Riots Racism FascismFollow

I find it telling that rather than address what I actually said, you both spun off on some bizarre (and disgusting) speculation of motivations and actions instead.

Are you not self aware enough to realize that this is an avoidance technique? When your response to someone is to insult them, that should clue you in that you know on some level that your own position is wrong, but don't want to face it. You can lie to other people, but you really shouldn't lie to yourself.

No. New data gets added to the pool of old data we already have, leading us to create new models to incorporate that new data. We then loop back as we gain yet more data (almost always because we find new and more interesting/precise ways to measure and observe things), and the models change again. Rinse and repeat. That is how science works.



Because I understand that science isn't a result, it's a process.



Absolutely. My point was that the folks most likely to argue that they are on the side of science, while the other side is not, are *not* following this methodology at all. They are the ones declaring their conclusion to be fact and that no additional testing or changing of models should be allowed. I'll ask you to noodle out who uses the phrase "settled science" as a means to shut down dissenting opinions all the time. It's ain't folks on the right.

Science specifically allows for changing conclusions and recommendations based on those conclusions as time goes by and the facts we know increase. Yet, during this covid crisis we're repeatedly heard liberal pundits claim that Trump is "ignoring science" when he does just that. I've seen far too many times where folks on the left will cherry pick one expert or one out of context statement about something, and declare that to be "scientific fact", against which there can be no other possible conclusions. Just look at the whole hydroxycloroquine thing (probably butchered the spelling, but whatever). We get claims that Trump is ignoring science, based on word games (FDA hasn't approved it for use against covid, so it must be unsafe and ineffective despite the fact that the FDA hasn't approved *any* treatment for covid, since it takes years to do so). Or we get false comparisons like potential damage that could occur (only over long time periods and with much higher dosages than being recommended here). Or falsely interpreted statistics like that it's was ineffective when used by folks in the late stages of covid, when the recommendation is to use it in the early stages to prevent getting that far along in the first place.

That's the "science" the folks on the left are using. And don't even get me started on the whole mask thing. Or the ridiculous and illogical shutdown rules that some states and cities have imposed. That's not science. That's insanity. And this is just covid silliness. We've been seeing this for a couple decades now with the whole global warming thing (oh, sorry, it's "climate change" now). Don't have a problem with changing the predictions of outcomes (warming to "change" for example), but then you also kinda have to change your recommendations as well. But they haven't. Which is what tells us that this is the policy leading the science and not the other way around. But hey! It's the GOP who don't follow science, right?

Yeah. So studies like this, just don't count.

What's funny is that the largest peer reviewed studies, when they use the drug as recommended (early, as soon as someone is admitted and not waiting until they are critical), find that it works. Against this we run into the usual fact manipulations that we're used to seeing: Didn't work in this study, where they waited until patients were near death and administered it as a hail mary type thing. Shocking. Or did a study where they randomized when it was applied and who it was applied to, and *shock again* discovered it had no appreciable affect (duh!). Or a study where they just handed it out to people who had symptoms but were never hospitalized. Um... What did they think they were testing?

The claim with hydroxycloroquine is that patients who might progress to the stage of death (ie: folks who are seriously enough sick to require hospitalization), if given this drug immediately upon admission, will be less likely to die. It's not about reducing the time to recover in people who don't get seriously ill. It's not about preventing people on deaths door (already on ventilators say) from dying. It's about people who have severe coughing and shortness of breath from covid, are admitted, and treated. When those conditions are present and it's used correctly, it very much works.

What's funny is that the big government associated health organizations are the ones pushing it to not work. So the WHO has a "factcheck" that simply declares it's not useful. No source on that "fact", for you to follow. Just stated as fact, and no discussion is allowed (guess we're back to "settled science" again). Same deal with the FDA. We didn't approve it, so you shouldn't use it. Gee. That's helpful.

It's pretty easy to spot psuedo-science Joph. It's when you wrap some "facts" up with some word salad, and then declare a conclusion that isn't actually supported by said facts. Then, when challenged, you prop up some intentionally poorly designed studies to support your position. I've been seeing the health industry do the same kind of BS with regards to vaping for nearly 10 years now. I've been seeing the same bait and switch methodologies used for Global Warming for twice that long. It's the same script, and the same bad science being used in every case.

I did see those. The "flaw" is that it was an observational study, which isn't supposed to be final, but to point the way for more complete clinical trials. The problem is that of the three clinical trials that have been done, one was even more flawed than the Ford study (didn't actually test the drug on the targeted population and didn't take that into account in the results), and the other two (FDA and WHO, tow organizations that have historically criticized Trump, and who Trump has criticized as well) were stopped early in the trial because they supposedly didn't see any results. Um... You do the whole trial then tally the results. You don't stop a quarter of the way through and just decide it's not going to work.

Sorry. It all looks suspiciously like an organized political effort to toss out a potential treatment just because Trump suggested it. No one's saying that this is a magical drug that will cure anyone sick with Covid. What the study does suggest is that for certain patients in the correct phase of the illness, it can be very effective. That's it. Yet we've got an active effort to try to convince hospitals not to treat any patient with the drug at all. What happened to the choice being between the doctor and the patient? I thought the Left was all for that, right? That's what they said with the whole Obamacare thing, and what they repeatedly say regarding abortion. But I guess when it's a drug treatment that Trump talks about, it's got to be shut down. Cause heaven forbid that something Trump says turns out to be true and saves lives. Can't have that, can we?

So we'll allow people in those cases to die at an increased rate, just to make sure no one thinks Trump was right. That's pretty freaking sick. Sadly, it's what we've come to expect from the political Left these days. People are just disposable cogs in a machine for them.




Which is funny. Remember way back in like 2002 when you posted a graph showing like 8 different scientific predictions of global temperatures over time. They used various variations on the climate change models that the whole global warming via CO2 was based on, and charted those temperature increases over the next century starting from 2000. We'll, we're now 20 years into those predictions, and the temperatures aren't even close any of those predictions.

So predictions say X and we're all supposed to jump. When said predictions don't come true. Silence. Where are all the people putting that graph up and comparing it to actual global temperature changes and crowing about how they got it right? We'd see that if it were true. But we get nothing. Because the facts don't match the predictions and they don't want anyone to know how wrong they were. So when another 20 years passes, and no significant changes are made, yet the world doesn't end as AOC has predicted, what then? More silence?

A. That's not the graph I was talking about. I can't tell from the picture when that graph was generated.

B. That graph doesn't say what I think you think it does.

Which is why,

C. It shouldn't be a surprise that it matches the same data calculated using the same modeling methodology to calculate temperature.

See, this is why I have to question the humanness of this respondent.

Edited, Sep 22nd 2020 4:03pm by Elinda

He's more or less human. He just suffered an traumatic brain injury when, during a fight with his sister in 1998, he was KO'd by her and struck his head on an Elmo doll.