Deleted. Not what Noel's looking for.............

Edited April 25, 20206 yr by W2DR

I got that chart from Dave a couple hours ago. kant spel.  But thanks anyway.

kan spel

Interesting article about germany’s Coronavirus expert Christian Drosten

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/26/virologist-christian-drosten-germany-coronavirus-expert-interview?fbclid=IwAR18_-gYuO8gOuwG-jDS4Eam0SD6nNplRBajrO1LPHaHGJqTK6-TZUa0370

 

This us the question that got me Steve.  How many of us here have been tasking these studies as gospel and predicting dire things if we don't all do as they say?  The only ones I actually read anymore are Alan's because he's got the credentials and uses a lot of cautions. 

Q: Is all the science being done around this coronavirus good science?

A: No! Early on, in February, there were many interesting preprints [scientific papers that have not yet been peer-reviewed] around. Now you can read through 50 before you find something that’s actually solid and interesting. A lot of research resources are being wasted.

I am still waiting for studies that include demographics, geography and climate.  My gut feeling looking at the COVID-19 maps of the United States that higher altitudes, lots of sunny days and drier climate might have a significant bearing on this.  The only high counts of virus are in the metro areas and Indian reservations.  I've read where African Americans are at a higher risk.  In New Mexico, Utah and Arizona the Native Americans appear to be at a higher risk.

Noel

21 minutes ago, birdguy said:

. A lot of research resources are being wasted.

That's the nature of scientific research but there are differences in this specific case. The first difference with COVID-19 research is that a ton of money has been thrown at solving the problem in a short period of time. The second difference is that most research is usually screened by a peer review process before being publicized. The peer review process generally eliminates faulty experimental designs, poor methodologies and inappropriate conclusions. The third difference is that some research that is being promoted prematurely on the internet by organizations, institutions, corporations and advocacy groups with a direct vested interest in the research.

All research doesn't have to be the best science. The logical guide is: what does the preponderance of evidence (from the reputable, accredited, peer-reviewed experts) say?

If after reviewing that preponderance, we decide to nonetheless follow our own internal and/or contrary path of belief/action, well, that's up to the individual. My only personal caveat would be that those choosing alternative courses don't endanger others (the vast majority of the country) who have decided that discretion is the better part of valor.

55 minutes ago, jabloomf1230 said:

 The third difference is that some research that is being promoted prematurely on the internet by organizations, institutions, corporations and advocacy groups with a direct vested interest in the research.

Agendas...dontya hate em?  And those organizations, institutions, corporations and advocacy groups feed that data to the networks and newspapers who promote their agendas.  

Commercial news organizations, both print and broadcast, tailor their output to attract readers and listeners.  That's how they attract sponsors and make money.  So we either accept what WE want to hear or try to sift thorough it all to get the real facts and the truth.  It's a tough job if you are not versed in the subject.  And the vast majority of us are not in the case of COVID-19.

I read what Alan has to say because of his background and because of his cautions when delivering it to us.  And because of those cautions and my personal location I need more data before I jump on the house arrest and masking wagon.  And that does not mean I advocate that for others.  You have to make your own choices based on what you believe and your location.

Noel

... and now the UK are pushing for delivery drones...

I can understand why... possibly... getting PPE and drugs to pinpointed locations relatively quickly and allegedly, accurately. However, why risk such valuable commodities in this manner when you could have slower, but higher volume deliveries by more conventional means?

Also, my agenda:-  I do not want to see our 0-400 feet AGL skies buzzing with fleets of drones which is what amazon and google etc.want in their agendas..

That's as political as I fear to go on here..

I think I dislike nebulous and unproven conspiracy theories even more than open agendas, some of which are quite understandable. Like the agenda of public officials and designated organizations to protect the nation's health. Or the agenda of most news organizations to keep the public informed.

Irregardless of if some of the public decides to distrust or ignore said information, at least it's been duly disseminated.

especially when people driven by those nebulous forces see themselves as 'more aware' and therefore must spread the gospel about how all the rest of us are wrong, silly or naive.

34 minutes ago, birdguy said:

I read what Alan has to say because of his background and because of his cautions when delivering it to us. 

Thanks, most appreciated.  But you should add @MartinRex007 to your list - his credentials are stronger than mine.

31 minutes ago, HighBypass said:

... and now the UK are pushing for delivery drones...

I can understand why... possibly... getting PPE and drugs to pinpointed locations relatively quickly and allegedly, accurately. However, why risk such valuable commodities in this manner when you could have slower, but higher volume deliveries by more conventional means?

Also, my agenda:-  I do not want to see our 0-400 feet AGL skies buzzing with fleets of drones which is what amazon and google etc.want in their agendas..

That's as political as I fear to go on here..

I think the drones are just a bit of pr fluff.  All I saw was that they were being used to fly from the mainland the 7 miles to the Isle of Wight.  I am sure that a lorry on a Wright link ferry could carry more, and hoverspeed could cross the solent as fast.

4 hours ago, jabloomf1230 said:

That's the nature of scientific research but there are differences in this specific case. The first difference with COVID-19 research is that a ton of money has been thrown at solving the problem in a short period of time. The second difference is that most research is usually screened by a peer review process before being publicized. The peer review process generally eliminates faulty experimental designs, poor methodologies and inappropriate conclusions. The third difference is that some research that is being promoted prematurely on the internet by organizations, institutions, corporations and advocacy groups with a direct vested interest in the research.

This is exactly right.  If you look at a study online (if you find it mentioned in news coverage, it's a good idea to click through to the actual study - the abstract or summary, and also the conclusion, are usually quite readable even if the main study is more technical and harder to follow), you'll find a statement about whether the paper has passed peer review or not.  The Santa Clara population study that got so much attention was clearly marked as a preliminary publication,not yet peer reviewed.  It would have benefited from a rigorous review and might have been sent back for more/better analysis.  It wound up getting a sort of peer review on researchers' blogs and Twitter feeds, but that's really not the best way to do it.

Also, if you find a study being heavily publicized or getting a lot of viral attention, it's worth looking up the researchers.  You might find that they have some bias (for example, have they published op-ed articles advocating something?) or that their credentials aren't right for what they're concluding, or that most of their peers disagree with them ("revolutionary" findings are often promoted by lone-wolf researchers who say they've found some special new way into the problem and that everyone else has it wrong - which is unlikely).

This also works the other way - you can find out that a researcher is highly credentialed and highly respected.  I'll cite Dr. Fauci as an example, not to get political but because he's been in his seat for 36 years and you can read peer commentary about him as well as his own research.  (Side note - I remember when he first took the position and was vilified by HIV activists, and I remember when he then became the first government researcher to forge an alliance with the activists.  Between them they changed how research gets done.  Based on my own time in the HIV trenches and my doing a similar kind of research into him along the lines I just recommended, I'll vouch for him and I pay special attention to what he has to say).

It's worth remembering that science is as a rule very conservative and consensus-driven.  Conclusions change very slowly.  So if you find a lot of researchers (for example, a lot of public health officials) making the same recommendation, that tells you something about where the preponderance of the evidence is at a given moment.

 

 

Edited April 26, 20206 yr by Alan_A

1 hour ago, Alan_A said:

But you should add @MartinRex007 to your list - his credentials are stronger than mine.

Thanks Alan, a little about my background.

Fortunate enough to have two graduate degrees, one in Epidemiology and Biometrics and the other in Vertebrate Zoology with emphasis in mammalogy Worked for 32 years as a research epidemiologist in both infectious and chronic diseases. Was acting director of the department of " Deployment  Health Research" where we had a team of about 25 Ph.D's ,MD's, and MPH's. Very fortunate to have worked with such a great group of folks, both Military and Civilian.  Some large scale studies we designed and implemented  were "The Millennium Cohort Study", a 20 years longitudinal study that follows our service members during and after deployments,  the "Wounded Warrior Study", looking at ways to improve the Quality of life of our injured soldiers, also studies on TBI, PTSD and suicide,  large studies looking at Nora virus,  Respiratory diseases, and other infectious disease occurring in our soldiers . Worked with the FDA and CDC on vaccine efficacy trails,  we were one of  the first labs working with CDC to diagnosis the H1N1 virus in 2009.

So in addition to the hard work that our first responders are doing to keep us all safe and alive, do keep in mind  there are some very talented researches around the world who are working 7/24 to find a solution to this pandemic.  

Stay safe everyone!

Martin

Edited April 26, 20206 yr by MartinRex007

21 minutes ago, MartinRex007 said:

Thanks Alan, a little about my background.

Fortunate enough to have two graduate degrees, one in Epidemiology and Biometrics..

Correction - his credentials are MUCH stronger than mine.

Enormously impressive.

To all - in any conflict between the science writer and the scientist, go with the scientist.

You heard it here first!