Status
Not open for further replies.

mixed_biscuits

_________________________
home transmission association.jpg
Huge serological study from Spain shows the uselessness of the stay-home measure: those who hid at home were more likely to fall ill.
 

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
Imperial college have not covered themselves in glory throughout any of this. Fuck them.

If you don't know about t cell immunity, you should probably stop giving it the big un on this thread.
Well hang on, I don't think "You didn't mention T cells, therefore I'm right and you're wrong" is quite the killer argument you think it is. I was talking about antibodies. I was under the impression that this indicated someone had had the virus and was immune to it. Now perhaps that's totally wrong, but the article from the Imperial group definitely laid emphasis on it not being possible to tell yet whether a single infection event can render someone immune enough to subsequent infections for herd immunity to be a valid idea. At any rate, it seems pretty rash to bank on getting infected as a way to protect other people.

Now Imperial isn't some third-rate technical college, and when epidemiology experts there talk about epidemiology, they probably have something worthwhile to say.

That's not necessarily the case when a nutritionist decides to write a paper on "quantum neurochemistry" and gets it published by the journal of "Oilseeds and Fats, Crops and Lipids" (!) like that absolute embarrassment of a paper you posted in the herbal nutrition thread (even if he is from Imperial!).
 
Epidemiology is junk science, if it's a science at all. Little wonder you're a fan.

@Mr. Tea Only the study of explosives has killed more people than epidemiology, because epidemiology is usually grossly wrong, but still used to guide behaviour, as has been amply demonstrated throughout this year.

Epidemiological studies of nutrition are another particularly egregious example, in that the principles they're based on are more often than not flat wrong. So we end up with record levels of obesity and insulin resistance, due to diet, which are the most serious risk factor for COVID-19.
 

Leo

Well-known member
how can something so consistently, egregiously wrong still exist? how is it not totally and widely discredited and kicked to the curb?
 

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
@Mr. Tea Only the study of explosives has killed more people than epidemiology, because epidemiology is usually grossly wrong, but still used to guide behaviour, as has been amply demonstrated throughout this year.

Epidemiological studies of nutrition are another particularly egregious example, in that the principles they're based on are more often than not flat wrong. So we end up with record levels of obesity and insulin resistance, due to diet, which are the most serious risk factor for COVID-19.
Isn't the idea that here immunity will save us from epidemiology?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top