jasonlaramburu

From the the Lecturer's original op-ed, linked in the NYTimes article:

"MFE would involve universities investing in education projects in neighborhoods where public education is failing to help children from those areas compete."

This seems like lip service to the fact that there is a massive imbalance in the quality of public education between neighborhoods. Is it realistic that a typical university would have the time, knowledge or budget to improve public K-12 schools in underserved areas?

https://www.newsweek.com/diversity-problem-campus-opinion-16...

Yes, at least the companies that run clinical trials are not the same companies making the drugs. They won’t get paid more if a drug is successful. Random influencers on the internet have a direct financial interest in getting people to do what they say.

>In Vitro is a good sign that it may also be effective in vivo

My understanding is that the In Vitro study required massive dosages of Ivermectin to achieve the reported tissue concentration and antiviral effect. That's why clinical trails are so important to see if the effect is observed at a safe dosage.

>people don't trust corporations to look out for their best interests especially drug companies

I completely get that, but it seems equally dangerous to trust random people on the internet writing about ivermectin.

Let's look at it another way just for fun. 40,689 Floridians over age 65 have died of COVID [1]. If Florida had the same % of over 65 residents as California does (14.3%) [2], we would expect to see 28,245 >age 65 deaths in Florida. This would give Florida an overall COVID death rate of 201 deaths per 100,000 people. This is still higher than the actual overall death rate in California (179 deaths per 100,00 people)[3].

[1] https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm#Se... [2] https://www.prb.org/resources/which-us-states-are-the-oldest... [3] https://www.statista.com/statistics/1109011/coronavirus-covi...

The creators of Ivermectin won the Nobel for its applications in treating parasites, not COVID-19.

The Caly et al paper you cite is based on a cell culture (in vitro) experiment, not a clinical trial. No human subjects were tested, and subsequent researchers have had difficulty recreating the observed result. Virtually all other studies supporting ivermectin's use against COVID-19 have been shown to have serious flaws. To quote a review,"Research related to ivermectin in COVID-19 has serious methodological limitations resulting in very low certainty of the evidence, and continues to grow." [1]

If the Ivermectin crowd were really interested in finding an effective oral treatment for COVID-19, and not just manipulating a political prop, why are they silent on Molnupiravir, which has been shown to be effective in clinical trials [2]?

[1] https://ebm.bmj.com/content/early/2021/05/26/bmjebm-2021-111... [2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8219109/

The data on elderly populations is taken from an article that you originally shared [1]. Perhaps you did not read it, or do not believe your own data, but it clearly states that Florida, Texas and California have the largest elderly populations in the US. It also clearly states that the median age in Texas and % of the population over 65 are lower than in California.

The data on covid death rates (per 100,000 people) is publicly available [2]. Even in a state with a younger population (Texas), overall death rates are still higher than in California.

I don't need to distort the truth because it is obvious to anyone with common sense.

But let's look at it another way just for fun. 40,689 Floridians over age 65 have died of COVID [3]. If Florida had the same % of over 65 residents as California does (14.3%), we would expect to see 28,245 >age 65 deaths in Florida. This would give Florida an overall COVID death rate of 201 deaths per 100,000 people. This is still higher than the actual overall death rate in California (179 deaths per 100,00 people). And in this hypothetical exercise, we are likely still undercounting deaths in Florida.

My point is that you can't only cite age as a confounder when you compare Florida and California. You have to take into account different policies, and there is no way to argue that Florida's policy has saved lives.

[1] https://www.prb.org/resources/which-us-states-are-the-oldest... [2] https://www.statista.com/statistics/1109011/coronavirus-covi... [3] https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm#Se...

> Maybe herd immunity is exponential? Oh wait it is!!!!

Ok, so why does Texas have a higher death rate than California? They have a younger average population, lots of elderly people and basically zero covid restrictions since day 1. Shouldn’t they have exponentially more herd immunity?

>I said car accidents

As I understand your point, You claim COVID death rates among young people are comparable to car accident deaths, therefore we shouldn’t bother trying to reduce them. This makes no sense. Governments go to great lengths and enact regulations to reduce deaths from auto accidents, as well as far less frequent causes of death (eg plane crashes). Few people would say it’s not worth preventing these deaths.

>You win this debate by pure stubborn stupidity

I’ve reviewed your claims and provided facts in good faith that challenge your positions. You’ve responded with name calling. It seems like you simply believe what you believe and aren’t interested in any facts that don’t support your position. That is the definition of bad faith.

>False

To quote the article you shared above:

"About 52 million Americans are age 65 or older, according to the Census Bureau’s 2018 population estimates. One quarter of these older Americans live in one of three states: California, Florida, and Texas."

There are large elderly populations in all three states. Florida may have more elderly per capita than California, but not 2X more. However they did have twice the death rate. Elderly population alone does not explain the poor performance of Florida's COVID policy.

>California is the fifth youngest state in the country, so there's a level of herd immunity already existing there as young people under 55 are virtually untouched by Covid.

Again, this point doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Texas is the 3rd youngest state in the US, with a median age of 35 (California is 5th, with a median age of 37). California had <3/4 the death rate of Texas.

>more people died of car accidents in 2019 than under 55 age group in the entire pandemic

I don't know what point you are making here. Accidents are the 3rd leading cause of death for Americans after heart disease and cancer. Certainly not an insignificant amount, and all 50 state governments go to great lengths to reduce them.

> Colin Powell

It is widely known that Gen. Powell had multiple myeloma, which hobbles the immune system and makes all vaccines less effective. Why omit this? It is almost as though you are trying to cherry pick anecdotal evidence to support a deeply-held, quasi-religious belief that people are overreacting about COVID.

>All of this was to save Granny remember?

If that's true then Florida has clearly failed. Common sense dictates that the state which takes more precautions against COVID will have fewer cases and deaths. If you believe that the inconvenience of the restrictions is not worth the lives saved just say that. You've not made the case that they are ineffective.

> Florida has the second highest per Capita number of old people in the country

This isn’t a great excuse for Florida’s death rate. Maine has the highest per capita elderly population in the US and the 3rd lowest COVID death rate. Sure it’s got a lower population density, however: 25% of elderly (65+) Americans live in Florida, Texas and California. California had 1/2 the death rate of Florida and 3/4 that of Texas. All warm climates, all high population density. The only difference was California’s restrictions and higher vaccination rate.

It’s hard to see how Florida’s policy was more effective, particularly with regard to protecting its elderly.

Right, the Ivermectin crowd is totally data driven

> But why are new cases so low

As common sense would dictate, it’s because enough people have either gotten delta or gotten the vaccine. Florida had the highest per capita death rate during Delta. Hard to see how their approach was a success.

I don’t understand what point you’re trying to make. Florida had more than double the per capita deaths than California during the delta wave. It also has lower vaccination rates.

I never understand why people try to make this point. It’s pretty obvious covid comes in waves. Florida is now on the downswing of the delta wave. At its peak it had more than twice deaths per capita than California (arguably the most restrictive state).

>those in power are obliged to accept all arguments on their individual merits.

Ok, so if you accept that those in power can address arguments on their individual merits, then what is the problem with a private company (youtube, NYtimes etc) removing content so ludicrous and ungrounded in reality that it could hurt people (eg that vaccines contain 5G chips, that covid can be cured by inhaling hydrogen peroxide, or that ICU doctors are actually killing COVID patients)?

You’ve not addressed my point. If we are going to penalize one side for failing to engage in a good faith debate 100% of the time, we should hold the other side to the same standard as well.

That is effectively what is being proposed by OP. The pro-vaxx side should 'take the high road' 100% of the time and only engage in good faith debate. Speak the truth loudly and proudly, but don't you dare criticize those who peddle 'alternative facts.'

> Wrong lesson, you just need to be better sources of information.

Ah yes, the Joe Rogan angle: the only way to fight misinformation is to speak the truth louder and more convincingly. How exactly can one have a good faith debate on say, vaccine effectiveness, against an opponent who believes COVID-19 does not exist?

>You are putting a lot of stock into a PR piece...

No, I believe that absent contrary evidence, the simplest explanation is usually the most likely. I've seen virtually every other US carrier experience a cascading failure due to weather or computer failures at least once over the past 10 years. I've also seen how quickly certain politicians, who stand to benefit personally from casting doubt on vaccine mandates, have jumped on this event.

The Union denies it was an official or unofficial action. Both the pilots union and SWA management also confirm there was not an unusually high number of sick calls. Again, what incentive would they have to lie? Further why would a generally conservative-leaning private company and public union go to such great lengths to defend a mandate they have nothing to do with? It sounds like a conspiracy theory.

Again, the article clearly addresses this. What is the incentive for both Southwest management and the Pilot's Union to lie?

“Flight delays and cancellations occurred for a few hours Friday afternoon due to widespread severe weather, military training, and limited staffing in one area of the Jacksonville Air Route Traffic Control Center,”

“The big issue is that Florida is roughly 15% of our trips, but on any given day, upwards of 50% of our aircraft lines flow through Florida,” Jordan told TPG. “You’ve got all those lines that just stopped in Florida, so you’ve got a lot of aircraft caught up in that,”

“We’re not hub and spoke, and we do very little out-and-back,” Jordan said. “So when you stop a line, you’re stopping a line where the aircraft is attempting to flow across the country.”

It was not a sick out. The article clearly states:

“The sick call rate over the weekend was no different than it has been since June and the pilots actually picked up open flying as well,” Amy Robinson, a spokesperson for SWAPA, told TPG on Monday.

>Weather in Florida impacted flights in Las Vegas and San Diego?

The article addresses this point. Up to 50% of Southwest's lines pass through Florida:

“The big issue is that Florida is roughly 15% of our trips, but on any given day, upwards of 50% of our aircraft lines flow through Florida,” Jordan told TPG. “You’ve got all those lines that just stopped in Florida, so you’ve got a lot of aircraft caught up in that,” he said.

It was not a sick out. The article clearly states:

“The sick call rate over the weekend was no different than it has been since June and the pilots actually picked up open flying as well,” Amy Robinson, a spokesperson for SWAPA, told TPG on Monday.

The article says the head of the pilot's association denied it was a protest against COVID vaccine mandates.

The article also says the head of the pilot's association denied it was a protest against vaccine mandates. Why would they lie?

You aren't really answering my question. Despite Youtube removing misinformation, anti-vaxxers have loudly and repeatedly 'made their point.' The marketplace of ideas is alive and well. It's hard to have an open and honest discussion with groups that falsify data, but many vaccine advocates have nonetheless engaged directly and publicly with anti-vaxxers.

What specifically is lacking in the pro-vaccine argument? I'm not asking about censorship, as it is seemingly a moot point. OPs point is that the argument needs to be made more convincingly and spoken louder. What does that look like in practice?

OP’s point was that the argument in favor of vaccines needs to be made more convincingly. What does that actually mean? How could the information be presented more convincingly?

>Get better at defending your beliefs in the marketplace of ideas.

This is sort of the Joe Rogan argument: fight misinformation by talking louder and more convincingly. I am legitimately curious, in what way could the pro-vaccine community do a better job of defending their beliefs in the marketplace of ideas?

The data is clear that vaccines save lives, they have generally mild side effects and they reduce transmission of COVID. This data has been made freely available to the public in an unprecedented way. Politicians, celebrities, athletes and scientists have all spoken convincingly in favor of vaccinations. Despite these efforts, the country that first developed the vaccine now ranks 52nd globally in terms of number of eligible individuals vaccinated. What went wrong?

Hyperbole how? Climate change denial contributes to inaction, which causes harm.

Some would say denying anthropogenic climate change is akin to shouting ‘fire’ in a crowded theatre.