theoryofdoom在2023-02-27~2023-03-05的言论

2023-03-05 作者: theoryofdoom 原文 #Reddit 的其它文章

485: Cochrane Review (the most rigorous and extensive review of the scientific literature and underlying data) concludes that neither surgical masks nor N95 masks have been shown to make a difference in reducing the spread of Covid-19 and other respiratory illnesses, submitted on 2023-02-27 06:57:28+08:00.

—– 485.1 —–2023-02-27 07:01:51+08:00:

The Cochrane Review to which I previously referred

https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD006207.pub6/full

I am aware this link has been shared on subreddits that a lot of folks here will disagree with.

I remind each and every one of you: this is about science, evidence and data. Not politics.

—– 485.2 —–2023-02-27 07:06:17+08:00:

The Cochrane Review to which I previously referred

https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD006207.pub6/full

—– 485.3 —–2023-02-27 09:04:30+08:00:

you’ve posted a link to a magazine

Since you clearly failed to identify the link, I initially posted, I’ll post it once again.

This way, you can’t possibly fail to overlook it.

The Cochrane Review to which I previously referred

https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD006207.pub6/full

Do better.

—– 485.4 —–2023-02-27 09:26:07+08:00:

That’s understandable.

—– 485.5 —–2023-02-27 10:30:10+08:00:

Indeed. Do you understand what that means?

—– 485.6 —–2023-02-27 10:41:59+08:00:

Cochrane is evaluating the research, as it exists. They find the research inadequate to support the claim that masks make a difference, for COVID transmission.

The studies supposedly reaching the conclusion that masks, in fact, do make a difference are unreliable for various reasons. Cochrane explains why.

This matters because we cannot make claims about what something does, when we do not have evidence to support the idea we’re advancing.

This matters because it rejects the premise that most people have been incorrectly caused to believe as axiomatic: that masks not only make a difference, but they are critical to prevent COVID transmission.

It would be like if I sold you a drug to prevent cancer, but the data from all of my clinical trials found no such benefit. I think we can all understand doing that would be very bad.

—– 485.7 —–2023-02-27 11:22:56+08:00:

Your comments and abrasive attitude

I don’t think you understand my perspective. Nor do you understand why this is a source of outrage for me. I want accountability for those in my field who knew better than to ever mislead the public with the bullshit that Cochrane is calling out. We (i.e., folks in the field) knew better and dropped the ball, over and over again.

My ire is focused on my peers and my field. Not you, or anyone who believed what you heard from the media. So, do not feel like this is about you. It is not about you (unless your name is on one of the papers Cochrane was talking about).

This is not the final word on the matter

You’re right! Nothing in science is ever final. We try to reach the best conclusion we can with good evidence and reliable methods. But sometimes folks drop the ball. They reach unsupported conclusions with terrible evidence on unreliable methods. That is what happened here.

It is possible that further research may be undertaken. And that research might reliably find that masks make a difference. As it stands now, there is not now nor has there ever been good science to back such claims. That’s the point of the whole article.

A quick search results in many articles that raise some questions on how to read the report.

Cochrane cuts the wheat from the chaff. Which everyone in this field understands. If your name was on a supposed paper Cochrane just said was bad, I’m sure you’d have all kinds of things to say about it too.

also conclude that it isn’t an open and shut case.

If your name was on an article Cochrane called out, I’d bet you’d be unhappy about it too. I’d be happy to let them speak, and hear what they have to say. Although, these media stories are an irrelevant distraction.

We live in a world where there is so much information out there, it’s very hard to know what to think. That’s why we have things like peer review, to make sure we’re not publishing bullshit. Sometimes those checks aren’t enough.

Two examples are below

Neither of them change the bottom line. The bottom line is simple: there is no credible research that supports claims that masks reduce COVID transmission.

It wasn’t your job to figure that out, though. So it’s not like you’re responsible.

—– 485.8 —–2023-02-27 13:23:42+08:00:

THE REVIEW IS LINKED HERE

REMINDER: Follow the rules in the sidebar.

Also, brigading will result in a permanent ban (and already has, on multiple occasions). We can see whether you have a history of posting in this subreddit, too.

—– 485.9 —–2023-02-27 15:13:07+08:00:

That’s a large part of why it wouldn’t matter if masks could be shown effective in a controlled setting.

If people won’t comply, the intervention won’t work. No matter what it is.

This is a big problem with prescription drugs.

—– 485.10 —–2023-03-01 11:37:05+08:00:

Savage_XPfizer -1 points 7 hours ago

And we are still banning people and even mods, lol.

Yes, including mods. Or former mods, as in this case.

—– 485.11 —–2023-03-13 14:24:26+08:00:

The update is primarily addressed at the people whose comments were removed, which is worthwhile and I’m glad you linked it.

According to the update:

It would be accurate to say that the review examined whether interventions to promote mask wearing help to slow the spread of respiratory viruses, and that the results were inconclusive. Given the limitations in the primary evidence, the review is not able to address the question of whether mask-wearing itself reduces people’s risk of contracting or spreading respiratory viruses.

Such a finding would require clear trends in the data. But clear trends are not found in the data related to all of the mask research, which is why the results were “inconclusive.” In plain english, inconclusive results mean that neither surgical masks nor N95 masks have been shown to make a difference in reducing the spread of Covid-19 and other respiratory illnesses.

Many people do not understand what a Cochrane Review is. And above all, what a Cochrane Review is not.

When scientists want to know something, they either do their own test or look at tests other scientists did before. Scientific research is when scientists do their own study to answer a specific question. It’s like when you do an experiment in science class to see what happens when you mix different chemicals.

Meta-analysis is a bit different. It’s when researchers take information from many different studies and put it all together to get a bigger picture. It’s like if you wanted to know which school had the best sports team, instead of just looking at one game, you would look at all the games they played throughout the whole season to get a better idea.

A Cochrane Review is a type of meta-analysis. A Cochrane Review is not a type of publication that reports the results of first-hand research (research conducted by the authors themselves). A Cochrane Review is, as the name suggests, a review of the research that is published.

The key problem with most of the comments here is simple: they incorrectly concluded that this was just another piece of research that could be weighed on equal grounds, with every other preprint that ostensibly found either surgical masks or N95 masks made some kind of a measurable difference in reducing the spread of COVID-19 (or other respiratory illnesses.

But that is not the case, either. Science does not begin from the presumption that something is true, when there is no evidence for it (as the review plainly states). The vacuous claims of public officials who should know better are no substitute for evidence, even if they may deceive a terrified and gullible public.

486: No tops are allowed in the fitting room, submitted on 2023-02-28 03:23:05+08:00.

—– 486.1 —–2023-02-28 13:36:56+08:00:

I feel attacked.

487: The fate of student loan forgiveness rests on the Supreme Court, submitted on 2023-02-28 23:23:27+08:00.

—– 487.1 —–2023-03-01 22:33:56+08:00:

I feel like student loan forgiveness won’t pass because of all the “oh I paid mine you should pay yours” people.

I agree with this. Despite the fact that student debt is crippling the economy and making new generations of indentured servants, a series of folks (most of them Gen X-ers) feel like others should have to bear a ‘the same’ weight as they did. The problem with that view is that Gen X-ers did not have to bear the same weight as Millenials and Gen Z. Tuition rates were profoundly lower and the underlying amounts they borrowed was a lot less.

And then there’s the issue of that guy from Dirty Jobs, Mike whatever his name is (Rowe?), who seems to know less than nothing about the subject. His position is that it is unfair to forgive the debt of borrowers because that means you’re using tax money from people who chose to get jobs in the trades right out of high school. That argument has a lot of practical appeal, but only to the ignorant. That is not how student loans are funded in any sense.

488: Michael Jackson did a concert in Seoul in 1996 and a fan climbed the crane up to him. MJ held him tightly to prevent him from falling, all while performing Earth Song, submitted on 2023-03-01 11:26:19+08:00.

—– 488.1 —–2023-03-01 21:53:25+08:00:

I doubt that was what MJ was thinking. He was probably worried that the show would stop if the fan fell from the platform.

489: Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot will lose reelection bid, CNN projects, as crime concerns grow | CNN Politics, submitted on 2023-03-01 12:16:48+08:00.

—– 489.1 —–2023-03-01 22:06:42+08:00:

I found public transport in Chicago much better than most other major American cities. The downtown districts felt safer compared to other cities I’ve lived in like DC or London.

That was true in 2019. Since then, things have gone downhill.

—– 489.2 —–2023-03-01 22:08:24+08:00:

If you took like half the punditry seriously last night, you would think Vallas was running on making chicago a white minority rule city a la South Africa, some sort of PW Botha with ethnic characteristics.

Those “perspectives” can’t be taken seriously, but I agree with your analysis of how the mayoral race has been covered.

—– 489.3 —–2023-03-01 22:22:52+08:00:

I watched some of the coverage, but it was too stupid to even keep playing in the background.

Lori Lightfoot’s problem is that she is incompetent and dispositionally ill-suited to hold executive responsibility. I voted for her because I thought, at the time, she would be less worse than Preckwinkle. But I was very wrong.

—– 489.4 —–2023-03-01 22:35:13+08:00:

I think you’re 100% correct on all counts.

she is an incompetent moron who holed up for the past 36 months while the city went to shit

As a voter, I can confirm this.

490: China spends billions on pro-Russia disinformation, US special envoy says | China, submitted on 2023-03-01 14:08:12+08:00.

—– 490.1 —–2023-03-01 14:48:01+08:00:

Excellent article.

491: I worked hard on this essay and got it peer reviewed. The professor didn’t even read the whole thing., submitted on 2023-03-01 21:51:44+08:00.

—– 491.1 —–2023-03-02 11:46:38+08:00:

Former professor here. I read the prompt. This “feedback” appeared to be meaningless when I first reviewed it. Now having read the prompt, I assume your professor is an idiot. Whether you wrote a good essay or not is irrelevant at this point. The individual teaching your class does not appear to be equipped to teach it.

And what kind of class is this, anyway? How to be woke 101?

—– 491.2 —–2023-03-02 11:55:54+08:00:

I may need to speak with my advisor or the dean.

The dean isn’t going to take your side. They never do. They always side with the university, unless you belong to a protected class.

—– 491.3 —–2023-03-02 11:59:13+08:00:

This class clearly is not a lab science. And “discussion” cannot be graded impartially.

—– 491.4 —–2023-03-02 12:00:31+08:00:

I assume this is your multi-account. DM Me if you want.

—– 491.5 —–2023-03-02 12:02:42+08:00:

It is fine to stop reading after 2-3 pages, if the entire paper clearly needs overhauling.

If.

—– 491.6 —–2023-03-02 12:14:08+08:00:

This is a professor that actually cares and is giving you another opportunity.

Former professor here. I strongly disagree with your analysis.

This is a course that focuses on political issues, as clearly set forth by the prompt.

Your comment assumes the essay was poor. This would be a fair assumption, for most undergraduates (and graduate students). But it is an irrelevant assumption here.

Here is why your assumptions are wrong:

  1. The “professor” identifies no specific fault with the content, structure or layout of the paper. Instead, the professor references pedantic usage issues (that may or may not exist), without identifying them. It is not even clear the professor correctly identified the issue, present in the paper.
  2. The professor complains about editing, while failing to cite a single specific example beyond No. 1. The paper could have been replete with typeos, citation errors and the like. Or it might have had three total typeos across the sum of the pages the professor claims to have “read.” The scale cannot be ascertained from this incoherent “feedback.”
  3. The “deal” is not specified. Clearly there was no meeting of the minds, when the “professor” can’t even recite what the expected obligation was. This looks like arbitrary “I don’t like this so fuck off” type feedback. Which I assume it was, based, again, on the context of the prompt.
  4. “Fully engaged” is a bullshit term that incompetent people use, when they want someone to fail but want to appear like they’re encouraging someone to become successful. If you see that on a performance review, it’s time to look for a new job because no matter the degree of your effort someone has it out for you.

It is beyond obvious many commenters here simply have not had the experience of dealing with people like this kid’s professor.

492: Michael Shellenberger: Dismissing COVID lab leak theory highlights U.S. government disinformation, submitted on 2023-03-02 10:10:42+08:00.

—– 492.1 —–2023-03-03 13:46:20+08:00:

The FBI report

The analysis that matters here is less forensic than genomic. Specifically, genomic sequencing.

If a virus was subjected to artificial selection pressures for either transmissibility or virulence, that could be inferred from its genomic sequence. By analyzing the genetic makeup of different viral strains and identifying patterns of mutation, recombination, and selection, the inferences can be drawn about the virus’s evolutionary history (including the degree of similarity and dissimilarity with track records of known pathogens, in nature).

The mutation rate of a virus can vary greatly depending on its genetic makeup. RNA viruses, for example, tend to have higher mutation rates than DNA viruses due to the error-prone nature of RNA replication. By analyzing the types and frequency of mutations in a virus’s genome, researchers can estimate its mutation rate and use this information to infer its evolutionary history — potentially even the point at which a coronavirus that occurred in nature was deliberately enhanced.

For example, phylogenetic analysis is a method used to reconstruct the evolutionary relationships between different organisms based on their genetic similarities and differences. By comparing the genomic sequences of different strains or isolates of a virus, researchers can construct a phylogenetic tree that illustrates the evolutionary history of the virus.

Also, the genomic structure of a virus can provide information about the selection pressures that it has faced over time. To illustrate, if a particular gene or protein has undergone numerous mutations, this may indicate that the virus has been under strong selective pressure to evolve in response to changes in its host environment. In some cases, inferences can even be drawn about that host environment.

If a virus is under strong selection pressure, it may evolve more rapidly than a virus that is not under such pressure. Researchers can estimate the evolutionary rate of a virus by comparing the genetic sequences of different strains or isolates, and this information can be used to infer the strength of selection pressures acting on the virus.

One might also look for non-synonymous mutations. Nonsynonymous mutations are changes to the genetic code that result in an amino acid substitution in the protein encoded by a gene. These types of mutations can alter the function of a protein, and can be indicative of selection pressures acting on the virus. If a virus that normally infects one species is found to have nonsynonymous mutations in genes that are involved in host recognition, this may indicate that the virus is adapting to a new host species.

Suppose you were trying to enhance transmissibility. You’ve got three ways to do it, basically: increased infectivity, replication and transmission.

RNA viruses can be modified to increase their infectivity, or the ability to enter and infect host cells. This can be achieved by introducing mutations in viral genes that are involved in host recognition and entry. For example, the influenza virus hemagglutinin (HA) protein is responsible for binding to host cells and initiating infection. By modifying the HA protein, researchers can increase the affinity of the virus for host cells, thereby enhancing its infectivity.

RNA viruses can also be modified to enhance their replication, or their ability to produce more virus particles within host cells. This can be achieved by introducing mutations in viral genes that are involved in replication or by introducing additional viral genes that promote replication. For example, the insertion of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein in other coronaviruses can increase their replication and infectivity.

RNA viruses can be modified to improve their transmission, or the ability to spread from one host to another. This can be achieved by modifying viral genes that are involved in transmission, such as those that affect viral shedding, stability in the environment, or host range. For example, modifying the M protein of the influenza virus can increase its stability in the environment, thereby enhancing its transmission.

On the other hand, suppose you were trying to enhance virulence.

RNA viruses can be modified to introduce pathogenicity factors, which are molecules or proteins that contribute to the ability of the virus to cause disease. For example, the influenza virus can be modified to introduce the NS1 protein, which helps the virus evade host immune responses and enhances its virulence.

RNA viruses can also be modified to enhance their ability to infect and cause disease in new host species. This can be achieved by introducing mutations in viral genes that are involved in host range or by adapting the virus to grow in new host cells. For example, the SARS-CoV-2 virus, which is thought to have originated in bats, has been shown to be highly adapted to humans, with mutations that enable it to bind more effectively to human host cells and evade human immune responses.

Further, RNA viruses can be modified to increase their resistance to antiviral treatments, such as drugs or vaccines. This can be achieved by introducing mutations in viral genes that are targeted by these treatments or by introducing additional viral genes that promote resistance. For example, the hepatitis C virus can be modified to introduce mutations that confer resistance to antiviral drugs.

None of this is speculation. It’s the story of a virus’s evolutionary history, told through the structure of its genetic material.

—– 492.2 —–2023-03-03 13:48:05+08:00:

Forensics from 3000 miles away

Your statement is incoherent nonsense. I am removing it.

—– 492.3 —–2023-03-03 14:08:50+08:00:

Peter Daszak

Will have some explaining to do when the time is right.

—– 492.4 —–2023-03-03 14:11:30+08:00:

The Chinese government and Anthony Fauci made contemporaneous claims about where COVID-19 originated.

They argued it came from some unknown cave in the Chinese provinces.

And maybe it did. At some point.

But somehow, what was in the cave found its way to Wuhan.

The virus accomplished this journey of thousands of miles without infecting a single person on its way there.

Once in Wuhan, the virus from the cave had gained some interesting functions relating to transmissibility and virulence.

Coincidentally enough, one of the three labs on earth that makes a virus like COVID gain those functions is within a few miles of the pandemic’s epicenter.

Hardly a coincidence.

I am not saying China weaponized COVID, because I don’t think they did (and I don’t think the evidence supports any such claims). However, there is no doubt in my mind that a virus like COVID-19 could never have come about in nature. Viruses simply do not evolve like that.

For example, a highly influential paper in this field was published in 2015 in the journal Nature Medicine, titled “A SARS-like cluster of circulating bat coronaviruses shows potential for human emergence” by a team of researchers led by Zheng-Li Shi at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

This paper described the discovery of a new type of coronavirus, named SHC014-CoV, which was found in horseshoe bats in China and was similar to the SARS-CoV virus that caused the 2003 SARS outbreak. The researchers conducted gain-of-function experiments with the virus in which they modified its spike protein to see if it could infect human cells. The modified virus was able to infect human lung cells and replicated more efficiently than the original virus.

The authors concluded that the findings raised concerns about the potential for the virus to jump from bats to humans and cause a new outbreak similar to SARS. The publication of this paper has been cited in discussions about the origins of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, as it originated in bats and has a spike protein that is highly similar to that of SHC014-CoV.

—– 492.5 —–2023-03-03 14:16:33+08:00:

those concerned with ethics will be more comfortable pointing towards blameless causes (zoonotic) than causes implying blame (anything human). This is a good response and should be encouraged, particularly in non-scientific spaces (that’s you, me, the government, and the press).

Rejecting science because you don’t know anything about it is absurd.

—– 492.6 —–2023-03-03 17:22:28+08:00:

1) The FBI does not have jurisdiction over international labs.

Basically true.

2) Even if they had jurisdiction, they were not allowed to collect information at the scene in Wuhan. All information they had was from other sources because the CCP refused to let American government auditors or investigators in.

Correct.

3) A forensics lab is not useful without active samples.

Forensics don’t matter here. Active samples don’t matter here. What matters is a sequenced sample of the SARS-CoV-2 virus and what can be determined from that information.

This is not a forensic analysis.

Instead, the OP could’ve argued that the FBI could’ve interviewed virologists, evo biologists, etc, but chose to highlight the lab side of things that wouldn’t be useful. Therefore what the OP argued for was speculation from the wrong group and amounted to armchair speculation by the FBI.

They should have just sent a sample to Jonas Salk Institute, the University of North Carolina or somewhere equipped to sequence and analyze it.

—– 492.7 —–2023-03-03 17:33:19+08:00:

The lab leak theory is possible, but not probable, and the reason it was dismissed early on was because it didn’t track with the vast majority of the data at the time showcasing a separate track of very common animal-human vectors already in progress at the wet market.

That is the argument the Chinese government made, which everyone took at their word, because the alleged data supporting this proposition was never released to the world. If it even exists. Which is questionable.

Corona viruses in bats don’t need human interference to evolve dangerous or deadly traits.

Correct.

Shellenberger has no experience in the field of virology or epidemiology and isn’t a useful person to even acknowledge when talking about this topic.

This is a weak, logically fallacious argument.

The epidemiological “data” provides absolutely no support to the claim that COVID-19 did not emerge from the WIV.

Frankly, this isn’t even a question within the toolkit of an epidemiologist to answer.

A virologist might have undertaken the gain of function research which created the COVID-19 virus, but they’re not in a position to draw inferences concerning its evolutionary history from its genetic information. That’s a little bit different from virology.

I should know, I’m experienced in clinical research (including site audits), my sister’s a virologist now working on Covid, and my mother’s an epidemiologist. We’re not talking out of our asses when we all agree the OP’s article is a puff piece with no merit on the topic except to further confusion in the lay public.

Experts can have opinions, but their opinions need to be relevant and credible.

Your family can tell the world how they think the virus spread. But none of you are in a position to determine where it came from. The data you would need to make such claims simply was never collected by the Chinese government.

But even if it was collected, it likely would be wrong anyway.

493: Am I the only one creeped out by Jeffrey Marsh?, submitted on 2023-03-04 22:25:50+08:00.

—– 493.1 —–2023-03-05 04:23:54+08:00:

Didn’t know who this person was, before clicking on this thread.

Google’d him.

Read a sampling of the first few pages of Google search results, including a Rolling Stone article.

I am creeped out by him.

I don’t pretend to know everything he’s up to, but I think I know enough to know he’s up to no good.

494: What does “all american” mean in a gay context?, submitted on 2023-03-05 02:47:40+08:00.

—– 494.1 —–2023-03-05 04:46:54+08:00:

White athletic jocks.

With little body hair, slightly sweaty, wearing tight clothing and lightly tanned.

—– 494.2 —–2023-03-05 04:47:36+08:00:

Abercrombie and Fitch

Maybe from 1994-2007.

Edit: 1994 to 2007, not 2004.

—– 494.3 —–2023-03-05 04:49:23+08:00:

One of the lacrosse players I went to high school with wound up getting a job modeling for them. He was straight af. Sadly.

—– 494.4 —–2023-03-05 04:52:25+08:00:

I edited to 1994. I forgot about this somehow:

https://www.vogue.fr/vogue-hommes/fashion/diaporama/flashback-bruce-webers-1990s-campaigns-for-abercrombie-fitch/36436

—– 494.5 —–2023-03-05 05:05:47+08:00:

So basically the guys in this ad from more than 20 years ago, from Abercrombie & Fitch.

—– 494.6 —–2023-03-05 06:43:01+08:00:

There were a lot of problems with old A&F, but I miss the good old days.

—– 494.7 —–2023-03-06 01:57:47+08:00:

Remember the book they used to put out at the begining of the year aka soft porn ? Ahh 8th grade.

The A&F Quarterly?

495: Why do people with children often get angry when they find out you don’t want any?, submitted on 2023-03-05 17:33:21+08:00.

—– 495.1 —–2023-03-06 02:12:40+08:00:

Not all people with kids get angry when they find out you don’t want any.

But some people do, because they feel like the difference between your priorities and theirs undermines the validity of their life choices.

This reflects latent insecurity.

496: What’s your type?, submitted on 2023-03-05 23:52:01+08:00.

—– 496.1 —–2023-03-06 12:09:25+08:00:

12 pt font ftw.

—– 496.2 —–2023-03-06 12:11:29+08:00:

Lanky twinky blonde boys with fluffy hair and sweet personalities.

文章版权归原作者所有。
二维码分享本站