Ted King has a post below about the Wapo story that has riled up the twitterverse. Folks have been demanding data about the changed mask requirements.

Beth Mole at ars posted an article with the headline: "This 900-person delta cluster in Mass. has CDC freaked out—74% are vaccinated"

Ashish Jha has a good thread with his take, fwiw. His tl;dr:

Quote

So bottom line?

Yeah, delta variant is bad. Like really bad

Our vaccines are good. Like really good

Breakthrough infections happen

Sometimes they may spread to others

But if enough people get the shot

The pandemic does come to an end

Fin

I get so mad sometimes at the people who won’t get the shots.
If it only affected them, I would be fine with it, but it doesn’t just affect them.
Selfish bastards.

---

Roswell, GA (Atlanta suburb)

Great post.

I was worried about the Delta variant. I am going to go back to masking, distancing and working online when I can. We need time for more people to get vaccinated.

Here is another twitter take, slightly more technical from Wachter at UCSF. (He has been quite visible during the pandemic with the doctors.) His tl;dr

Quote

My overall take: As the document says, "the war has changed." Data argues that universal masking is critical to block spread of Delta – a more infectious, and possibly more serious virus – particularly if it's true that vaccinated folks can be part of the chain of spread.(12/13)

Document also makes clear that we need a new & far more aggressive vaccination strategy (w/ everyone masking indoors until we're there) if we're to get ourselves out of this new & unsettling stage. The foe has gotten better at its job, and so the war has indeed changed.(13/end)

Quote
rgG
I get so mad sometimes at the people who won’t get the shots.
If it only affected them, I would be fine with it, but it doesn’t just affect them.
Selfish bastards.

I agree with this so strongly. I would add that the 'leaders' of these guys are even more evil because most of the leaders got the vax. But they are going anti-vax for political gain.

I'm worried most about what kinds of lockdown type restrictions might happen. If we can't get together and have a good time one way or another, that really makes life miserable. I'm also worried about the economy, etc. For some reason, I'm less worried about the virus, per se, because I feel I (and those I know) can avoid it fine.

The Twitter link is more informative by a fair bit than the Washington Post article I linked to and quote below - the author of that article focused a lot on how this information effects the CDC rather than the information in the leaked in-house slide show. Thanks.

---

e pluribus unum

Quote
kj
I'm worried most about what kinds of lockdown type restrictions might happen. If we can't get together and have a good time one way or another, that really makes life miserable. I'm also worried about the economy, etc. For some reason, I'm less worried about the virus, per se, because I feel I (and those I know) can avoid it fine.

I don’t think your priorities are in the right order. Having a “good time” should be a distant third.

Quote
kj
I'm worried most about what kinds of lockdown type restrictions might happen. If we can't get together and have a good time one way or another, that really makes life miserable. I'm also worried about the economy, etc. For some reason, I'm less worried about the virus, per se, because I feel I (and those I know) can avoid it fine.

I understand these concerns, but I also think that it's unreasonable for people to think that they can congregate in large groups without being vaccinated and/or masked. That's what people have been doing up to this point, and some are continuing to do. If we could restrict some places to only the vaccinated, or mandate the vaccinations, and mandate the masks/social distancing, then there likely wouldn't be need for lockdowns.

---

Freya says, 'Hello from NOLA, baby!' (Laissez bon temps rouler!)

Quote
kj
I'm worried most about what kinds of lockdown type restrictions might happen. If we can't get together and have a good time one way or another, that really makes life miserable. I'm also worried about the economy, etc. For some reason, I'm less worried about the virus, per se, because I feel I (and those I know) can avoid it fine.

You sound exactly like one of my Trump supporting relatives until two immediate family of his got Covid. He's done a 180 since this happened. He nearly said word for word what you just said. He's still admits he voted for Trump but he's turned his back on the diehard Trumpsters that won't get the vaccine.

---

Grateful11

Quote
PeterB

Quote
kj
I'm worried most about what kinds of lockdown type restrictions might happen. If we can't get together and have a good time one way or another, that really makes life miserable. I'm also worried about the economy, etc. For some reason, I'm less worried about the virus, per se, because I feel I (and those I know) can avoid it fine.

I understand these concerns, but I also think that it's unreasonable for people to think that they can congregate in large groups without being vaccinated and/or masked. That's what people have been doing up to this point, and some are continuing to do. If we could restrict some places to only the vaccinated, or mandate the vaccinations, and mandate the masks/social distancing, then there likely wouldn't be need for lockdowns.

Based on what you've read/heard, how likely is it that an infected vaccinated person can transmit the virus to another unvaccinated person in an enclosed area? I'm thinking that it might be best for everyone to wear masks in enclosed areas until we hopefully get a better grip on this Delta variant.

---

e pluribus unum



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/30/2021 04:50PM by Ted King.

Quote
Ted King

Quote
PeterB

Quote
kj
I'm worried most about what kinds of lockdown type restrictions might happen. If we can't get together and have a good time one way or another, that really makes life miserable. I'm also worried about the economy, etc. For some reason, I'm less worried about the virus, per se, because I feel I (and those I know) can avoid it fine.

I understand these concerns, but I also think that it's unreasonable for people to think that they can congregate in large groups without being vaccinated and/or masked. That's what people have been doing up to this point, and some are continuing to do. If we could restrict some places to only the vaccinated, or mandate the vaccinations, and mandate the masks/social distancing, then there likely wouldn't be need for lockdowns.

Based on what you've read/heard, how likely is it that an infected vaccinated person can transmit the virus to another unvaccinated person in an enclosed area? I'm thinking that it might be best for everyone to wear masks in enclosed areas until we hopefully get a better grip on this Delta variant.

That's in the leaked CDC powerpoint mentioned in another thread ... apparently, an infected vaccinated person can shed quite a bit of Delta, as much/easily as an infected unvaccinated person would. Masking will obviously help to reduce transmission, but in an enclosed space, and especially an enclosed space with poor airflow / air circulation, I can see it being a big problem. So yes, mandated masking in enclosed spaces is probably a really good idea, at least with Delta. The Powerpoint estimates an R naught of 5-9 for Delta, that's comparable to chickenpox, pretty awful...

---

Freya says, 'Hello from NOLA, baby!' (Laissez bon temps rouler!)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/30/2021 05:23PM by PeterB.

Quote
DeusxMac

Quote
kj
I'm worried most about what kinds of lockdown type restrictions might happen. If we can't get together and have a good time one way or another, that really makes life miserable. I'm also worried about the economy, etc. For some reason, I'm less worried about the virus, per se, because I feel I (and those I know) can avoid it fine.

I don’t think your priorities are in the right order. Having a “good time” should be a distant third.

What a ridiculous thing to say.

---

It is what it is.

Quote
PeterB
Masking will obviously help to reduce transmission, but in an enclosed space, and especially an enclosed space with poor airflow / air circulation, I can see it being a big problem.

You mean like a typical classroom?

---

e pluribus unum

Quote
Ted King

Quote
PeterB
Masking will obviously help to reduce transmission, but in an enclosed space, and especially an enclosed space with poor airflow / air circulation, I can see it being a big problem.

You mean like a typical classroom?

Ding! Ding! Ding!

---

Freya says, 'Hello from NOLA, baby!' (Laissez bon temps rouler!)

.....the news just said that 'breakthrough' cases are going up.....that means a vaccinated person can catch and/or transmit the Delta variant......the symptoms would obviously be less than without vaccine (they most likely won't be hospitalized).....but a vaccinated person can still catch the Delta variant.......

---

_____________________________________

I reject your reality and substitute my own!

Quote
Grateful11

Quote
kj
I'm worried most about what kinds of lockdown type restrictions might happen. If we can't get together and have a good time one way or another, that really makes life miserable. I'm also worried about the economy, etc. For some reason, I'm less worried about the virus, per se, because I feel I (and those I know) can avoid it fine.

You sound exactly like one of my Trump supporting relatives until two immediate family of his got Covid. He's done a 180 since this happened. He nearly said word for word what you just said. He's still admits he voted for Trump but he's turned his back on the diehard Trumpsters that won't get the vaccine.

Maybe in some respects I am like him. In others, without knowing him, I can tell you already I'm not.

If we have to shut down again, I can do it. But I'm just as afraid of that as I am Covid, for different reasons. It bothers me that people won't get vaccinated. My Trump voting mom was juking and jiving to get hers. Some close friends have not. We've tried to gently convince them, with some success. I don't know what to say, but living life is what life is all about, so that counts for something. Sorry to acknowledge that, but not super sorry.

Vaxxed people have always been able to become infected and retransmit. Any other understanding has always been a misunderstanding.

Masks don’t protect the wearer a heck of a lot, in comparison. But they are quite a bit more effective at keeping the ECONOMY going. You get Extra Special Double Bonus Points for figuring out why that is.

You want “data?” You want “proof?” Methinks you’ll never achieve enough of either, considering all that’s come before, if and when yer “freedoms” and desire to congregate are without fail cited as defensible reasons for simply not doing what you reasonably can to help us ALL get out from under this stupid virus.

I’m beyond tired of people “angry” at demanding guarantees in this world, and portraying a stupid mask as some sort of abhorrent and unreasonably inconvenient intrusion on their personal identity. It’s not about you and it has never BEEN about you.

Don’t get me started about this.

Yes but I've been concerned for a while. Which is worse, the virus, or the epidemic of selfish and stupid? Everybody has to lookout for themselves because a lot of officials have defaulted on their responsibilities .


What always seems to get lost is that vaccination is the way out of this, the ONLY way out.

Focusing on rare breakthrough infections that can leave vaccinated people contagious is not helping, IMO. Vaccinated people are rarely infected. Vaccinated people are rarely contagious. In all of these outbreaks there are unvaccinated people involved. I have never heard of an outbreak starting among a group of 100% vaccinated, isolated people.

Quote
PeterB

Quote
kj
I'm worried most about what kinds of lockdown type restrictions might happen. If we can't get together and have a good time one way or another, that really makes life miserable. I'm also worried about the economy, etc. For some reason, I'm less worried about the virus, per se, because I feel I (and those I know) can avoid it fine.

I understand these concerns, but I also think that it's unreasonable for people to think that they can congregate in large groups without being vaccinated and/or masked. That's what people have been doing up to this point, and some are continuing to do. If we could restrict some places to only the vaccinated, or mandate the vaccinations, and mandate the masks/social distancing, then there likely wouldn't be need for lockdowns.

I'm coming around to the idea of mandatory vaccinations. One of my earliest memories is being herded like a cow to get my smallpox vaccine (kindergarten). It actually seems like a super "conservative" thing to do, in a way (gidderdone).

Quote
kj

I'm coming around to the idea of mandatory vaccinations. One of my earliest memories is being herded like a cow to get my smallpox vaccine (kindergarten). It actually seems like a super "conservative" thing to do, in a way (gidderdone).

By this time next year (before, actually, like maybe this Fall) millions more will arrive at the same revelation once the FDA removes the emergency designator.

The only difference between now and then will be that someone made the vaccine “official” and essentially told them to get it. We’ve tried to fill that void in the meantime with leadership but it’s been mighty darn sparse in many areas.

This year, next year … the same liquid will be going into arms.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/30/2021 06:59PM by deckeda.

Quote
deckeda

Quote
kj

I'm coming around to the idea of mandatory vaccinations. One of my earliest memories is being herded like a cow to get my smallpox vaccine (kindergarten). It actually seems like a super "conservative" thing to do, in a way (gidderdone).

By this time next year (before, actually, like maybe this Fall) millions more will arrive at the same revelation once the FDA removes the emergency designator.

The only difference between now and then will be that someone made the vaccine “official” and essentially told them to get it. We’ve tried to fill that void in the meantime with leadership but it’s been mighty darn sparse in many areas.

This year, next year … the same liquid will be going into arms.

I really don't see what the problem is with mandating vaccinations. After all, we already do that for a number of other vaccines, as a requirement for employment, attending schools, etc. (The only real difference is this being an emergency authorization vaccine, but as deckeda pointed out, that will change.)

If we didn't mandate, we would still have things like measles and chickenpox running rampant, and I don't think anyone really wants that (let alone corona spreading like wildfire). Most people do get yearly flu shots, why should this be any different?

Ran across these rather poignant images, say it all:

---

Freya says, 'Hello from NOLA, baby!' (Laissez bon temps rouler!)

Quote
PeterB

Quote
deckeda

Quote
kj

I'm coming around to the idea of mandatory vaccinations. One of my earliest memories is being herded like a cow to get my smallpox vaccine (kindergarten). It actually seems like a super "conservative" thing to do, in a way (gidderdone).

By this time next year (before, actually, like maybe this Fall) millions more will arrive at the same revelation once the FDA removes the emergency designator.

The only difference between now and then will be that someone made the vaccine “official” and essentially told them to get it. We’ve tried to fill that void in the meantime with leadership but it’s been mighty darn sparse in many areas.

This year, next year … the same liquid will be going into arms.

I really don't see what the problem is with mandating vaccinations. After all, we already do that for a number of other vaccines, as a requirement for employment, attending schools, etc. (The only real difference is this being an emergency authorization vaccine, but as deckeda pointed out, that will change.)

If we didn't mandate, we would still have things like measles and chickenpox running rampant, and I don't think anyone really wants that (let alone corona spreading like wildfire). Most people do get yearly flu shots, why should this be any different?

Ran across these rather poignant images, say it all:

It feels like everything is falling apart. People don't trust the government, the government isn't trustworthy, etc., etc. Entropy.

I'm afraid people would start shooting.

Quote
kj

Quote
PeterB

Quote
deckeda

Quote
kj

I'm coming around to the idea of mandatory vaccinations. One of my earliest memories is being herded like a cow to get my smallpox vaccine (kindergarten). It actually seems like a super "conservative" thing to do, in a way (gidderdone).

By this time next year (before, actually, like maybe this Fall) millions more will arrive at the same revelation once the FDA removes the emergency designator.

The only difference between now and then will be that someone made the vaccine “official” and essentially told them to get it. We’ve tried to fill that void in the meantime with leadership but it’s been mighty darn sparse in many areas.

This year, next year … the same liquid will be going into arms.

I really don't see what the problem is with mandating vaccinations. After all, we already do that for a number of other vaccines, as a requirement for employment, attending schools, etc. (The only real difference is this being an emergency authorization vaccine, but as deckeda pointed out, that will change.)

If we didn't mandate, we would still have things like measles and chickenpox running rampant, and I don't think anyone really wants that (let alone corona spreading like wildfire). Most people do get yearly flu shots, why should this be any different?

Ran across these rather poignant images, say it all:

It feels like everything is falling apart. People don't trust the government, the government isn't trustworthy, etc., etc. Entropy.

I'm afraid people would start shooting.

If people want to go all anarchy and disorder, that's their choice, but I find it somewhat ironic that people are willing to start riots over a government that's doing precisely what any government should be doing: to protect the governed (in this case, from a fatal disease).

If people don't want to trust someone, they should distrust the orange blob who helped kill many of the government's citizens by his actions/inactions. If he had really cared about the citizens, he would have demonstrated it by getting vaccinated, wearing a mask, encouraging the citizens and his followers to do so, etc. How many of his cult have died because of his policies and behavior?

Do we really want epidemics (not just of corona, but of other stuff too) running rampant?

---

Freya says, 'Hello from NOLA, baby!' (Laissez bon temps rouler!)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/30/2021 08:34PM by PeterB.

Quote
rgG
I get so mad sometimes at the people who won’t get the shots.
If it only affected them, I would be fine with it, but it doesn’t just affect them.
Selfish bastards.

I agree, on the other hand, both vaccinated and unvaccinated people can transmit the virus.

3 out of 4 people here are vaccinated and the younger kid will get his shot around Labor Day when he turns 12, unless they approve it for kids under 12 earlier, in which case he will get it the same or very next day.

Now, I am worried about him. But once again, even I, fully vaccinated, could bring it home. This is why I wear a mask and use hand sanitizer like crazy, and eat much outside in 90F when all my colleagues eat inside in AC.

Again, he could get it from someone not vaccinated, or from me. So am I not that mad at unvaccinated people. In the log term, they suffer, not us, vaccinated people.

Now I'm all for getting vaccinated, got mine as soon as I was able.

Here's the question and I'm just curious but can they legally make the vaccine mandatory if it doesn't have regular full FDA approval? I haven't been able to find an answer to do that question.

---

Grateful11

Quote
kj
It feels like everything is falling apart. People don't trust the government, the government isn't trustworthy, etc., etc. Entropy.

I'm afraid people would start shooting.

The government isn't trustworthy.

But science is.

---

It is what it is.

Quote
space-time
I agree, on the other hand, both vaccinated and unvaccinated people can transmit the virus.

Two words: HERD IMMUNITY.

---

It is what it is.

Quote
Grateful11
Now I'm all for getting vaccinated, got mine as soon as I was able.

Here's the question and I'm just curious but can they legally make the vaccine mandatory if it doesn't have regular full FDA approval? I haven't been able to find an answer to do that question.

Employers and schools can absolutely make it mandatory, even if it doesn't have regular full FDA approval. Presumably that also extends to the government, so far as government employees are concerned. If someone doesn't want to get vaccinated, they're not obligated to be working at that particular job or go to that particular school.

---

Freya says, 'Hello from NOLA, baby!' (Laissez bon temps rouler!)

My employer just required vaccination or weekly negative tests and masking indoors starting Monday.

We don’t have massive COVID in our area - this is one way it stays that way.

My wife and I are going to do take out and limit our outside the home visits. She’s a teacher. This year could be worse than last.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/31/2021 12:55AM by sekker.

Quote
N-OS X-tasy!

Quote
space-time
I agree, on the other hand, both vaccinated and unvaccinated people can transmit the virus.

Two words: HERD IMMUNITY.

It is clear we are not going to achieve that through vaccination. Half the country has decided to do it the hard way. Each person needs to fend for themselves.

Quote
N-OS X-tasy!

Quote
space-time
I agree, on the other hand, both vaccinated and unvaccinated people can transmit the virus.

Two words: HERD IMMUNITY.

I don't think it works that way. even with 90% vaccinated, the virus can still spread around IN VACCINATED PEOPLE until it finds a non-vaccinated person who gets really sick and could die.

Again, herd immunity assume that people who got the vaccine, or natural immunity no longer spread the virus. This virus is being spread by vaccinated people.

Quote
Grateful11
Here's the question and I'm just curious but can they legally make the vaccine mandatory if it doesn't have regular full FDA approval? I haven't been able to find an answer to do that question.

Jacobson v. Massachusetts

"United States Supreme Court... upheld the authority of states to enforce compulsory vaccination laws."


Zucht v. King

"United States Supreme Court found that... (a) school district... could constitutionally exclude unvaccinated students from attending the schools..."

Quote
N-OS X-tasy!

Quote
kj
It feels like everything is falling apart. People don't trust the government, the government isn't trustworthy, etc., etc. Entropy.

I'm afraid people would start shooting.

The government isn't trustworthy.

But science is.

Any government is inherently untrustworthy OR trustworthy depending on who’s got the job. Today’s challenge is that so many people lack the tools of discernment.

Scientists are relatively trustworthy, for some reason, but they are still human. Those who champion science are no more trustworthy than anyone else. I don't know if discernment is any worse than it ever has been. We were probably lucky to have had a decent period of more or less consensus, but that's clearly over.

If there was somebody people trust who could put forth some of the arguments I've seen made (flu vaccines, childhood vaccines and how they have been generally accepted, etc.), but who would that be? And Democrats are so clueless they would probably have Hillary or AOC deliver that message. It's all ridiculous.

Quote
space-time

Quote
rgG
I get so mad sometimes at the people who won’t get the shots.
If it only affected them, I would be fine with it, but it doesn’t just affect them.
Selfish bastards.

I agree, on the other hand, both vaccinated and unvaccinated people can transmit the virus.

3 out of 4 people here are vaccinated and the younger kid will get his shot around Labor Day when he turns 12, unless they approve it for kids under 12 earlier, in which case he will get it the same or very next day.

Now, I am worried about him. But once again, even I, fully vaccinated, could bring it home. This is why I wear a mask and use hand sanitizer like crazy, and eat much outside in 90F when all my colleagues eat inside in AC.

Again, he could get it from someone not vaccinated, or from me. So am I not that mad at unvaccinated people. In the log term, they suffer, not us, vaccinated people.

I was only talking about being angry at unvaccinated people who are eligible to get the shots and choose not to, obviously not kids who aren’t eligible.
One of the reasons it upsets me is that it does put children and other people who can’t get the shots at risk. The delta variant would not be as much of a threat if everyone who could have gotten a shot as soon as possible had done so.
That’s what makes me angry.
I am glad you are going the extra mile to keep your children safe.

---

Roswell, GA (Atlanta suburb)

Scientists are relatively trustworthy, for some reason,

“Scientists” and “the scientific method” are evidenced-based, and typically look at risk in rational ways. The goal is to be objective. If you need more of “a reason” than that, I don’t think any will satisfy if objectivity isn’t valued. The alternatives are conjecture, opinions, emotions … all of which are disconnected from causal relationships.

So if none of that resonates kj as to “trustworthiness” we have a different set of VALUES.

And consensus is never due to luck. It’s about information provided and digested. It can either be trustworthy or it can be B.S. but both types will inform. It’s a question of how valuable they are.

Being able to discern means the messenger is less important than the message. To the extent someone you dislike provides a truthful message, that’s more of your problem than it is “theirs.”

....what about the.....Loki......variant.....????

---

_____________________________________

I reject your reality and substitute my own!

Quote
deckeda
Scientists are relatively trustworthy, for some reason,

“Scientists” and “the scientific method” are evidenced-based, and typically look at risk in rational ways. The goal is to be objective. If you need more of “a reason” than that, I don’t think any will satisfy if objectivity isn’t valued. The alternatives are conjecture, opinions, emotions … all of which are disconnected from causal relationships.

So if none of that resonates kj as to “trustworthiness” we have a different set of VALUES.

And consensus is never due to luck. It’s about information provided and digested. It can either be trustworthy or it can be B.S. but both types will inform. It’s a question of how valuable they are.

Being able to discern means the messenger is less important than the message. To the extent someone you dislike provides a truthful message, that’s more of your problem than it is “theirs.”

Yeah, I’ve heard of that science thing before, but thanks for getting me that mini-lesson. Scientists still have to choose to have integrity, stay unbiased, etc. And those who use it to make decisions and influence people also have a lot of responsibility. It’s not even hical by default.

.

---

e pluribus unum



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/31/2021 04:01PM by Ted King.

kj I wasn’t trying lecture you but rather, to set a framework. Scientists or scientific papers can be peer-reviewed for example, which is historically reliable. I have no doubt there have been other pronouncements under the “science” moniker that don’t really adhere to principles. But it’s actually an easy thing to verify.

Their intentions will therefore not be important, in context.

My point here is that belief or faith isn’t required. A person can have belief or faith, but as always they’re a shorthand for understanding. That opens someone up to confusion, disappointment and mistrust when new info comes to light.

Quote
deckeda
kj I wasn’t trying lecture you but rather, to set a framework. Scientists or scientific papers can be peer-reviewed for example, which is historically reliable. I have no doubt there have been other pronouncements under the “science” moniker that don’t really adhere to principles. But it’s actually an easy thing to verify.

Their intentions will therefore not be important, in context.

My point here is that belief or faith isn’t required. A person can have belief or faith, but as always they’re a shorthand for understanding. That opens someone up to confusion, disappointment and mistrust when new info comes to light.

I completely reject the idea that science does not require integrity, ethics, etc. I understand the arguments for the "self-correcting" nature of science, and I don't buy it. I've seen first hand what a large grant from a pharmaceutical company can do to integrity. I've seen grad students dry lab. Check out the replicability crisis. Beyond that, try to get a study that essentially reproduces results from another lab published. Peer review is a joke. Have you ever noticed that when a researcher is on the board of reviewers for a journal, their lab suddenly has a billion studies published in said journal?

But, I basically gave them a pass because despite the problems, I think on the whole researchers are relatively ethical (they clearly have not always been). The people I don't give a pass are consumers of science. Misuse is rampant. People both misunderstand results, or deliberately use them to mislead. All of this affects the trustworthiness of "science".

Quote
kj

Quote
deckeda
kj I wasn’t trying lecture you but rather, to set a framework. Scientists or scientific papers can be peer-reviewed for example, which is historically reliable. I have no doubt there have been other pronouncements under the “science” moniker that don’t really adhere to principles. But it’s actually an easy thing to verify.

Their intentions will therefore not be important, in context.

My point here is that belief or faith isn’t required. A person can have belief or faith, but as always they’re a shorthand for understanding. That opens someone up to confusion, disappointment and mistrust when new info comes to light.

I completely reject the idea that science does not require integrity, ethics, etc. I understand the arguments for the "self-correcting" nature of science, and I don't buy it. I've seen first hand what a large grant from a pharmaceutical company can do to integrity. I've seen grad students dry lab. Check out the replicability crisis. Beyond that, try to get a study that essentially reproduces results from another lab published. Peer review is a joke. Have you ever noticed that when a researcher is on the board of reviewers for a journal, their lab suddenly has a billion studies published in said journal?

But, I basically gave them a pass because despite the problems, I think on the whole researchers are relatively ethical (they clearly have not always been). The people I don't give a pass are consumers of science. Misuse is rampant. People both misunderstand results, or deliberately use them to mislead. All of this affects the trustworthiness of "science".

Sorry, but I don't buy many of your arguments. Sure, there will always be some potential bias in science, because scientists are people. That being said, if science weren't self-correcting, we would all still believe that the Earth is flat, that the Sun revolves around the Earth, that organisms inherit acquired traits, that HIV does not cause AIDS, etc., etc., the list goes on and on. While it's true that most papers aren't simply replicating or reproducing the results of another paper, most papers build on what has come before -- and if some results doesn't hold up, that is usually discovered and corrected. I do agree with you that peer review has a lot of problems -- I'm a firm believer that science should go to a double-blind review process rather than single-blind. And I would also agree that scientists need to do a better job of explaining their work to the general public.

---

Freya says, 'Hello from NOLA, baby!' (Laissez bon temps rouler!)

Quote
PeterB

Quote
kj

Quote
deckeda
kj I wasn’t trying lecture you but rather, to set a framework. Scientists or scientific papers can be peer-reviewed for example, which is historically reliable. I have no doubt there have been other pronouncements under the “science” moniker that don’t really adhere to principles. But it’s actually an easy thing to verify.

Their intentions will therefore not be important, in context.

My point here is that belief or faith isn’t required. A person can have belief or faith, but as always they’re a shorthand for understanding. That opens someone up to confusion, disappointment and mistrust when new info comes to light.

I completely reject the idea that science does not require integrity, ethics, etc. I understand the arguments for the "self-correcting" nature of science, and I don't buy it. I've seen first hand what a large grant from a pharmaceutical company can do to integrity. I've seen grad students dry lab. Check out the replicability crisis. Beyond that, try to get a study that essentially reproduces results from another lab published. Peer review is a joke. Have you ever noticed that when a researcher is on the board of reviewers for a journal, their lab suddenly has a billion studies published in said journal?

But, I basically gave them a pass because despite the problems, I think on the whole researchers are relatively ethical (they clearly have not always been). The people I don't give a pass are consumers of science. Misuse is rampant. People both misunderstand results, or deliberately use them to mislead. All of this affects the trustworthiness of "science".

Sorry, but I don't buy many of your arguments. Sure, there will always be some potential bias in science, because scientists are people. That being said, if science weren't self-correcting, we would all still believe that the Earth is flat, that the Sun revolves around the Earth, that organisms inherit acquired traits, that HIV does not cause AIDS, etc., etc., the list goes on and on. While it's true that most papers aren't simply replicating or reproducing the results of another paper, most papers build on what has come before -- and if some results doesn't hold up, that is usually discovered and corrected. I do agree with you that peer review has a lot of problems -- I'm a firm believer that science should go to a double-blind review process rather than single-blind. And I would also agree that scientists need to do a better job of explaining their work to the general public.

I'm sorry, I'm not anti-science. But it has self-corrected because scientists by and large care about the truth. With the wrong motives (goals and values) it would go awry. It's not infallible in and of itself. If people do what they are supposed to, you get some truth.

You're right about the built in replication. I didn't complete my thoughts. I won't get into it, but when a lab can't replicate results, it's my experience they just drop that line of inquiry, etc. It's not often they publish anything about that failure. There can be lots of reasons for this, some legit, but I'm just pointing out that the values of the people doing the science matter. If results coming out of a lab are sufficiently troublesome, I would hope someone takes the hit and calls them on it. Incentives are stacked against them, which means they have to be principled.

I think the original point was that you can't trust politicians, but you can trust science. I think the fact researchers have been trustworthy is a large part of why, but it isn't just a given. For an huge example of how science can be corrupted, check out Stalin and Trofim Lysenko (I'm sure you're familiar). It's pretty obvious science is fallible (I get that you could say they aren't REAL scientists, and it's bad science, etc., but it still supports my point). It would help for scientists to do a good job explaining things, but people also have to be good consumers, and that still doesn't really negate the need for integrity and good intentions. If you do the research yourself, you can trust the results, but when someone else does that research, you have to trust they did what they should.