You are confused.Quote:
Originally Posted by PawDawg
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/12/23/why-...ite-house.html
Printable View
You are confused.Quote:
Originally Posted by PawDawg
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/12/23/why-...ite-house.html
Well, if you spent half the time that you spent following misinformation sources reading the actual much much larger randomized controlled studies (scientific gold standard), you would understand why the consensus actually thinks what it does.Quote:
Originally Posted by techman05
You mean like studying the effect of Hydroxy or Ivermectin on a small sample of hospitalized patients under the age of 50 when we already knew that we had few hospitalized people under 50, and we knew those meds are for early intervention. Only to have the gold standard study declare that those drugs don’t work at all when in reality, they didn’t intend to conduct a meaningful study to start with?
If that’s the gold standard, you can shove it.
What about the study out if Johns Hopkins that says lockdowns didn’t do anything to help curb the virus? Is a Johns Hopkins study valid or is it thrown out because it doesn’t support the narrative?
You would be less confused if you spent less time to following people that promote conspiracy theories.Quote:
Originally Posted by techman05
The studies conclusively proved HCQ doesn’t work. The earlier anecdotes suffered from the type of selection bias that demonstrate the importance of RANDOMIZATION in control trials.
Ivermectin studies may or may not result in the same final conclusion, but the evidence for its effectiveness has not yet been demonstrated, scientifically.
If you want to rely so heavily on consensus, then why do you keep arguing when you are 1 of 3 on this board, and actually 1 of 3 people I know of who won’t believe the real world results all these good PRACTICIANS are seeing? It’s consensus, right? Just going by majority rule. That’s the standard, right?
I wouldn’t conflate an epidemiological study about policy response with a clinical study of drug effectiveness.Quote:
Originally Posted by techman05
The Johns Hopkins study is only of limited value, really, because it doesn’t really answer how lockdown responses may or may not work as part of a larger coherent strategy. The same study showed shelter in place reduced deaths by 3%.
I already pointed you to another website that lets you play the pandemic game from the perspective of a policy maker that is built on epidemiological data. When you play with the various policy response you can see the impacts on population health and economy when doing different responses. Depending on your value judgment as to health vs economic well being, there is an optimal curve that you can try to hit that maximizes one while minimizing the impact on the other. Very hard to hit the optimal curve because the optimal requires that you do various policies in different times for different lengths of times.
Your geographic circle must be narrow. 90% of the people I know would roll their eyes at you. The other 10% are those crazy Trumpers.Quote:
Originally Posted by techman05
Maybe both our circles are incredibly narrow minded. That’s a problem for each of us.
Gotta watch those opinions. You know, since we have decades of research about this virus, the treatments, and the long term affects of all treatments. You don’t want to be banned.
Looks like that 4th jab isn't working out so well in Israel.
’80 percent of serious Covid cases are fully Vaccinated’… – CITIZEN FREE PRESS
Duh! A fifth jab will do the trick, though.Quote:
Originally Posted by FriscoDawg
In 3 years, the quad and quint vaxed will look like Sloth from Goonies.