3 ms·
This thread will surely devolve into a general repository for COVID contrarian angst, but the broader point in this article is an interesting one. I would summa
by noelsusman 4y ago
This thread will surely devolve into a general repository for COVID contrarian angst, but the broader point in this article is an interesting one. I would summarize it by saying there's an asymmetry in evidence demanded for a claim based on whether or not it agrees with the conclusion obtained by reasoning from first principles.
The author seems to be saying that rigorous, peer-reviewed, observational studies should be the end of the discussion, or at least the starting point. I'm not sure I agree. Given the significant limitations present in all medical studies like this, I think it could make some sense to give a lot more weight to the conclusion reached through a fundamental understanding of how the human body works. Some hesitancy to overturn that conclusion based on a handful of inevitably flawed studies seems prudent to me, or at least not crazy.
I'm reminded of the current tensions around "evidence-based practice" where medicine is transformed into essentially flowcharts that get continuously updated according to peer-reviewed research. It sounds like a good idea, but it's been somewhat controversial since that's not how medicine has traditionally been practiced. It significantly reduces a doctor's ability to problem solve through reasoning, which has some benefits but also some clear downsides as well.
- ghostbrainalpha 4y agoThe data is the data. If the data that agrees with you is "good data", and the data that disagrees with you "needs to reach a higher standard", that is how inaccurate beliefs get entrenched.
- Majromax 4y agoThat's just Bayesian reasoning. If you told me that you saw the sun rise in the east this morning, I'd probably believe you. If you told me that you saw the sun rise in the north this morning, I'd probably not believe you. In both cases, "the data is the data," and all I have is your report. However, given a strong prior probability based on personal experience and first-principles reasoning, in the second case above I'm still more likely to think you mistaken than the conventional cosmological model wrong.
- noelsusman 4y agoI wish it was that simple, but it's not. Data has flaws and limitations and is subject to interpretation. This isn't like math where we can prove the answer to a question is true with absolute certainty.
- ipaddr 4y agoIgnore the data and what we are seeing and move back into a more basic incorrect model we feel safe in? The world isn't flat even though it maybe politically incorrect to tell the church this. The downsides here are political.
- akimball 4y agoSince the interactions of ACE2 and nicotine are well-known, my priors favor the benefit of nicotine in this pandemic. They remain neutral, consequently, with regard to smoking, because while smoking does deliver nicotine, it also does lung damage with heat and particulates, and delivers carcinogenic and oxidative creosotes.
- godshatter 4y agoThe thing that bugs me is that instead of taking the well-known interactions of ACE2 receptors and nicotine as a starting point and looking at how nicotine binds to the ACE2 receptor and trying to find something less addictive to take it's place they just sweep it under the rug for whatever reason.
- moistly 4y agoWhat makes you think “they” are not researching ACE2 binding agents? Have you actually searched for studies & research, or are you posting lazy conspiratorial blarg?
- MockObject 4y ago> It significantly reduces a doctor's ability to problem solve through reasoning You mean, reduces their ability to reason incorrectly and contradict the best practices encoded in that flowchart? It's astounding and depressing that "evidence based medicine" isn't how medicine has been practiced for centuries now.