5 ms·

There is a bunch of examples of extremely influential theories that were dismisses because of authority figures, I don't know if you count math as science, but

There is a bunch of examples of extremely influential theories that were dismisses because of authority figures, I don't know if you count math as science, but for example set theory was extremely controversial.

nathan_compton 3y ago
And yet set theory is now regularly employed. It used to take humans hundreds of years to adjust major ideas. Now dummies complain if an idea takes a decade to gain acceptance. Science is still probably the most flexible and adaptive social milieu in the history of the human race.
DiogenesKynikos 3y ago
Every one of the CoVID examples given there is obviously wrong, even with hindsight: * The "Great Barrington Declaration," if followed, would have likely doubled America's already extremely high death toll. Which countries did the best in the pandemic? The dreaded zero-CoVID countries, which got all the way to vaccines with extremely low death tolls, often with a much greater level of normalcy in everyday life than the US (see: Taiwan, China, Singapore, New Zealand, etc.). The idea of letting all controls on viral spread drop (which is what the GBD effectively was) before vaccines were developed was just a plan for everyone to get the virus without the benefits of vaccination, with the ensuing high death toll. * Mask mandates supposedly useless: challenging the idea that proper masks (N-95s or equivalent) do not dramatically reduce spread of the virus is like challenging the idea that parachutes break falls. They do, for very simple mechanistic reasons. * Young people being vaccinated: The risks of vaccination are far lower than the risks of CoVID in all age groups. The worst side-effects of the vaccine (which are extrememly rare) are actually far more prevalent after infection than after vaccination.
- ModernMech 3y ago
  All of your examples hinge on the idea that killing or infecting people is bad. You have to broaden your mindset to consider that some groups and people see those outcomes as okay.
- zmgsabst 3y ago
  To point 3, they’re not. According to this UK government data which lists the number needed to prevent one serious case — which are higher than the number at which we’d expect one serious side effect. Literally a QALY negative treatment. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1131409/appendix-1-of-jcvi-statement-on-2023-covid-19-vaccination-programme-8-november-2022.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...
  - DiogenesKynikos 3y ago
    You're comparing two different things: prevented cases and side-effects. The rate of those very same serious side-effects is far higher from CoVID itself than from the vaccine. You're literally increasing their frequency by refusing to vaccinate.
    - zmgsabst 3y ago
      I’m not: If you don’t prevent at least one serious case per serious side-effect caused, your treatment is a negative contribution. That’s what QALY negative means — that you’re doing more harm than good. This government information clearly says that the number of immunizations needed for young people to prevent one hospitalization is far above the number at which we’d expect a serious side-effect, eg myocarditis. Please stop denying government health data to promote your kook theories. You’re hurting people with misinformation.
      - DiogenesKynikos 3y ago
        > If you don’t prevent at least one serious case per serious side-effect caused Severe cases and serious side-effects are not the same thing. In the document you linked, a "severe case" is classified as one in which you end up on ventilation in the ICU. You don't even state where you're supposedly getting your information about serious side-effects, or how "serious side-effect" is defined (I think the technical term is actually "severe adverse event"). You just assert that "severe cases" and "serious side effects" can be compared 1-to-1, and then pull a statistic on "serious side effects" out of nowhere. > Please stop denying government health data to promote your kook theories. You’re hurting people with misinformation. The government report you cited doesn't make the claim you attribute to it. It says nothing about vaccine side-effects. You're stringing together various bits of information that you don't fully understand to make major claims, and then accusing others who don't buy it of misinformation.
tbrownaw 3y ago
> count math as science It's not. They're both offshoots of philosophy, but they're distinct from eachother.

nathan_compton 3y ago

And yet set theory is now regularly employed. It used to take humans hundreds of years to adjust major ideas. Now dummies complain if an idea takes a decade to gain acceptance. Science is still probably the most flexible and adaptive social milieu in the history of the human race.

DiogenesKynikos 3y ago

Every one of the CoVID examples given there is obviously wrong, even with hindsight: * The "Great Barrington Declaration," if followed, would have likely doubled America's already extremely high death toll. Which countries did the best in the pandemic? The dreaded zero-CoVID countries, which got all the way to vaccines with extremely low death tolls, often with a much greater level of normalcy in everyday life than the US (see: Taiwan, China, Singapore, New Zealand, etc.). The idea of letting all controls on viral spread drop (which is what the GBD effectively was) before vaccines were developed was just a plan for everyone to get the virus without the benefits of vaccination, with the ensuing high death toll. * Mask mandates supposedly useless: challenging the idea that proper masks (N-95s or equivalent) do not dramatically reduce spread of the virus is like challenging the idea that parachutes break falls. They do, for very simple mechanistic reasons. * Young people being vaccinated: The risks of vaccination are far lower than the risks of CoVID in all age groups. The worst side-effects of the vaccine (which are extrememly rare) are actually far more prevalent after infection than after vaccination.

ModernMech 3y ago
All of your examples hinge on the idea that killing or infecting people is bad. You have to broaden your mindset to consider that some groups and people see those outcomes as okay.
zmgsabst 3y ago
To point 3, they’re not. According to this UK government data which lists the number needed to prevent one serious case — which are higher than the number at which we’d expect one serious side effect. Literally a QALY negative treatment. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1131409/appendix-1-of-jcvi-statement-on-2023-covid-19-vaccination-programme-8-november-2022.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...
- DiogenesKynikos 3y ago
  You're comparing two different things: prevented cases and side-effects. The rate of those very same serious side-effects is far higher from CoVID itself than from the vaccine. You're literally increasing their frequency by refusing to vaccinate.
  - zmgsabst 3y ago
    I’m not: If you don’t prevent at least one serious case per serious side-effect caused, your treatment is a negative contribution. That’s what QALY negative means — that you’re doing more harm than good. This government information clearly says that the number of immunizations needed for young people to prevent one hospitalization is far above the number at which we’d expect a serious side-effect, eg myocarditis. Please stop denying government health data to promote your kook theories. You’re hurting people with misinformation.
    - DiogenesKynikos 3y ago
      > If you don’t prevent at least one serious case per serious side-effect caused Severe cases and serious side-effects are not the same thing. In the document you linked, a "severe case" is classified as one in which you end up on ventilation in the ICU. You don't even state where you're supposedly getting your information about serious side-effects, or how "serious side-effect" is defined (I think the technical term is actually "severe adverse event"). You just assert that "severe cases" and "serious side effects" can be compared 1-to-1, and then pull a statistic on "serious side effects" out of nowhere. > Please stop denying government health data to promote your kook theories. You’re hurting people with misinformation. The government report you cited doesn't make the claim you attribute to it. It says nothing about vaccine side-effects. You're stringing together various bits of information that you don't fully understand to make major claims, and then accusing others who don't buy it of misinformation.

tbrownaw 3y ago

> count math as science It's not. They're both offshoots of philosophy, but they're distinct from eachother.