As someone who was a nervous bystander for the lengthy review process in a Nature publication for the past few months (got published, yay), it seems fairly reasonable that something as time sensitive as covid paper would be looked at while in preprint.
Also i find it genuinely quite scary that a paper done by an epidemiologist in the public health service near me is so abnormally bad that it can be shred apart by non-professionals epidemiologists (but clearly well informed in adjacent fields) in an online politics forum.
Do you feel that withholding sources is a problem that should be addressed in threads such as the COVID one, when the source could be a pre-print that lacked peer review, and was publicized by someone with a track record of spreading COVID misinfornmation?
If so, do you feel that OP’s response to me highlighting these issues, acknowledges that this behavior is problematic so as to be confident that it will not persist?
I’ll say it slowly, a 2nd time, so maybe you’ll notice…
I gave a link to the pdf study, whc=ich was flagged and deleted. I did not do this immdiately because the postrs in the thread were only concerned with the source of the screenshot.
And this is bullshit. Dr John has a reputation for spreading covid information early, putting all studies out there without bias, some of which turned out to be bullshit. This is akin to what the best medical minds in this forum have stated early, e.g the vaxxed won’t transmit, vaccines won’t waning which has largely been disproven (or maybe those 666,000 vets didn’t really get a vax) - hence why they’re uppity with me)
Unstuck ain’t no medical forum - you dont need to be a Dr to post a study
Actually, here’s what people were saying about the vaccine waning. Incredible work by non-epidemiologist and poorly-credentialed Wookie anticipating that the preprint numbers would be revised upward!
Not really. I see the study is fairly legit. Publicized. I think also pointed out stuff that turned out to be common knowledge now.
I feel it’s quite reasonable to be results oriented when it comes to these things. If the study turned out to be done in a libertarian think tank and never seen the light of day i’d be a little more concerned. It seems that the source (the infamous Dr John who i’m unfamiliar with) is utterly irrelevant to the study, unless you have hard evidence that the oakland public health system are all anti-vaxxers.
Speaking of results oriented, every time I stopped in the covid thread i’ve seen that the consensus opinion on a subject had turned out wrong (from the danger of variants to mask mandates to the lack of need of boosters to the extreme need of boosters). As someone who still plays poker I’m very sympathetic to running bad and small sample size, but it’s fairly dangerous to rely on that at all times.
The study wasn’t posted orignally though. The screenshot was. I’m in agreement the study has a place for discussion. We don’t need to be results oriented. If the study was introduced as you suggested I’m not in here posting.
I have no idea what the hell you’re talking about for mask mandates, but for boosters and variants it’s almost like new data was acquired and things changed!
Churchill is essentially Greear screaming the same thing over and over again. Sure variants were a problem, but he was screaming about alpha which turned out to be precisely dick and the data showed that. Churchill doesn’t become ‘right’ about delta because he fearmongered wrongly about alpha.
I do agree that it would be better if the study had been linked immediately. The source seems completely irrelevant so the obsession with it appears to be simply a way to discredit the poster without discussing the study.
So the conclusion here that while CN is bashing the mere idea of discussing a study that originated from Dr John, he is clearly mistaken, even if said studies had mistakes or issues (like most studies), the overarching point seems to be relatively accepted today as far as I understand.
I have no idea, seems like a weird question to ask me. He could for all I know be a very shitty poster. As far as I can tell a lot of people think that about me as well. Not sure the place to rank us is About Moderation.
You’re wrong again, CN. Too big to apolgise though.
As stated, the link was deleted. I have always stated I posted the screenshot only as a summary and it shouldn’t matter where the screenshot came from. The pdf was provided within 5 mins of the original post containing the lovely screenshot summary.