3 ms·

> The author asserts a problem, but provides no actual data to support the assertion, other than linking to some tweets of other people's opinions. Here's the

> The author asserts a problem, but provides no actual data to support the assertion, other than linking to some tweets of other people's opinions. Here's the hosts linked to by the article: Object.entries(Object.groupBy(Array.from(document.querySelectorAll(".body a")).map(a => a.href.split("/")[2]), x => x)).map(([host, refs]) => [host, refs.length]) [ "www.acep.org", 4 ] [ "substackcdn.com", 3 ] [ "link.springer.com", 2 ] [ "onlinelibrary.wiley.com", 1 ] [ "papers.ssrn.com", 1 ] [ "catalyst.nejm.org", 3 ] [ "www.washingtonpost.com", 1 ] [ "mmshub.cms.gov", 2 ] [ "yalesurvey.ca1.qualtrics.com", 2 ] [ "youcanknowthings.com", 1 ] The article cites several published papers, as well as the American college of emergency physicians--I don't see twitter anywhere.

timr 2y ago
Domains mean nothing. Click on the very first link (ACEP; anchor text "sounding the alarm"), and you'll see that it's a news article (actually, an editorial) with no cited authors that I can find. It leads with this completely un-sourced assertion: > Wait times and staffing shortages are worse today than at any point during the pandemic in many communities. The resulting bottlenecks are overwhelming hospitals, causing dangerous delays, and putting lives at risk. Emergency care teams are strained to their limits. Demand for emergency care and services shows no signs of slowing as we head straight toward this winter’s “triple threat” of flu, COVID-19, and pediatric respiratory illnesses like RSV that are filling emergency departments. The influx of patients only piles more stress onto the shoulders of emergency physicians, who are doing all they can to treat anyone who needs them. Aside from leaning heavily on emotional wording ("strained to their limits", "doing all they can"), these kinds of claims are meaningless without data. The rest of the piece is no better -- it's just anecdote after anecdote, written in newspaper style. The second link is a poll of patients. That's data of some kind, I suppose, but it's not what you'd use to support the claim. That's the entirety of the evidence advanced to prove the fundamental claim that emergency rooms are "overwhelmed". Point being: I looked at the links before I wrote what I wrote. The "evidence" being used here is mostly opinions, surveys and editorials. It's a classic example of "evidence laundering", wherein someone links to pop articles on reputable-sounding domains to make bald assertions sound like rigorous research. I said "tweets" because I thought I saw a link to X in there, but I think I was wrong about that. Mea culpa.
- 577710959 2y ago
  Fair enough! I see your point. This longer-form explanation was convincing :)
- Tao3300 2y ago
  I see you're fortunate enough not to have been to an ER in a while.

timr 2y ago

Domains mean nothing. Click on the very first link (ACEP; anchor text "sounding the alarm"), and you'll see that it's a news article (actually, an editorial) with no cited authors that I can find. It leads with this completely un-sourced assertion: > Wait times and staffing shortages are worse today than at any point during the pandemic in many communities. The resulting bottlenecks are overwhelming hospitals, causing dangerous delays, and putting lives at risk. Emergency care teams are strained to their limits. Demand for emergency care and services shows no signs of slowing as we head straight toward this winter’s “triple threat” of flu, COVID-19, and pediatric respiratory illnesses like RSV that are filling emergency departments. The influx of patients only piles more stress onto the shoulders of emergency physicians, who are doing all they can to treat anyone who needs them. Aside from leaning heavily on emotional wording ("strained to their limits", "doing all they can"), these kinds of claims are meaningless without data. The rest of the piece is no better -- it's just anecdote after anecdote, written in newspaper style. The second link is a poll of patients. That's data of some kind, I suppose, but it's not what you'd use to support the claim. That's the entirety of the evidence advanced to prove the fundamental claim that emergency rooms are "overwhelmed". Point being: I looked at the links before I wrote what I wrote. The "evidence" being used here is mostly opinions, surveys and editorials. It's a classic example of "evidence laundering", wherein someone links to pop articles on reputable-sounding domains to make bald assertions sound like rigorous research. I said "tweets" because I thought I saw a link to X in there, but I think I was wrong about that. Mea culpa.

577710959 2y ago
Fair enough! I see your point. This longer-form explanation was convincing :)
Tao3300 2y ago
I see you're fortunate enough not to have been to an ER in a while.