smwhiskey
Well-Known Member
Gees you could have fooled me.
Corona virus
- Thread starter Superdad
- Start date
smwhiskey
Well-Known Member
Personally I think the value of a PHD has been watered down by some of the people who receive "honorary" ones. Must be a real slap in the face to those who spend years earning a PHD in (for example) Environmental Science and then see somebody like (for example) Greta Thunberg get one for being a media savvy teenager.
- YouTube
Enjoy the videos and music that you love, upload original content and share it all with friends, family and the world on YouTube.youtube.com
Yes people should buy his book instead of getting vaccinated, which he supported before his book came out. His research was found to be anything but "gold standard"
Do you own research, perhaps search wider than Tick Tock this time though. You can believe it but, he has been discredited by his peers.
Last edited:
Kippie
Moderator
So you're another expert who knows it all?
They were in the care of an emperor of ancient Romans? What does that even mean?
I think the 5 or 6 anti-vaxxers who spread this stuff need some money and are spreading new disinformation. Has anyone else noticed the antivaxxers are posting more frequently again in the last 3 - 4 weeks here and elsewhere.
Its a new wave of BS as well as Covid.
I suggest you read it again, in full and properly so you get the right angle to read it from. I think you will find they are saying exactly the opposite of your angle's concussion. It is right there in simple english.
Cardiologists believe the increased deaths from ischemic heart disease are likely linked to the damaging effects of COVID, but also delayed diagnoses, prevention and treatment through the pandemic.
But what would well-regarded cardiologists who study heart disease for a living, have probably saved hundreds of lives, and after 8 years of specific university training know compared to anti-vaxxers who get their facts from people who believe lizards wear suits and from Twitter?
Let us all think about that for a quarter of a second.
Last edited:
Now Corn Flake antivaxxer PhDs know even MORE than cardiologists about heart disease.
It's getting Bizarrerer and Bizarrerer . LOL Add cardiology to the multi-disciplines that you can win on the back of a breakfast cereal. All before you finish your Froot Loops.
Just like a PhD, only crunchy.
It definitely makes fascinating reading.
It's getting Bizarrerer and Bizarrerer . LOL Add cardiology to the multi-disciplines that you can win on the back of a breakfast cereal. All before you finish your Froot Loops.
Just like a PhD, only crunchy.
It definitely makes fascinating reading.
Last edited:
Kippie
Moderator
You're right. And their claims are as outlandish as ever.
Statistical analysis and mathematical modelling are the backbone of most scientific projects. We would never have been able to send men to the moon and back without modelling their flight path. Hollywood even made a movie out of it.
To simply dismiss modelling as "garbage in, garbage out" shows total ignorance.
BTW, I used to do a fair bit of mathematical modelling in my early career.
Kippie
Moderator
Where do you get this from? Any reputable references would be appreciated. Or is this just another opinion?
Are you saying it is the reader that should take responsibility to decypher posts that have poor spelling and grammar, and not the person that posted stuff that doesn't make any sense?
Really?
Last edited:
typhoeus
Well-Known Member
The reader should make the effort to try to understand what the writer is saying, and disagree if you disagree, . It's not necessary to make fun of spelling, or auto correction issues, or make fun of someone else's opinion even. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, and to express it, with whatever other Info they have to back it up. That's called healthy debate,
But what you do is called appeal to ridicule:
Appeal to ridicule is often found in the form of comparing a nuanced circumstance or argument to a laughably commonplace occurrence or to some other irrelevancy on the basis of comedic timing, wordplay, or making an opponent and their argument the object of a joke. This is a rhetorical tactic that mocks an opponent's argument or standpoint, attempting to inspire an emotional reaction (making it a type of appeal to emotion) in the audience and to highlight any counter-intuitive aspects of that argument, making it appear foolish and contrary to common sense. This is typically done by making a mockery of the argument's foundation that represents it in an uncharitable and oversimplified way. The person using the tactic often utilizes sarcasm in their argument.
It's not nice, and doesn't build on the common ground we all have here.
I think these off topic debates should have an expiry date,
. . . But thats just my opinion,
Sure, I agree but when people criticise the reader for their poor grammar and spelling, it lowers the reader's tolerance for trying to work with the writer. It was completely unclear what the poster was talking about, then he blamed the reader for not understanding his typo with an insult.
I have lost patience for the sneaky insults and the motives behind them.
I do agree the OT debates should expire and people should be required to provide proof or evidence of statements dressed up as facts in these type of posts. Also, members who only post on topics like Corona should be banned after say 5 posts. Some here clearly have little or no interest in 4wding or camping.
Last edited:
rogerazz
4x4 Earth Contributer
So that is exactly what you just did?
typhoeus
Well-Known Member
No , I didn't make fun of anyone's opinion, didn't mock anyone, didn't make any one feel stupid for having an opinion, or ridicule anyone. I just tried to point out that doing that is not helpful to trying to change someone's mind about something.
discomatt
Well-Known Member
I have been going through this thread and deleting my posts, it’s a pointless waist of time and energy, it’s like arguing there is or isn’t a god with different people with different beliefs
The funny thing is, going back to the start of the thread and having a look at different sections of it my opinion has turned around 100% I started with supporting the whole covid actions , I guess that what actually panned out changed my mind, the other funny bits are some of the claims about the vaccine and how great it would be, at one point I was severely ridiculed for suggesting that continued and ongoing shots would be required
A lot of it is a very funny read but anyway that’s it from me, have fun, love often and enjoy life
The funny thing is, going back to the start of the thread and having a look at different sections of it my opinion has turned around 100% I started with supporting the whole covid actions , I guess that what actually panned out changed my mind, the other funny bits are some of the claims about the vaccine and how great it would be, at one point I was severely ridiculed for suggesting that continued and ongoing shots would be required
A lot of it is a very funny read but anyway that’s it from me, have fun, love often and enjoy life
Kippie
Moderator
I think it was called Numbers. I recommend it.
I disagree with your statement that modelling is s..t in, s..t out. That's a broad dismissal of a scientific process, which you should know, involves developing several scenarios based on the input data, assumptions and future projections. To gain credibility the models should be peer reviewed and the combined results should fall within a statistically significant distribution. Without having access to the covid models I can't comment on each individual model. However, the published results of the various models developed in each state seem to confirm each other.
Exactly.
Of course, the output of modelling depends on the data and the accuracy of the model. That's why people who are thoroughly experienced in modelling and the science behind what is being modelled should be left to the task.
I love how completely lay people who get their information from twitter and Facebook criticise the modelling for not being 100% right when they make wild predictions and makeup facts that have no basis in reality.
The same people with bizarre predictions, facts and sources of information posted here for example then feel as though they know more than people who do it for a living after years of experience and training.
No one can accurately predict the future, even with well-informed models, however, to run a society, not anarchy, you need baselines to track the progress of this type of data.
It's exactly like anti-vaxxers here criticising the BOM for inaccurate forecasting, but then they use their talking pet lizard in a suit to forecast next weeks weather.
You want wild and totally wrong predictions. Just look through this thread.
Last edited:
Kippie
Moderator
Here is a good commentary by experts in the field of the covid models done in Australia. I quote the most salient paragraph:
"The epidemiologist Dr Kathryn Snow, from the University of Melbourne’s Centre for International Child Health, agrees that models were useful – if they came from reputable sources. She says the beginning of the pandemic saw a proliferation of non-experts making back-of-the-envelope predictions that were shared on social media and even picked up by media. This added to the confusion. Modelling is a specialised field, and few health experts are qualified to comment on them.
Many of the most frightening predictions made early in the epidemic did not come from infectious diseases modellers themselves,” Snow says. “They didn’t account for the public health response, or the fact that a majority of our cases at that time were imported, rather than being due to local transmission. I think a lesson for the media is to distinguish clearly between evidence provided by experts in a given specialised field – in this case infectious disease epidemiology and mathematical modelling of infectious diseases – and commentary provided by people from outside that field, even if they are highly qualified experts in other topics."
www.theguardian.com
"The epidemiologist Dr Kathryn Snow, from the University of Melbourne’s Centre for International Child Health, agrees that models were useful – if they came from reputable sources. She says the beginning of the pandemic saw a proliferation of non-experts making back-of-the-envelope predictions that were shared on social media and even picked up by media. This added to the confusion. Modelling is a specialised field, and few health experts are qualified to comment on them.
Many of the most frightening predictions made early in the epidemic did not come from infectious diseases modellers themselves,” Snow says. “They didn’t account for the public health response, or the fact that a majority of our cases at that time were imported, rather than being due to local transmission. I think a lesson for the media is to distinguish clearly between evidence provided by experts in a given specialised field – in this case infectious disease epidemiology and mathematical modelling of infectious diseases – and commentary provided by people from outside that field, even if they are highly qualified experts in other topics."
'A peek into the future': how worst-case scenario coronavirus modelling saved Australia from catastrophe
Although early Covid-19 modelling was inaccurate, experts say it did make us see what could happen if we did nothing
www.theguardian.com