mission27 Posted April 14, 2020 Share Posted April 14, 2020 1 minute ago, pwny said: I think the issue with it is a lot of people are coming in here and are trusting what they see. People come in the thread and ask things that many of us have discussed and come to conclusions on almost a month ago, because they’re just finding the thread or whatever. People come in and they see what appears to be something scientific posted in an easy to digest format and they probably don’t know that it’s not really supposed to be taken seriously. That’s why we get one person posting it to another forum, another person saying they thought it was completely serious, another person asking for methodology, and then a fourth person who knows it’s bunk arguing that people need to know it’s bunk. If you want to post them to pass the time, that’s fine by me. We all need to do stuff to help keep us sane through all of this. But we probably do need to do a better job of informing those who haven’t been following the shtick for 10 years or reading the discussion in here for the 300 total pages across all threads that they’re for fun. Because clearly some people aren’t getting it, and it’s far too serious of a topic for something done in fun to be taken seriously by someone who just doesn’t understand what’s going on. I'd argue saying something that is covered in Taylor Swift quotes and a cartoon goat "appears to be something scientific" is a bit of a stretch tbh I'd also argue its safe to assume none of the takes in this thread have been subject to academic peer review and anyone who is taking a set of power rankings posted on a football forum as peer reviewed academic research is beyond helping With that being said what we are posting here is meant to be both thoughtful and entertaining If there's a 'disclaimer' or whatever that people think is helpful I'm happy to include it 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramssuperbowl99 Posted April 14, 2020 Share Posted April 14, 2020 1 minute ago, TVScout said: Thank for proving my point. Mechanical breathing fails 80% of the time. Mortality rates from PQT are not perfectly well known but are certainly far lower than 80%. https://www.dicardiology.com/article/covid-19-hydroxychloroquine-treatment-brings-prolonged-qt-arrhythmia-issues https://www.who.int/malaria/mpac/mpac-mar2017-erg-cardiotoxicity-report-session2.pdf That's not how any of this works dude. We aren't going to give a compound that has no demonstrated efficacy in humans and has demonstrated cardiac toxicity just because someone is likely to die regardless. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TVScout Posted April 14, 2020 Share Posted April 14, 2020 1 hour ago, ramssuperbowl99 said: We Exactly who is this "we"? THAT IS NOT YOUR DECISION. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramssuperbowl99 Posted April 14, 2020 Share Posted April 14, 2020 Just now, TVScout said: Exactly who is this "we"? THAT IS NOT YOUR DECISION. Regulatory agencies, who represent the interest of patients/the general public in the drug development process. Which is why the studies involving this stupid waste of time compound have already been cancelled. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TVScout Posted April 14, 2020 Share Posted April 14, 2020 2 hours ago, ramssuperbowl99 said: Regulatory agencies, who represent the interest of patients/the general public in the drug development process. Which is why the studies involving this stupid waste of time compound have already been cancelled. Nope: https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/global-research-on-novel-coronavirus-2019-ncov/solidarity-clinical-trial-for-covid-19-treatments Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramssuperbowl99 Posted April 14, 2020 Share Posted April 14, 2020 Just now, TVScout said: Nope: https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/global-research-on-novel-coronavirus-2019-ncov/solidarity-clinical-trial-for-covid-19-treatments Do...do you really not understand that the WHO is a collaboration from various regulatory agencies? Or do you not realize that it's just about week old news now that hydroxychloroquine clinical trials were cancelled because of heart problems? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pwny Posted April 14, 2020 Share Posted April 14, 2020 17 minutes ago, mission27 said: I'd argue saying something that is covered in Taylor Swift quotes and a cartoon goat "appears to be something scientific" is a bit of a stretch tbh You can certainly argue this. But given that a number of people have stated that they thought it was completely serious, I'm not sure that is the case. I mean I know it's not completely serious, but clearly not everyone else does. Finding a way to just make sure everyone knows is probably not a bad thing. Quote I'd also argue its safe to assume none of the takes in this thread have been subject to academic peer review and anyone who is taking a set of power rankings posted on a football forum as peer reviewed academic research is beyond helping This is certainly true, but it's not necessarily that people assume it was peer-reviewed, but that they assume that it's accepted here as good, quality information that no one in here disagrees with. When I post the food safety information, for example, no one disagrees because everyone believes that it's good quality information. But when someone posts about Hydroxychloroquine being a miracle cure, about how the CFR is actually 20%, or how death totals are being over-reported, there's significant pushback. Even when I posted last night that the death rate was underreported in regards to the total reported deaths, there was a clarification by you to make sure that everyone knew I meant death total and not CFR. This is all good because it at least allows people to read opposing viewpoints and come to their own conclusions and understandings. But with your rankings, that's not happening because everyone that's been in the thread for a long time knows they're meme rankings, so they just read them like that and move on. But that's exactly why we have someone posting them in another forum thinking they were legitimate to be trusted information. Some people are going to read it and understand "that's mission and tlo being mission and tlo," but others apparently aren't getting that. So if we're not going to debate them every time they're posted--and I really don't think anyone wants to do that--we should probably make sure that there's something in them to completely illustrate that "these did take some effort and they're here to help make some of the information out there easier to digest, but we're also meming it up a bit and have used Taylor Swift lyrics as part of the methodology, so take that into account when digesting this info." As long as we have that in it, I think we can get all of this discussion to just go away and everyone will for sure know that they are what they are. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramssuperbowl99 Posted April 14, 2020 Share Posted April 14, 2020 2 minutes ago, pwny said: But given that a number of people have stated that they thought it was completely serious, I'm not sure that is the case. I mean I know it's not completely serious, but clearly not everyone else does. Also, maybe a little time for some honest self-reflection by the peanut gallery: if you looked at @mission27's rankings and couldn't see what about them made them so meme-y, maybe you aren't the right guy to be aggregating links for other people on the internet. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mistakey Posted April 14, 2020 Share Posted April 14, 2020 Just now, ramssuperbowl99 said: Also, maybe a little time for some honest self-reflection by the peanut gallery: if you looked at @mission27's rankings and couldn't see what about them made them so meme-y, maybe you aren't the right guy to be aggregating links for other people on the internet. or maybe some more honest self reflection- its pretty common to get swept up in things htat look real even if they arent ,which is why so many un rigorous news sites gain massive followings and bad faith actors can launder their opinions/propaganda/bad models as fact and realize that this is no different instead of shaming people on the internet and we can push ourselves as a community to have higher standards Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramssuperbowl99 Posted April 14, 2020 Share Posted April 14, 2020 9 minutes ago, mistakey said: or maybe some more honest self reflection- its pretty common to get swept up in things htat look real even if they arent ,which is why so many un rigorous news sites gain massive followings and bad faith actors can launder their opinions/propaganda/bad models as fact and realize that this is no different instead of shaming people on the internet and we can push ourselves as a community to have higher standards I don't disagree. Misleading journals and the idea of laundering bad faith ideas through repetition are two new issues we have to tackle, and both the provider/consumer share the blame for the spread of BS. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mission27 Posted April 14, 2020 Share Posted April 14, 2020 34 minutes ago, pwny said: But with your rankings, that's not happening because everyone that's been in the thread for a long time knows they're meme rankings, so they just read them like that and move on. But that's exactly why we have someone posting them in another forum thinking they were legitimate to be trusted information. Again I don't see why the rankings can't both be amusing and at the same time 'serious' in the sense that the work is legitimately thoughtful and useful to some people That's our disagreement here I'm happy to say that the numbers are not peer reviewed and do not represent anyone's opinion other than the MoL and that we are not PhD epidemiologists. That is all true and valid. Again I would think the Taylor Swift and goat would clue people in but whatever. But if you want me to say that its all a joke and we're just pulling these numbers out of our butt, I'm not going to say that because its not true Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mistakey Posted April 14, 2020 Share Posted April 14, 2020 2 hours ago, mistakey said: ah the ol "i definitely want people to take my "opinions" seriously but in order to have an out ill throw my comedic shtick in there so i can claim victory when challenged" argument Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mission27 Posted April 14, 2020 Share Posted April 14, 2020 51 minutes ago, pwny said: "these did take some effort and they're here to help make some of the information out there easier to digest, but we're also meming it up a bit and have used Taylor Swift lyrics as part of the methodology, so take that into account when digesting this info." BTW... I'm 100% fine adding this language if that will make people feel better Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fresh Prince Posted April 14, 2020 Share Posted April 14, 2020 A girl I know, who said he was young and not worried about COVID who kept snap chatting being around a lot of people in-house gatherings. She just tested positive for it, let’s see if she’s worried now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ragnar Danneskjold Posted April 14, 2020 Share Posted April 14, 2020 8 minutes ago, mission27 said: BTW... I'm 100% fine adding this language if that will make people feel better Based on my boredom and being late to the conversation- I gotta ask- what does MoL stand for? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts