Covid 19

Ridiculous, and all because a public health threat has been politicized, not only here, but in other countries as well. I don’t recall this kind of idiocy happening whenever a police officer pulls a driver over for not wearing a seatbelt.

 

In the US, it's usually the police that shoot the guy not wearing the seatbelt.

https://abc7chicago.com/chicago-shooting-police-officer-ella-french-cops-killed/10942201/

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news...0210617-gsoguxyv4ralbdodm5m2osvt4y-story.html

https://apnews.com/article/759a4823dfc74915b0242c8743119a5e

 

Then why have ANY laws whatsoever, if that is the kind of faulty and ridiculous logic that you are employing? You have rules and protocols at work that you follow, and if you dont, you’ll lose your job. This isn’t any different. Show up at work without pants on and see what happens, if you decide to ignore the “rules”.

 

That is a really big study.

 

Good Lord, Jesse. Not that greedy Gastroenterologist, Keith Moran again! He’s not even an Immunologist, and yet he’s all over YouTube with his MONETIZED CONTENT. Stop spreading this garbage disinformation. Orange and Durham counties have the HIGHEST vaccination rates, and the LEAST number of Covid cases right now, while the unvaccinated in JoCo, and other counties like it, keep this pandemic going, and going, and going unnecessarily. BTW, do you get all your medical and healthcare advice from MONETIZED, YouTube videos? Here’s how many MONETIZED videos this greedy jerk has on YouTube….Cha-Ching!



Seriously? His cats? You’re taking your medical advice from someone who has CAT VIDEOS on YouTube? Why?

 

Would you rather just read the 94 page study? Since video seems to trigger you so badly, maybe just reading the study directy would help. You instantly dismiss anything someone says on youtube it seems, even when they are talking about actual news and facts. Do you not think that every news agency is monitized as well? CNN, WRAL, CNBC, whatever. They all make money by making videos. How else do you expect them to stay in business.

https://www.poverty-action.org/site..._RCT____Symptomatic_Seropositivity_083121.pdf

 

For Goodness Sakes, Jesse. You keep making the SAME mistake. The “study” that you and this doctor are quoting, is from another non-peer reviewed pre-print, which means that it hasn’t yet been evaluated by medical professionals. (Dr. Moran clearly states this fact in his video.) Quite a lot of these non-peer reviewed, unevaluated “studies” are being taken out of context by unethical, financially-motivated operators in online disinformation campaigns. This is just another example of that.

Your “illustrious” gastroenterologist and apparent cat video enthusiast, Dr. Moran, is just another charlatan using his credentials for personal, financial gain, while also normalizing online medical disinformation. Obviously, this has become a serious problem online, especially when consumers of information can no longer distinguish fact from fiction, and do not bother to track down original sources, or question the presented material. I do not get my own medical, or health information, from CNN, CNBC, FOX NEWS, or any of the other news outlets. Covid is a serious disease, and like any other serious disease, it is best to follow the recommendations of actual epidemiology and immunology specialists working as a CONSENSUS, and not random YouTube “personalities” who are cynically using their credentials, or “expertise”, for individual gain. It’s as simple as that.

 

I don’t get “triggered”. I do the necessary background work to evaluate the source material in everything that I read, most especially anything having to do with my health, or the health of my family. Here is that preprint, non-peer reviewed, unevaluated study that you posted which is misrepresented by the unethical Dr. Moran, and actually SUPPORTS mask wearing in the Summary, Abstract and Conclusion sections:

 

BTW, the preprint paper that you posted contained no source material information. I’m assuming that you and Dr. Moran got it from the MedRXiv site. This site continues to be a popular site for online content creators seeking to “legitimize” their medical disinformation material by misusing these preprints. MedRXiv issues the following warning on their site regarding these preprints:

 

Science Is Suffering Because of Peer Review’s Big Problems
https://newrepublic.com/article/135921/science-suffering-peer-reviews-big-problems

 

Can you send me a similar size study that is not pre-print and is peer reviewed? No? That's because there are no other large scale, long term mask studies on actual covid transmission.


From the same place.

 

Very interesting. But I didn't see any peer review done on this article, so based on others, not sure it is trustworthy.

Problems with peer review
It might seem surprising to those outside the academic world, but until now there has been little empirical investigation on the institution that approves and rejects all scientific claims.

Some scholars even complain that peer review itself has not been scientifically validated. The main reason behind the lack of empirical studies on peer review is the difficulty in accessing data. In fact, peer review data is considered very sensitive, and it is very seldom released for scrutiny, even in an anonymous form.

So, what is the problem with peer review?

In the first place, assessing the quality of a scientific work is a hard task, even for trained scientists, and especially for innovative studies. For this reason, reviewers can often be in disagreement about the merits of an article. In such cases, the editor of a high-profile journal usually takes a conservative decision and rejects it.​

 

From the New Republic article, ‘Science is Suffering Because of Peer Review’s Big Problem”:

“In the first place, assessing the quality of a scientific work is a hard task, even for trained scientists, and especially for innovative studies. For this reason, reviewers can often be in disagreement about the merits of an article. In such cases, the editor of a high-profile journal usually takes a CONSERVATIVE decision and rejects it.”

It is a wise practice for the medical establishment to take a “conservative decision” approach when evaluating research pre-prints, especially when the research concerns a previously unknown virus and its unpredictable, and constantly-evolving, variants. What is unwise, and presents a greater public danger, is the practice of allowing these medical research preprints to be misused by the general public, and other unethical professionals, well before they have been evaluated by the scientific community. So, rather than speed up this pre-print, evaluation process, the focus should now be on preventing their deliberate public misuse in disinformation campaigns.