|
Which horse film is your favorite? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Black Beauty |
|
2 | 1.06% |
| A Talking Pony!?! |
|
4 | 2.13% |
| Mr. Hands 2x Apple Flavor |
|
117 | 62.23% |
| War Horse |
|
11 | 5.85% |
| Mr. Hands |
|
54 | 28.72% |
| Total: | 188 votes | ||
|
The problem with pre-prints is there is enough of them you can simply think of an opinion, do a search on the databases then locate a pre-print with support of that opinion. If you want ten preprints supporting ivermectin they are there, if you want preprints saying masks only provide 4% protection you can find that. Being able to find a large number of preprints doesn't support something being true and that makes it really easy for someone with a pre-decided opinion to find any number of unpublished studies on the legitimate medical databases written in official sounding terms supporting whatever it is they want to appear true.
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2021 19:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 15:45 |
|
|
Yo Coldrice have you thought about making a thread about it in Games? I think you'd get a lot of attention there too. e: Not saying you shouldn't post about it in here! Just saying that I think goons would be really receptive to a goon made game on a really immediate situation we're all dealing with. Seems like that amount of work should be rewarded with a lot of attention outside of the D&D nerds.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2021 19:29
|
|
|
Mr. Pardiggle posted:Yo Coldrice have you thought about making a thread about it in Games? I think you'd get a lot of attention there too. I could - it’s a bit niche I dunno how much people are interested ha ha
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2021 19:31
|
|
|
Professor Beetus posted:I mean really it's kind of silly that more people aren't inherently skeptical of this stuff given there's probably quite a few of us that grew up seeing local news reporting breathlessly on "now scientists say eggs are good for you. Gosh, will they ever make up their mind?" or "New study shows chocolate makes your dick bigger." But as you pointed out, Covid is friggin huge and lots of research is getting pumped into just about anything covid related. There's plenty of people who are inherently skeptical of published studies, especially when it comes to COVID, in exactly the way you're describing here. A lot of them are anti-maskers or vaccine skeptics, because "inherent skepticism" is very easy to take too far, and is often focused on scientific sources rather than being a general wide-ranging distrust.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2021 19:32
|
|
|
Coldrice posted:I could - it’s a bit niche I dunno how much people are interested ha ha I dunno man. Goons are pretty supportive with goon-made things, just your most recent post alone could be retooled into an OP without much fuss. You aren't charging anything right now anyways. It might be niche in playstyle but we have enough threads for every type of game under the sun, and every goon on planet earth right now is pretty involved with covid. I'd value it more over the anime titty games threads but thats just me 
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2021 19:35
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:There's plenty of people who are inherently skeptical of published studies, especially when it comes to COVID, in exactly the way you're describing here. I think the thread has thus far demonstrated that most of the posters here are capable of skepticism without falling into the trap that vaccine skeptics and anti-maskers do. If anyone feels otherwise, feel free to call it out when it's applicable. Coldrice posted:I could - it’s a bit niche I dunno how much people are interested ha ha Also please do not worry about being spammy in here. It's not an incredibly fast moving thread to begin with and your game seems to be a big hit with the regular posters here.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2021 19:40
|
|
|
Coldrice posted:I could - it’s a bit niche I dunno how much people are interested ha ha I think it would be nice to see it all in one place, so we could keep track of development. I also think there's a broader audience that might be both interested in it and learn something new from it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2021 19:46
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:There's plenty of people who are inherently skeptical of published studies, especially when it comes to COVID, in exactly the way you're describing here. That works by much the same mechanism - picking and choosing studies that support your claims and ignoring evidence to the contrary (in the case of anti-mask and anti-vaxx, mountains of evidence to the contrary). As well as relying on misinterpretations or straight up lovely/fraudulent science (see: vaccines cause autism). There's a difference between reading science critically and skepticism. Though I would argue that a lot of self-described "skeptics" are actually cynics and are not able to be persuaded by evidence, this is certainly true in climate science.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2021 20:26
|
|
|
There's a lot of ways to be a skeptic in all degrees of faith, but if I had to pick one of the more common dismissals of anything and everything that frustrates me especially it's "I'm doing my own research" which 100% does not in fact include even pre-printsColdrice posted:Covid Simulator Update! Everything is running along smoothly - I’ve been trying not to spam things up here - so here’s what I’ve added since I posted last Just quoting this so it doesn't get buried at the end of the last page If you're not sure where it'd fit in Games but you're interested in maybe seeing if people there may also enjoy it, reach out to a mod there (or I can do so on your behalf) and they'll know for sure
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2021 20:43
|
|
|
Fritz the Horse posted:That works by much the same mechanism - picking and choosing studies that support your claims and ignoring evidence to the contrary (in the case of anti-mask and anti-vaxx, mountains of evidence to the contrary). As well as relying on misinterpretations or straight up lovely/fraudulent science (see: vaccines cause autism). I also want to note that one cannot read studies critically unless they have training in that field. Epidemiology and immunology are especially complex subjects, and accurately interpreting a study's results requires a lot of real-world experience and intuition that outsiders, even other scientists, will lack. As such, they will not be able to properly contextualize the findings. That's what makes pre-prints so risky to propagate and casually discuss in a setting like this. Even if you manage to sift through the "surface-level" stuff like sample size, methodology, etc. there's still a really high chance that the conclusions will not mean what you think they mean.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2021 21:15
|
|
|
While I agree with you broadly I would say that methodology is very much not a surface-level thing. IME the most challenging parts of critically analyzing scientific literature in a field you're not an expert in are 1) evaluating the methodology and 2) putting the results in proper context with the vast amount of other literature in that field. Both of those things require a ton of reading and experience in that specific discipline. Someone who's spent years of an academic career reading literature and doing research in epidemiology will know what good practices and the standard methodologies are and be able to contextualize findings within the broader literature. They're also going to be familiar with individual personalities and expertise of other researchers. Those are abilities you simply aren't going to have unless you're literally an expert in that specific field. The reason I was encouraging laypeople to read literature is both that it's good practice and because literature review is a collaborative process. Just because you're not an expert doesn't mean you can't spot problems in a publication or that you can't evaluate it to see if it supports claims being made on Twitter or whatever. The more eyes you have on something the more thorough an analysis you can do. Ideally you want an actual expert or two to provide the insights only they are really capable of offering.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2021 21:30
|
|
|
Thorn Wishes Talon posted:I also want to note that one cannot read studies critically unless they have training in that field.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2021 23:07
|
|
|
Charles 2 of Spain posted:I don't agree with this. If you know a bit about statistics and experiment design you can at least critically evaluate the methodology of some papers outside your field and come up with things the study lacks from that perspective. What you can't do is evaluate the technical aspects and underlying implications. COVID brain is maybe a good example - I can understand that on average grey matter is reduced by a statistically significant amount when you get COVID, but I don't know enough about the brain to evaluate how it affects humans in real life. With the specific example of COVID brain, I believe HelloSailorSign linked some papers showing the same thing happening with the flu and some other things (amputations?), we also don't know if that loss is persistent or temporary (maybe from loss/regain of smell) as the brain is very plastic. That's an example of being familiar with (or looking into) some of the broader context. Out of context that certainly seems alarming but when you're aware that similar reductions in grey matter occur with the flu you might come to the conclusion that it's concerning but we need more long-term study of the subject. edit: we don't disagree wrt Thorn Wishes Talon's point, I just thought it worth commenting on the specific COVID brain example.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2021 23:15
|
|
|
Epic High Five posted:There's a lot of ways to be a skeptic in all degrees of faith, but if I had to pick one of the more common dismissals of anything and everything that frustrates me especially it's "I'm doing my own research" which 100% does not in fact include even pre-prints VideoGames is arguably the best mod on the forums. Send him a note and I'm sure he'll be very supportive.
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2021 23:45
|
|
|
Epinephrine posted:
Try searching stuff other than the thread that’s like a month old? It’s also known as the “Provincetown outbreak” and in non-academic discussion as the “Bear Week outbreak”. A study about it was published in CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report in late July and was a large factor in the decision for the recommendation thst vaccinated persons mask up. Anyway, this California preprint is boring because it agrees with one of the findings from the Massachusetts article (Provincetown and all of Barnstable County are in Massachusetts, to be clear). quote:Real-time reverse transcription–polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) cycle threshold (Ct) values in specimens from 127 vaccinated persons with breakthrough cases were similar to those from 84 persons who were unvaccinated, not fully vaccinated, or whose vaccination status was unknown (median = 22.77 and 21.54, respectively). This has been described as “vaccinated people spread the virus as easily as unvaccinated people!” by such luminaries as the U.S. paper of record The New York Times, but that is a misstatement. For one thing, breakthrough infections don’t happen to everyone. Vaccination reduced the proportion of people who test positive in the first place, and that’s a reduction right there. For another, cycle threshold is suggestive, but it is not the be-all, end-all of viral transmission. For example, vaccinated persons with a breakthrough infection may clear the infection faster and thereby spread the less on a population level, even though at the peak of either infection, the volume of virus spewed was similar. Of course, another hypothesis that needs to be run down is that vaccinated persons with breakthrough infections have infections that on average last longer than infections in unvaccinated persons. “Biologically implausible”, you say? Consider that “persons with breakthrough infections” are not selected randomly from the pool of all vaccinated persons. They are disproportionately likely to have less-capable immune systems due to age or other factors. This could cause their numbers to fall behind those of the unvaccinated cohort, which hasn’t had its healthiest members removed by successful pharmaceutical intervention and still includes all the people with top flight (though naive) immune systems.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2021 00:48
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:Try searching stuff other than the thread that’s like a month old? That it didn't become known as the Bear Week Outbreak is one of the few unequivocal successes of the CDC during this pandemic.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2021 01:47
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:The problem with pre-prints is there is enough of them you can simply think of an opinion, do a search on the databases then locate a pre-print with support of that opinion. Within the decade we'll have AI churning out bazillions of highly convincing yet fake research papers with fake charts based on fake data, written by fake researchers with fake headshots and fake CVs.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2021 02:03
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:Try searching stuff other than the thread that’s like a month old? As for the preprint itself, it seems like the key takeaway is that, if you have COVID, don't be around other people. Which I would think is the obvious thing to do.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2021 02:23
|
|
|
Epinephrine posted:I looked it up and found the same NIH report, but the two dots aren't related in an obvious way and you dropped the preprint without reference to a prior discussion and without any specific point, statement, or opinion about what either the Provincetown data or the preprint means. I'm still not entirely sure what point you were trying to make. Is it not O.K. to share the proceedings of the scientific community in an open pursuit of knowledge? Must everything be ammunition for one “point” or another? Like I said, the preprint is boring. It does not overturn existing best knowledge. It merely adds support. And that’s O.K.. Science is supposed to be repeatable, and it’s a shame that the work of replication is so underappreciated.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2021 02:44
|
|
|
wrong thread
Gio fucked around with this message at 02:51 on Oct 1, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2021 02:47
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:Is it not O.K. to share the proceedings of the scientific community in an open pursuit of knowledge? Must everything be ammunition for one “point” or another? It’s not “pursuit of knowledge” to just repeatedly find and read low quality articles that mirror back what you already thought or wanted to be true, even if you find them in the non peer reviewed section of a science website instead of twitter.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2021 02:52
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:Is it not O.K. to share the proceedings of the scientific community in an open pursuit of knowledge? Must everything be ammunition for one “point” or another?
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2021 03:04
|
|
|
The connection is "another paper measuring Ct values of vaccinated people to throw on the pile".
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2021 03:21
|
|
|
Charles 2 of Spain posted:The connection is "another paper measuring Ct values of vaccinated people to throw on the pile". Again though, with preprints the pile is endless for whatever you want. There is always dozens of preprint papers showing virtually anything you can imagine. They by definition have minimal vetting
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2021 03:45
|
|
|
There are certain things you can look at to help you decide whether a preprint is worthy of consideration and discussion: the authors and their past works and affiliations, impact factor and other bibliometrics, institutions involved and sources of funding, overall paper structure, sound statistical methods and charts, preregistration information, etc. These work better if you are broadly familiar with the field. You might consider it a heuristic equivalent to bibliometrics like the h index: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H-index
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2021 04:05
|
|
|
Fritz the Horse and I have both provided pretty extensive actual scientific publication literacy materials. It might be good to get them linked in the OP.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2021 04:25
|
|
|
If the bar for discussing anything in this thread is peer review, just shut it down, because very nearly nothing in this thread meets that standard. We can’t discuss news articles. We can’t have anectdotes from posters themselves. We can’t discuss the papers CDC uses as foundation for guidance because most of those aren’t peer‐reviewed at the time CDC cites them. We can’t even discuss the Barnstable County paper from the MMWR, because, guess what? The MMWR is not a peer‐reviewed journal.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2021 04:29
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:If the bar for discussing anything in this thread is peer review, just shut it down, because very nearly nothing in this thread meets that standard. Maybe I'm missing something, but nobody appears to be saying ban pre-prints. What we're saying is, if you're gonna post a pre-print, do your drat homework to confirm a base level of quality, provide effortful commentary (rather than short, cherry-picked snippets) regarding why you think it's important, and make sure to not put too much weight in the conclusions. It would also help if you looked for and shared studies that contradict the findings in the pre-print you're linking. That is, after all, an important aspect of scientific debate and discourse. This post right here did not do any of those things. That's why Epinephrine challenged it, and that's why I brought up the need to be more careful with pre-prints in general.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2021 04:40
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Again though, with preprints the pile is endless for whatever you want. There is always dozens of preprint papers showing virtually anything you can imagine. They by definition have minimal vetting
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2021 04:43
|
|
|
In requiring that everyone “do [their] drat homework” on preprints, do you not see that that is introducing a more pernicious bias on the thread? Nobody—and I mean nobody—is willing to write a book report about a preprint that supports pedestrian, widely‐held knowledge. They will only do that for exciting, cherry‐picked papers that threaten to overturn everything. Thorn Wishes Talon posted:It would also help if you looked for and shared studies that contradict the findings in the pre-print you're linking. That is, after all, an important aspect of scientific debate and discourse. To be clear, are you asking for peer‐reviewed studies that contradict preprints, or preprints that contradict each other? I think that they’re both problematic, but for different reasons.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2021 05:06
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:In requiring that everyone “do [their] drat homework” on preprints, do you not see that that is introducing a more pernicious bias on the thread? If you are linking something that has not yet been peer reviewed, then I don't think it's unfair to suggest that the burden should be on you to put in extra effort to explain why the study is good and meets, at the very least, some basic requirements in quality. That way, the rest of us don't have to do all that work individually. Surely that makes sense, yes? I don't particularly care if the pre-print reveals something groundbreaking or merely confirms what is already known. Something is either good science or it is not, and effortposts to distinguish one from the other should be strongly encouraged, considering the subject matter and the sheer amount of misinformation going around.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2021 05:28
|
|
|
Personally I don't mind doing a deep dive into scientific literature, preprint or peer-reviewed, as long as others are willing to engage to a similar degree. As I've said before I'm an educated layhorse in epidemiology/vaccinology/immunology etc. I'm hardly an expert in those areas but I do spend a lot of time doing literature and grant writing/review in the life sciences and I've spent many dozens of hours crash-coursing on COVID stuff the last year and a half. I would reiterate that literature review is collaborative; no one person will have the absolute correct read on something. I strongly encourage everyday goons to just skim some drat science literature, it's really not that scary and you'll get better with practice.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2021 05:58
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Fritz the Horse and I have both provided pretty extensive actual scientific publication literacy materials. It might be good to get them linked in the OP. Both of them have been linked in the OP pretty much since they were posted. I also have a few news articles I wanted to throw out for folks to check out. I feel like it's crucial for people to understand how healthcare is getting absolutely hosed right now, both directly and indirectly by Covid. https://www.news5cleveland.com/news...has-yet-to-peak https://www.news5cleveland.com/news...ortages-burnout https://www.news5cleveland.com/news/continuing-coverage/coronavirus/uh-reassigns-staff-to-high-volume-hospitals-reduces-beds-in-others This is obviously specific to Cleveland, but this poo poo right here is happening everywhere. e: Pretty sure I made the rule regarding pre-prints "include the conflict of interest statement in the op," and obviously if you link something for us to read in here, I expect you to tell us why you think it's important or what conclusions you think might be drawn from it. No minimum word count or anything like that. Professor Beetus fucked around with this message at 07:00 on Oct 1, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2021 06:56
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Fritz the Horse and I have both provided pretty extensive actual scientific publication literacy materials. It might be good to get them linked in the OP. Professor Beetus posted:Both of them have been linked in the OP pretty much since they were posted. the OP is not peer reviewed scientific literature; you can't possibly expect Discendo Vox to read it
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2021 08:55
|
|
|
Luckily there are truly high level peer reviewed stuff available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306987721001961 High intelligence may exacerbate paediatric inflammatory response to SARS-CoV-2 infection quote:Evidence to support our hypothesis Good part of this high level analysis is that we goons have thus less of risk.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2021 14:08
|
|
|
Here is some other good goon preprints: Having anxiety increases your chances of getting long covid: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.25.21259256v1 Lockdown alone is causing brain inflammation in up to 54% of people who DON'T get covid: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.09.21.21263740v1
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2021 14:45
|
|
|
Merck’s oral antiviral Molnupiravir phase 3 was stopped in interim review by independent monitoring board, as the efficacy was apparently good, and company is moving for emergency use authorisation from FDA. This is pretty great news, oral medication (as in contrary to antibodies that need to be administered IV and come more expensive I would assume) that is proven to reduce death and hospitalisation is important tool for the toolbox. https://www.statnews.com/2021/10/01/mercks-antiviral-pill-reduces-hospitalization-of-covid-patients-a-possible-game-changer-for-treatment/ quote:A five-day course of molnupiravir, developed by Merck and Ridgeback Biotherapeutics, reduced both hospitalization and death compared to a placebo. In the placebo group, 53 patients, or 14.1%, were hospitalized or died. For those who received the drug, 28, or 7.3%, were hospitalized or died.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2021 14:57
|
|
|
FWIW, I don't fault anyone for scamming their way into boosters but if the day comes that we do digital passports or something and you have to prove your vaccination level I am just going to say "Ya I had a booster, I lied my way into it because I don't want covid, sorry, here is the relevant paperwork, please update my records". Ps we are never getting digital anything or any real verification system because the source data (the untraceable easily forged cards) are already garbage and it would be a nightmare to untangle who got what.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2021 15:03
|
|
|
Does your government not have a centralized system to keep track of that, if not at the federal level at the provincial or state level?
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2021 15:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 15:45 |
|
|
Evis posted:Does your government not have a centralized system to keep track of that, if not at the federal level at the provincial or state level? State by state yes, if they feel like it, nothing federal. It's 50 disjointed and non standardized systems ranging from fully digital to everything on paper. America in a nutshell
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2021 15:17
|
|