Corona Cult

[Epikur]

1 minute ago, Jodistrict said:

Below is a good article on the "Replication crisis".   At least 50% of scientific studies cannot be reproduced.   Much of medical research doesn't even meet the criteria of the scientific method.  People just assume the system is responsible and not corrupt.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis

 

very interesting
 

 

Edited April 2, 2021 by Epikur

[BadHippie]

Quote

One assumption you are making is that there is a significant risk of the vaccine. I'm not saying that's wrong, yet that is a HUGE assumption that will alter how you perceive reality. Imagine if I thought the tree outside my house can harm me. If I assume this to be true, it will alter how I perceive reality and interact with reality. You may think this silly.  . . yet what if I asked you "How do you know the tree won't harm me? Do you have any experience studying trees and tree demons? Have you studied botany?". You aren't 100% sure the tree won't attack you. So, what is your threshold level of certainty to not fear the tree?

I did not mean that there is a significant risk. I just said I don´t know yet how they will work in the long term. Also there are a lot of scientists who say that there are risk, so I am just careful. I don´t believe anything certainly. In 5 years there will probably be a lot of things that will change about my opinions. The thing is I can´t know what is true certainly. There is just higher probability for certain perspectives. 

Your example with trees isn´t really good imo. I have a lot of experience with trees, and they never harmed me yet. Still there could be a way for them to harm me. e.g. a branch breaking and hitting me. It´s about risk evaluation.

Quote

It seems like you have foundational distrust of R&D and clinical studies. You say that the forum lacks critical skills, yet here you are not showing any critical skills. There is evidence-based research and claims that lack evidence or misconstrue evidence. It takes critical thinking skills to differentiate between good evidence-based research and misconstrued evidence. This takes time and effort. It isn't easy. Yet you don't seem willing to engage in critical evaluations - you collectively blow off all studies as "we can do studies for everything and design them so that they confirm what the study designers want". That is very intellectually lazy. You are doing the same thing you criticize others as doing.

You shouldn´t interpret that much into a few posts I made. I actually am reading a lot of studies. Not just the ones that confirm my worldview. I agree that I am biased, as everyone is in some aspects. It´s really hard to not have any biases at all. I am also willing to engage in critical evaluations, that´s why I made this post. I read a lot of posts here, and it seemed to me like it´s not really a thing here to be critical with certain topics. 

My quote "we can do studies for everything..." was just to make a point. 

 

Quote

This is a very simplistic view. It is much more complicated and nuanced. Masks most likely reduce the Ro (contagion) of coronavirus spread, yet clearly don't eliminate it. That brings up naunces like: what variables effect the effectiveness of masks? Which masks are most effective? How does crowding affect mask effectiveness?

Ideas like "I don't like wearing a mask, so I won't wear one". "People can make up any study about masks, I won't believe any of it" - is a very simplistic mindset. 

It may seem simplistic, but I read a lot about masks. Talked to different doctors. One for example worked in the jungle in a tubercolosis clinic and he told me, even there they don´t wear masks. They just don´t sit face to face with their patients. 

My problem with masks is that I don´t really see why asymptomatic people should wear one, with asymptomatic spread being a very low probability and all the trash we make with masks. 
 

Quote

You are acting as if all perspectives carry equal weight. Some perspectives are more reasonable than others. Plus, there isn't enough time to investigate every claim to 100% certainty. Someone could claim that Bill Gates designed the vaccine for mind control. This isn't just a "different perspective". It's a batshit crazy perspective and it's a waste of one's life to check out every batshit crazy perspective. 

I know that not all perspectives are equal, you read to much into my few posts again here. Yes there isn´t enough time to investigate everything and I certainly don´t investigate every claim everyone masks, just the ones that are most concerning to me. 
 

Quote

There is a balance between personal desires and social welfare. Let's say that I love to drink a bottle of vodka while driving on highways. Why shouldn't I be allowed to do it? It feels so GOOD!! Isn't my personal experience king?

That´s not a compelling comparison. If you drink while driving you have a high probability to hurt someone else. If you don´t wear a mask and are healthy you have a very very low probability for infecting someone at all. I am not saying it´s impossible, just that the topic about masks is not that easy, and making everyone wear one is more of a political move to spread fear, than evidence based science. 

[Forestluv]

23 minutes ago, Jodistrict said:

Below is a good article on the "Replication crisis".   At least 50% of scientific studies cannot be reproduced.   Much of medical research doesn't even meet the criteria of the scientific method.  People just assume the system is responsible and not corrupt.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis

 

Replication is an issue in improving science, yet keep in mind that "replication" is relative. It is impossible to absolutely replicate an experiment and results. There is a zero percent chance of absolute replication.

This raises the issue of what counts as "replicated". What are the thresholds we set? What level of error and variance do we allow between experiments?

The article you linked defined "replication" in an partially misleading way. For example, if a drug study shows an increase of joint mobility of 17% and another tries to replicate the experiment and finds a 28% increase in joint mobility, it was technically not replicated - since the second study improved mobility even more. Yet this is misleading because the studies replicated efficacy. 

Suppose we do a similar drug study 10x and find the following percentage of improvement relative to controls: 12%. 15%, 8%, 22%, 3%, 10%, 7%, 1%, 24%, 19%. Technically, no experiment was "replicated". Yet that is extremely misleading since ALL of the experiments shows improvement over controls. From this perspective, the result is replicated and, taken together, would be very strong evidence that the drug has efficacy. 

Yet with that said, the article brought up a lot of valid concerns about replication - particularly in the psychological sciences. 

[BadHippie]

Quote

This is naive and foolish. Experts are who should be listened to/considered most of all. Not the common, average joe who has no idea about any given field they're discussing in.

With not trusting experts I didn´t mean to not take their perspectives. I just meant not giving away your own sensemaking to them. You still have to do your own research. Even an expert can make a false claim sometimes, even if most of what they say is true. We all make mistakes.

Quote

One reason why humans have advanced society to the point it is now is through cooperation and letting the experts do their thing. You don't need to understand and be a professional at everything and at the same time teach others about how every possible thing functions so that our acquired knowledged can be passed on and evolved. We need specialized crafts in areas of science, historians, medicine, engineers etc. in order to function as a large, modern society.

I agree on that. But I think what a lot of experts are missing is interdisciplinary skills. Like a neurobiologist who just looks at the brain, without taking into account the experiences we make, is a bad neurobiologist. We did that for a lot of years, till someone pointed out, you can´t study the brain without also studying the input.

 

Quote

It's not ignorant to yield to and trust the experts. In fact, it's the smartest thing you can do. The experts are paid professionals and dedicate their lives to something specific. This allows you free time to do whatever else you want to do.

This is what I mean with giving away your own sensemaking to someone else. By doing so you certainly have less work, but you also won´t have any nuanced view or understanding of different topics and won´t be able to make sense of the world in any meaningful way. What good is there in believing something, without having a good understand of it? It will just become a hindrance to growing your perspective.

Edited April 2, 2021 by BadHippie

[Epikur]

 

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/01/new-biden-scientific-integrity-policy

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03063-0

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/28/climate/trump-administration-war-on-science.html

[BadHippie]

@Epikur

Interesting new policy from Biden. We will have to see how it will turn out. 

[Jodistrict]

15 minutes ago, Forestluv said:

Replication is an issue in improving science, yet keep in mind that "replication" is relative. It is impossible to absolutely replicate an experiment and results. There is a zero percent chance of absolute replication.

If it is relative and can't be defined then the epistemology is faulty.  Their claim is that the scientific method leads to statements that can be considered to be "knowledge".  That is a high bar.  If they can't define it then they have no monopoly on the claim of knowledge.

"In 1966, an early meta-research paper examined the statistical methods of 295 papers published in ten high-profile medical journals. It found that, "in almost 73% of the reports read ... conclusions were drawn when the justification for these conclusions was invalid."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metascience

[Epikur]

3 minutes ago, Jodistrict said:

If it is relative and can't be defined then the epistemology is faulty.  Their claim is that the scientific method leads to statements that can be considered to be "knowledge".  That is a high bar.  If they can't define it then they have no monopoly on the claim of knowledge.

"In 1966, an early meta-research paper examined the statistical methods of 295 papers published in ten high-profile medical journals. It found that, "in almost 73% of the reports read ... conclusions were drawn when the justification for these conclusions was invalid."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metascience

Scientists have to eat even if they can not discover stuff so some might get 'creative'

[Forestluv]

10 minutes ago, Jodistrict said:

If it is relative and can't be defined then the epistemology is faulty.  Their claim is that the scientific method leads to statements that can be considered to be "knowledge".  That is a high bar.  If they can't define it then they have no monopoly on the claim of knowledge.

It's relative to how "replicated" is defined. It is impossible to 100% replicate any experiment. To do so, one would need to travel back in time to have the exact same conditions. 

Today I did an experiment testing the effect of a drug on locomotion of fruit flies. It is impossible to 100% replicate that experiment. There is no way to get every single variable exactly the same. It is impossible to have the flies, food, drug concentration, temperature, humidity, lighting, handling etc. to be exactly the same. There will be some variability of conditions if we try to reproduce the experiment. The question is the level of experimental variability we are willing to accept and the variance within results we are willing to accept. 

I think the article made good points about how science can be sloppy. 

[Epikur]

13 minutes ago, BadHippie said:

@Epikur

Interesting new policy from Biden. We will have to see how it will turn out. 

Could not stop myself:
 

 

[Frylock]

30 minutes ago, BadHippie said:

With not trusting experts I didn´t mean to not take their perspectives. I just meant not giving away your own sensemaking to them. You still have to do your own research. Even an expert can make a false claim sometimes, even if most of what they say is true. We all make mistakes.

I agree on that. But I think what a lot of experts are missing is interdisciplinary skills. Like a neurobiologist who just looks at the brain, without taking into account the experiences we make, is a bad neurobiologist. We did that for a lot of years, till someone pointed out, you can´t study the brain without also studying the input.

 

This is what I mean with giving away your own sensemaking to someone else. By doing so you certainly have less work, but you also won´t have any nuanced view or understanding of different topics and won´t be able to make sense of the world in any meaningful way. What good is there in believing something, without having a good understand of it? It will just become a hindrance to growing your perspective.

Overall, I see your point and I do mostly agree. We do have to be smarter about who/what to believe. The issue is that these days, people pollute this way of thinking and eschew all the way to the toxic extremes that we see with the mass conspiracy theories.

Once upon of time it was actually fun to be a conspiracy theorist. Now with so many normies doing it, it's just tiring. Majority of people need guidance, because when you leave them to their own devices, they'll go down an even darker path than if they just listened to the experts. And there certainly are misguiding and toxic experts whom are easily latched onto.

[Leo Gura]

5 hours ago, BadHippie said:

Why is it so hard for people to simply say, we don´t know yet?

Isn't it obvious? Because millions of lives are at stake.

[vladorion]

Millions of lives are at stake, so let's do stuff that we know doesn't work and let's also potentially jeopardize the lives of billions of people whose lives are not at stake.

[Willie]

46 minutes ago, vladorion said:

Millions of lives are at stake, so let's do stuff that we know doesn't work and let's also potentially jeopardize the lives of billions of people whose lives are not at stake.

The context of this statement is important.

[Epikur]

 

 

[hoodrow trillson]

Let’s take it back.

This NEW virus came out of no where (as in unexpectedly), it then spread at an alarming, unprecedented rate, faster than us humans could even think and apply on how we could’ve roadblocked it in time and we barely knew anything about it as a cherry on top.  It was already here in the USA when we saw people dying in China and Europe en masse.  Scientists aka humans who are experts in their specific fields and didn’t use Google to obtain their certificates of actual expertise, had to learn what this thing was and did at the same time as it was happening on a grand global scale with people’s lives at stake.  This isn’t your little cold sniffle virus that you can buy some cherry cough syrup call it a day.  We all learned about it live as it was happening.  That’s why we’re here at this point in time.

The catalyst to this uncertainty and distrust unfortunately, partially stems from this global pandemic event happening during an insanely high profile Presidential election in the most powerful nation on Earth.  The USA is the big domino and the whole word was watching too.  It was like watching a grand finale of a TV show and a thief sneaks in through your window and begins to steal stuff but you can’t stop watching the show so you say fuck it.  Deal with it later. 

The other side of the skepticism and distrust, is the juggernaut powerhouse and absolute money maker social media platforms and their respective algorithms have on society.  During that time (2020-2021), people spent way more time online—discussing many high clickable ($$$$) things like the pandemic, presidential election, economy, social unrest, cancel culture, slander, etc - the list goes on.  These algorithms grip every individual differently and cater to what you’re consuming by sending you more and more.  Oh, you don’t trust the vaccine?  Check out this balding fatass nobody on YouTube telling you that this is all about control and the vaccine changes your DNA.  It has 400,000 views so it has to be legit. ;-)

I saw this whole coronavirus thing begin to unfold on a different forum, back in early January 2020–as we were watching China weld the doors of their citizens houses shut.  Dragging people out of their homes and throwing them into these makeshift hospitals from livestreams.  People were being silenced and “disappearing”.  It’s not China’s fault, unfortunately, they have a public image to keep up (much like other countries) and they couldn’t control this clusterfuck in time.  It was a done deal and they knew it.  While this was happening, you were probably sleeping like a baby OP, completely unaware this tsunami of events were going to take place.  Blissfully unaware and having faith that the next month ahead would be somewhat similar to the previous one, just because that’s always how it’s kind of been since we were born.

Since this virus threatened to basically rip apart this modern civilization to shreds from many different perspectives such as economy, freedom, health, standard of living, normality, etc - Humans from all across the globe, super laser focused and flexed the one thing that separates us from every other animal on this planet, and that is our brains.  We managed to make multiple vaccines at this quick of a rate because scientists and governments behind closed doors completely understood what the real deal is if they didn’t do anything or wait any longer.  The unfathomable amounts of R&D and money required to do this, from counties across the globe working together, would make your head spin.

So from a comfy 1st world chair, sure I can say “hey what’s up with these vaccines I don’t trust them.  What’s in them?” but that is being incredibly intelligently lazy.  You need to keep zooming out and see the big picture.

 

[Jodistrict]

12 hours ago, Forestluv said:

It's relative to how "replicated" is defined. It is impossible to 100% replicate any experiment. To do so, one would need to travel back in time to have the exact same conditions. 

Today I did an experiment testing the effect of a drug on locomotion of fruit flies. It is impossible to 100% replicate that experiment. There is no way to get every single variable exactly the same. It is impossible to have the flies, food, drug concentration, temperature, humidity, lighting, handling etc. to be exactly the same. There will be some variability of conditions if we try to reproduce the experiment. The question is the level of experimental variability we are willing to accept and the variance within results we are willing to accept. 

I think the article made good points about how science can be sloppy. 

That’s not what they are talking about (100% replication).  An example is the Zimbardo prison experiment at Stanford where people shocked prisoners when ordered too.   This experiment has been cited over and over thousands of times as evidence of human nature. But the experiment has never been successfully replicated.  This is just one example of bunk that passes for knowledge because a reputed expert said so.  The scientific establishment routinely points the finger at homeopathy and alternative cures saying “where is the proof?”.  It is appropriate to turn the spotlight around on the scientific establishment.   They do not have a monopoly on knowledge.    

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment
 

Edited April 3, 2021 by Jodistrict

[BadHippie]

Quote

Isn't it obvious? Because millions of lives are at stake.

Isn´t that an assumption? How would we even know there is this new virus, if there wasn´t any testing being done? All I am reading here are assumptions, we simply don´t know what would have happened if there wasn´t this new test. There are even countries which use a different test, which tests for more nucleic acids -> which means there will be less false-positive results (e.g. check out Thailand for example).

There are countries with no masks, no lockdown, no social distancing and even there, there aren´t significantly more cases. 

People simply believe this is some crazy killer virus, where everyone would die if we don´t do anything. This was a legit perspective in the beginning of the pandemic. But no we have a lot of data which suggests that it´s not as dangerous as we thought. 

If you look at the deaths globally we have around 2,8 millions. Which sounds like a lot, but how man of those actually died because of corona? How many of those dies because of some other cause? How many would have died naturally, even without Corona? Here in Germany people get counted as Covid-19 death, as long as they had a positive PCR-Test in the last 30 days (correct me if I am wrong). That´s not a good way of counting. There is simply so much shit going on with the numbers (there is no standardized CT-Value for PCR-testing, no standardized way of counting deaths, hospitals get paid more money if they say a patient has COVID-19 (so they test everyone, even without symptoms which leads to a lot of false positives because there is not standardized CT-Value). 

All I am saying is that the whole situation is quite complex and you can´t simply say everyone would die if we didn´t do anything, because that´s not the case -> look at Tansania, Belarus, Sweden. 

So many questions still. Why do we use the PCR procedure, when the inventor (Kary Mullis) said it shouldn´t be used for mass testing? Why are most governments not focusing on increasing the health of their population? (e.g. telling them to do eat healthier, do sports, take supplements...)

Here an interesting Interview for PCR-Testing (but you can also get the same information by reading papers and contemplating the way the test works for yourself)

 

I am not saying there is some big conspiracy, but there is opportunism and a lot of big players are using the pandemic to push some agenda. Here in Germany there are around 500 deaths (below the age of 50) who died with a positive test-result. Is it really a good idea to lock away the whole population? It leads to more suicides and depression. In Austria 1/3 of the youth is depressive now and the psychiatric hospitals are full. I have friends there who tell me they simply don´t want to go on anymore. 

We are keeping ourselves safe from a potential problem, in exchange for a certain problem. Not really smart to be honest.

And I know politicians have a role they must fulfill, they have to act in specific ways to get elected again. Even if you fear the Coronavirus, which I don´t think is a smart thing to do, as fear leads to bad sensemaking and sickness. I simply try to look at the whole situation holistically and it doesn´t make any sense in so many ways. 

And aren´t there always million lives at stake? More people are dying from hunger now than ever before, simply because of the way we try to deal with the corona virus. If we would put all the money, we put into fighting Corona into fighting against hunger, or campaign for a more conscious way of living we would safe more lives. 

Edited April 3, 2021 by BadHippie

[BadHippie]

Quote

This NEW virus came out of no where (as in unexpectedly), it then spread at an alarming, unprecedented rate, faster than us humans could even think and apply on how we could’ve roadblocked it in time and we barely knew anything about it as a cherry on top.  It was already here in the USA when we saw people dying in China and Europe en masse.  Scientists aka humans who are experts in their specific fields and didn’t use Google to obtain their certificates of actual expertise, had to learn what this thing was and did at the same time as it was happening on a grand global scale with people’s lives at stake.  This isn’t your little cold sniffle virus that you can buy some cherry cough syrup call it a day.  We all learned about it live as it was happening.  That’s why we’re here at this point in time.

Actually we knew a lot about Corona-viruses even back in January, we just didn´t listen to the ones telling us about it. We started knowing zero about it, because we didn´t check how old coronaviruses work. All the symptoms aren´t exclusive to this new variant. You can read some papers about the old ones and see for yourself. 

And it actually is a little cold sniffle for most of the people who get it. Of course there are people who will have a bad-progression. But that was always the case with any Virus. One my grand-uncles died because of the flu. It´s sad, but it happens. 

Quote

The other side of the skepticism and distrust, is the juggernaut powerhouse and absolute money maker social media platforms and their respective algorithms have on society.  During that time (2020-2021), people spent way more time online—discussing many high clickable ($$$$) things like the pandemic, presidential election, economy, social unrest, cancel culture, slander, etc - the list goes on.  These algorithms grip every individual differently and cater to what you’re consuming by sending you more and more.  Oh, you don’t trust the vaccine?  Check out this balding fatass nobody on YouTube telling you that this is all about control and the vaccine changes your DNA.  It has 400,000 views so it has to be legit. ;-)

Sure I agree, there is lot of distrust ad polarization going on because of the way Social-Media-AI is working. Yeah that´s exactly the same thing I am telling you. Just because a lot of people believe or listen to a certain narrative, doesn´t make it true. You still have to do your own sensemaking.

Quote

Since this virus threatened to basically rip apart this modern civilization to shreds from many different perspectives such as economy, freedom, health, standard of living, normality, etc - Humans from all across the globe, super laser focused and flexed the one thing that separates us from every other animal on this planet, and that is our brains.  We managed to make multiple vaccines at this quick of a rate because scientists and governments behind closed doors completely understood what the real deal is if they didn’t do anything or wait any longer.  The unfathomable amounts of R&D and money required to do this, from counties across the globe working together, would make your head spin.

I don´t think it´s the virus which fucked our economy, freedom, standard of living, normality, etc., but the way we try to deal with it. You can check out countries who have much lower decrease in economy because they didn´t deal with the virus that harshly. Even health is affected negatively because people are stressed and have existential fears (e.g. people dying because they are lonely and/or lose their love of life). Standard of living didn´t change in some countries as I told in an other post. I have a friend who helps a small little village in Africa, and he told me they didn´t even notice the pandemic, except for the problems in infrastructure. 

People were working on mRNA-vaccines for 30 years, they just never were approved before for human-usage. The reason we have it this fast is because of the telescoping of the vaccine-safety-trials. And no long-term-studies being done. Also there was a lot of pressure and lobbying on the drug-regulation agencies. Sure a part of it was that we had a lot of money put into R&D, but normally that wouldn´t mean we can just skip safety-studies. We needed this global-panic for this fast approval of the vaccines. 

[Extreme Z7]

51 minutes ago, BadHippie said:

Is it really a good idea to lock away the whole population? It leads to more suicides and depression. In Austria 1/3 of the youth is depressive now and the psychiatric hospitals are full. I have friends there who tell me they simply don´t want to go on anymore.

You have a lot of terrible talking points, most of them were very popular during the early days of the pandemic but nowadays they're just really really easy to debunk. But the "think of all the suicides" talking point is by far one of the worst.

If we just let the virus roam free and affect millions and millions more people, it would definitely not somehow lead to less misery, suicides, and depression as this talking point implies. But of course, you deny that Covid is even that much of a threat to begin with so even pointing this out is not going to change your mind.

I can tell by how much you Gish Gallop that your mind is really deep in a really bad rabbit-hole of nonsense that no amount of fact-checking will get you out of. You're new here, so I should tell you that you're kind of dogmatic behavior can easily get you banned if you just keep doing what you're doing the whole way through.