Hacker News Reader

Comment by notacoward | Hacker News Reader

They only seem to agree with the weaker claim that immunity plays a role in the patterns we're seeing, not the stronger claim that general herd immunity has been achieved anywhere. And it's a very brief superficial article, not exactly comparable to peer-reviewed studies that tend to reflect a nearly opposite conclusion.

View on HN

Data source for "peer-reviewed studies that tend to reflect a nearly opposite conclusion"?

You go first. You claimed there were others that agree with you, but that doesn't really seem to be true. Provide a serious citation, and I'll reciprocate.

The MIT tech is serious. MIT doesn't publish garbage science in their news paper.

I'm not sure many/any serious scientists take it seriously. It's interesting, but it's far from peer reviewed journal type material.

The Tech quotes peer reviewed science like the lay press. But they generally do a better job of quoting quality science and conveying the research accurately (as opposed to politically). I think the issue here is speed. Most of the research informing this pandemic is scientist opinion, back of the envelope calculation, and pre-prints. The reason for this is that peer review lives in the world of years and we need information in the world of days to weeks to make good decisions for public health. If we wait for peer review, the pandemic will be over or the conclusions will be obsolete.

That wasn't a suggestion that peer review is the answer. Saying "MIT Technology Review says X" doesn't add to your position, it weakens it. You are going to have to make the argument from first principles and data, not by appealing to authority. Appealing to authority when said authority isn't trusted as an authority makes you sound naive. I don't think you are, but you are saying some things which sound that way.

This person is discrediting MIT.

There's nothing you can say to make this person consider your viewpoint.

No one is discrediting MIT. MIT Technology Review simply isn't a science journal. Nothing is peer reviewed. It wasn't intended to be, no one thinks it is. It's an interesting technology magazine.

In the absence of peer reviewed data, which takes at the very least 3 months, rendering it obsolete for a pandemic, the Tech is much better than say the NYT or the Atlantic. It largely does not misconstrue or report bad science. Here is a link to a talk by the scientist quoted in the Tech at UCSF's medical grand rounds. It starts at minute 38. It supports with more detailed evidence what I have been saying and in the timeframe we need it, a talk in front of a knowledgeable audience from respected scientists is about as good as we have. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ew2MEF4XX8w.

MIT journal is written by some of the top scientists in the world. Its not peer reviewed but it at least deserves consideration and respect.

But like a lot of intelligent ideas now days...if it doesn't fit someone's narrative it's immediately discredited and discarded.

Only the experts who agree with the narrative are to be taken seriously.

It's become a real problem to discredit ideas that disagree with ones narrative even if they're from expert sources.

Then maybe just quote the person who wrote the article. You are missing the point: If you want to appeal to an authority in science, it's a high bar. I read the MIT Technology Review. I like it. I respect it for what it is. But, it's simply not good enough in a science discussion to say "MIT Technology Review says X". The bar is higher. It's not a function of politics or existing narratives or anything of that nature.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com