"There is uncertainty about the effects of face masks. The low‐moderate certainty of the evidence means our confidence in the effect estimate is limited, and that the true effect may be different from the observed estimate of the effect. The pooled results of randomised trials did not show a clear reduction in respiratory viral infection with the use of medical/surgical masks during seasonal influenza. There were no clear differences between the use of medical/surgical masks compared with N95/P2 respirators in healthcare workers when used in routine care to reduce respiratory viral infection. Hand hygiene is likely to modestly reduce the burden of respiratory illness. Harms associated with physical interventions were under‐investigated."
"The COVID-19 pandemic is estimated to push an additional 88 million to 115 million people into extreme poverty this year [2020], with the total rising to as many as 150 million by 2021"
Yes there's lots of these articles about global recession but no where in these do they mention border closures are not something supported by the WHO as a way of controlling the spread. The WHO's entire stance on lockdowns is that they should be temporary and targeted because the economic impact caused by them causes a greater impact to health. That's an inconvenient truth that the CDC and other government heath agencies aren't keen on having widely known. Thus it seems to be left out of the press.
YouTube's definition of COVID-19 misinformation: "Medical misinformation that contradicts local health authorities’ or the World Health Organization’s (WHO)" [1]
January 2020: WHO claims that there's "no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission" for SARS-CoV-2 [2]. Should YT have removed all videos discussing an alternative hypothesis?
June 2020: WHO claims asymptomatic spread is "very rare"[3]. Should YT have deleted all videos claiming that asymptomatic spread causes the majority of infections?
October 2020: WHO does "not advocate lockdowns as the primary means of control of this virus"[4]. Should YT have banned all lockdown advocates?
"The disabled community doesn’t want to drive gas-burning cars while everyone else zips around in zero-emission vehicles"
I do not understand this craze for EVs. The German Fraunhofer ISI found evidence [1] that it might take up to 93,000 miles / 150,000km until you hit a break even point with regards to emissions (58 kWh; compared to Diesel).
Is that also a factor in most buyer's decisions or is it just about the feeling of "zipping around" in a EV?
EVs CO2 emmissions depends of the carbon intensity of electricity consumed.
So that is true that Germany with now 323gCO₂eq/kWh has a higher break even. But if you take the same data for exemple in France where electricity is much less carbon intensive, (now 32gCO₂eq/kWh), break even is as low as 15000km for an EV.
Germany should just emit less carbon for electricity generation.
Although France's electricity mix is exceptionally low, I'm surprised to see that the EU average (438gCO₂eq/kWh) is even higher than in Germany ([2], page 74).
In the US, it's over 600gCO₂eq/kWh, in China even 1,000gCO₂eq/kWh (1.3 million EVs were sold in China in 2020).
"Benchmarking. Customer may conduct benchmark tests of the Services (each a "Test"). Customer may only publicly disclose the results of such Tests if it (a) obtains Google's prior written consent, (b) provides Google all necessary information to replicate the Tests, and (c) allows Google to conduct benchmark tests of Customer's publicly available products or services and publicly disclose the results of such tests."
The author's argument is based on the assumption that taking aspirin results "in around one death per 10,000 people".
The cited study [1] does not say that. Those results are specifically for "a fifty-year-old male" (see p. 638), not the general population.
Additionally, the results are from an "aspirin therapy simulation", not real world data [2]. How the researchers ended up with their model parameters, is unknown.
If now you have something to add to the points made after "Foremost:" and "Second:" your post could have added something to the discussion as well, instead of just attacking my form.
Again, your argumentation is problematic and therefore hard to argue with.
Your first point depicts a fictional anecdote that tries to prove that terminally-ill patients with a positive COVID-19 test could have lived longer. It's like saying "If someone has stage IV cancer and tests positive for COVID-19, that does not mean he died due to COVID-19. Heck, he could have even died due to multidrug-resistant bacteria"
What's your source? What's mine? What does it add to the discussion to bring up fictional scenarios?
Regarding your second point: Source? How closely does excess mortality correlate with COVID-19? Could there be other causes? We are talking about highly complex situations that need to be thoroughly analyzed.
Instead of looking up the original video (e.g. by using the watch id), you immediately write it off as "crackpot claims" because some unknown authority at YouTube removed it, citing broad community guidelines.
Maybe we should stick to your words from 4 days ago:
"Science reporting is terrible and the general education system doesn't teach rational skepticism, it teaches unconditional trust of intellectual authority."
Is this really a skeptical, discussion-friendly behaviour or an unconditional trust in some kind of authority?
In my experience on forums, when someone makes a grand contrarian claim (“vaccines are risky”) and then cites a video without explaining why it is relevant or summing it up, the claims indeed have extremely high odds of being crackpot claims.
Where do you see the "crackpot claims" in this situation? He/she just stated that "inclusive discussion is being suppressed", showing a recently removed YT video.
For anyone who can't take 30s to look it up: It is a discussion between 3 individuals (2 of them already fully vaccinated with Moderna) regarding the pandemic:
They said they’re waiting to get vaccinated. That’s what I was referring to. Then they linked a 3 hour long video without bother to write a short summary of why it might be worth our time. It diverts attention away from an argument within thread and appeals to an indigestible authority which can’t be argued against without spending three hours.
And right away there are signs of bad faith. The comment below you bills Robert Malone as “the inventor of mRNA tech”. I’m sure he had some role but there’s no wikipedia on him, and the title of inventor of mrna usually goes to Katalin Kariko.
So either everything is a lie, or Malone’s claims are exaggerated. It seems easier to believe the latter. I searched and I cannot find a single piece evaluating Dr. Malone’s claims. Just conspiracy comments that accept him as inventor with no analysis.
I’ll admit the situation is odd. Malone is clearly real and has many old highly cited papers. What the heck happened between now and the early 2000s, and why is the press devoid of mentions?
You're right, they should have written a short summary of the content and not make us research it ourselves.
I wouldn't use "there's no Wikipedia on him" as an argument. Karikó's entry is only 1 year old [1].
Additionally, it seems that Karikó's work acknowledges contributions from Malone [2].
Whether he's the original inventor or not, whether his claims are true or false, should be up for debate. But isn't that enough to at least tolerate his opinion on YouTube?
Malone seems a curious case. He clearly has many highly cited papers. But I couldn’t find a single mention of him outside anti-vaccine conspiracy sites.
Do you have any link to any coverage or him and his career? Not from himself or such sources.
All those videos are repeating the same thing over and over, with some changes (some that are even contradicting themselves).
People who are into it they hear it so many times that it seem so obvious to them, but whenever they try to explain it to someone else themselves they are realizing they have difficulty, because everything is falling apart. They think it's because they aren't the experts so they link to videos instead. They don't realize that they have problem explaining it, because the argument is very weak, and if you think about it, it doesn't make much sense.
Statistically speaking, it is crackpot nonsense if it's removed. But if you'd like to make a specific claim I'm sure we can all tell you how wrong it is, using rational skepticism ;)
Quite the opposite - it seems you are just ready to suspend critical thinking and believe any conspiracy. No, he is not "the inventor" of "the technology". Hundreds of scientists contributed to the development and implementation of this research and the tech that made it possible. Now, please point to the RCT that shows widespread issues among vaccinated people? Hint: there aren't any. The evidence shows they are safe and effective. That's WHY we did the RCTs in the first place!
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31479137/