Comment by mistrial9 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by mistrial9 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

edit: why does an Israeli medical researcher's blog show this:

""It’s been nearly two years now and my confidence in publicly funded science is completely destroyed. I don’t believe anyone reasonably intelligent can read the COVID literature and come out the other side without concluding that universities and governments cannot tell the difference between science and scientism. Our society is completely in the grip of people who have effectively evolved under selection pressure to strongly resemble scientists without actually being scientists. Their work looks roughly right from a distance - there are data tables, charts, equations - but when you sit down and read it the scientific method has gone AWOL. I am now explicitly open to counter-narrative claims I’d never have previously considered."

edit: looking for the actual reference here [0] it appears that it is an embedded quote, not the author. Please confirm for yourselves

[0] https://eugyppius.substack.com/p/what-convinced-you-containm...

It doesn't look like it came from Researcher. According to [1], it's a quote by Mike Hearn, a software engineer.

[1] https://eugyppius.substack.com/p/what-convinced-you-containm...

"an Israeli medical researcher"

Does he have a name? What has he published before? Is he even an expert in the field?

This has been my experience. There's still some reputable journals out there, but you have to be really careful. It's amazing though how much absolute BS there is out there in academic papers. I've read so many that started interesting and then as soon as you get into the methods you realize it's all just air. The worst part is, if you don't have a handle on statistics and a fairly high degree of scientific literacy, they really DO look ok (polished even!) at first glance.

If you are going to paste what you claim to be a direct quote, please provide a source.

This quote is from a UK software developer and the author of the damning analysis of the Ferguson model https://dailysceptic.org/code-review-of-fergusons-model/

Without any context or analysis, this snippet could easily be applied to the surprising (if still 1% of the whole) of scientists who have thrown themselves into the work of pro-virus propaganda, or creating fake studies to boost ivermectin.

Simple common sense comparison of the % of vaccinated people ending up in the hospital with COVID vs unvaccinated ending up in the hospital with COVID is all you need to see the vaccine works.

mAB do work too but only if you test for covid and use it within the first 5 days or at least 10 days of illness.

It’s baffling that anyone thinks a quote from an unnamed “medical researcher” is a logical debunking of all of modern COVID science.

The vaccine unquestionably reduces severe infection, hospitalization, and death. It’s not even a question at this point.

I suppose this is why Rogan’s anti-vaccine conspiracy drivel thrives despite not even being logically self-consistent: There’s an appetite for contrarian information, and those who enjoy this contrarianism will unquestionably absorb anything, no matter how illogical, as long as it’s contrarian.

It would have taken you less time to throw the first sentence into Google and find the source than it would have taken you to write your snarky comment.

https://swprs.org/professor-ehud-qimron-ministry-of-health-i...

> The vaccine unquestionably reduces severe infection, hospitalization, and death. It’s not even a question at this point.

If I may, this claim alone is the rallying cry of the anti vax movement - the original reasons given for emergency use was vaccines prevented infection for 90% of patients.

Anyone who took a quick look at the study knew that was bonkers… the methods obviously (and confirmed in hindsight) weren’t controlled properly and don’t support a reduced infection claim…

So the narrative shifted to preventing hospitalization - so the value given by not getting Covid is gone… you will get covid it just won’t be as bad.

Well now we are in the lottery effect where everyone believes they will be the one to beat the odds…

Citations needed? I have questions about basically every one of those sentences.

Here's one - if you're interested, you can continue to look for others...

Absolute Risk Reduction = 1·3% for the AstraZeneca– Oxford, 1·2% for the Moderna–NIH, 1·2% for the J&J, 0·93% for the Gamaleya, and 0·84% for the Pfizer– BioNTech vaccines.

https://doi.org/10.1016/S2666-5247(21)00069-0

> the original reasons given for emergency use was vaccines prevented infection for 90% of patients.

The vaccine does prevent serious infection for the majority of patients.

Deaths are so much higher in unvaccinated COVID patients that it's not even a close question. The vaccine works.

preventing infection /= preventing serious infection. They have different implications.

Agreed that vaccines prevent serious infection.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com