Funny Events of the "Woke" world

[Thaluikhain]

Ilhan Omar defends Somalia remarks amid backlash

The congresswoman was criticized after comments she made went viral online, but she called the backlash "completely off"

www.newsweek.com

Imagine thinking that you have a right to start a war because people of your race are in another country. Hitler shit right there.

It's not that unusual a motive for war, unfortunately, appeals to a certain mindset.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

What do you mean "Cochrane's own analysis"? It's a review organisation - essentially a publisher - where the articles represent the individual work of its members.

Secondly, the Cochrane review you're talking about simply omitted a huge chunk of the available evidence base, and you're simply ignoring reams of discussion about what that result meant. And this is what I mean when you say mindlessly repeat back accusations thrown at you without understanding anything you're talking about. You claim we provide papers with poor methodology, but you don't understand pretty much anything about methodology to have a useful judgement on the matter.

I mean, as I will never let you forget, you had to have the meaning of a p-value explained to you. It's one of the most fundamental concepts in scientific statistics. And yet even despite that any many other howlers, here you are, still acting like you know anything. Is a complete lack of humility, or are you just too incompetent to realise how insufficient your knowledge is?

Own analysis of the RCTs, it is called a meta-analysis, why must you all split hairs on pointless things that don't matter all the time? What RCTs did Cochrane omit? Since you said Cochrane omitted a huge chuck of evidence, where is this evidence that masks work? The consensus before covid was that masks did not do much of anything and there's been no quality studies since covid saying masks do anything so where is this evidence?

I know enough to know masks don't work...

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Bill Maher points out the exact reason why people don't vote for democrats because the democrats says fucking crazy ass shit that makes no fucking sense. The vast majority of people voting republican aren't racists and conspiracy believers, they have actual valid reasons for not wanting several policies in place that democrats are for. In this clip, Bill basically says if you didn't say crazy ass shit like sports shouldn't be separated by sex, you wouldn't have people voting for Trump. And that's exactly it, not just the sports/sex thing but quite a few other things that are just crazy ass shit. I recall arguing with someone here that sports should be separated by weight, and that makes no fucking sense, it would kill women's sports if you did that.

 

[Ag3ma]

Own analysis of the RCTs, it is called a meta-analysis, why must you all split hairs on pointless things that don't matter all the time?

No, you are missing the point. "Cochrane" is not an author. It's an organisation which roughly equates to a journal or publisher. It doesn't research and write the articles, it publishes them. The articles are written by individual researchers or groups. You should not talk about any research publications from Cochrane as if that is some sort of official opinion of Cochrane, because it is not. (Or at least, not unless Cochrane have officially said so somewhere)

This matters, because to imply that that paper is some sort of official, final word from Cochrane as an organisation is completely misleading. It's the opinion of the guys who wrote it, which Cochrane deemed publishable.

What RCTs did Cochrane omit?

What about all the studies that weren't RCTs?

 

[Phoenixmgs]

No, you are missing the point. "Cochrane" is not an author. It's an organisation which roughly equates to a journal or publisher. It doesn't research and write the articles, it publishes them. The articles are written by individual researchers or groups. You should not talk about any research publications from Cochrane as if that is some sort of official opinion of Cochrane, because it is not. (Or at least, not unless Cochrane have officially said so somewhere)

This matters, because to imply that that paper is some sort of official, final word from Cochrane as an organisation is completely misleading. It's the opinion of the guys who wrote it, which Cochrane deemed publishable.



What about all the studies that weren't RCTs?

Yeah, they did a meta-analysis like I said. Cochrane reviews are literally referred to as the gold standard.

You mean bullshit observational studies that are extremely flawed?

 

[Ag3ma]

You mean bullshit observational studies that are extremely flawed?

All valid data is important and useful. The very fact you have said that, and in such a manner, screams "I don't understand or respect science".

 

[Phoenixmgs]

All valid data is important and useful. The very fact you have said that, and in such a manner, screams "I don't understand or respect science".

You don't use observation studies for like anything other then developing a hypothesis to then actually test. So all your studies that you would put forth as evidence that masks work are far poorer studies than the studies I and Cochrane are citing that masks don't work? Am I properly understanding this?

 

[Ag3ma]

You don't use observation studies for like anything other then developing a hypothesis to then actually test.

Wrong as a general rule, although there are some specific situations that mandate RCTs.

So all your studies that you would put forth as evidence that masks work are far poorer studies than the studies I and Cochrane are citing that masks don't work?Am I properly understanding this?

Not necessarily.

Firstly, fascinatingly enough, there is a Cochrane review analysing the difference between effects measured by observational studies and RCTs in and finds they are... very small. Observational studies can be powerful and accurate, and should not be casually neglected.

Broadly, you would expect that a RCT should be better than an observational study on average (even if the above meta-analysis did not find much difference between the two). But that's not always the case on an individual level, because there's a whole welter of factors that go into the quality of a study. Or simply, if you like, a good observational study is better than a bad RCT. That's one reason why you can't always get too hung up on RCTs for everything, and certainly cannot just assume a RCT is superior.

A delve into the literature would find many, many experts noting that it is exceptionally hard to do a RCT on masking to reduce respiratory infection, both for practical and ethical reasons. What that also means is that RCTs done for masking are often likely to have substantial flaws and limitations. Therefore a meta-analysis on a bunch of relatively low-middling quality RCTs is inherently limited in its conclusions, because you can't turn lead into gold. And that Cochrane study - because Cochrane is actually good at this - essentially says little confidence can be held in its own result. So, in fact, we might actually get better information from observational studies than RCTs in such a situation: RCTs are just the wrong tool for the job.

And that's why I have a problem with certain over-zealous adherents of RCTs. They've taken a general principle and turned it into an absolute rule. That then causes them to undervalue/ignore potentially useful data... and undervaluing/ignoring good data is bad science.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Wrong as a general rule, although there are some specific situations that mandate RCTs.



Not necessarily.

Firstly, fascinatingly enough, there is a Cochrane review analysing the difference between effects measured by observational studies and RCTs in and finds they are... very small. Observational studies can be powerful and accurate, and should not be casually neglected.

Broadly, you would expect that a RCT should be better than an observational study on average (even if the above meta-analysis did not find much difference between the two). But that's not always the case on an individual level, because there's a whole welter of factors that go into the quality of a study. Or simply, if you like, a good observational study is better than a bad RCT. That's one reason why you can't always get too hung up on RCTs for everything, and certainly cannot just assume a RCT is superior.

A delve into the literature would find many, many experts noting that it is exceptionally hard to do a RCT on masking to reduce respiratory infection, both for practical and ethical reasons. What that also means is that RCTs done for masking are often likely to have substantial flaws and limitations. Therefore a meta-analysis on a bunch of relatively low-middling quality RCTs is inherently limited in its conclusions, because you can't turn lead into gold. And that Cochrane study - because Cochrane is actually good at this - essentially says little confidence can be held in its own result. So, in fact, we might actually get better information from observational studies than RCTs in such a situation: RCTs are just the wrong tool for the job.

And that's why I have a problem with certain over-zealous adherents of RCTs. They've taken a general principle and turned it into an absolute rule. That then causes them to undervalue/ignore potentially useful data... and undervaluing/ignoring good data is bad science.

It's true, observational studies that have tons of confounders (like masks) are pretty piss poor.

The mask observational studies are horrible. The CDC literally said masks can reduce your risk of covid infection by 80%, that is complete bullshit. You keep posting all this talk and still no evidence that masks actually did anything.

 

[Ag3ma]

You keep posting all this talk and still no evidence that masks actually did anything.

The amount of studies that have been posted on this forum that support the efficacy of masks are legion.

You just ignored them. That's a you problem.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

The amount of studies that have been posted on this forum that support the efficacy of masks are legion.

You just ignored them. That's a you problem.

Because they are horribly confounded studies. Post an actual good study (that you claim you have expertise in). All the studies of masks with the best methodology available (RCT or not) have shown they didn't do anything. You're cherry picking bad studies so the science aligns with your worldview. I use the same type of evidence for everything and I don't pick and choose.

 

[Gergar12]

It's fine when liberals and feminists do it, but bad when bankers and MRA types like Elon do it. Fucking What.



By the way, TikTok, and Instagram are attacking this college kid—because of course, liberal private jet privilege is a thing.

 

[Ag3ma]

I use the same type of evidence for everything and I don't pick and choose.

I agree you that don't pick and choose... you don't pick anything at all: you are a parrot.

You don't research. You don't learn the principles of research. You don't go looking through databases on a subject. You don't try to read a ton of the literature and get a wider grasp of the field. You don't come across something in a study you don't understand and go and look up another study so that you do understand it. You don't do any of that boring, difficult and incredibly time-consuming stuff a real expert does.

No, you have YouTube, or Substack, or whatever. You just watch someone else who claims to be an expert, and then you hand all that he told you to us, dressed up in words like the above that make it seem you thought about it. But you didn't think up any of that. You are just repeating what somebody told you with the sources you don't actually understand.

So let's be clear. You don't have a same type of evidence. You don't analyse. You don't evaluate. You don't do any of that incredibly hard and time-consuming cognitive effort, you just borrow someone else's. So kindly don't try to pass yourself off as anything more than the parrot dumbly squawking what it last heard.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

I agree you that don't pick and choose... you don't pick anything at all: you are a parrot.

You don't research. You don't learn the principles of research. You don't go looking through databases on a subject. You don't try to read a ton of the literature and get a wider grasp of the field. You don't come across something in a study you don't understand and go and look up another study so that you do understand it. You don't do any of that boring, difficult and incredibly time-consuming stuff a real expert does.

No, you have YouTube, or Substack, or whatever. You just watch someone else who claims to be an expert, and then you hand all that he told you to us, dressed up in words like the above that make it seem you thought about it. But you didn't think up any of that. You are just repeating what somebody told you with the sources you don't actually understand.

So let's be clear. You don't have a same type of evidence. You don't analyse. You don't evaluate. You don't do any of that incredibly hard and time-consuming cognitive effort, you just borrow someone else's. So kindly don't try to pass yourself off as anything more than the parrot dumbly squawking what it last heard.

I'm good enough to know there has never been any evidence saying masks have been proven to stop infections from airborne viruses. I guess your expertise isn't good enough to sus that out. You still have posted no evidence showing masks actually work. But you're the one that does research and looks through databases... Sure thing. Where's the evidence? It's been like 4 years and still nothing.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Remember when the left said all this stuff wasn't being taught in schools and it was only taught in college? Shocker, they were lying.

https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/woke-kindergarten-glassbrook-hayward-18635504.php

 

[Ag3ma]

I'm good enough to know there has never been any evidence saying masks have been proven to stop infections from airborne viruses... You still have posted no evidence showing masks actually work

You're not even good enough to tell the difference between there being evidence for something and something being proven.

 

[Casual Shinji]

Y'all could be using your brains to count the spots on the wall instead of arguing anything with Phoenixmgs.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

You're not even good enough to tell the difference between there being evidence for something and something being proven.

Just post the evidence if it exists...

Y'all could be using your brains to count the spots on the wall instead of arguing anything with Phoenixmgs.

It was scientific consensus before covid happened that masks didn't work. There's no evidence since pointing to that consensus being wrong.

 

[Casual Shinji]

1... 2... 3... 4...... 5...

 

[Satinavian]

It's fine when liberals and feminists do it, but bad when bankers and MRA types like Elon do it. Fucking What.

No, it is obviously still not fine.

Unless you are one of those so deep in partisanship that "being on the right side" is all that ever matters.