Coronavirus

[Black Shepherd Carnage]

Heres a question for ya man..

To what extent does ones personal discernment affect how they interpret a study?

Massively. But...

For instance, if two scientists of equal qualification and standing read a study, and draw entirely opposing conclusions, how does one decide which is right?
Or are they both right?

...that's why a well-designed study doesn't leave things open to questions of interpretation. Data can be interpreted in various ways. But a data-analysis study (typically) proposes an interpretation of available data on the basis of a shared methodology which anyone with the sufficient know-how can apply to the same data themselves.

Scientific disagreements with such a study are objective disagreements (empirical or methodological) with a given interpretation and resulting analysis of the data, not different interpretations of the study. A study that can be "interpreted" in various ways is an inconclusive study. Which exist, but then they are merely calls for more studies and that is there only meaningful conclusion: more to do.

A scientist who disagrees with the conclusions of a study will/should be able to explain, in objective empirical or statistical terms, why they think these conclusions represent either a flawed or (more often) partial analysis of the data, or (even more often) why a given conclusion is something that their analysis of the data (whether or not this analysis of the data is flawed or partial) doesn't actually bear out: a conclusion that goes beyond the evidence. Going from correlation (e.g. rise in vaccinations temporally correlated to rise in excess deaths) to causation (e.g. vaccines are causing excess deaths) is going beyond the evidence, independently of whether or not that correlation is in the data. Further analysis may find such a causal link, but that doesn't make any prior study which concluded causality from correlation any less poor scientific practice. Omitting crucial data preparation steps (e.g. not dividing excess death population into vaccinated vs unvaccinated) is one way partial analysis occurs. Perhaps most importantly, a scientific disagreement will contain a description of what should have been done or what should be done with the data instead.

So the distinction between "different interpretations" and "scientific disagreements" is very much an extension of the distinction between "opinion" and "hypothesis": different interpretations are expressed in opinions; scientific disagreements are expressed in testable hypotheses (ultimately testable, to be precise, since sometimes a hypothesis is based on observations which are not yet available or even possible, e.g. as with something like the Higgs boson: hypothesized in 1964, finally observed in 2012, technologically speaking not even observable for most of the interim).

If you want to look into a case study of how much of a cluster-fuck this all is when it comes to epidemiology, read up on the history of demonstrating that smoking is carcinogenic. And, especially, the history of the kind of resistance this conclusion was met with after it had achieved scientific consensus, including from "renegade" scientists, many of whom were being paid handsomely or just wanted the attention.

[astfgyl]

Why isn't smoking carcinogenic to everyone would be something else worth studying

[Black Shepherd Carnage]

It has been. A lot. Most forms of cancer resistance, either in humans or other species (some species have naturally high resistance to developing cancer) have been studied.

[astfgyl]

Anyone making any inroads on that front I wonder?

There is the old theory that curing or preventing cancers would be bad for business as well, which probably holds true to some degree but then again I suppose you could just charge insane money for the cure if you had it so there's that as well.

Anyway, back on topic....

.... I can't actually. I just don't have the heart for the COVID argument at all anymore and nobody will change their mind in one direction or another at this stage.

Let's just put it down to experience and take our own learnings from it all and use that to inform our future outlook.

We didn't all die from COVID like we were promised, we didn't all die from the vaccines like we were promised. Both sides said give it a few years, ie oh you don't know what the vaccine will do in 5 years, oh you don't know what catching the dirty unvaccinated version of COVID will do in 5 years.....

And on and on and on like Ariston,

Round in circles without a single mind changed.

The next one will be some fucking craic is my takeaway from it all anyway.

I love science but not The Science

[Ollkiller]

I do often wonder what type of gom falls for these charlatans.

No need to wonder, they'll make a point of letting you know

I know one person IRL whos fallen into this general sinkhole. Its quite sad to see him slowly isolate himself as people one by one grow tired on the endless shite and weird superiority attitude that comes along with alot of this shite.

Read a study recently where people who believe in this nonsense do feel "superior", as in they have knowledge the rest of us don't have.
It feeds into a humans need to feel special or validated i think. I was like that when I was younger. Id play music to impress people. Not i play it for the enjoyment it gives me.
I know I'm on a tangent here but I firmly believe the ones getting caught up in this need to learn to appreciate themselves as they are, ask themselves where they want to go and start doing positive things to achieve that. Instead of looking to blame someone or something. Anyway tangent over.

I don't disagree with this either.

But just for fun, and because I'm a bit of a dick .......

Do you not think you have knowledge that they don't have, which in turn makes you feel superior? 

Its a good question to ask. Years ago I would have felt superior. Not anymore. Im 47 now and im done thinking im better than anyone else. This thread shows you can have a civil debate. Exchange of ideas, think about them and give an opinion.
The polar opposite of what goes online now, where data is just minterpeted to validate one's position. Sure look

[Black Shepherd Carnage]

We didn't all die from COVID like we were promised, we didn't all die from the vaccines like we were promised. Both sides said give it a few years, ie oh you don't know what the vaccine will do in 5 years, oh you don't know what catching the dirty unvaccinated version of COVID will do in 5 years.....

No, this is not what happened, even if I understand why it's easier to say to yourself now that it is.

At no point did anyone promise we were all going to die of COVID. Was the mortality rate of COVID initially overestimated? Yes. Why? Because we had no idea how many people were infected in total. All we knew was that ICUs in country after country were collapsing under the influx of infections. Was the mortality rate then continuously updated as new data regarding total number of infections came in thanks to testing? Yes, absolutely yes: I followed it in real time. Even as ICUs in even more countries buckled under the pressure.

Conversely, did anyone promise the vaccine was going to kill more people than the virus, be used to modify our DNA (it doesn't, just in case anyone still has this in mind), etc., etc.? Yes. Was the mortality rate and every other potential risk factor of the vaccine initially overestimated? Yes. Why? Because it was latched onto by a pre-existing bad faith anti-vax movement who managed to rally an even bigger "muh freedoms!" movement behind them. Was the mortality, etc., rate then continuously updated as new data regarding total number of vaccinated people came in thanks to the basic observation that 99% of all vaccinated people were fucking fine? LMAO: absolutely fucking not. The conspiracy theories just got more and more tenuous. And now parts of that very movement are trying to make out like they always said COVID was lethal and that Fauci, not Trump or MAHA, is primarily responsible for all the deaths they are all of a sudden describing as of COVID. They may fuck all the way off... and it's never too late to turn around and join the choir saying that to them.

[astfgyl]

You keep telling yourself all of those things. You saw what happened. Everyone is minimising it all now and revising everything.

I saw people for what they are and it's even more disappointing than I'd imagined.

I made my own views on it all very clear at length here I wouldn't be getting into any of it again

[Black Shepherd Carnage]

All you ever made clear is that your ideas about it are very confused, and #bothsides is evidently back with a bang.

[son of the Morrigan]

Heres a question for ya man..

To what extent does ones personal discernment affect how they interpret a study?

Massively. But...

For instance, if two scientists of equal qualification and standing read a study, and draw entirely opposing conclusions, how does one decide which is right?
Or are they both right?

...that's why a well-designed study doesn't leave things open to questions of interpretation. Data can be interpreted in various ways. But a data-analysis study (typically) proposes an interpretation of available data on the basis of a shared methodology which anyone with the sufficient know-how can apply to the same data themselves.

Scientific disagreements with such a study are objective disagreements (empirical or methodological) with a given interpretation and resulting analysis of the data, not different interpretations of the study. A study that can be "interpreted" in various ways is an inconclusive study. Which exist, but then they are merely calls for more studies and that is there only meaningful conclusion: more to do.

A scientist who disagrees with the conclusions of a study will/should be able to explain, in objective empirical or statistical terms, why they think these conclusions represent either a flawed or (more often) partial analysis of the data, or (even more often) why a given conclusion is something that their analysis of the data (whether or not this analysis of the data is flawed or partial) doesn't actually bear out: a conclusion that goes beyond the evidence. Going from correlation (e.g. rise in vaccinations temporally correlated to rise in excess deaths) to causation (e.g. vaccines are causing excess deaths) is going beyond the evidence, independently of whether or not that correlation is in the data. Further analysis may find such a causal link, but that doesn't make any prior study which concluded causality from correlation any less poor scientific practice. Omitting crucial data preparation steps (e.g. not dividing excess death population into vaccinated vs unvaccinated) is one way partial analysis occurs. Perhaps most importantly, a scientific disagreement will contain a description of what should have been done or what should be done with the data instead.

So the distinction between "different interpretations" and "scientific disagreements" is very much an extension of the distinction between "opinion" and "hypothesis": different interpretations are expressed in opinions; scientific disagreements are expressed in testable hypotheses (ultimately testable, to be precise, since sometimes a hypothesis is based on observations which are not yet available or even possible, e.g. as with something like the Higgs boson: hypothesized in 1964, finally observed in 2012, technologically speaking not even observable for most of the interim).

If you want to look into a case study of how much of a cluster-fuck this all is when it comes to epidemiology, read up on the history of demonstrating that smoking is carcinogenic. And, especially, the history of the kind of resistance this conclusion was met with after it had achieved scientific consensus, including from "renegade" scientists, many of whom were being paid handsomely or just wanted the attention.
[/quote

Ah fair play man, thanks a million.
Thats all very reasonable.

I've been overestimating my own discernment, and underestimating the amount of flim flam.

Christ it's a minefield.
It's almost as if one would require some type of training or qualification to navigate it safely.

Re. Smoking.
Tobacco leaves are hairy and sticky.
As such, they are prone to picking up airbourne particles.

As a result, if the tobacco you are smoking is grown near, say, an industrial area it will contain more carcinogenic compounds than tobacco grown in a cleaner environment, which I imagine should be taken into account in scientific studies.

I've convinced myself Amber Leaf is grown on top of a spotlessly clean mountaintop somewhere and nobody will convince me otherwise.

[Black Shepherd Carnage]

I smoke. Always additive-free rolling tobacco (Pueblo, American Spirit, them ones) and most often with added green. The smoke from both of these is carcinogenic. Less than industrial cigarettes? Mos def, but still carcinogenic nonetheless... and the fact I'm smoking with roaches instead of filters obviously doesn't go in my lungs' favour. I think smoke in general is carcinogenic, whatever's burning, though a bale of hay probably less so than a pile of tires and car batteries.

[Barnacle Billy]

Ba'al Gates is on trial in The Netherlands for his role in the Covid Plandemic. This is the update!

[Hambeast]

Can everyone please dial it back a notch? I understand COVID is a heated subject with strong opinions on both sides. I don't want to be deleting posts, banning people, locking threads etc, but this shit is spilling out all over the forum with arguments following from one thread to another. This is a music discussion forum which has general discussion on the side but it's sliding into a politics forum which overwhelms the other topics and drives other people away. Personally, I'd ban it altogether but that's not what people want so I haven't done it. There's countless other places online to engage in this level of discussion. The internet in general has turned into a place where it's impossible to tell what's real/satire/trolling and I'm starting to see the same thing here. If you want to disagree/debate then do it with some integrity instead of posting insults and slurs.

It puts me in an impossible situation where if I take any action I'm stifling free speech or part of some big cover-up. If I do nothing then everything devolves into shit and I'm enabling or encouraging extremist beliefs. I'm aware this forum has already gained a somewhat negative reputation for some of the stuff which gets posted here without getting deleted. It's becoming clear the "very little moderation" approach isn't working, or at least isn't compatible with the kind of forum I want to be responsible for running.

I got called out on this before so I'm going to do it in public this time: KC, I've already given you a warning and explained I've given you a chance with a 2nd account. If you continue, you will be banned again and further accounts will not be allowed. Again, you're welcome to discuss your opinions or beliefs, but you're going to have to post them in a more civil manner. You're not the only person responsible, but you are the biggest shit-stirrer.

For the trolls: please stop trolling. For everyone else: please stop feeding the trolls. Everyone please take a step back and take a breath before engaging in back-and-forth internet arguments. If things don't calm down, the only way forward is to hand out warnings/bans, or shift all these threads to a new section where everyone is free to argue amongst themselves.

[son of the Morrigan]

Can everyone please dial it back a notch? I understand COVID is a heated subject with strong opinions on both sides. I don't want to be deleting posts, banning people, locking threads etc, but this shit is spilling out all over the forum with arguments following from one thread to another. This is a music discussion forum which has general discussion on the side but it's sliding into a politics forum which overwhelms the other topics and drives other people away. Personally, I'd ban it altogether but that's not what people want so I haven't done it. There's countless other places online to engage in this level of discussion. The internet in general has turned into a place where it's impossible to tell what's real/satire/trolling and I'm starting to see the same thing here. If you want to disagree/debate then do it with some integrity instead of posting insults and slurs.

It puts me in an impossible situation where if I take any action I'm stifling free speech or part of some big cover-up. If I do nothing then everything devolves into shit and I'm enabling or encouraging extremist beliefs. I'm aware this forum has already gained a somewhat negative reputation for some of the stuff which gets posted here without getting deleted. It's becoming clear the "very little moderation" approach isn't working, or at least isn't compatible with the kind of forum I want to be responsible for running.

I got called out on this before so I'm going to do it in public this time: KC, I've already given you a warning and explained I've given you a chance with a 2nd account. If you continue, you will be banned again and further accounts will not be allowed. Again, you're welcome to discuss your opinions or beliefs, but you're going to have to post them in a more civil manner. You're not the only person responsible, but you are the biggest shit-stirrer.

For the trolls: please stop trolling. For everyone else: please stop feeding the trolls. Everyone please take a step back and take a breath before engaging in back-and-forth internet arguments. If things don't calm down, the only way forward is to hand out warnings/bans, or shift all these threads to a new section where everyone is free to argue amongst themselves.

Fair enough man.
It was me who bought this all back up so I suppose I'm to blame.
It wasn't my intent to cause bother or put you in a sticky situation.

I was trying to keep it civil but I can see your point of view, its gotten a bit out of hand.
No more of that.

Sorry man, and thanks a million for your efforts with the forum.
It's a great forum and I certainly don't want to cause it, or you, any harm.

[Barnacle Billy]

Yes, sorry for putting you to bother man...
Won't happen again...