finding a correlation between two random medical data sets does not mean there is a "link" in any English that normal people would use it. It definitely does not mean there's an "effect" or that one thing "reduces" the other. It might mean there's something worth a followup investigation there, though given the prevalence of non-reproducible p-hacked results in science, also maybe not. Regardless, before doing press releases and going to the public with such a claim there is a large amount of work needing to be done to actually prove causality. Moreover you'd then want to ask why does such a thing happen when there is no prior reason to suspect such an impact.
  - 2muchcoffeeman 4y ago
    > It's not facetious. It's quite the stretch to say that if you assume literally any injection could cure any disease, it's OK to describe any found correlation as a "link". I don't see it that way. Nick Cage has nothing to do with Alzheimers. We're not finding correlations with Nick Cage movies and then saying "Nick Cage linked to reduction in Alzheimers". They are suggesting that flu vaccination may have some 2nd order effect beyond protecting you from the flu. Which could be reasonable, science reporting and poor research notwithstanding. Either way, the refrain "Correlation does not imply causation" is over used in my view. And I'd rather learn the specific ways the research is flawed.
    - native_samples 4y ago
      It could be reasonable but like I said, it's a massive stretch. Flu vaccines are not designed to stop Alzheimer's. There is no argued or known biological pathway through which that might happen. Alzheimer's experts have not previously identified flu vaccines as doing anything that might help. And it probably isn't flu itself causing Alzheimer's because, as I've noted elsewhere in this thread, flu vaccines don't appear to have actually reduced overall flu mortality and some studies show negative effectiveness. https://www.healio.com/news/primary-care/20200302/flu-vaccination-does-not-reduce-hospitalizations-death-in-older-adults https://www.healio.com/news/primary-care/20200302/flu-vaccin... I don't think there's a really killer argument here in the abstract: I personally find it unreasonable to imply causation from any medical intervention to any possible outcome based on just a correlation. Yes, it's more reasonable than Nick Cage being associated, but not reasonable enough. That's a judgement call however. I am guided in it by the massive costs and problems created when scientists claim vaccines are miracle cures without sufficiently robust data.
      - acdha 4y ago
        > Flu vaccines are not designed to stop Alzheimer's. There is no argued or known biological pathway through which that might happen. You might want to read the paper before saying untrue things like that so confidently: “Mounting evidence indicates that systemic immune responses can have lasting effects on the brain and can influence AD risk and/or progression. A diverse range of microorganisms and infectious diseases have been associated with an increased risk and/or rate of cognitive decline, particularly among older adults, including influenzal respiratory infections [5, 6], pneumonia [4, 7], herpes infections [7], chronic periodontitis [8], urinary tract infections [4], gastrointestinal infections [9], sepsis [4], and most recently COVID-19 [10]. Prevention or attenuation of microbe-related inflammation may therefore represent a rational strategy to delay or reduce the risk of neurodegenerative disease. Consistent with this hypothesis, studies have found a decreased risk of dementia associated with prior exposure to various adulthood vaccinations, including those for tetanus, diphtheria, pertussis (Tdap) [11–13]; poliomyelitis [11]; tuberculosis [14, 15]; herpes zoster (i.e., shingles) [6, 13, 16, 17]; and influenza [11, 18–21].” Unlike your Nick Cage theory, this has a clear mechanism and is compatible with the understanding of similar effects.
sudosysgen 4y ago
Congratulations, you've discovered p-hacking. I said "almost certain". What you did is taken a database of someone who made millions of comparisons, such that coincidences that are very unlikely to occur happen via pure coincidence. Additionally, I said "enough of a sample size". Given that the analysis you're talking about was over 11 pairs of points, that doesn't even qualify as very unlikely.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

by toolz 4y ago

MrsPeaches 4y ago

> the number of people who drown in a year is linked to how many movies nicolas cage appears in For those who don't know the reference: http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations

2muchcoffeeman 4y ago

That's just being facetious though. We've all seen that website with funny correlations. This line of argument while an important lesson to look deeper into systems before claiming a correlation doesn't really add much here. Loads of people get the flu vaccine. Enough that I'd imagine the sample size is representative of the population at large. A large number of people also don't get the flu vaccine. So this is a surprising result. Especially since we are injecting a liquid into the people so there could reasonably be some effect we never thought of. Which is the whole point. These people aren't correlating things in completely unrelated fields and claiming a link.

native_samples 4y ago
It's not facetious. It's quite the stretch to say that if you assume literally any injection could cure any disease, it's OK to describe any found correlation as a "link". This sort of intellectual looseness is not free. People are learning to treat claims by scientists as untrue, and it's partly because of this sort of press release/paper hacking. Finding a correlation between two random medical data sets does not mean there is a "link" in any English that normal people would use it. It definitely does not mean there's an "effect" or that one thing "reduces" the other. It might mean there's something worth a followup investigation there, though given the prevalence of non-reproducible p-hacked results in science, also maybe not. Regardless, before doing press releases and going to the public with such a claim there is a large amount of work needing to be done to actually prove causality. Moreover you'd then want to ask why does such a thing happen when there is no prior reason to suspect such an impact.
- 2muchcoffeeman 4y ago
  > It's not facetious. It's quite the stretch to say that if you assume literally any injection could cure any disease, it's OK to describe any found correlation as a "link". I don't see it that way. Nick Cage has nothing to do with Alzheimers. We're not finding correlations with Nick Cage movies and then saying "Nick Cage linked to reduction in Alzheimers". They are suggesting that flu vaccination may have some 2nd order effect beyond protecting you from the flu. Which could be reasonable, science reporting and poor research notwithstanding. Either way, the refrain "Correlation does not imply causation" is over used in my view. And I'd rather learn the specific ways the research is flawed.
  - native_samples 4y ago
    It could be reasonable but like I said, it's a massive stretch. Flu vaccines are not designed to stop Alzheimer's. There is no argued or known biological pathway through which that might happen. Alzheimer's experts have not previously identified flu vaccines as doing anything that might help. And it probably isn't flu itself causing Alzheimer's because, as I've noted elsewhere in this thread, flu vaccines don't appear to have actually reduced overall flu mortality and some studies show negative effectiveness. https://www.healio.com/news/primary-care/20200302/flu-vaccination-does-not-reduce-hospitalizations-death-in-older-adults https://www.healio.com/news/primary-care/20200302/flu-vaccin... I don't think there's a really killer argument here in the abstract: I personally find it unreasonable to imply causation from any medical intervention to any possible outcome based on just a correlation. Yes, it's more reasonable than Nick Cage being associated, but not reasonable enough. That's a judgement call however. I am guided in it by the massive costs and problems created when scientists claim vaccines are miracle cures without sufficiently robust data.
    - acdha 4y ago
      > Flu vaccines are not designed to stop Alzheimer's. There is no argued or known biological pathway through which that might happen. You might want to read the paper before saying untrue things like that so confidently: “Mounting evidence indicates that systemic immune responses can have lasting effects on the brain and can influence AD risk and/or progression. A diverse range of microorganisms and infectious diseases have been associated with an increased risk and/or rate of cognitive decline, particularly among older adults, including influenzal respiratory infections [5, 6], pneumonia [4, 7], herpes infections [7], chronic periodontitis [8], urinary tract infections [4], gastrointestinal infections [9], sepsis [4], and most recently COVID-19 [10]. Prevention or attenuation of microbe-related inflammation may therefore represent a rational strategy to delay or reduce the risk of neurodegenerative disease. Consistent with this hypothesis, studies have found a decreased risk of dementia associated with prior exposure to various adulthood vaccinations, including those for tetanus, diphtheria, pertussis (Tdap) [11–13]; poliomyelitis [11]; tuberculosis [14, 15]; herpes zoster (i.e., shingles) [6, 13, 16, 17]; and influenza [11, 18–21].” Unlike your Nick Cage theory, this has a clear mechanism and is compatible with the understanding of similar effects.

sudosysgen 4y ago

Congratulations, you've discovered p-hacking. I said "almost certain". What you did is taken a database of someone who made millions of comparisons, such that coincidences that are very unlikely to occur happen via pure coincidence. Additionally, I said "enough of a sample size". Given that the analysis you're talking about was over 11 pairs of points, that doesn't even qualify as very unlikely.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]