Objectively intelligent.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Icky Thump

Case in point, this was published yesterday

You remember when Sebby was railing against scientifically accurate articles expressing skepticism about an entirely unsubstantiated treatment? Apply that level of vitriol, but this time well-founded against this.

There may well be airborne transmission of this. That other “similar” viruses were transmissible through the air is very weak evidence. It’s a different virus.

It’s different from how four doctors told Sebby that they believe an unproven treatment works, despite a lack of control, but similar. We aren’t going to solve this by intuition.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

You remember when Sebby was railing against scientifically accurate articles expressing skepticism about an entirely unsubstantiated treatment? Apply that level of vitriol, but this time well-founded against this.

There may well be airborne transmission of this. That other “similar” viruses were transmissible through the air is very weak evidence. It’s a different virus.

It’s different from how four doctors told Sebby that they believe an unproven treatment works, despite a lack of control, but similar. We aren’t going to solve this by intuition.

You realize you’re arguing against continuing a live massive trial which is probably saving lives. What’s you’re argument to a person who’s going on a ventilator and doing badly?

1. Let’s give him the drug and see if it works as it has for others;

Or,

2. No, we can’t give the drug... not enough studies yet.

Stand down. Please. It’s too stupid.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

You realize you’re arguing against continuing a live massive trial which is probably saving lives. What’s you’re argument to a person who’s going on a ventilator and doing badly?

1. Let’s give him the drug and see if it works as it has for others;

Or,

2. No, we can’t give the drug... not enough studies yet.

Stand down. Please. It’s too stupid.

You are a moron, who thinks administering unproven drugs to people is a “trial”. Who believes, “it works for others” in the absence of any evidence. You’ve no idea what you are talking about. As always, you’ve no humility nor empathy.

But worst, you can’t tell the difference between your wishful thinking and evidence that you’re correct. You’ve said you’d endanger yourself by going to the ER to lie about your symptoms to get a test so you can get a treatment you don’t know works against a sickness that likely isn’t a threat to you. You have no judgement at all, which we knew from having begged you, fruitlessly, not to waste your 2016 vote. You’re a buffoon.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

You are a moron, who thinks administering unproven drugs to people is a “trial”. Who believes, “it works for others” in the absence of any evidence. You’ve no idea what you are talking about. As always, you’ve no humility nor empathy.

But worst, you can’t tell the difference between your wishful thinking and evidence that you’re correct. You’ve said you’d endanger yourself by going to the ER to lie about your symptoms to get a test so you can get a treatment you don’t know works against a sickness that likely isn’t a threat to you. You have no judgement at all, which we knew from having begged you, fruitlessly, not to waste your 2016 vote. You’re a buffoon.

Hank already embarrassed you on the point of evidence.

And you’re mangling my point and now trying to score virtue points.

Child.

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by Adder

There may well be airborne transmission of this. That other “similar” viruses were transmissible through the air is very weak evidence. It’s a different virus.

I will bet you $10,000 that there is airborne transmission of this, just like those other "similar" viruses. The only thing weak here is your position. And, just so I don't take advantage of you, please note this - https://www.techtimes.com/articles/2...-effective.htm .

[Adder]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

I will bet you $10,000 that there is airborne transmission of this, just like those other "similar" viruses. The only thing weak here is your position. And, just so I don't take advantage of you, please note this - https://www.techtimes.com/articles/2...-effective.htm .

I’m not taking your bet because it’s possible and we don’t know.

But read things like that with a grain of salt. It doesn’t tell you what type of testing they were using. Like the cruise ship that had detectable RNA 17 (or whatever) days later, that a very sensitive test for genetic material can find it doesn’t imply that a) its active and not denatured or b) that it’s present at an infectious viral load.

It could be, but that article doesn’t say.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

I will bet you $10,000 that there is airborne transmission of this, just like those other "similar" viruses. The only thing weak here is your position. And, just so I don't take advantage of you, please note this - https://www.techtimes.com/articles/2...-effective.htm .

Airborne is a very technical term, so be clear about your definition before throwing out bets. Measles is the classic example of an agent that is considered airborne, and the transmission can occur hours later in the air. The bug doesn't break down very fast. Coronaviruses historically have not been considered to be airborne. Short-range aerosol transmission is likely, but that's not really airborne as we generally talk about the term. It's likely that droplets don't fall immediately, but as of yet there's no evidence that they're floating for hours afterwards like measles, chickenpox and TB.

More here.

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

Airborne is a very technical term, so be clear about your definition before throwing out bets. Measles is the classic example of an agent that is considered airborne, and the transmission can occur hours later in the air. The bug doesn't break down very fast. Coronaviruses historically have not been considered to be airborne. Short-range aerosol transmission is likely, but that's not really airborne as we generally talk about the term. It's likely that droplets don't fall immediately, but as of yet there's no evidence that they're floating for hours afterwards like measles, chickenpox and TB.

More here.

I was going to suggest that you hold our money in escrow and decide, after a suitable period for study (say 12 months), who wins. But Adder is a pussy.

[LessinSF]

[QUOTE=LessinSF;528022]I was going to suggest that you hold our money in escrow and decide, after a suitable period for study (say 12 months), who wins. But Adder is a pussy.

Edit - I was also going to suggest that you receive 5% ($1,000) as your escrow and evaluator and decisionmaker fee. But Adder is still a pussy. [/QUOTE}

[Icky Thump]

wondering if Fauci would consider a Maximus before he gets fired

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Icky Thump

wondering if Fauci would consider a Maximus before he gets fired

If I gave you a revolver with 100 chambers, 2 of which had bullets in them, would you play Russian Roulette to get some semblance of a life back?

I think this is the question a lot of people are going to be asking themselves over the next few weeks.

When I hear this stuff about everything staying shut until next year, I think, okay, the science makes a point. But it's also insanely unrealistic and totally ignores human nature.

That. Is. Simply. Not. Going. To. Happen.

"Burning down the house to smoke out the mouse" is the apt saying I believe.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Icky Thump

wondering if Fauci would consider a Maximus before he gets fired

I'm not sure that Fauci is going to get fired. Trump seems to understand that the virus is a shitshow that he can't bluff his way out of, and he seems to be working hard to be able to blame someone, anyone else. Governors, China, anyone. Even he seems to understand that firing Fauci won't look good.

As with all "this time is different" predictions about Trump, I guess I'm likely to be wrong.