- Status
C
Cathoholic
Guest
You can also see Senator Chuck Schumer running around without a mask on and no social distancing just days ago here . . .
.
You will see a maskless (he eventually did put a mask on) non-social distancing Schumer on the streets of New York politicking for the upcoming Georgia special election in January in a couple of months.
The same guy who was warning you we could not vote in-person in some cases, because of corona virus.
The same guy who mask-shames others.
The same guy who the public health officials will leave alone.
Tucker Carlson: We need to understand what happened to the polls | Fox News Video
.
You will see a maskless (he eventually did put a mask on) non-social distancing Schumer on the streets of New York politicking for the upcoming Georgia special election in January in a couple of months.
The same guy who was warning you we could not vote in-person in some cases, because of corona virus.
The same guy who mask-shames others.
The same guy who the public health officials will leave alone.
Last edited:
T
Theo520
Guest
I’ve looked at this in the past, and there exists minimal research to support the common sense claim. I was just pointing out it was an appeal to authority rather than research based.
Not long ago the ‘experts’ almost unanimously told the US population that masks didn’t help.
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Only if conditions worsen. So let’s do our part and cooperate now so that we have the best chance of getting back to normal.
In which case the virus will spread faster and more people die…
in which case you are helping to make the situation better.
Of course, we are all very tired. This pandemic has been very hard on everybody.
The movement is about selfish and arrogant chest-pounding.
Which is exactly what Taylor is not doing.
That is a medical assessment, to be made by a medical professional who can more accurately gauge the degree of risk.
Last edited:
C
Cathoholic
Guest
LeafByNiggle on leftist lockdowns being extended into Christmas . . . .
I asked why give a vaccine to mount an immune response to people who cannot mount an immune response?
LeafByNiggle just side-stepped the issue saying . . .
It would involve a “medical assessment” for a given patient.
I am asking about applying common sense to a PRINCIPLE.
Why not explain all the good reasons WHY somebody who has a compromised immune response theoretically should get an immunization. At least across the board.
This is going to be real interesting hearing such an explanation . . .
You are wrong. They will be extended either way.
You are wrong about that too. The selfish and arrogant are the imposers who have no compunction about destroying businesses and people. Even as THEY THELSELVES IGNORE their own “rules”.
I asked why give a vaccine to mount an immune response to people who cannot mount an immune response?
LeafByNiggle just side-stepped the issue saying . . .
No it’s not.
It would involve a “medical assessment” for a given patient.
I am asking about applying common sense to a PRINCIPLE.
Why not explain all the good reasons WHY somebody who has a compromised immune response theoretically should get an immunization. At least across the board.
This is going to be real interesting hearing such an explanation . . .
Last edited:
H
humilityseeker
Guest
Given this thread discusses a specific piece of research and the authors do make that recommendation, there should be something specific in their reference list. If not, this published researche should questioned for its authenticity and thrown out, ending this thread. If this research was to be later published in an academic or peer reviewed setting, that recommendation would require a specific cite to a place in the extensive reference list.
Can you point to cited medical ‘expert’ ( remember we are discussing a research article comparative to a public health advice) that masks ‘didn’t help’.
I would also bear in mind the novelty of this virus makes its human education somewhat a novelty also. It is the stuff of research to keep many sectors busy for some time.
I again reiterate the title and premise of this thread is totally foreign to the research article, and the journal in the initial link.
I used the search function and am linking the first and quite lengthy covid thread on these boards ( in part to look at the early ‘expert’ advice you have listed and look at any publically available research from that time. We are 10 months into the pandemic now.
Last edited:
C
Cathoholic
Guest
No. That’s not necessarily how research works.
You look at the data, draw your conclusions based on what you have but also, see if the results are reproducible in other studies to verify such.
You don’t throw common sense out the window if a research paper does not state a given conclusion that someone else agrees or disagrees with.
That is not how real research works.
My conclusions so far are based on this paper and I have said as such over and over.
If you think the conclusions I came to are unreasonable, I think you should explain how many LESS than ZERO you want until you affirm that asymptomatic people are not contagious (at least in THIS study).
.
Stifle the discussion.
Well I disagree.
The research is published so other groups can review it, see if it is reproducible, then if it is not, THEN go after the original paper.
And if it was bad research, other groups can do the same.
That is how you diminish the academic reputation of a researcher the proper way.
And if the research can be reproduced, you just accept the results wherever they may lead you. And thereby affirm the paper. And that is supposed to be how the researchers academic reputations are to be enhanced.
Academia is not supposed to be feelings-based, but intellectually grounded.
I again reiterate the title and premise of this thread is totally compatible to the research article.
Last edited:
H
humilityseeker
Guest
In academia, that is how published peer reviwed research works. A claim, recommendation, observation must be supported by data.
Otherwise, it is rejected or sent back to its author to provide the missing citations. That is one of the reasons peer review academic journals have editorial boards. A paper is not usually accepted for publication first time around, its deficiencys or questionable data are red marked and sent back for review and updates. That is what peer review means.
In a collegial academic setting, a student’s piece of work will be subject to similar by his or her professor.
All conclusions are backed up by data, not by a subjective viewing of the same. In novel research, such as with this virus, the research is also novel, previous literature reviews may be superceded or simply unavailable due to lack of publication due to the data’s robustness.
You raise a good point, one the authors themselves raised in discussing their limitations. It also negates your premise. There were no reproducible results for asymptomatic patient and close contact testing, it was a limitation, and a big one, of this research. Reasons for that could include funding and time as is usually the case.
You negate your own conclusions when citing reproducibility.
This is how research works, if I want to publish in a peer reviewed journal stating that creature is a dog, a member of a specific canine group. I am required to provide the data. I cannot look at the data and subjectively publish ‘because it barks, it is a dog’. The bark does not mean it is a dog.
Academia will throw out that research if I make such a sweeping generalisation.
Academia does not do this. That is not how it works. If I make a cake and it tastes bad, my family wont eat it, they will ask me to make it again and stick to the recipe to avoid error and make the cake edible.
Yet there is no data or conclusion to back your opinion here.
Last edited:
C
Cathoholic
Guest
Do you know who peer reviews in a scientific journal? Do you want to know? Because I will be happy to discuss that too if you want to.
.
humilityseeker
The authors provided the data.
I have re-posted the salient data several times.
It is precisely that data, that I stand on.
Not opinion. Not emotion. Not hunches.
The data.
The data speaks for itself.
You might say the data is false. And if you provide me with a good reason, I would be happy to agree.
But for now, here with this study, the data speaks loudly.
.
If you want to disagree fine. But then I will just go back to asking you how many less than zero do you want before you concur?
.
These assertions are partially true.
Last edited:
H
humilityseeker
Guest
You do understand discussing specifics requires revealing personal information such as
What is our respective STEM field?
What are our qualifications?
What peer reviewed academic journals have we published in or held editorial positions?
How long ago was our last editorial position or our academic position?
Those questions are not for the likes of this board.
Any discussion beyond the general on peer review and academic setting publication for valid STEM research is then beyond the limits of this board.
General information is readily available , taught repeatedly to students and listed in every peer review journal.
The data for which claim? The one you and I are discussing, or the claim Theo and I are discussing? There seems to be some confusion here about why this research requires a citation, and for which recommendation, if it were to be submitted to a peer review journal.
(see my discussion with Theo)
Again we cannot discuss this without personal information being revealed unless you can produce statistical data on first round acceptance for STEM research.
Last edited:
P
Pattylt
Guest
Not all will be getting vaccinated. It depends on the type of vaccine and the immunosuppressive they are on. It’s a fair question to ask.
Here’s a good article on the recommendations.
C
Cathoholic
Guest
No it doesn’t.
There are a lot of things we can discuss regarding the peer review process without divulging personal information.
The data is there for all to see. You might not like the fact that Nature is not a peer reviewed journal.
Those are your feelings and I am fine with your opinion.
Meanwhile the data stands on its own,
unless you can provide me a good reason to think the data has been falsified, or the team negected to look at an important variable.
I am not going to be persuaded by your feelings.
Last edited:
C
Cathoholic
Guest
PattyIt on immunosuppressed individuals and their eligibility for a given vaccination . . .
That is EXACTLY correct PattyIt!
Last edited:
H
humilityseeker
Guest
Thats great because none are offered, rest easy. STEM research and STEM publishing are not dependent on feelings, opinions or unverifiable data.
If you are wanting to continue the discussion , specify which data as I have previously asked. Right now all we have is confusion about your readings of my posts and the contents of the research article. This is exemplified in confusion between 2 different discussions with 2 different people on this thread.
C
Cathoholic
Guest
“Unverifiable data” huh?
You put forth a conclusion and work backwards here. This is the fallacy of begging the question. The conclusion you are setting forth, does not follow from the premise.
The data just came out.
You have no idea if the data is “unverifiable” or not other than your feelings.
You cannot know,
because another study would have to be set up following the SAME “materials and methods” situation.
Only then can data possibly be deemed “verifiable” or “unverifiable”.
To the other readers here: This is part of the reason I carefully put out “based on this study”.
Because that is the best you can do so far.
I also willingly admit, since the data comes from China, and everything is
tainted by leftist statism there,
that the data MAY not be trustworthy.
Still it is what we have for now.
More will come in later.
Last edited:
C
Cathoholic
Guest
We know that children are often asymptomatic carriers of corona virus.
What we do not know is how contagious these asymptomatic carriers are.
But what we DO KNOW, is that these asymptomatic carrier children, offer a very low risk of contagion to those around them.
Which is almost certainly PART of the reason WHY schools do so well despite corona virus in society.
President Trump pointed this out to America and slowly we are getting that interiorized.
In all likelihood, most if not virtually all of these asymptomatic carrier-school children are not contagious. At least for the most part.
(They are not “sick”, in the sense of how they feel.)
Studies will of course need to be done sorting this out.
But this phenomenon is very congruent with the China study I cited beginning this thread.
What we do not know is how contagious these asymptomatic carriers are.
But what we DO KNOW, is that these asymptomatic carrier children, offer a very low risk of contagion to those around them.
Which is almost certainly PART of the reason WHY schools do so well despite corona virus in society.
President Trump pointed this out to America and slowly we are getting that interiorized.
In all likelihood, most if not virtually all of these asymptomatic carrier-school children are not contagious. At least for the most part.
(They are not “sick”, in the sense of how they feel.)
Studies will of course need to be done sorting this out.
But this phenomenon is very congruent with the China study I cited beginning this thread.
H
humilityseeker
Guest
At this point I have to ask if you know what I am referring to?
This makes no difference
Repeatedly you attempt to draw conclusions where none is made because of limitations cited by the authors.
Last edited:
C
Cathoholic
Guest
Repeatedly you attempt to ignore conclusions from the data.
Everyone can read the data for themselves.
The conclusion is obvious.
If you have other conclusions based upon the facts and figures please state them.
In the meantime the facts and figures still show . . . .
Over a THOUSAND close contacts of people who had an asymptomatic corona virus infection.
ZERO of those close contacts got infected.
.As I said. I think you should explain how many LESS than ZERO you want until you affirm that asymptomatic people are not contagious (at least from the evidence from THIS study).
The authors are not willing to draw conclusions from this, may mean a lot of things.
Maybe they too are afraid of repercussions from the left (perhaps they are afraid of their own leftist Government) if they state the obvious as so many others are afraid of the left.
But according to this study at least, the conclusions are obvious. The numbers speak for themselves.
Over a THOUSAND close contacts of people who had an asymptomatic corona virus infection.
ZERO of those close contacts got infected.
You have offered no persuasive rebuttal to such numbers.
Last edited:
H
humilityseeker
Guest
Repeatedly you are cherry picking what you want from this research and totally ignoring its limitations cited by its authors.
Why is that?
Here I will quote their limitations they listed again, Because those limitations negate active cherry picking to provide unsubstantiated biased and subjective 'conclusions.
STEM is about facts, data, and often that data disproves our hypotheses no matter how hard we try to get the data to agree with us.
From the Communication posted in Nature
'This study has several limitations that need to be discussed. First, this was a cross-sectional screening programme, and we are unable to assess the changes over time in asymptomatic positive and reoperative results. ’
Your premise would need to be proven by repeatable, accurate, precise and verifiable data collated from a decent repeat testing program.
Why is that?
Here I will quote their limitations they listed again, Because those limitations negate active cherry picking to provide unsubstantiated biased and subjective 'conclusions.
STEM is about facts, data, and often that data disproves our hypotheses no matter how hard we try to get the data to agree with us.
From the Communication posted in Nature
'This study has several limitations that need to be discussed. First, this was a cross-sectional screening programme, and we are unable to assess the changes over time in asymptomatic positive and reoperative results. ’
Your premise would need to be proven by repeatable, accurate, precise and verifiable data collated from a decent repeat testing program.
Last edited:
M
Montrose
Guest
Most infections spread by asymptomatic people: CDC
The Centers for Disease Control has determined that most coronavirus infections are spread by people who don’t display symptoms. Those findings were published Friday on the agency’s website. According to the CDC, 24 percent of spread is from asymptomatic people compared to 41 percent that comes from people experiencing COVID-19 symptoms. The remaining third are from those who are believed to be pre-symptomatic.
- Status