February 3, 20223 yr 5 minutes ago, DrPhilly said: I think it deserves a look without just jumping to the "dum dum” conclusion. I was merely using the same term that he used on me for simply pointing out that the NY Post touting a study of debatable authorship wasn't the most convincing.
February 3, 20223 yr 9 minutes ago, BBE said: Nope! If you are going to play arbiter of academic soundness, you should know one very important aspect of anything published in PLoS One. Edited the post. I don't know much about the journal and I never attacked the other publisher's credibility. I merely expressed doubts about whether the authorship was well put together or whether the numbers themselves were actually given proper context.
February 3, 20223 yr 6 minutes ago, DaEagles4Life said: The article you posted even says we shouldn't have more lockdowns. The study, published in PLOS One, should not be used to justify more lockdown measures, Yakusheva said. "We evaluated the full packet of public health measures as it was implemented in the beginning of the pandemic, but lesser mitigation measures may have worked just as well to reduce lives lost," Yakusheva said. Go back and quote where I said we should have another lockdown.
February 3, 20223 yr 7 minutes ago, BBE said: And his "devil's advocate" post is for a journal article that does not do peer review of the articles that are published. That's not what I'm reading.
February 3, 20223 yr i'm not a virologist. i'm more of a deek joke-ologist....but do these variants normally become "weaker" over time or is there still a possibility that a variant with more serious symptoms/greater chance of death can develop?
February 3, 20223 yr A quick search shows some immediate reaction from scientists. The quick hit I found was from an org called the Science Media Center. They put up reactions from three professors. One a Comp Sci guy who took a skeptical view but offered no real analysis. One an infectious disease specialist who had done some quick initial analysis and was very critical. The third was a stats expert who had looked from a process and methods perspective and was quite positive and suggested it was transparent and we would learn a lot BUT wasn’t ready to comment on any of the conclusions as there was much to review. These guys were UK Oxford and Imperial London guys. This one will no doubt get a solid critique and plenty of opposition.
February 3, 20223 yr 14 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said: That's not what I'm reading. PLoS from its inception has either published articles with no peer review or an "internal" peer review. If you read the requirements that they have for reviewers (which is a new development), a reviewer is given only 10 days in order to "streamline" the review process. That is really not sufficient for thorough review. PLoS is trying to recover from its image of being the place to get a paper published when no other journal will.
February 3, 20223 yr 9 minutes ago, mr_hunt said: i'm not a virologist. i'm more of a deek joke-ologist....but do these variants normally become "weaker" over time or is there still a possibility that a variant with more serious symptoms/greater chance of death can develop? Over the course of a pandemic, you typically do get to a place where later variants seem to cause less severe illness. This is usually the path to an endemic. My understanding is that this is usually due to large numbers of people acquiring some level of immunity, whether through vaccination or natural infection. What can happen, though, especially in the case of zoonosis, is that the virus finds an animal reservoir and then, sometime down the line, jumps back to humans in a much more virulent form.
February 3, 20223 yr In that regard: Quote Scientists discover shockingly high rates of COVID infections among white-tailed deer https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/scientists-discover-shockingly-high-rates-of-covid-infections-among-white-tailed-deer?fbclid=IwAR3R2gd0b7HjfwVLjIoBsDjbN6_R7rLf0VJXUcGD1akKQ8Y0ypobSaAlk1E Thanks, PSU
February 3, 20223 yr 1 minute ago, EaglesRocker97 said: Over the course of a pandemic, you typically do get to a place where later variants seem to cause less severe illness. This is usually the path to an endemic. My understanding is that this is usually due to large numbers of people acquiring some level of immunity, whether through vaccination or natural infection. What can happen, though, especially in the case of zoonosis, is that the virus finds an animal reservoir and then, sometime down the line, jumps back to humans in a much more virulent form. ahh....like republicans? that's kind of what's happening right now...i guess we're not out of the woods yet!
February 3, 20223 yr 8 minutes ago, DrPhilly said: A quick search shows some immediate reaction from scientists. The quick hit I found was from an org called the Science Media Center. They put up reactions from three professors. One a Comp Sci guy who took a skeptical view but offered no real analysis. One an infectious disease specialist who had done some quick initial analysis and was very critical. The third was a stats expert who had looked from a process and methods perspective and was quite positive and suggested it was transparent and we would learn a lot BUT wasn’t ready to comment on any of the conclusions as there was much to review. These guys were UK Oxford and Imperial London guys. This one will no doubt get a solid critique and plenty of opposition. Thanks, I was trying to find some takes on this study from the scientific community but wasn't having much luck. I'll be interested to see the response going forward.
February 3, 20223 yr 1 minute ago, EaglesRocker97 said: Thanks, I was trying to find some takes on this study from the scientific community but wasn't having much luck. I'll be interested to see the response going forward. Yes and this study may turn out to be rubbish.
February 3, 20223 yr 10 minutes ago, BBE said: PLoS from its inception has either published articles with no peer review or an "internal" peer review. If you read the requirements that they have for reviewers (which is a new development), a reviewer is given only 10 days in order to "streamline" the review process. That is really not sufficient for thorough review. PLoS is trying to recover from its image of being the place to get a paper published when no other journal will. Thanks, I wasn't really familiar with their history. It's an open-source journal, so I would expect it to be less rigorous in general. My issue with the first study posted was really just a point about the academic background of the authors and thinking that a more convincing study would've included scientific or medical authorities. Methodology is another thing altogether and not something that I would pretend to be capable of assessing on this topic.
February 3, 20223 yr 2 hours ago, DaEagles4Life said: Say again? Lockdowns had "little to no effect” on saving lives during the pandemic — and "should be rejected out of hand as a pandemic policy,” according to economists in a new meta-analysis of dozens of studies. group led by the head of Johns Hopkins Institute for Applied Economics analyzed studies from the first surge of the pandemic to investigate widely pushed claims that stringent restrictions would limit deaths. Instead, the meta-analysis concluded that lockdowns across the US and Europe had only "reduced COVID-19 mortality by 0.2% on average.” https://nypost.com/2022/02/02/covid-lockdowns-had-very-little-effect-on-mortality-rate-study/ 47 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said: I was merely using the same term that he used on me for simply pointing out that the NY Post touting a study of debatable authorship wasn't the most convincing. It's like you don't read what else I posted.
February 3, 20223 yr Our old friend is back. What is the wonder drug Ivermectin up to now, you might ask? Well, a recent study found that the old horse paste might have anti-cancer properties. That's right, Ivermectin might cure cancer too! Quote Ivermectin has powerful antitumor effects, including the inhibition of proliferation, metastasis, and angiogenic activity, in a variety of cancer cells. This may be related to the regulation of multiple signaling pathways by ivermectin through PAK1 kinase. On the other hand, ivermectin promotes programmed cancer cell death, including apoptosis, autophagy and pyroptosis. Ivermectin induces apoptosis and autophagy is mutually regulated. Interestingly, ivermectin can also inhibit tumor stem cells and reverse multidrug resistance and exerts the optimal effect when used in combination with other chemotherapy drugs. Link
February 3, 20223 yr 3 minutes ago, Abracadabra said: Our old friend is back. What is the wonder drug Ivermectin up to now, you might ask? Well, a recent study found that the old horse paste might have anti-cancer properties. That's right, Ivermectin might cure cancer too! Link It also is rumored to cure virginity. You should get yourself a big bucket full.
February 4, 20223 yr 2 hours ago, we_gotta_believe said: I love these people who think anybody wants to microchip them. Maybe they want to feel important.
February 4, 20223 yr 4 hours ago, Paul852 said: I love these people who think anybody wants to microchip them. Maybe they want to feel important. They don't have to microchip anyone. Most people can't put their phones down. Mission accomplished 🤷
February 4, 20223 yr An article was published today in the Swedish press about the Johns Hopkins paper. It included some info from one of the authors who is Swedish. He explained that the study is a meta analysis that relies on all of the underlying studies where the specific expertise on infections, etc exists. In other words, these guys applied the math analysis on top of the medical science. Ill add some more from his explanation later.
February 4, 20223 yr 5 hours ago, lynched1 said: They don't have to microchip anyone. Most people can't put their phones down. Mission accomplished 🤷 Yep.
Create an account or sign in to comment