This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Probably true. It was less.
Why do you think early admissions were down? Do you think it might have to do with the fact that people were in their homes quarantining themselves instead of crashing, social drinking, working, fucking, and spreading germs?
The effectiveness of drugs like Ivermectin or Hydroxychloroquine could not be repeated in larger, more rigorous trials. I don't think Ivermectin particularly should've been demonized the way that it was, but it just wasn't what it needed to be.
I don't think they do. If you have data to the contrary then I will try to look at it.
Either way, I'm sure 90% of those 36 million would have died within like 3 years anyway due to pre-existing illnesses.
More options
Context Copy link
That stat may or may not be true, I'd have to look at the data.
Keep in mind that the system can be overwhelmed with admissions dramatically down - entire surgical floors that should be filled with boring wound care and uncomplicated recovery being replaced with 1/4 of that but actually real sick respiratory patients is already enough to fuck everything up.
An increase in ICU level care but no ICU beds? Disaster.
Kill the variety and easy cases and things get fucked real fast.
All kinds of tensions like that caused problems.
More options
Context Copy link
because hospitals keep track of this data, local governments collect it, and publish it and you can just go look at the data
one of the reasons all those nurse/doctor dance videos caught on is because hospitals across the country didn't have many people in them and they had nothing else to do
have you looked?
you either undermine the need for lockdowns because hospitals are not overrun or you undermine the need for lockdowns by claiming people were staying home anyway
wrong
had that one handy
not easily at hand, have you looked?
generally, my policy on discussion boards is to mirror effort so I'm not going to play the "sources?!@" game until I'm convinced the person asking has anted some up
I'm not denying the claim that hospitals had an initial decrease in admissions. I'm granting it. I grant the claim. I'm asking why you think that is. Is it because everyone all of the sudden starting feeling fantastic when covid hit the states, or do you think people (even sick ones) actually quarantined themselves and stayed at home because they were scared of the virus's impact and the potential of being further exposed after seeing the news out of Europe? Do you think that is possible?
Yes, I had that one handy too. It used to be called ivmmeta. I used it to make the same argument you're making right now. There is no doubt these studies portray a marked improvement when ivermectin is used, but when you scratch past the surface and look at the critiques, the benefit from ivermectin in these studies isn't so clear. Many of these studies had issues with their methodology. There appears some benefit in symptom relief, but in terms of mortality, its observed benefits in symptom management did not significantly influence critical clinical outcomes in COVID-19 patients. These outcomes, in comparison to monoclonal antibodies are not significant.
I have a hard time believing you scratched the surface and dove into the criticism which you found convincing on ivmmeta, e.g., inclusion/exclusion criteria criticism, but you're going to attempt to use that uncorrected meta analysis which includes a study which was retracted half a year before this was posted because its data is obviously fabricated (Elshafie et al.). The removal of this one study changes mortality RR from .91 to approx .73 after correction alone which is statistically significant lower mortality. Whoops.
Or the inclusion of studies with near death patients who are given a single low dosage of ivermectin. There are multiple significant errors just on first glance and each of these errors just so happen to affect the outcome in one direction. It must be complete coincidence.
I'm just way past the point of spending significant time wading through this crap and I'm done pretending these people are anything but dishonest.
What was ivermectin's efficacy compared to monoclonal antibodies even after the Elshafie oopsy in that study?
I empathize with this to some extent. My issue here is your suggestive claim about hospitals being empty, and your claim that the Covid vaccines themselves do more harm than good. If you don't want to take the vaccine, don't take it. If you don't want to use treatments other than Ivermectin, then don't use them. People should have had this option and they (and Ivermectin) shouldn't have been demonized the way that they were.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The kinds of people who would make that data have long since burned whatever credibility they have left.
That's the biggest part of the problem. Nobody has been hanged over this shit. Hell, nobody has even been shamed, tried, jailed, or punished. Fauci got a blanket pardon on the way out the door!
So while I'm sure your request seems reasonable to you, I hope you understand how I see you, and how you're seen more broadly. It's not reasonable, and it's not worth engaging with because it will ultimately boil down to appeals to authority.
Yes, they destroyed their credibility, but what data do you or others have to counter their data when it comes to vaccines? I'm not coming here to deny that a blanket vaccine mandate, and lockdowns, and the messaging from the public health apparatus were bad, but arguments about the vaccine causing "more harm than it abates" is absurd to me unless you have something to suggest otherwise.
Yes, it seems I am only checking most of the boxes in your purity test, and not all of them. A grave sin.
Why would I address data from people with no credibility? I don't have to take their data at face value, since they're fucking liars with no credibility, that's the point. The null hypothesis is fuck off, I don't want any. The experiment is trusting these charlatans ever again.
You don't have to address the data from people who have no credibility. Provide data that refutes the noncredible people.
The Ethical Skeptic has the best charts, if you're into that sort of thing.
I'll take a look. Thanks.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link