A Group of 270 Scientists, Doctors, etc. Submit Open Letter to Spotify Regarding Joe Rogan (JRE)

[CriticalGaming]

Well, see here's my problem with that
Provisional COVID-19 Deaths by Sex and Age | Data | Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (cdc.gov)

So far its 770 person 17 and under have died already. I believe that the US has had around 2 million under 17 contract the virus. I dont think the math checks out at (without vaccines) 2K, if every child got it (assuming its quicker than 5 years, because it gets to other problems I cant be f'd to calculate). For the current number to be true, we'd have to be almost half way through the population. I think your out by order of magnitude, similarly, I'm out an order magnitude. (Back of the envelope calculations here) the estimated total might be 20K+

Ive rechecked what you said and what I said, and I dont think it was with our decimals.

Well you also have an unknown variable in that Children don't respond to, catch, or spread covid in the same way adults do. Especially kids under like 12 iirc. So that resistance to spread limits the ability for Covid to run as rampant through children as adults. I think you are trying to apply the math as if the spread of covid through children works the same way but that has never been the case.

 

[Agema]

Well, see here's my problem with that
Provisional COVID-19 Deaths by Sex and Age | Data | Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (cdc.gov)

So far its 770 person 17 and under have died already. I believe that the US has had around 2 million under 17 contract the virus. I dont think the math checks out at (without vaccines) 2K, if every child got it (assuming its quicker than 5 years, because it gets to other problems I cant be f'd to calculate). For the current number to be true, we'd have to be almost half way through the population. I think your out by order of magnitude, similarly, I'm out an order magnitude. (Back of the envelope calculations here) the estimated total might be 20K+

Ive rechecked what you said and what I said, and I dont think it was with our decimals.

I think it might be more accurate to say that 2 million under 18s are known to have caught covid, i.e. tested positive. In practice, it will be much, much higher - not least because I suspect children have not been taking tests anything like as rigorously as adults.

I would suggest the total deaths if every child in the USA had caught covid would be under 2000, because it's realistic well over a third of US kids have already been infected. Given worldwide mortality figures for under 18s, that's possibly high. For instance, the equivalent figure in the UK for under 18s is ~40 (and I think similar in France, although I've only found figures for under-13s). The USA has five times the population so assuming similar proportions of the child population have caught it as France and the UK, 770 deaths is about four times higher mortality. This disparity is possibly related to high levels of childhood obesity, weaker healthcare provision, and potential racial variations in susceptibility.

 

[Trunkage]

I think it might be more accurate to say that 2 million under 18s are known to have caught covid, i.e. tested positive. In practice, it will be much, much higher - not least because I suspect children have not been taking tests anything like as rigorously as adults.

I would suggest the total deaths if every child in the USA had caught covid would be under 2000, because it's realistic well over a third of US kids have already been infected. Given worldwide mortality figures for under 18s, that's possibly high. For instance, the equivalent figure in the UK for under 18s is ~40 (and I think similar in France, although I've only found figures for under-13s). The USA has five times the population so assuming similar proportions of the child population have caught it as France and the UK, 770 deaths is about four times higher mortality. This disparity is possibly related to high levels of childhood obesity, weaker healthcare provision, and potential racial variations in susceptibility.

Well, I think you've guys have proven the anti-vaxxers right on this one. Dont give the vaccines to kids

 

[Agema]

Well, I think you've guys have proven the anti-vaxxers right on this one. Dont give the vaccines to kids

That doesn't necessarily follow. Although the vaccine is probably very modest use in terms of reducing child mortality, it should have utility in children to reduce hospitalisation, further covid complications ("long covid"), and to make them less infectious to others.

There are arguably more useful things to do with the vaccines, like hand them to countries that haven't been had such good vaccine availability.

 

[tstorm823]

Well, I think you've guys have proven the anti-vaxxers right on this one. Dont give the vaccines to kids

I don't think that follows logically, as per Agema's comment. But this is exactly how people get sucked into things like anti-vax nonsense. People joke about someone "doing their own research", but anyone with a computer can access volumes of research and see data that doesn't match public policy, and since something about the human psyche prefers black and white situations to gray areas, they do a complete 180 and trust nothing in public health policy.

Anti-vaxxers are going to be right about some of the facts sometimes. Them being right about some things doesn't make their overall position right, and similarly them being wrong about vaccines in general doesn't mean that all their facts are going to be wrong.

 

[Agema]

but anyone with a computer can access volumes of research and see data that doesn't match public policy,

A lot of people don't understand that public policy is a lot more complicated than "following the science", because what the science says is often not 100% and often does not take into account human behaviour, economics, administrative capability, etc. That's why the science feeds into a wider decision-making process.

I also think there's a huge problem that the average "anyone" tends to be completely incompetent at meaningfully interpreting volumes of research. If I value my education for anything, it's that it taught me very cautious about what I read and think I know.

 

[Generals]

I don't think that follows logically, as per Agema's comment. But this is exactly how people get sucked into things like anti-vax nonsense. People joke about someone "doing their own research", but anyone with a computer can access volumes of research and see data that doesn't match public policy, and since something about the human psyche prefers black and white situations to gray areas, they do a complete 180 and trust nothing in public health policy.

Anti-vaxxers are going to be right about some of the facts sometimes. Them being right about some things doesn't make their overall position right, and similarly them being wrong about vaccines in general doesn't mean that all their facts are going to be wrong.

I think you overestimate the amount of anti-vaxxers who actually do their own research. They usually just repeat and spread bad research made by a few.
And this is ultimately what I find the most ironic about them, they like to claim they're smarter than the sheep who "blindly" follow the consensus while they themselves blindly follow theories spread by a minority.

 

[tstorm823]

I think you overestimate the amount of anti-vaxxers who actually do their own research. They usually just repeat and spread bad research made by a few.
And this is ultimately what I find the most ironic about them, they like to claim they're smarter than the sheep who "blindly" follow the consensus while they themselves blindly follow theories spread by a minority.

I don't think it's as irrational as you think it is, and I think you empower a group by looking this far down at them. There are commonly accepted falsehoods and rarely spoken truths in this world. When you say something like this that effectively rejects all the information they believe to be true, which is likely going to include some things that are true, you become the thing that they think you are. How can you disparage them for calling you a sheep blindly following the consensus and then blanket dismiss in the same breath? I know its counterintuitive, but your resentment validates and empowers them more.

 

[Thaluikhain]

A tangent, but anti-vaxxer preppers are particularly embarassing. C'mon, you've stocked up on gear in your bunker for when you have to live in isolation due to the cataclysm, and you go to protests about having to wear a mask.

I get disbelieving whatever the Man says, but this sort of thing should be right up your alley.

 

[Generals]

I don't think it's as irrational as you think it is, and I think you empower a group by looking this far down at them. There are commonly accepted falsehoods and rarely spoken truths in this world. When you say something like this that effectively rejects all the information they believe to be true, which is likely going to include some things that are true, you become the thing that they think you are. How can you disparage them for calling you a sheep blindly following the consensus and then blanket dismiss in the same breath? I know its counterintuitive, but your resentment validates and empowers them more.

Heh, they started it by dismissing me as a sheep (and spreading dangerous misinformation). Most of the things they believe are either false, bad interpretations of data or semi-truths. There is little truth that comes out of anti-vaxxers that isn't already known by people who follow the consensus. I don't necessarily dismiss anything just because an anti-vaxxer says it, but i'll wait for the scientific consensus.

The reason I dismiss them is because I know I am not a specialist in medicine, pharmacology or virology. As such I know better than to draw my own conclusions, I rely on the scientific community. And if the vast majority of the scientific community is going one way i'll follow them. Following a minority of detractors would be extremely presumptuous of me, it would essentially mean I have the skills and knowledge to judge the quality of scientists or consider myself worth more than the majority of scientists. How else could I justify following the opinion of (random estimate) 10% of the scientists rather than 90%?

 

[tstorm823]

The reason I dismiss them is because I know I am not a specialist in medicine, pharmacology or virology. As such I know better than to draw my own conclusions, I rely on the scientific community. And if the vast majority of the scientific community is going one way i'll follow them.

So... you are actually just a sheep? Interesting response.

The What, Why, and How of Health Literacy

An introduction to health literacy, plus resources

www.cdc.gov

"Health literacy is important for everyone because, at some point in our lives, we all need to be able to find, understand, and use health information and services."

Medical authorities telling you the importance of being able to find and understand health information for yourself, seems like you're caught in a Catch 22 here.

 

[Generals]

So... you are actually just a sheep? Interesting response.

The What, Why, and How of Health Literacy

An introduction to health literacy, plus resources

www.cdc.gov

"Health literacy is important for everyone because, at some point in our lives, we all need to be able to find, understand, and use health information and services."

Medical authorities telling you the importance of being able to find and understand health information for yourself, seems like you're caught in a Catch 22 here.

I do find health information for myself, from reputable sources and not dodgy youtubers or facebook groups. As for "understanding" I doubt the CDC is asking you to have in depth knowledge of virology and pharmacology. Just a basic understanding, which i do have. However I won't pretend I know exactly which ingredients are in a Pfizer vaccine and which effect they all have. But if the vast majority of scientists and doctors say it's safe I'll accept that.

 

[Agema]

So... you are actually just a sheep? Interesting response.

Researching what people who know their area say is still research.

 

[Buyetyen]

"Health literacy is important for everyone because, at some point in our lives, we all need to be able to find, understand, and use health information and services."

Medical authorities telling you the importance of being able to find and understand health information for yourself, seems like you're caught in a Catch 22 here.

Yes, by which they mean you should talk to your fucking doctor. This, as opposed to say, getting your medical advice from a meatheaded jock on a podcast.

Researching what people who know their area say is still research.

Yes, but something something appeal to authority fallacy something something fuck y'all, I win.

 

[Gergar12]

I just find it funny that this is what the left is focusing on. If you take out/cancel Rogan, and his allies including on the left, but mostly on the right. He will just move to another platform. You know how the left, and liberals can win. In order to win against conservatism, and right-wing libertarianism you need to beat it in the battlefield of ideas like in the Cold War with communism, or in the literal battlefields like fascism.

Thanks to social media, and right-wing money that will never happen. And making an idea unpopular doesn't kill it, because ideas are bulletproof whether they be left-wing ideas or right-wing ideas. Sure Gen Z is liberal today, but the same was said about Gen X and the Seattle WTO riots.

Also, it's really easy to get the left to attack each other, they don't close ranks like companies & the millionaires, and billionaires do, and even neoliberals close ranks better than the left.

Edit: CNN the other day was complaining that Joe Rogan has lots of followers, and watchers. Yeah, that's called capitalism; people like what you are saying, and they endorse it so they reward you, which isn't really that much different from democracy; you choose the people you like, and you elect them.


Edit: Grammar, and spelling

 

[tstorm823]

Researching what people who know their area say is still research.

Yes.

 

[Buyetyen]

I just find it funny that this is what the left is focusing on. If you take out/cancel Rogan, and his allies including on the left, but mostly on the right. He will just move to another platform. You know how the left, and liberals can win. In order to win against conservatism, and right-wing libertarianism you need to beat it in the battlefield of ideas like in the Cold War with communism, or in the literal battlefields like fascism.

Thanks to social media, and right-wing money that will never happen. And making an idea unpopular doesn't kill it, because ideas are bulletproof whether they be left-wing ideas or right-wing ideas. Sure Gen Z is liberal today, but the same was said about Gen X and the Seattle WTO riots.

Also, it's really easy to get the left to attack each other, they don't close ranks like companies & the millionaires, and billionaires do, and even neoliberals close ranks better than the left.

Edit: CNN the other day was complaining that Joe Rogan has lots of followers, and watchers. Yeah, that's called capitalism; people like what you are saying, and they endorse it so they reward you, which isn't really that much different from democracy; you choose the people you like, and you elect them.


Edit: Grammar, and spelling

You almost get it, but not quite. Progressives have been frustrated and burnt out lately and we're slipping on making our policies and beliefs known well. The right have painted us as a bunch of prudes and censors, despite the fact that the Republicans are incredibly sex negative and want to ban any media that offends their delicate sensibilities. Progressives are the supporters of love, the arts and general happiness. We need to get back on message.

 

[CM156]

You almost get it, but not quite. Progressives have been frustrated and burnt out lately and we're slipping on making our policies and beliefs known well. The right have painted us as a bunch of prudes and censors, despite the fact that the Republicans are incredibly sex negative and want to ban any media that offends their delicate sensibilities. Progressives are the supporters of love, the arts and general happiness. We need to get back on message.

Letting the Right claim the banner of free speech was probably a major tactical mistake. At least in my assessment.

 

[Cheetodust]

you need to beat it in the battlefield of ideas like in the Cold War with communism,

Lol absolutely what are you smoking?

 

[Trunkage]

Letting the Right claim the banner of free speech was probably a major tactical mistake. At least in my assessment.

I'm pretty sure liberals claimed it a long time ago. It just never mattered. Liberals claiming Free Speech is seen as politically correct. Specifically so others can claim it

Hitler claimed the banner of Free Speech despite it clearly being claimed well before than. And clear evidence that he wasn't going to fulfill on it. Marx claimed he was for Free Speech (he never really got power so I'll leave it at claimed) but it birthed Lenin and Stalin who liked bombing their fellow Communists to get their complaince before they ever got any real power. The banner of Free Speech has been a bludgeon against the majority for a long time