Did you catch it ?

[write-stuff]

Dr. Fauci has pretty high standards. I suspect that by the time he's willing to give his imprimatur to something like that, we all will be dead of old age.

Rich

He may indeed have high standards. But he isn't a beacon alone in the night. I get the impression that most of the knowledgeable people in this field feel the same way.

 

[Palmpilot]

Dr. Bruce posted this in another thread:

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/...et-scientists-take-the-lead-new-yorks-did-not

 

[MuseChaser]

If this pandemic was something other than a temporary situation, I'd go about life as normal. But as I have elderly and sick relatives and friends, I'm gonna do what I can to keep them from dying early.

Absolutely nothing to disagree with here. You and me, both.

 

[chemgeek]

Isolation has to work in the extreme limiting case, that is true based on theory.

But the point here is that is a different question from whether a social or government intervention works. The intervention may not work because it fails to achieve the sort of separation which reduces viral spread in the real world. No other mechanism of spread need to be present.

Any reduction in interpersonal contact will reduce viral spread. Viral spread is is entirely probabilistic, depending on your number of contacts, how close those contacts are, and the length of time of those contacts. Even home-made masks will help by reducing the effective radius or high-probability contacts with asymptomatic individuals. Social intervention (government policy or public health recommendation) is the mechanism for communicating the appropriate behaviors to the public. So, unless you believe that NOBODY paid attention to stay-at-home orders, or to recommendations from public health officials, those interventions most certainly helped avoid wider and more rapid spread of the epidemic by reducing the number, frequency, and duration of human-human contacts.

I sense that you dislike social intervention in your life, but I don't think public health officials are taking in glee in the recommended reduction of your freedom. Magical thinking won't get us through this. If we do nothing to control viral spread, everything we DO know says that the result will be unacceptable. (We actually ran that experiment in NYC for just a couple of weeks until it was realized what was happening.) The virus is here to stay, and we won't be able to conduct our business like we did 3 months ago for a while. Reality bites, sometimes.

I, too, dislike everything about physical distancing: not being able to travel, not being able to have a beer with my friends, not being able to participate in sports, not being able to dine at some of my favorite restaurants, and not being able to network personally with professional colleagues. And I really, really hate videoconferences. But I also know my physical distancing will have an impact on what could otherwise be.

We need to prioritize our efforts in moving to a better situation, and that will require social interventions in the short term (because, there is like nothing else at the moment); testing, tracing, and maybe therapeutics in the near term; and a deployable vaccine in the long term. But this is really not a big secret in the scientific and public health community. Whining about how much we dislike policies won't get us there faster. (My parents were young adults during WWII. My grandparents lost their homestead during the Great Depression. I wonder what they would think about some Americans being apparently unable to cope after less than two months of physical distancing.)

I'm actually quite amazed by my local community in terms of our compliance and resourcefulness in the face of the pandemic. We are feeling a little cooped up, but after an initial outbreak of COVID-19 here, and the death of a prominent local citizen early in the outbreak, we have persevered and reduced our county caseload to low single digits per day, enough that we can start to contemplate life WITH the virus if we can test and trace, and neighboring counties can get their caseloads under similar control. So, in our little part of the world, yes, public policy made a real difference, and is overwhelmingly supported by the public.

I'm rooting for my fellow scientists in getting us through this, and leaving the magical thinking for others to contemplate. Disney's Law ("Wishing will make it so") still doesn't apply.

 

[Bell206]

The one thing missing in all these virus vs economy discussions is a true risk assesment. Industries and governments have been doing this for years. So at what point does the death of the national economy outweigh the number of COVID deaths? If you listen to the economists who are the equivelant to Fauci and Birx, and who get no equal national face time, the economy curve is flattening also but inversely. And as in any risk analysis, if you are familar with them, you place a value on what you are protecting with the cost of what it will take to protect it. If the current global 80/20 COVID ratio holds steady and we fail to start a meaningful shift to balance the priorites of both existing curves, then as being demonstrated daily by those in the 80th percentile we run the risk of creating a 3rd curve of social discourse or worse.

 

[RJM62]

I sense that you dislike social intervention in your life, but I don't think public health officials are taking in glee in the recommended reduction of your freedom.

I agree with regard to public health professionals. Unfortunately, I think it gives the politicians orgasms.

If we do nothing to control viral spread, everything we DO know says that the result will be unacceptable. (We actually ran that experiment in NYC for just a couple of weeks until it was realized what was happening.) The virus is here to stay, and we won't be able to conduct our business like we did 3 months ago for a while. Reality bites, sometimes.

This irks me quite a bit. Who, exactly, is suggesting doing nothing? Every single argument against coercive lockdowns begins with protecting and supporting the vulnerable, and ends with common-sense precautions (masks, hand-washing, closing extremely high-risk businesses like tattoo parlors, etc.). No one -- NO ONE -- is suggesting "doing nothing."

Or in other words, there are a lot of possible avenues of response between doing nothing and bankrupting the whole country. But anyone who doesn't swallow the social distancing narrative hook, line, and sinker is accused of wanting to "do nothing" and just let the corpses pile up. I expect that kind of non-thinking from idiot politicians, not scientists.

As for New York City, de Bozo in particular did everything wrong. He was so wrong that people on both sides of the opinion spectrum regarding the best COVID response agree on one thing: that de Bozo is an idiot. He was beyond merely incompetent to being downright reckless, actually encouraging people to engage in high-risk activity against the pleading of his public health professionals.

Now he's swung in the opposite direction, even to the point of setting up an MMS snitch line and asking city residents to rat out their neighbors by taking and sending pictures. In true New York City fashion, it was so flooded with penis pictures, Hitler memes, and pictures of de Bozo himself violating the rules that it had to be shut down two days later.

I've always believed that the only way to make a bad situation worse is for government to get involved; and I think this sorry chapter in history proves it.

Rich

 

[chemgeek]

The one thing missing in all these virus vs economy discussions is a true risk assesment. Industries and governments have been doing this for years. So at what point does the death of the national economy outweigh the number of COVID deaths? If you listen to the economists who are the equivelant to Fauci and Birx, and who get no equal national face time, the economy curve is flattening also but inversely. And as in any risk analysis, if you are familar with them, you place a value on what you are protecting with the cost of what it will take to protect it. If the current global 80/20 COVID ratio holds steady and we fail to start a meaningful shift to balance the priorites of both existing curves, then as being demonstrated daily by those in the 80th percentile we run the risk of creating a 3rd curve of social discourse or worse.

I think that kind of analysis is happening now. When your house is on fire, you don't have time to calculate a meaningful risk assessment between water damage vs. fire damage. What the world is going to try to do now is live in a smoldering house and try to figure out how to make it look somewhat normal, water buckets at the ready. When the vaccine comes we will have put out the fire and can fully rebuild. Or the house just burns down (herd immunity through broad and rapid exposure) and we rebuild minus a few family members and pets, and maybe the neighbors houses, too.

Our current Magical Thinking framework is to hope the fire just goes away or puts itself out.

We will know we are doing enough to control the epidemic when caseloads and deaths decline and reach containable levels. It's just math and empirical science. You make an input and 6-10 days later you see the result in caseload, 14-28 days later you see it in death rates. Nobody is wishing to continue the current level of isolation any longer than necessary.

 

[Bell206]

What the world is going to try to do now is live in a smoldering house and try to figure out how to make it look somewhat normal, water buckets at the ready.

True. But as human nature has proven time and time again, once the immediate fire is out (smoldering) the next immediate question is when can I move back in regardless of the "details." I see it in my clan. We protect our 90 year Nana with COPD yet the younger members, while they understand about Nana, are watching their respective lives and futures disappear before their eyes. In two cases, unfortunately, never to return. So unless they start to balance the curves I previously mentioned, the 80% natives are getting restless and if they start to push this socially the sale of 327 million roles of TP in 5 days will look like child's play. The last thing we need is everyone under 60 doing their own "risk management."

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

I'm rooting for my fellow scientists in getting us through this, and leaving the magical thinking for others to contemplate. Disney's Law ("Wishing will make it so") still doesn't apply.

I generally try to avoid bringing the personal characteristics of the speaker into this type of discussion on public fora. However, you brought it up here by asserting authority by stating you are a scientist and attributing magical thinking to others.

Since you are writing here under a pseudonym, may I ask your real name so that other readers may assess your qualifications as a scientist?

 

[deonb]

Sometime within the last month or two, I heard a proposal to ease restrictions on a county-by-county basis.

That would be like having a designated peeing area in a swimming pool.

 

[chemgeek]

My point is that CFR is a meaningless number when the number used to create it (number of diagnosed cases) is nowhere close to reality (the actual number of cases).

The CFR is a useful measure for public health planning. In general, CFR is the fatality rate for a statistical bin of individuals who have sufficiently obvious or severe systems to seek diagnosis. The median CFR worldwide has been around 5%, and that's where the US is. (The earliest studies suggested the CFR was around 2%, based on reports from Wuhan and cruise ship passengers.) The CFR is not intended to be, nor does it claim to be, a prediction of fatality probability for everyone who is infected. The infection fatality rate for SARS-CoV-2 now looks like it is around 10 times lower than the CFR (0.5% or so) based on the most recent serology data. If you get infected, your fatality rate is the IFR. If you get sick enough to seek testing and are confirmed positive, you graduate to the CFR statistical bin. The IFR and CFR are different things, and have different useful applications. If you are planning for hospital capacity, you need to monitor the CFR. If you want to predict when a population will have herd immunity, you need to know the IFR.

The sticky point is when one attempts to compare fatality rates between different pathogens. Then you have to ensure you are comparing comparable measures. The CFR is easier to measure, but of course it has issues related to what proportion of those who infected gets tested. The IFR is no easier to measure, as there are virtually no widespread conditions where we know accurately how many individuals are actually infected, including influenza. Ina way, both the CFR and IFR are problematic numbers, for different reasons. Using the latest supporting data, COVID-19 has an IFR that is still around 5-10 times that estimated for the average seasonal influenza. Not horrible, but nothing to trifle with either.

 

[Kenny Phillips]

I generally try to avoid bringing the personal characteristics of the speaker into this type of discussion on public fora. However, you brought it up here by asserting authority by stating you are a scientist and attributing magical thinking to others.

Since you are writing here under a pseudonym, may I ask your real name so that other readers may assess your qualifications as a scientist?

Plenty of folks with advanced degrees have been known to latch on to a favorite idea, and not let go. Being a scientist takes a certain type of mind; a degree may or may not go with it.

 

[chemgeek]

Some good news today in terms of therapeutics. It appears that remdesivir may have significant antiviral efficacy against SARS-CoV-2 in human patients based on a controlled study. This is a drug, unlike hydroxychloroquine, that is expressly designed to target part of the viral replication machinery. Specifically, remdesivir interferes with the function of nsp12, the RNA-dependent RNA polymerase that makes additional copies of the viral RNA genome. The structural and molecular biology communities have been hard at work deciphering the molecular mechanism of action of remdesivir, which provide clues about how to make similar pharmaceuticals. Remdesivir is currently only available in IV form, so it is not able to be widely administered. (What we need is an orally available drug.)

The mechanism of action of remdesivir is as clever as the SARS-CoV-2 is at evading typical antivirals. Remdesivir is metabolized to an nucleotide analog of ATP, which is required for synthesizing new RNA chains. This remdesivir metabolite gets incorporated into RNA chains made by the viral RNA polymerase, and causes a delayed "gumming up of the works" by preventing the duplicated RNA chain from being extended. It turns out to be very important to have this delayed response, because coronaviruses have an exonuclease (nsp14, a "proofreading" protein) that oversees RNA chain synthesis and removes any errors, including nucleotide analogs at the ends of RNA chains. Because of this nsp14 exonuclease, typical antivirals that act as chain growth terminators are not effective against coronaviruses and similar viruses. By getting incorporated into a growing RNA chain and not causing a catastrophic stoppage until several more "normal" nucleotides get incorporated, the proofreading exonuclease often misses its big chance to remove remdesivir until it is too late.

Knowing all this means it is possible to devise similar molecules, which might be orally absorbed, that could act like remdesivir.

 

[JOhnH]

The CFR is a useful measure for public health planning . . .

I was previously educated on the usefulness of CFR, either here or on another web site and I acknowledged my misconception.

You are correct.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

I generally try to avoid bringing the personal characteristics of the speaker into this type of discussion on public fora. However, you brought it up here by asserting authority by stating you are a scientist and attributing magical thinking to others.

Since you are writing here under a pseudonym, may I ask your real name so that other readers may assess your qualifications as a scientist?

Chemgeek's been here for years now. I don't recall an issue with his science.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

Chemgeek's been here for years now. I don't recall an issue with his science.

Well he claims to be a scientist to bolster his argument from authority (that in itself is a fallacy). When asked to identify himself so that his credentials as a scientist can be checked, he refuses to do so.

In this thread he has made several assertions about analyses and the meaning of data and been unable to provide citations to back up same or provide the analyses he claims he made. I would call that a problem with the science, a fairly serious one.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

Plenty of folks with advanced degrees have been known to latch on to a favorite idea, and not let go. Being a scientist takes a certain type of mind; a degree may or may not go with it.

In my experience people who are professionally trained as researchers are much more able to consider ideas objectively and weigh different pieces of evidence in uncertain situations. Harder for people without such training I think, but obviously there are individuals on all sides of that coin.

In any case, an argument from authority is a fallacy. But when people advance that fallacy to support their position, then I think it is appropriate to ask about the credentials being used as the basis of that alleged authority.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

Well he claims to be a scientist to bolster his argument from authority (that in itself is a fallacy). When asked to identify himself so that his credentials as a scientist can be checked, he refuses to do so.

In this thread he has made several assertions about analyses and the meaning of data and been unable to provide citations to back up same or provide the analyses he claims he made. I would call that a problem with the science, a fairly serious one.

In my experience people who are professionally trained as researchers are much more able to consider ideas objectively and weigh different pieces of evidence in uncertain situations. Harder for people without such training I think, but obviously there are individuals on all sides of that coin.

In any case, an argument from authority is a fallacy. But when people advance that fallacy to support their position, then I think it is appropriate to ask about the credentials being used as the basis of that alleged authority.

At most he said he was a scientist: "I'm rooting for my fellow scientists..."
I didn't see where any of his points depended on his authority as a scientist.

And since arguing from authority is a fallacy, his credentials really don't matter much since his "authority" is irrelevant anyway. I'd just let it go.

 

[deonb]

The infection fatality rate for SARS-CoV-2 now looks like it is around 10 times lower than the CFR (0.5% or so) based on the most recent serology data.

Actually, IFR based on the recent serology study in New York is around 0.87%.

Reasoning: IgG takes on average 10 days to develop since infection and be measurable. Medium time to death since infection is 20 days. So there's about 10 days of measurable IgG cases that are still at risk of death.

New York serology study started April 20th, so 9 days ago. That makes the two numbers close enough to be comparable.

23474 confirmed deaths today / 2.7m calculated infection rate from the April 20th tests = 0.87%.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

At most he said he was a scientist: "I'm rooting for my fellow scientists..."
I didn't see where any of his points depended on his authority as a scientist.

And since arguing from authority is a fallacy, his credentials really don't matter much since his "authority" is irrelevant anyway. I'd just let it go.

Yes, I am always more interested in the data and the arguments.

There are several points in this thread where he has made bold assertions and refused to provide the claimed analyses or any published studies as well as claiming that those who disagree with him are engaged in magical thinking. So I do not agree that there have been no attempts at an argument from authority as I think the essential thrust of such statements are “trust me, I’m an authority”

However, I do agree that such personal characteristics are uninteresting as a point of discussion. The main problem is the lack of data, claimed analyses, and other fallacies. Would you like me to quote those problems with the arguments that have been made? Sort of beating a dead horse but if you really want to understand the problems with the science, I can do so.

 

[deonb]

Some good news today in terms of therapeutics. It appears that remdesivir may have significant antiviral efficacy against SARS-CoV-2 in human patients based on a controlled study. This is a drug, unlike hydroxychloroquine, that is expressly designed to target part of the viral replication machinery. Specifically, remdesivir interferes with the function of nsp12, the RNA-dependent RNA polymerase that makes additional copies of the viral RNA genome. The structural and molecular biology communities have been hard at work deciphering the molecular mechanism of action of remdesivir, which provide clues about how to make similar pharmaceuticals.

Indeed good news. Not a complete game changer, but will make a difference in 10's of thousands of people's lives.

Based on the report, the mortality rate of remdesivir treated patients were 8.0% vs 11.6% on the placebo.

So if the remdesivir study pans out, this reduces the IFR from 0.87% (see my previous post) to 0.6%.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

Reasoning: IgG takes on average 10 days to develop since infection and be measurable. Medium time to death since infection is 20 days. So there's about 10 days of measurable IgG cases that are still at risk of death.

I don’t believe this is the correct way to compute this. If the population is in equilibrium, one should just divide the current numbers and that will make the units work out.

Of note, the Santa Clara study estimated 0.12-0.3. There are a range of estimates presently, but the 0.57 from NY is definitely on the high end.

The different estimates may well reflect differences in the age distribution as there is a strong age dependence in the IFR for SARS Cov-2. Might also reflect differences in the type of care being received in different populations.

More dangerous than the seasonal flu, definitely, but a far cry from the 8% everyone was fearing.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

Yes, I am always more interested in the data and the arguments.

There are several points in this thread where he has made bold assertions and refused to provide the claimed analyses or any published studies as well as claiming that those who disagree with him are engaged in magical thinking. So I do not agree that there have been no attempts at an argument from authority as I think the essential thrust of such statements are “trust me, I’m an authority”

This is an internet board for pilots, not a learned professional society. He didn't even, AFAIK, even make the claim he was a scientist until one of the later posts in this thread, that I quoted, but I didn't bother to look.

However, I do agree that such personal characteristics are uninteresting as a point of discussion. The main problem is the lack of data, claimed analyses, and other fallacies. Would you like me to quote those problems with the arguments that have been made? Sort of beating a dead horse but if you really want to understand the problems with the science, I can do so.

I don't think there are problems with the science itself. Perhaps the interpretation of the science, and also there was a lot we didn't know, not very long ago, that we do know now. Tie that in a discussion about how to balance safety and the economy, and there will be differences in opinion.

 

[deonb]

I don’t believe this is the correct way to compute this. If the population is in equilibrium, one should just divide the current numbers.

There will be a percentage of people who are IgG positive that will still be dieing. If it was just important to be alive on the day of the test then you can compare it but most people will find it important to be alive 2 weeks later as well.

Reduction ad absurdum: Infect everybody at the same time. 10 days later you will measure 100% IgG but measure 0% deaths. You'd have to wait another few days to see actual deaths coming in. If you wait too long though you'll get deaths that did not have IgG picked up by the serology test. So using average time to death.

Of note, the Santa Clara study estimated 0.12-0.3. There are a range of estimates presently, but the 0.57 from NY is definitely on the high end.

More dangerous than the seasonal flu, definitely, but a far cry from the 8% everyone was fearing.

The Santa Clara study is flawed. The test they used was not sensitive/specific enough for such a low prevelence population. If you ran that exact test 10 years ago it would show a similar number of positive cases.

 

[Juliet Hotel]

Well he claims to be a scientist to bolster his argument from authority (that in itself is a fallacy). When asked to identify himself so that his credentials as a scientist can be checked, he refuses to do so.

I'm not exactly sure who Chemgeek is nor what claims were made by same so I've got no dog in that fight really. But I think its worth noting that my wife is a very accomplished scientist who is very well established in her particular field. And while (or possibly because) her name is pretty well known among her peers in the industry, her company makes it very clear that she is not to participate in any online discussions of anything relating to anything her company has a hand in. Nothing having to do with their business and nothing having to anything to do with subjects that could influence the buying decisions of customers of her business.

She does participate in such online discussions of course as do many of her colleagues. But she NEVER reveals her name nor much else that could be reliably traced back to her. To do so would be career suicide.

Which is a long winded way of saying if you mean to discredit the input of someone simply because they won't reveal their actual name, well you're going to have to do better than that because things such as the continued ability to write checks for mortgage payments and supermarket food bills can be awesome motivators for people to not reveal their real identity just to win an internet ****ing match.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

Which is a long winded way of saying if you mean to discredit the input of someone

That is not my point. My main point is that if you are going to try and make an argument from authority and claim that others are engaged in magical thinking (sort of an ad hominem fallacy), that is fallacious reasoning.

And if you are going to engage in that type of fallacious reasoning, then it is fair for people to ask what on earth the basis of this alleged authority is?

But hey we can go back over the fallacious lines of reasoning and arguments and lack of data and ability to cite if you like. That is what really shows the level of credibility that should be assigned to the speaker. But I think that point has already been made pretty clearly.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

The Santa Clara study is flawed. The test they used was not sensitive/specific enough for such a low prevelence population. If you ran that exact test 10 years ago it would show a similar number of positive cases.

That has been the argument. But have you read the study and the controls the authors and the manufacturer ran?

If you do, I think you will see that this argument which has been made by a number of people is incorrect.

The manufacturer of the test used had about 300 pre-Covid-19 controls which tested negative.

While a 95% confidence interval for the false positive rate is broader, the best estimate of the sensitivity and specificity of the test is as stated by the authors.

And the best estimate of the IFR for that population is the 0.12-0.3% they stated.

But arguing about this is relatively meaningless unless one has read and understood the study and the statistics used. It is not a simple “that study is flawed” sort of issue.

 

[Juliet Hotel]

And if you are going to engage in that type of fallacious reasoning, then it is fair for people to ask what on earth the basis of this alleged authority is?

If the answer to that question would put your livelihood in jeopardy then I don't think you'd be too keen to answer but maybe that's just me.

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

Plenty of folks with advanced degrees have been known to latch on to a favorite idea, and not let go. Being a scientist takes a certain type of mind; a degree may or may not go with it.

truth.....and there is quite a bit of fake science too...masked around ideology.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

If the answer to that question would put your livelihood in jeopardy then I don't think you'd be too keen to answer but maybe that's just me.

I agree that would make me reluctant to do such a thing. OTOH, I am also reluctant to engage in that type of fallacious reasoning and making statements based upon same because it would reflect poorly upon me.

Much easier to engage in that kind of behavior when writing under a pseudonym - don’t you think? A side note - I don’t imagine your wife, as a well accomplished and established scientist does that sort of thing in fields related to her area of expertise.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

Reduction ad absurdum: Infect everybody at the same time. 10 days later you will measure 100% IgG but measure 0% deaths. You'd have to wait another few days to see actual deaths coming in. If you wait too long though you'll get deaths that did not have IgG picked up by the serology test. So using average time to There will be a percentage of people who are IgG positive that will still be dieing. If it was just important to be alive on the day of the test then you can compare it but most people will find it important to be alive 2 weeks later as well.

.

An interesting way to think about it, however, such a population is not in equilibrium. To compute in a non-equilibrium situation you will have to use different types of averaging over the solution to a differential equation and estimate parameters based on that because the variables are changing.

Easier in the equilibrium situation where one can see that if you multiply the fraction infected by the size of the population infected you get number infected. If you use that to divide deaths in the population, that will give you deaths per person infected.

I can see one fine point to note here though which might cause some confusion. The test for antibodies is assumed to reflect effectively lifetime exposure, so the number infected computed in this manner is the total number ever infected in the population.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

This is an internet board for pilots, not a learned professional society. He didn't even, AFAIK, even make the claim he was a scientist until one of the later posts in this thread, that I quoted, but I didn't bother to look.

I don't think there are problems with the science itself. Perhaps the interpretation of the science, and also there was a lot we didn't know, not very long ago, that we do know now. Tie that in a discussion about how to balance safety and the economy, and there will be differences in opinion.

Well we may have to disagree a bit on this I guess. I think there is a major problem with:

A) Stating you have performed an analysis which is conclusive but being unable to provide the data or analysis or even a summary of same.

B) Stating it is absolutely clear that social distancing has reduced Covid-19 spread but being unable to provide citations to any studies, data or analysis that shows that is true.

C) Ignoring repeated requests for same while claiming you are a scientist.

D) After that, claiming that anyone who disagrees is engaged in “magical thinking”.

I think these behaviors are a problem, scientifically speaking. That is not how one makes scientific progress. Also not the sort of person I think of as a responsible discussant, even on a pilot’s board.

I didn’t even bring it up until the claim and argument to authority was made. In my experience, these are not the sort of behaviors which scientists properly trained in research engage in.

And you are correct that the ability to process and remain objective about things when the data is uncertain, rather than always thinking that some one answer has to always be “absolutely clear” and recognize that data changes and one may say “based on the new data, I changed my mind” are one of the things people trained in research learn how to do.

 

[Juliet Hotel]

I agree that would make me reluctant to do such a thing. OTOH, I am also reluctant to engage in that type of fallacious reasoning and making statements based upon same because it would reflect poorly upon me.

What?

Much easier to engage in that kind of behavior when writing under a pseudonym - don’t you think? A side note - I don’t imagine your wife, as a well accomplished and established scientist does that sort of thing in fields related to her area of expertise.

I get how you'd think that. But you'd be wrong. She very much cares about what the public thinks and she very much pays attention to what the public thinks and she very much wants to engage the public in the conversation about what the public thinks. Both what they think that is correct and what they think that is completely incorrect.

And lots of what they think is incorrect. But her ability to engage and educate them is limited because if she says too much, she'd be fired on the spot no matter how talented she is.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

What?

I get how you'd think that. But you'd be wrong. She very much cares about what the public thinks and she very much pays attention to what the public thinks and she very much wants to engage the public in the conversation about what the public thinks. Both what they think that is correct and what they think that is completely incorrect.

And lots of what they think is incorrect. But her ability to engage and educate them is limited because if she says too much, she'd be fired on the spot no matter how talented she is.

Sorry about any confusion. Maybe to many “that’s” involved.

I will try to be briefer and clearer. I think it is much easier for people who are writing under a pseudonym to engage in fallacious attacks and reasoning. I do not engage in such fallacies personally mostly because I think they are the wrong way to make progress in science and policy, are disrespectful to the people I am discussing with, and are not persuasive. Consequently I would not do so even if I were writing anonymously.

I imagine your wife would not do so either for the same reasons, even as she attempts to help educate the public. I am sorry that she is restricted by her employer but I know that larger organizations can be very conservative in this regard.

 

[Everskyward]

I imagine your wife would not do so either for the same reasons, even as she attempts to help educate the public. I am sorry that she is restricted by her employer but I know that larger organizations can be very conservative in this regard.

I imagine most employers, large and small, would not be happy about employees discussing things related to their business on a public forum such as this. As far as members using their "real name" instead of a screen name, anyone can sign up with a name that sounds real. They can claim all the credentials they want. That doesn't mean any of it will be true. This is a message board, not a scientific journal.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

I imagine most employers, large and small, would not be happy about employees discussing things related to their business on a public forum such as this. As far as members using their "real name" instead of a screen name, anyone can sign up with a name that sounds real. They can claim all the credentials they want. That doesn't mean any of it will be true. This is a message board, not a scientific journal.

Most more academically oriented employers are more flexible on this point. It is historically one of the reasons professors have tenure - so they can speak their minds. But about commercial employers I agree.

It is usually possible to verify people’s academic credentials by name, if one really wants to. And one could verify identity of a poster in a number of ways, again, if one really wanted to.

My point, as I noted above, is that if you are going to engage in all sorts of fallacious reasoning and attacks, that reflects poorly on the quality of the poster, whatever their credentials. But if you then claim to be a scientist why doing so, it is quite reasonable for people to ask “oh, so where were you trained?”.

I think the faulty reasoning and attacks in this case make it fairly clear the level of training or lack thereof. And that is reinforced by the inability to provide any credentials to back up the authority which was claimed.

But I am glad to hear that people primarily base their judgements based on the quality of reasoning and facts adduced, rather than an argument from authority.

You are correct it is a message board and not a scientific journal. Nonetheless, I continue to expect that responsible people I discuss scientific issues with can engage in polite discussion lacking fallacies and based on actual facts and arguments. Otherwise, I find it quite uninteresting I’m afraid.

 

[Everskyward]

My point, as I noted above, is that if you are going to engage in all sorts of fallacious reasoning and attacks, that reflects poorly on the quality of the poster, whatever their credentials. But if you then claim to be a scientist why doing so, it is quite reasonable for people to ask “oh, so where were you trained?”.

Actually I think your attacks on the other poster by asking that he or she identify themselves rather than simply analyzing their argument reflects more poorly on you than the other way around. People who are still reading this thread can make their own judgments.

 

[Juliet Hotel]

Sorry about any confusion. Maybe to many “that’s” involved.

I will try to be briefer and clearer. I think it is much easier for people who are writing under a pseudonym to engage in fallacious attacks and reasoning. I do not engage in such fallacies personally mostly because I think they are the wrong way to make progress in science and policy, are disrespectful to the people I am discussing with, and are not persuasive. Consequently I would not do so even if I were writing anonymously.

I imagine your wife would not do so either for the same reasons, even as she attempts to help educate the public. I am sorry that she is restricted by her employer but I know that larger organizations can be very conservative in this regard.

So if I'm reading this correctly, you're saying I have a point that validly counters your point, but because, and only because, it is technically possible for someone to post something malicious anonymously, nothing I've said is therefore valid.

I guess all I can say is you are correct and sorry about the world you decided you have to live in. For what its worth, I do not so far live in such a jaded world. The year isn't over yet though, so perhaps that could change.

 

[chemgeek]

More dangerous than the seasonal flu, definitely, but a far cry from the 8% everyone was fearing.

No one ever claimed the infection fatality rate was 8%. The median case fatality rate worldwide is around 5%. The most recent random serology studies in NY suggest an infection fatality rate in the 0.5% range. More data will be forthcoming, hopefully to refine that estimate for other regions. To be useful, serology studies need to be random samples, and need to employ tests that have low false positive rates. One of the issues identified in the Santa Clara study is the strategy for participant selection, which could result in significant sample bias. At any rate it is only one of many studies that will emerge. As we accumulate more studies, we will get a better overall picture of population exposure.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

Actually I think your attacks on the other poster by asking that he or she identify themselves rather than simply analyzing their argument reflects more poorly on you than the other way around. People who are still reading this thread can make their own judgments.

Well please go back and read the whole thread. I think you will see that I repeatedly attempted to do just that and never brought the matter up until the other poster starting making an argument from authority and indirect ad hominem attacks on anyone disagreeing with him. Then I simply noted (post #249) that if he was going to make such arguments, anonymously, that perhaps he could please identify himself and his credentials.

Others then began becoming very concerned about this request, which I maintain was a reasonable one under the circumstances.

If you focus on arguments and data and don’t try and make arguments from authority, then I agree that individual credentials should not be relevant here at all (as I noted in my post containing the question.)

OTOH, I don’t think one should simply let repeated fallacies while trying to cloak oneself under some likely false authority go unnoted. I do find such behavior a bit exasperating and will call it out from time to time. A much more outrageous example we previously saw was the user mryan75, though he didn’t claim to be a scientist.