dent9876543

10 ms·

61.
by dent9876543 3y ago
I don’t get what you are asking for. There are really effective mitigations that one can apply as an individual — get vaccinated, and wear an N95 mask. There’s no exclusion.
62.
by dent9876543 3y ago
Right. And that’s what we should also incorporate into the knowledge about masks. But before putting too much weight on compliance, there are other factors that also lead to low overall effectiveness. For example, the equivalence of mask ty
63.
by dent9876543 3y ago
> Therefore, the review does not imply that masks do not work [...] Actually, for all intents and purposes, it does imply exactly that. The RCTs involved sufficiently large sample sizes that they are representative of real-world outcomes
64.
by dent9876543 3y ago
I didn't read the paper yet. But it looks very different from how an "opinion piece" typically looks. I also didn't look at the bios of the authors, so you may yet be right. On the other hand, we see opinions (both delib
65.
by dent9876543 3y ago
I don't think the study is as easy to replicate as you think. It requires correlating test results and vaccination records. Although both of those data sets probably exist, they are sensitive, probably held by different parties. Joinin
66.
Spike protein in blood 187 days after vaccination against Covid-19(onlinelibrary.wiley.com)
7 points by dent9876543 3y ago|1 comments
67.
by dent9876543 3y ago
Don’t get the throwawayfear reference. But the number of participants in the study is relatively high, and the multiples involved are also high. This should give pause for serious thought even if it is not the final word on the matter for e
68.
by dent9876543 3y ago
I also think that's the intended interpretation (that it is showing reduced immune response to other pathogens). I think the linkage with the showing of /increased/ immune response to pathogens unrelated to COVID-19 traces to
69.
by dent9876543 3y ago
I think the point being made by the “other side” is not so much that the lab leak is probable, not even that it is possible, but rather it’s about whether we’re being told the truth and treated like adults and allowed to make our own judgem
70.
by dent9876543 3y ago
There are some pretty important call-outs: "Study designs commonly suffered from a critical risk of bias. The effects measured in each study were variable in magnitude and generally of low precision." Yet apparently it is unequivo
71.
by dent9876543 3y ago
Because airborne viruses are well know to stay within the vicinity of a positive case…
72.
by dent9876543 3y ago
Why would we need to do any type of greater testing when we already know the shot is safe and effective?
73.
by dent9876543 3y ago
True. But I don’t necessarily think it changes things. It’d be nice to see a follow up incorporating what we’ve learned about the whole wfh/hybrid practices of late. But my guess is that the same group will climb just as they would hav
74.
by dent9876543 3y ago
> […] but that's has nothing to do with science nor can you place blame or reduce your trust across all scientists and scientific institutions. It has everything to do with science when you have actual scientists directing and encou
75.
by dent9876543 3y ago
Wasn’t the point to try to protect the more vulnerable? Realise that we solidly failed to do this with all our masks and measures. I’m not at all convinced that by those who argue it was not possible to apply focused protection. We spent so
76.
by dent9876543 3y ago
It doesn’t matter in the sense that we just had to deal with the virus, no matter what. But it does matter with regard to public trust in science and government. Others have also pointed out that it matters because of it being a potential s
77.
by dent9876543 3y ago
It’s all mess though. It must have been really obvious to all concerned that, by running to ground the lab leak theory, if it ever did get out (what they did) that it’d be a big net loss for trust in government and science. So it follows th
78.
by dent9876543 3y ago
But we're not routinely applying the same logic to LC. It's pretty obvious that in the majority of cases, LC sufferers will /eventually/ recover. What's the difference?
79.
by dent9876543 3y ago
Hmm… anyone got a link to the study? 25% is a huge impact, and far above what other credible studies have shown. I suspect cherry picking one way or the other, but it’d be nice to see the paper to make the judgement.
80.
by dent9876543 3y ago
But we desperately need an honest, transparent, review of coding versus reality. There was a (lancet?) submission reviewing autopsies, but that was rejected. It came to some pretty stark conclusions, so it was either questionable outright,
81.
by dent9876543 3y ago
> Easy for folks like me who got to work from home but pretty damn vile if you were an hourly wage worker. So I get where a lot of the anger comes from. Right. And that's if you bought into the principle of it. If you looked around
82.
by dent9876543 3y ago
> You probably won't notice most of 'em. Right. That can start to reconcile things. But it is not only not visible from afar, but nor is it reported in smalltalk. > [LC] covers an array of symptoms and severities I'm fu
83.
by dent9876543 3y ago
> 10–30% of non-hospitalized cases Since roughly everyone should be expected to become infected, doesn't this mean that 10-30% of the population would have had, or should expect to get, Long COVID? That just doesn't tally with
84.
by dent9876543 3y ago
That one’s not working, but this one is: https://archive.is/FhtHM
85.
by dent9876543 3y ago
Ironically, it probably is. But we need to be able to see it.
86.
by dent9876543 3y ago
Would be good to see a bit more detail on why the conclusions are not supported by the methodology. Is it simply that the conclusions reached a bit far?, or are the Lancet claiming that the paper is factually incorrect?
87.
by dent9876543 3y ago
Argh. I’m lost. Is your outrage being ironic too?
88.
by dent9876543 3y ago
There is quite a lot of chatter about this paper in certain groups. Compared to population sizes, numbers still seem minuscule. So the “safe” aspect of “safe and effective” would seem to remain just about appropriate. Yet there also seems t
89.
The working-from-home illusion fades(economist.com)
6 points by dent9876543 3y ago|2 comments
90.
by dent9876543 3y ago
Maybe the point of hiring you was not for you to learn, but for you to teach.

More ›