Results 931 to 960 of 982
-
2022-02-19, 06:10 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2009
- Location
- Birmingham, AL
- Gender
Re: This year we kill it: Corona Virus Thread Mark II
Snopes has been noted for being reputable for some time now. Every article uses third-party sources for all of its claims, with a reference to all sources at the bottom of the article. They have also received awards James Randi Educational Foundation, another reputable organization devoted to educating the public and the media on the dangers of accepting unproven claims.
Cuthalion's art is the prettiest art of all the art. Like my avatar.
Number of times Roland St. Jude has sworn revenge upon me: 2
-
2022-02-19, 06:15 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2013
- Location
- Where I am
Re: This year we kill it: Corona Virus Thread Mark II
I also answer to Bookmark and Shadow Claw.
Read my fanfiction here. Homebrew Material Here Rater Reads the Hobbit and Dracula
Awesome Avatar by Emperor Ing
-
2022-02-19, 06:21 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2007
- Location
- San Antonio, Texas
- Gender
Re: This year we kill it: Corona Virus Thread Mark II
The Cranky Gamer
*It isn't realism, it's verisimilitude; the appearance of truth within the framework of the game.
*Picard management tip: Debate honestly. The goal is to arrive at the truth, not at your preconception.
*Mutant Dawn for Savage Worlds!
*The One Deck Engine: Gaming on a budget
Written by Me on DriveThru RPG
There are almost 400,000 threads on this site. If you need me to address a thread as a moderator, include a link.
-
2022-02-19, 06:28 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2021
- Location
- In my room
Re: This year we kill it: Corona Virus Thread Mark II
Forbes also fact checked this, by the way.
-
2022-02-21, 03:30 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2013
- Location
- Where I am
Re: This year we kill it: Corona Virus Thread Mark II
What do you think the Venn diagram of people who started hoarding toilet paper in early 2020 vs people refusing to get the vaccine now woud look like?
I also answer to Bookmark and Shadow Claw.
Read my fanfiction here. Homebrew Material Here Rater Reads the Hobbit and Dracula
Awesome Avatar by Emperor Ing
-
2022-02-23, 09:16 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2016
Re: This year we kill it: Corona Virus Thread Mark II
I don't think there'd be much relationship to be honest. Vaccination and hoarding are both forms of pre-preparing to avoid a risk, but overall I'm not sure that you'd find much of a correlation.
I also think Snopes is a pretty reliable fact checking resource. Not in the 'never wrong' category, but pretty good.
-
2022-02-23, 09:19 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2021
- Location
- In my room
Re: This year we kill it: Corona Virus Thread Mark II
Wait, you can use venn diagrams to find correlation?
-
2022-02-23, 09:20 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2015
Re: This year we kill it: Corona Virus Thread Mark II
It's time to get my Magikarp on!
-
2022-02-24, 03:20 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2016
-
2022-02-24, 08:21 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2009
- Location
- Maryland
- Gender
Re: This year we kill it: Corona Virus Thread Mark II
Half the people in this thread have copy and pasted a link to a third party source, that's hardly a high bar.
What award? James Randi gave out his "Pigasus" awards to lampoon various unscientific things, certainly, but to the best of my knowledge, Snopes has never been referenced either positively or negatively in this fashion. JREF itself doesn't appear to have a working website at present, and a bit of googling turns up nothing linking the two.
They have had significant ethical lapses in quite recent times. That's...not reputable.
What is it about 'fact checkers' that makes them different from anyone else?
So, point #1 is criticizing some Fox news point that's not in the actual study, just...Fox bashing other news points. This is fair, I guess, but Fox's hyperbole is largely unrelated to the study itself.
#2 is nitpicking over the way the study is referred to. The study itself is actually named "A Literature Review and Meta-analysis
of the Effects of Lockdowns on COVID-19 Mortality." It is indeed perfectly correct to refer to it as such if you wish, but it's not exactly catchy. People are going to abbreviate, and "John Hopkins study" is a useful search term that will take you to the correct paper. I will note that you yourself refer to this as "Forbes" rather than "Bruce Lee's blog hosted on Forbes."
#3 is the observation that it is an economic study. It certainly is. He frames this as a criticism of Maher, another news personality. That's fine. It's not a criticism of the study's validity.
#4 is the rehash of the "working paper" criticism, saying that anyone can make a working paper by just "throwing it on the internet" This ignores that the study was published in a reputable journal of economics. Not anyone can get published in a journal, at least not without going through quite a lot of work to master a topic.
And so on. The data is not challenged, the methodology is not challenged, and the reputations of the publishing journal and authors remain assailed. These are not substantive challenges.
He *does* criticize the inclusion of face-mask mandates as a lockdown measure, but that's a labeling distinction. He also *does* talk about specific studies being included or not, and claims the author doesn't talk about their inclusion criteria, but...they do. One only has to read as far as the abstract to read that.
I can only conclude that he has not read the study at all, and is simply echoing complaints from elsewhere, such as the twitter threads he cited.
It is not a "fact check by Forbes". It's an opinion piece chatting about Uggs and social media that happens to include discussion of the study. The guy deals in computer simulations and perhaps could provide at least expert opinion on that topic, but he doesn't seem to have done so. Opinion pieces are not scientific papers, and neither prove nor disprove research.
-
2022-02-24, 01:37 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2019
- Location
- Magrathea
- Gender
Re: This year we kill it: Corona Virus Thread Mark II
This is a wholly incorrect take that basically just argues around what was said without actually taking the points made into account.
I am not trying to be impolite, but please re-read the Forbes article and a few posts up in the thread.
Granted, it is handled incredibly informally, but aside from that you are way off track.
The methodology is very much challenged - they point out that it is weighted bizarrely, and also appears to be cherry picking.
Not to mention this quote
And when you do a review of the literature and select a paper to be included in your so-called “meta-analysis,” it’s not a good sign when the authors of that paper disagree with your interpretation of their paper:Last edited by Squire Doodad; 2022-02-24 at 01:42 PM.
An explanation of why MitD being any larger than Huge is implausible.
See my extended signature here! May contain wit, candor, and somewhere from 52 to 8127 walruses.
Purple is humorous descriptions made up on the fly
Green is serious talk about hypothetical
Blue is irony and sarcasm
"I think, therefore I am,
I walk, therefore I stand,
I sleep, therefore I dream;
I joke, therefore I meme."
-Squire Doodad
-
2022-02-25, 07:51 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2010
- Location
- California
- Gender
Re: This year we kill it: Corona Virus Thread Mark II
My understanding is that the initial shock was caused by there being two different kinds of TP: TP used in houses and TP used in offices/schools. They're not really interchangable -- the rolls are different sizes and the office/school-TP makers don't have distribution channels to consumer stores. When everyone left their schools & offices and stayed at home all day, the demand for house-TP shot up, but manufactures couldn't adjust to the demand change (normally, demand for TP is very steady, so they don't have much spare capacity). Thus you got some empty shelves.
Of course, that then snowballed -- once people start hearing about empty shelves, everyone runs out and starts buying what's left, which means more empty shelves, which means more news stories about empty shelves, which means more people buying even more...
-
2022-02-25, 08:07 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2009
Re: This year we kill it: Corona Virus Thread Mark II
I believe another contributing factor was a toilet paper shortage in Hong Kong. From what I understand, Hong Kong has a rather unique structure that prevented toilet paper shipments (and probably other stuff) when quarantine was implemented. So not only did you have an increased usage of tp, you also had reports of shortages from a place that had started quarantining earlier which fueled people's fears of a shortage.
See when a tree falls in the forest, and there's no one there to hear it, you can bet we've bought the vinyl.
-Snow White
Avatar by Chd
-
2022-02-26, 07:03 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2016
-
2022-02-26, 10:39 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2007
- Location
- Tail of the Bellcurve
- Gender
Re: This year we kill it: Corona Virus Thread Mark II
Also early in the pandemic, there was definitely a perception going around that one should be ready for basically a two-week siege at the drop of a hat. Since toilet paper is bulky and generally cheap, I'm willing to bet a lot of people didn't maintain a two-week stockpile for ready use.
Blood-red were his spurs i' the golden noon; wine-red was his velvet coat,
When they shot him down on the highway,
Down like a dog on the highway,And he lay in his blood on the highway, with the bunch of lace at his throat.
Alfred Noyes, The Highwayman, 1906.
-
2022-02-26, 02:37 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2006
- Location
- new york city
- Gender
Re: This year we kill it: Corona Virus Thread Mark II
there's one thing about the TP thing I never got. I'm assuming most people have a place to bathe in their place. A shower maybe. Normally right next the toilet. Worse case scenario you rinse off afterward. Kinda like an awkward bidet. Who are you looking to impress the no one in the apartment with you? Maybe the one or two roommates that have been living in the same bathrobe and sweatpants for a month. I was never really worried about running out. There are options.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Liechtenauer
It's hard to fight when there is a yard of steel stabbing you in your face.
-
2022-02-26, 11:33 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2007
- Location
- Canada
- Gender
Re: This year we kill it: Corona Virus Thread Mark II
Sparxs Plays: My friend's Youtube gaming channel where you can watch us.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCbj...9MQHA/featured
-
2022-02-28, 11:48 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2017
Re: This year we kill it: Corona Virus Thread Mark II
That makes sense; when the shops were all out around me, I just ordered a couple of "office-rolls" from our office suppliers, who while were also out of domestic-style, had plenty of the larger office-rolls and dispenser refill-types still available. Sure, not going to fit on the toilet roll holder in the bathroom, but that's hardly a world-ender.
-
2022-02-28, 11:55 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2015
-
2022-02-28, 01:10 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2005
- Location
- Santa Barbara, CA
- Gender
Re: This year we kill it: Corona Virus Thread Mark II
I think some people were putting in their lists of things to "stock up" on in public and that could have shortages. And lots of people went "Holy carp* Batman I didn't think of TP!" and so lots of people went to buy it, plus TP doesn't have any easy substitute (eg it they are out of beef you can eat chicken, no pasta? make mashed potatoes) so it was TP or bust. Also as TP it generally bulky and highly visible in shopping carts it makes for good TV. And once the TV got a hold of "there is a run on the TP stocks of the nations" it became a self fulfilling mania.
-
2022-02-28, 03:06 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2015
-
2022-03-01, 03:22 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2018
- Location
- Belgium
- Gender
Re: This year we kill it: Corona Virus Thread Mark II
True, but when has that stopped some people. You don't need 24 beers in as many hours, but that doesn't stop some either.
And TP doesn't go bad, so if you buy a lot and you don't need it immediately, it will last until you do. that's the same reason why canned food and pasta and stuff like that was also hoarded in the beginning of the pandemic. People thought 'we might need it, so let's get enough of it and if we don't, we can use it in the coming year(s) without problem'.Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett
"Magic can turn a frog into a prince. Science can turn a frog into a Ph.D. and you still have the frog you started with." Terry Pratchett
"I will not yield to evil, unless she's cute."
-
2022-03-01, 08:48 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2006
- Location
- Bristol
- Gender
Re: This year we kill it: Corona Virus Thread Mark II
Yeah, panic-buying becomes self-reinforcing. If people are stripping the shelves of something you need, then buying it yourself to make sure you can get it before it all gets bought up by the panic-buyers becomes a motivation in itself. By that point it doesn't matter what the underlying motivation for the panic-buying was, just that it's happening.
GITP Blood Bowl Manager Cup
Red Sabres - Season I Cup Champions, two-time Cup Semifinalists
Anlec Razors - Two-time Cup Semifinalists
Bad Badenhof Bats - Season VII Cup Champions
League Wiki
Spoiler: Previous Avatars(by Strawberries)
(by Rain Dragon)
-
2022-03-01, 12:32 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2013
- Location
- Bristol, UK
Re: This year we kill it: Corona Virus Thread Mark II
The end of what Son? The story? There is no end. There's just the point where the storytellers stop talking.
-
2022-03-01, 12:59 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2009
- Location
- Maryland
- Gender
Re: This year we kill it: Corona Virus Thread Mark II
Sorry for the quote strangeness, the forum doesn't much like nested quotes.
Scientists disagreeing over interpretations happens all the time. It's not a bad sign at all. A sign of controversy, certainly, but it's not a methodological problem or a data problem. The Forbes article does not use the term "weight", so I do not know how it could be challenging its weighting.
I recently saw that the Swedish government had put out a similar article saying that it's lack of a lockdown was the best policy, but I've not yet had time to read it. I suppose a certain amount of skepticism is due, as any agency will tend to defend its own policies, but perhaps it will be of interest to someone.
In any case, it seems as if this has largely become irrelevant. The CDC's latest change in how severity is measured turned the country from being almost entirely high risk to almost entirely low risk. The Pandemic themed season of humanity is over, we're on to the WW3 themed season. Life is crazy. Stay safe out there, ya'll.
I think a big thing with regard to grocery aisles is that the ol' "back room" is a long dead myth at this point. Most stores don't keep extra stock back there, whatever is on the floor is what's there. So, all told, there's not actually much in stock of paper products, because they're really bulky. It only takes a small hiccup to make them suddenly run dry.
If one person in ten grabs a package who otherwise wouldn't, that's probably a hundred packages extra in a day. And once the aisle starts looking bare, well, anyone else who might be running a bit low is motivated to grab it now, before it is all gone.
It doesn't take a whole lot of disruption to run it dry compared to other things.
Ideally, one stocks up a bit on things when everything is fine, so that one can avoid going out when shortages happen, or when there is danger, but people are people, and we mostly have limited storage room to pile up things like toilet paper as well, so I would guess that most of don't usually keep a large stock of it.
-
2022-03-02, 07:13 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2009
- Location
- Birmingham, AL
- Gender
Re: This year we kill it: Corona Virus Thread Mark II
Documented sourcing is literally the basis for academic work. If you disagree with this for some reason, we'll, I can't really help you.
The award was "In 2016, Snopes.com received a one-time award of $75,000 from the James Randi Educational Foundation as part of an annual award given by that foundation to “a person or organization who best represents the spirit of the foundation in providing unbiased, fact-based answers to confusing questions.” This information is listed on Snopes' disclosing and I got there in two clicks. It is not hidden and should not hang been difficult for you to find.
That scandal was regarding plagiarism, not about the veracity of any of the claims made by their fact checking. Still bad, obviously, but that's like saying "I dont think that marksman can really shoot, he was caught stealing a gun!" The crime, while bad, is irrelevant.
You've said nothing whatsoever that did anything to sir that fact checkers are not reliable, and ironically only made it known that this is your opinion. You'll forgive me if I don't give your opinion any particular weight.Last edited by Peelee; 2022-03-02 at 07:14 AM.
Cuthalion's art is the prettiest art of all the art. Like my avatar.
Number of times Roland St. Jude has sworn revenge upon me: 2
-
2022-03-02, 01:42 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2009
- Location
- Maryland
- Gender
Re: This year we kill it: Corona Virus Thread Mark II
"Experiment is the only means of knowledge at our disposal. Everything else is poetry, imagination.” ― Max Planck
Experimentation and reproducibility is the basis for all science, and hence academic work. If you disagree for this, then why did you object on the basis of peer review?
Citing sources is a convention to easily look up knowledge. It is useful for that, but it is not where knowledge originates. Everyone is capable of citing sources, citing a source doesn't make a work scientific, and it is certainly no great hurdle. Every person reading this has surely had to write papers for which they have had to cite sources. That doesn't make any of us superior to one another, because it is a skill we have all used.
The award was "In 2016, Snopes.com received a one-time award of $75,000 from the James Randi Educational Foundation as part of an annual award given by that foundation to “a person or organization who best represents the spirit of the foundation in providing unbiased, fact-based answers to confusing questions.” This information is listed on Snopes' disclosing and I got there in two clicks. It is not hidden and should not hang been difficult for you to find.
That scandal was regarding plagiarism, not about the veracity of any of the claims made by their fact checking. Still bad, obviously, but that's like saying "I dont think that marksman can really shoot, he was caught stealing a gun!" The crime, while bad, is irrelevant.
An agency stealing scores of articles and passing them off as their own absolutely should impact their credibility. This is particularly so when the crime is committed by the organization's founder, and happened over a long period of time. This isn't some one-off error by a single contributor, but a long standing organizational practice that reaches all the way to the top.
If one prefers to defend the practice of fact checking in general, I might note that Facebook has argued in court that their fact checking is in fact only opinion. If the fact checkers themselves are saying it is no more than opinion, what basis is there for treating them as if they were anything more?Last edited by Tyndmyr; 2022-03-02 at 01:42 PM.
-
2022-03-02, 09:05 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2009
- Location
- Birmingham, AL
- Gender
Re: This year we kill it: Corona Virus Thread Mark II
Unless you want all experiments to start from the ground up every time, then having external sources as the foundation for the experiment is pretty necessary.
Experiment all you like about physical object motion and you'll come to the conclusion that Aristotle was correct and an object's natural state is at rest. Because, no offense intended here, you're not as smart as Isaac Newton. If you, Tyndmyr, perform any number of experiments on motion, as many as you like and are able (so I assume no experiments in LEO. If you do have access to LEO, then accept my sincere apologies), you'll develop Aristotlean physics, not Newtonian physics. All objects want to stay at rest. "Gravity"? Sorry, you'll need to prove that. Mathematically, that is, not just saying "things fall down". Do you know how to do that from scratch? No googling now, we wouldn't want to color your experiments with other people's opinions.
Max Planck can say whatever he wants. But Einstein, whose name is literally synonymous with "genius" (sorry, Planck), almost certainly did no experiments himself and was able to predict gravitational waves long before we could do any experiments to prove their existence. And yet somehow, in opposition to Planck's claim, we were able to gain knowledge without experiment.
If you want to dismiss fact checking as opinion, I am powerless to stop you. Feel free, despite that fact checking is literally how you yourself claim is the only way science is done (I am loathe to try to comprehend what you imagine experimental reproduceability is if not fact checking, for example). But I will not respect any such arguments whatsoever. And, i feel I have to mention, it would be remiss of me if I did not note that your opening claim that was supposed to rebut me was an opinion.Last edited by Peelee; 2022-03-02 at 09:07 PM.
Cuthalion's art is the prettiest art of all the art. Like my avatar.
Number of times Roland St. Jude has sworn revenge upon me: 2
-
2022-03-03, 01:30 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2010
Re: This year we kill it: Corona Virus Thread Mark II
You can use whatever basis you want to decide what experiments should be done, but at the end of the day its the actual reproducible results that count as evidence for or against something. So yes, you can use the credibility of a source to decide whether to prioritize testing a given claim. But your assessment of a source's credibility isn't evidence for or against that claim prior to actually doing a reproduction or validation.
-
2022-03-03, 08:17 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2021
- Location
- In my room
Re: This year we kill it: Corona Virus Thread Mark II
Wouldn't the "meta-analysis" not be experimentation?