Corona

Participate in discussion with your fellow Zimbabwe cricket fans!
Kriterion_BD
Posts: 7035
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 8:41 am

Re: Corona

Post by Kriterion_BD »

eugene wrote:
Wed May 27, 2020 2:34 am
What science has the hysteria-driven lockdown crowd followed? A couple of projections that have proven to be way off?

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/artic ... 2U6zTVwCoA
The key word was in your post. Projections.

Science is often wrong. Take the development of antibiotic by Fleming. Was a pure accident. But the point of science is to follow a chain of evidence eg projections which are based on data.

Following one’s gut is not scientific. Doing what’s best for the exclusively for the rich is not scientific.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JjtuZBykSzM (Noreaga - Blood Money Part 3)

Kriterion_BD
Posts: 7035
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 8:41 am

Re: Corona

Post by Kriterion_BD »

Scienctists never claim to be 100% correct. They just claim to follow the data available to them to the best of their ability.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JjtuZBykSzM (Noreaga - Blood Money Part 3)

Jemisi
Posts: 8978
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 8:04 am
Supports: Southern Rocks

Re: Corona

Post by Jemisi »

I take your point Kriterion, but Scientists have very often claimed to be 100% correct.

They often also make the claim you just made - "Scientists never claim to be 100% correct."

Science is done in the present. When they stray into history or futurism they tend to end up storytelling.

And that is where credibility gets lost and hillbillies start making YouTube clips.

Kriterion_BD
Posts: 7035
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 8:41 am

Re: Corona

Post by Kriterion_BD »

Jemisi wrote:
Wed May 27, 2020 4:31 am
I take your point Kriterion, but Scientists have very often claimed to be 100% correct.
Jemisi, you know thats not true. Why would you peddle something that you know to be untrue?

Have you ever heard of the terms sensitivity or specificity? Those are statistical terms that basically describe how accurate a test is at measuring what its designed to measure.

Mathematically sensitivity is defined as the ratio of true positives (people who actually have COVID for example and test positive) to true positives + false negatives (the total number of people who actually have COVID).

Specificity is defined as the ratio of true negatives to true negatives (people who DO NOT have COVID and test negative) + false positives (total number of people who DO NOT have COVID)

Neither of these is ever 100%, so for example when a doctor tells you that the result of your coronary angiogram proves you've had a heart attack, he's at best 98 or 99% sure. But never 100% and no doctor worth his degree would say he's 100% correct all the time. Same goes for chemists, geneticists, astronomers, physicists, mathematicians, geologists, etc.

Which scientist? I don't even think most politicians claim to be 100% correct. In fact, even the Pope nowadays doesn't claim to be 100% correct (at least on non-religous matters) and he believes that God communicates with him directly or indirectly.

Scientists are constantly peer reviewed. And there work is continuously criticized, scrutinized, and often times disproved. So how would they claim to be 100% correct?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JjtuZBykSzM (Noreaga - Blood Money Part 3)

Jemisi
Posts: 8978
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 8:04 am
Supports: Southern Rocks

Re: Corona

Post by Jemisi »

How would they claim it?

Easy, people say all sorts of unguarded things.

Why would you doubt my testimony when you obviously have only heard a small fraction of scientists speak?

You've then just given me more dogma, which is fine as far as it goes, but people being people they are capable of all sorts of claims.

Particularly when defending ground against an up and comer's paradigm shift. The history of science is full of examples mate.

Kriterion_BD
Posts: 7035
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 8:41 am

Re: Corona

Post by Kriterion_BD »

Jemisi wrote:
Wed May 27, 2020 5:54 am
How would they claim it?

Easy, people say all sorts of unguarded things.

Why would you doubt my testimony when you obviously have only heard a small fraction of scientists speak?

You've then just given me more dogma, which is fine as far as it goes, but people being people they are capable of all sorts of claims.

Particularly when defending ground against an up and comer's paradigm shift. The history of science is full of examples mate.
Is it that hard to come up with one name?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JjtuZBykSzM (Noreaga - Blood Money Part 3)

Jemisi
Posts: 8978
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 8:04 am
Supports: Southern Rocks

Re: Corona

Post by Jemisi »

Sure, Bob, Jennifer, Phil, I have heard lots of people say bombastic things in one breath and then your doctrinally correct line the next.

You've never heard it? That surprises me. People make all sorts of claims arguing from authority. It is in the logic textbooks as a fallacy for a reason.

Speaking of disease have you not read of Semmelweis?

Also a guy called Geoff, my geology lecturer at uni.

ZIMDOGGY
Posts: 6647
Joined: Sun Feb 28, 2010 11:40 pm
Supports: MidWest Rhinos

Re: Corona

Post by ZIMDOGGY »

I initiially suspected that hunters might be inflated. For example what about all those people that died from pneumonia before, sousing they still die during Covid times and be pronounced to be killed from Covid ?
But my research to that thought led me to understand you can only be a coronavirus statistic if you have been tested positive for the virus.
Cricinfo profile of the 'James Bond' of cricket:

FULL NAME: Angus James Mackay
BORN: 13 June 1967, Harare
KNOWN AS: Gus Mackay

'The' Gus Mackay.

Hero.
Sportsman.
Artist.
Player.

**
Q. VUSI SIBANDA, WHERE DO YOU HOP?

A. UNDA DA ENTERTAINMENT CENTRE*

Kriterion_BD
Posts: 7035
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 8:41 am

Re: Corona

Post by Kriterion_BD »

Jemisi wrote:
Wed May 27, 2020 6:25 am
Sure, Bob, Jennifer, Phil, I have heard lots of people say bombastic things in one breath and then your doctrinally correct line the next.

You've never heard it? That surprises me. People make all sorts of claims arguing from authority. It is in the logic textbooks as a fallacy for a reason.

Speaking of disease have you not read of Semmelweis?

Also a guy called Geoff, my geology lecturer at uni.
But Mark, Tom, and Eric told me that Bob, Jennifer, Phil have never said they were 100% correct. And I know Mark, Tom, and Eric personally. Besides, all real scientists have surnames leading me to believe Bob, Jennifer, and Phil are just random names from a hat.

Geoff what. Whats his surname? Was he an actual professor (Phd degree holder) or merely a lecturer? Lecturers are often just graduate students, ie merely scientists in training.

Never heard of Semelweis but just read about him. Tragic story. But I will say that he was posthumously credited after Pasteur's work proved Simmelweis hunch correct. Again, this proves the importance of evidence based approaches in the scientific community. Simmelweis was rejected because he didn't have any hard evidence to support his theory, which turned out to be correct.

People - and scietists are people too - certainly make all sorts of claims. But I have yet to come across a scientist who has claimed to be 100% on anything. Even Einstein famously quipped that if it was based on empirical evidence than even "1 reason would be enough" to refute his theories in response to a Nazi sponsored article titled "100 reasons why Einstein is wrong." Einstein didn't say he was 100% correct, he just mentioned that all it would take to defeat his theories was 1 verifiable experiment proving it wrong.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JjtuZBykSzM (Noreaga - Blood Money Part 3)

Kriterion_BD
Posts: 7035
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 8:41 am

Re: Corona

Post by Kriterion_BD »

ZIMDOGGY wrote:
Wed May 27, 2020 6:57 am

But my research to that thought led me to understand you can only be a coronavirus statistic if you have been tested positive for the virus.
Yes of course. But you can be COVID +, walk across the street, get hit by a car and be a dead guy who is also +. This was the essence of jimmy's argument.

However, hospitals/CDC are only listing COVID deaths of people who both are + for the virus AND also dying of inexplicable reasons. For example a 50 year old man who has had stable congestive heart failure for 5 years, and suddenly becomes decompensated and dies, and tests + might very well have died from COVID and not his underlying CHF.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JjtuZBykSzM (Noreaga - Blood Money Part 3)

Post Reply