We’ve caught Wook and CN red-handed!
Thanks!
These replies seems far off from obvious flawed, asinine useless paper response in the thread. Just seem like a standard discussion of various ways to analyze an interesting amount of data.
Have the authors break down that 5th group in the Science published paper and do you think experts in the field would rate that change as taking the paper from useless to Science worthy?
Did the assumed correction (if it indeed happened) change their numbers similar to what you had in mind? Am I correct in my understanding that ikes idea of the revised numbers was way, way off?
It seems obvious that you and ikes are well respected within the covid thread. Clearly not without reason. When ikes call this paper useless and write unchallenged work of rough math, When talking about the important of misinformation, I feel this is a great example worth discussing.
You and ikes were the only ones other than @catfacemeowmers to comment on the content of the paper. Your quick, aggressive and seemingly unjustified dismissal of it has caused numerous people 8 months later to brush off the paper as “flawed” (again, not a measurement). The addition of the wrong estimation by ikes only furthers shows the problem.
man I don’t got it in me to read yuv’s posts
The literature as a body of work is clear here, and this shit paper with obvious flaws is a massive outlier. the fuck would I know though lol
1 Like
Nice! That’s what i like to hear.
So now we have a real match on our hand –
Team Wookie has said this is an important piece of work that was corrected and he’s glad it was published.
Team ikes hold firm at “shit paper”.
I suggest a cite or ban dual.
lol, yeah not going to waste time with this nonsense. Have fun.
2 Likes
You don’t need to. You literally destroyed Wookie right here.
Yuv, I just want to say that this is an impressive performance.
3 Likes
Look, we have one rule in this community: don’t exaggerate the methodological flaws in a preprint. And if you can’t abide by that rule maybe you shouldn’t post here.
1 Like
Wait, he exaggerated back then or now?
I thought the pre-print was useless, but it was corrected and it’s now good, as per wookie.
But ikes just said it’s a “shit paper”.
Which one is it?
1 Like
Completely unacceptable for CN to call a paper “useless” when clearly it just needed corrections, and I expect an immediate apology from him.
He just called it ‘shit paper’ after the corrections. Are you paying attention?
Yuv can you tell me how you could use that paper? The paper is a lazy data vomit with poor controls. It was better after it was fixed. It’s still an outlier because of that lack of control, and it’s exactly the type of lazy database dumper diving that people make stupid conclusions with on all sorts of medical topics.
But hey tf would I know?
Of course! It’s an outrage!
OMFG you guys
4 Likes
It isn’t outrageous at all, it just contradicts what all of you said until now. In fact, it’s the least outrageous claim of all. It’s the only claim that has been plausible so far.
I know that replying to the actual argument written is frowned upon, but I can’t help myself.
What corrections??? As far as I can tell there were no substantial corrections made to the Science version from the preprint. Or any corrections at all. What did I miss?
Trolly my mind has really been blown by your posts. I can’t exactly put it into words. I mean how would you describe the things in this video
4 Likes
It’s been 36 hours and I don’t think a single thing has been accomplished. Pretty impressive.
4 Likes
Nah, in that time we’ve had two posters request month-long self-bans.
6 Likes
I enjoyed it. It’s really hard to see grown man make so many contradictions in such a short period of time without leaving the house.
But in all seriousness, I disagree. I do think it showed to some relevant people how absurd some of the moderation calls had been. Even getting a single post like the one Johnny made earlier today is extremely beneficial to fixing the forum.
1 Like