Media Bias

[L'Emmerdeur]

Joe that load of crap was worthy of a Trump supporter. Your are just pathetic.

Says the fellow whose yapping about covid runs closely parallel to the Trumpist party line.

[pErvinalia]

Yeah, stunning isn't it?

[Joe]

Joe that load of crap was worthy of a Trump supporter. Your are just pathetic.

Wow, I never thought I'd say this, but Seth was right about something.

Engaging in personal attacks simply shows the weakness of your rhetorical skills and your lack of valid arguments.

BTW. The Prof you claim supports your position appears to see the value of international Covid comparisons in this tweet.



Additionally, this article in the International Journal of Epidemiology argues for such an effort, while acknowledging the difficulties, and makes a comparison similar to Hermit's

The issue was that, although it is difficult to reliably compare COVID-19 population fatality rates between countries, it is also quite clear that some countries (e.g. UK, USA, Italy, Spain, Belgium, France) have markedly higher burdens of COVID-19 mortality than others (e.g. New Zealand, Australia, Singapore, South Korea, Germany). Although one could not say definitively that the UK was the worst in the world, it was performing worse than some countries which had tried alternative control strategies, and there are things that we can learn from that contrast.

Indeed, epidemiology is built on the idea of studying differences between populations. Much of what we have learnt about the causes of disease has had its origins in comparisons of countries.3,4 For example, in the 1950s, it was realized that colorectal cancer risks were high in Europe and low in Africa, possibly due to dietary differences in fibre from fruit and vegetable intake. Similarly, liver cancer was common in Asia, which eventually provided a link to hepatitis B. International differences in cervical cancer incidence and mortality suggested an infectious cause, later established as human papillomavirus (HPV).

COVID-19 is different. The causative agent, SARS-CoV-2, is clear; the task is to learn how to best block the virus’s transmission and to prevent infections from progressing to severe disease and death.

As the pandemic unfolds, there are numerous natural experiments in progress, as countries adopt different approaches. Although international comparisons are often disparaged because of different data quality and fears of the ‘ecological fallacy’, if done carefully they can play a major role in our learning what works best for controlling COVID-19.3 Furthermore, these natural experiments are yielding clear results within weeks or months (e.g. on the success of the Asian approaches). Thus, there needs to be more thoughtful and thorough analyses of country differences, done by experienced epidemiologists, as it is probably the most important and most valid evidence for informing COVID-19 policy in real time.

And after all, what is the alternative? It is impossible or unethical to randomize a lockdown, or other aspects of physical distancing. There could be trials of intensive population testing,5 or prophylactic treatment of household contacts, but few have been launched to date. And all the time, the COVID-19-clock ticks relentlessly on, accumulating more deaths and more survivors with debilitating long-term health problems.

And that's the difference between the approach of professionals and that of dilettantes on the internet. The pro's figure out how to make these comparisons because they must.

I wonder what you'll call me for the temerity of pointing that out.

[pErvinalia]

Stop playing word games*, Joe, by pissing kool-aid up the wall while sucking on the government tit.

* - I note that Scot always plays the "word game" card when he can't construct a reply to a well thought out and lengthy exposition of his position. It's almost as if he can't handle well reasoned detailed arguments.

[Cunt]

Yeah, stunning isn't it?

Stunning that you think there is something wrong with pointing out that science answers to money.

How many research projects have you funded, pErv?

[Brian Peacock]

[pErvinalia]

Yeah, stunning isn't it?

Stunning that you think there is something wrong with pointing out that science answers to money.

How many research projects have you funded, pErv?

What the fuck are you on about? This was a response to L'Emmy's post about Scot having the temerity to accuse others of being Trump -like. Scot has been peddling conspiracy theories about Covid, like Trump, for months.

[pErvinalia]

Take note, Cunt. Brian, in his way, is trying to give you a heads up.

[JimC]

[pErvinalia]

[Cunt]

Yeah, stunning isn't it?

Stunning that you think there is something wrong with pointing out that science answers to money.

How many research projects have you funded, pErv?

What the fuck are you on about? This was a response to L'Emmy's post about Scot having the temerity to accuse others of being Trump -like. Scot has been peddling conspiracy theories about Covid, like Trump, for months.

Scot is saying the data is fuckity.

You and others rely heavily on the word 'science'. This word doesn't make humans less corrupt. Just forces some areas of transparency.

I wish I could get you to make a study of p-hacking, and phacking when Scot (maybe poorly) expresses his frustration in this area.

But whatever. You're probably right.

[pErvinalia]

You need to keep up. Scott was claiming that governments were over-reporting infections for purposes of authoritarian control. Of course, his hate for the US and UK trumped that, where he claimed they were under-reporting numbers for purposes of looking good.

[Cunt]

You need to keep up. Scott was claiming that governments were over-reporting infections for purposes of authoritarian control. Of course, his hate for the US and UK trumped that, where he claimed they were under-reporting numbers for purposes of looking good.

Well, let Scot speak to that. I was simply pointing out that big money produces GREAT science, telling you all kinds of encouraging things.

[rainbow]

Yeah, stunning isn't it?

Stunning that you think there is something wrong with pointing out that science answers to money.

Pointing out a general untruth is quite valid. Very few scientists are motivated by money.
Forsure, they wouldn't be in Science.

Much more money to be made in politics, law and creative accounting.

How many research projects have you funded, pErv?

How many have you, Cnut?

Personally, and through the vast corporations I control - I funded a few dozen. That helps me get my name on the research paper without having to do most of the work.

[Cunt]

Personally, and through the vast corporations I control - I funded a few dozen. That helps me get my name on the research paper without having to do most of the work.

Can you explain 'p-hacking' and phacking, to pErvinalia?

I keep falling on my face when I try.