”vilseleder kring etablerad vetenskap”.

Diskutera fysik, kemi, biologi, samt direkta tillämpningar såsom teknik och medicin.
dann
Inlägg: 982
Blev medlem: sön 24 maj 2020, 17:18

Re: ”vilseleder kring etablerad vetenskap”.

Inlägg av dann » fre 26 mar 2021, 16:59

Johannes skrev:
fre 26 mar 2021, 12:16
Går det inte så går det inte, då får man acceptera att evidensen inte finns och agera ändå utifrån de förutsättningar man har.
You appear to be confused about the difference between a low level of evidence and no evidence at all - in spite of your apparent fondness for the hierarchy of scientific evidence and 25 years in research, allegedly. But don't worry. We have all the time in the world to explain the difference to you.

Användarvisningsbild
Johannes
Inlägg: 4516
Blev medlem: tis 30 nov 2004, 14:31

Re: ”vilseleder kring etablerad vetenskap”.

Inlägg av Johannes » lör 27 mar 2021, 09:04

I det citatet påstår jag inte att det saknas evidens, som alla läskunniga kan se. Som sagt, sluta ljug.

dann
Inlägg: 982
Blev medlem: sön 24 maj 2020, 17:18

Re: ”vilseleder kring etablerad vetenskap”.

Inlägg av dann » lör 27 mar 2021, 09:39

Did I claim that you did?! Stop lying!

Nemesis
Inlägg: 2249
Blev medlem: tor 12 okt 2006, 22:04
Ort: Stockholm

Re: ”vilseleder kring etablerad vetenskap”.

Inlägg av Nemesis » lör 27 mar 2021, 16:34

Johannes skrev:
fre 26 mar 2021, 12:16
Jag har 25 års erfarenhet av forskning inom teknik, medicin och av att driva kliniska studier så jag förstår allt det vi diskuterar här, mycket väl. Mitt syfte i de här trådarna är att vara en balanserande motvikt mot vissa faktaresistenta fanatiker.

Jag är givetvis medveten om att det är svårt att genomföra välgjorda studier på munskydd som skydd för samhällsspridning. Och det är ju precis det som är min poäng. Tyvärr saknas det bra studier, och därmed också stark evidens för att munskydd fungerar. Och som jag skrivit upprepade gånger kan det trots det vara motiverat att rekommendera munskydd.

Det vore trevligt om vissa personer här kunde läsa vad jag faktiskt skriver i stället för att gå i polimik mot åsikter som jag aldrig har uttryckt och inte heller besitter. Hur svårt kan det vara?
Do you understand that it isn't really an argument against a study that it wasn't made by asking people to volunteer to be exposed to an often debilitating and sometimes even fatal disease, half of them with face masks and half them without (or half them with effective face masks and the other half with face masks that just appeared to be the real thing to eliminate the placebo effect), randomized and double-blinded, or course?
Jo, det är precis just det, ett argument mot styrkan i evidensen hos studien. Man kan inte släppa på de vetenskapliga kraven bara för att det är svårt eller oetiskt att genomföra en studie. Går det inte så går det inte, då får man acceptera att evidensen inte finns och agera ändå utifrån de förutsättningar man har.
När det kommer till evidensen för munskydd så har du fel:
One More Time – Masks Work

The evidence supports the conclusion that mask-wearing policies are effective and justified.

Ten months into this pandemic there is still discussion about whether or not wearing a facemask helps prevent the spread of COVID-19. There is also some “mask-denial” which may just be poorly informed skepticism or ideologically driven. Masks have become, unfortunately, a political symbol. The evidence is also pretty clear that wearing facemasks helps protect against the spread of COVID-19. But the evidence is complex enough to feed (unjustified) denial, and warrants periodic review.

...

There are also different kinds of evidence we can use to get at these questions. We can look to see how well masks prevent droplet spread, or even specifically viral spread. We can look at the risk of individuals for contracting the disease. We can look at epidemiological evidence to see if mask-wearing policies affect the spread of COVID-19. We can also look at the effect on spread of other viruses. Again, no single study is going to be definitive. We need to look at the pattern of evidence to see if it supports a beneficial role for wearing masks, what kinds of masks, in what settings, and with what benefits. Mask wearing as a measure also needs to be disentangled from other prevention methods, such as distancing, hand washing, and contact tracing.

With all that in mind, what is the current state of the evidence for wearing masks as a public health measure to fight the pandemic? The short answer is – the evidence is very strong that masks are beneficial, but let’s dive into the details.
An evidence review of face masks against COVID-19

The preponderance of evidence indicates that mask wearing reduces transmissibility per contact by reducing transmission of infected respiratory particles in both laboratory and clinical contexts. Public mask wearing is most effective at reducing spread of the virus when compliance is high.
"Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof." - John Kenneth Galbraith

dann
Inlägg: 982
Blev medlem: sön 24 maj 2020, 17:18

Re: ”vilseleder kring etablerad vetenskap”.

Inlägg av dann » lör 27 mar 2021, 17:11

dann skrev:
fre 26 mar 2021, 12:41
I don't think it has been named yet, so I call it the hierarchy-of-scientific-evidence fallacy or just a Johannes. It is to be used whenever somebody dismisses a study without pointing out any actual faults but simply by referring to the hierarchy of scientific evidence.
Unfortunately, I won't be able to copyright the hierarchy-of-scientific-evidence fallacy since it is just a variation of the Nirvana fallacy:
The nirvana fallacy is the informal fallacy of comparing actual things with unrealistic, idealized alternatives. It can also refer to the tendency to assume there is a perfect solution to a particular problem. A closely related concept is the "perfect solution fallacy."
By creating a false dichotomy that presents one option which is obviously advantageous—while at the same time being completely implausible—a person using the nirvana fallacy can attack any opposing idea because it is imperfect. Under this fallacy, the choice is not between real world solutions; it is, rather, a choice between one realistic achievable possibility and another unrealistic solution that could in some way be "better".
I can recommend the following studies:
Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma related to gravitational challenge: systematic review of randomised controlled trials (U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institues of Health, Dec. 20, 2003)
Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma when jumping from aircraft: randomized controlled trial (BMJ, Dec. 13, 2018)
Arguments about face masks and Covid-19 reflect broader methodologic debates within medical science (U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institues of Health, March 16, 2021)

The irony is that Anders Tegnell has been dismissing all studies of face masks for no other reason than they don't live up to his high expectations while at the same time making the insane claims that face face masks are dangerous 1) because people don't know how to use them and will get their squeaky-clean hands smeared with mucus all the time, 2) will will stop social distancing because face masks make them believe that they no longer have to, and 3) face masks alone won't stop the spread of the virus - which nobody has claimed, obviously, but still ...
And he has presented no evidence whatsoever for those claims, so it is easy to see where we find them in Johannes's hierarchy of scientific evidence - with a slight alteration:
1. Alleged Expertåsikt
2. Fallrapporter
3. Observationsstudier
4. Case-control-studier
5. Kohortstudier
6. Randomiserade studier med svag statistisk signifikans i utfallet
7. Randomiserade studier med stark statistisk signifikans i utfallet
8. Systematisk sammanställning av randomiserade studier

I've seen chickens with more brains than Tegnell.

From Wikipeda's article on Nirvana Fallacies: Examples:
Posit (fallacious)
Wearing a non medical grade mask will not protect me or others from SARS-CoV-2.
Rebuttal
While wearing a mask does not provide 100% protection, it does provide some protection. Some protection is better than none, especially when the virus is not under control.

Thermal
Inlägg: 504
Blev medlem: tor 17 maj 2007, 10:43
Ort: Marseille France
Kontakt:

Re: ”vilseleder kring etablerad vetenskap”.

Inlägg av Thermal » lör 27 mar 2021, 20:17

I början av epidemin kom det en bild från Kina son visade att på 1 m avstånd, ansikte mot ansikte, så blir man infekterad efter 15 min. Det var förmodligen ett medelvärde och dessutom tillkommer ett antal omständigheter. Nu finns det dessutom varianter som är mer smittsamma. Trots alla tillkortakommanden kan bilden användas för att i någon mån klargöra ett samband.

Koncentrationen av virus borde givetvis variera med kvadraten på avståndet. Vid avståndet 0,5 m blir då den kritiska tiden ca. 4 min och vid 0,25 m ca. 1 min.

Ett munskydd måste dock vara en barriär. Kanske tog danskarna som använde munskydd lite större risker ? Om munskyddet filtrerar 20% så blir det säkra avståndet enligt kvadratregeln i exemplet 0.89 m och med 40% filtrering 0,77 m.

Uppmaningen att använda munskydd om man inte kan hålla avstånd tycks ganska ihålig.

Håll avståånd!
En definition är per definition alltid korrekt. Frågan är om den är ändamålsenlig

dann
Inlägg: 982
Blev medlem: sön 24 maj 2020, 17:18

Re: ”vilseleder kring etablerad vetenskap”.

Inlägg av dann » lör 27 mar 2021, 23:06

Thermal skrev:
lör 27 mar 2021, 20:17
Uppmaningen att använda munskydd om man inte kan hålla avstånd tycks ganska ihålig.
Uppmaning att hålla avstånd inomhus är ganska ihålig - unless the distance includes a more or less airtight wall between people. You don't know where your aerosols end up indoors, but at least face masks limit the quantity of aerosols. Distance indoors doesn't, and there are several examples of this, also in Sweden. In this thread, I recently linked to one of the Swedish cases:
”Följt alla riktlinjer”
(...)
– Vi har följt alla riktlinjer till punkt och pricka. Jag tror att huset känner att vi har gjort allt rätt. Sedan kan det finnas andra moment under dagen som man inte kan detaljstyra, utanför repetitionssalen. Givetvis kollar vi nu på om det är något vi kunde göra annorlunda.
Coronautbrott i operans kör (Göteborgs-Posten, Dec. 14, 2020)
FoHM's denial of aerosol transmission has helped spred a lot of germs during this pandemic. The dismissal of face-mask studies has helped even more.

As far as "Givetvis kollar vi nu på om det är något vi kunde göra annorlunda" goes: They could have done something differently!
1) They could have stayed at home and have choir practice on Zoom.
2) They could have put on winter clothes and practiced outside.
3) They could have worn face masks, but that probably isn't possible when you are in a choir, which isn't an argument against face masks. It's an argument against choir practice during a pandemic.

They obviously didn't do everything right: "På måndag morgon hade 19 sångare bekräftad covid-19." Their very first mistake was to trust the FoHM recommendations. This becomes obvious when people "har följt alla riktlinjer till punkt och pricka" and yet still end up turning choir practice into a super-spreader event.

FoHM vilseleder kring etablerad vetenskap!

dann
Inlägg: 982
Blev medlem: sön 24 maj 2020, 17:18

Re: ”vilseleder kring etablerad vetenskap”.

Inlägg av dann » tis 30 mar 2021, 06:28

Thermal skrev:
lör 27 mar 2021, 20:17
Uppmaningen att använda munskydd om man inte kan hålla avstånd tycks ganska ihålig.

Håll avståånd!
A brand-new Norwegian article explains why distance sometimes offers no protection at all, unlike face masks, which are not always enough but do offer some protection in most indoor situations: Den ukjente smitteveien (VG.no, March 28, 2021)
Håll avstånd! works only outdoors and for very brief encounters indoors. It works for droplets, it doesn't work for aerosols.

dann
Inlägg: 982
Blev medlem: sön 24 maj 2020, 17:18

Re: ”vilseleder kring etablerad vetenskap”.

Inlägg av dann » ons 31 mar 2021, 09:09

What makes indoor spaces so dangerous is that exhaled virus can accumulate and infect people who do not have direct contact with an infected person. A prime example happened a year ago during a St Patrick’s Day party at a bar in Ho Chi Minh City, in Vietnam. Twelve people became infected at the party, but only four had close contact with the infected person2. More recent outbreaks at gyms in Chicago, Illinois, and Hawaii have also occurred despite physical distancing of attendees3 and capacity limits on fitness classes.

Ever since the WHO acknowledged last year that airborne transmission could happen, public-health agencies have emphasized the risks in crowded and poorly ventilated spaces. But the terminology is deceptive, says Morawska. “You imagine a busy bar,” she says. “In the reality, any place can become crowded and poorly ventilated. And people don’t realize this.”
(...)
The precise infectious dose for SARS-CoV-2 is also unknown8. But researchers can infer how much exhaled virus is needed to cause infection by analysing disease outbreaks. For example, Jimenez and colleagues used details from an infamous choir rehearsal in Skagit Valley in Washington — where one person probably infected 52 of the 60 other attendees — to estimate the amount of infectious virus exhaled.
Why indoor spaces are still prime COVID hotspots (Nature, March 30, 2021)

Thermal
Inlägg: 504
Blev medlem: tor 17 maj 2007, 10:43
Ort: Marseille France
Kontakt:

Re: ”vilseleder kring etablerad vetenskap”.

Inlägg av Thermal » ons 31 mar 2021, 19:16

dann skrev:
tis 30 mar 2021, 06:28

A brand-new Norwegian article explains why distance sometimes offers no protection at all, unlike face masks, which are not always enough but do offer some protection in most indoor situations: Den ukjente smitteveien (VG.no, March 28, 2021)
Håll avstånd! works only outdoors and for very brief encounters indoors. It works for droplets, it doesn't work for aerosols.
Din referens: Efter 4 timmar blev 5 personer smittade men bara 4 om de hade haft munskydd, vilket ger en skyddseffekt på 20 %.

Givetvis är munskydd en barriär. Problemet är att de inte alltid ges rätt plats i hierarkin av alla skyddsåtgärder. Att hålla avstånd och undvika trängsel är väldokumenterade metoder.

USA : “This is deadly serious,” Biden said, urging governors to reinstate mask mandates and other restrictions that some states have been easing.
En definition är per definition alltid korrekt. Frågan är om den är ändamålsenlig

Nemesis
Inlägg: 2249
Blev medlem: tor 12 okt 2006, 22:04
Ort: Stockholm

Re: ”vilseleder kring etablerad vetenskap”.

Inlägg av Nemesis » ons 31 mar 2021, 22:08

Thermal skrev:
ons 31 mar 2021, 19:16
dann skrev:
tis 30 mar 2021, 06:28

A brand-new Norwegian article explains why distance sometimes offers no protection at all, unlike face masks, which are not always enough but do offer some protection in most indoor situations: Den ukjente smitteveien (VG.no, March 28, 2021)
Håll avstånd! works only outdoors and for very brief encounters indoors. It works for droplets, it doesn't work for aerosols.
Din referens: Efter 4 timmar blev 5 personer smittade men bara 4 om de hade haft munskydd, vilket ger en skyddseffekt på 20 %.

Givetvis är munskydd en barriär. Problemet är att de inte alltid ges rätt plats i hierarkin av alla skyddsåtgärder. Att hålla avstånd och undvika trängsel är väldokumenterade metoder.

USA : “This is deadly serious,” Biden said, urging governors to reinstate mask mandates and other restrictions that some states have been easing.
Det är ingen som säger att munskydd är hela lösningen. Det är ett halmgubbe-argument från Tegnell.

Man bör hålla avstånd och undvika trängsel i den mån det går. Man bör även bära munskydd i kollektivtrafiken och inomhusmiljöer. Dessa utesluter inte varandra.
"Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof." - John Kenneth Galbraith

dann
Inlägg: 982
Blev medlem: sön 24 maj 2020, 17:18

Re: ”vilseleder kring etablerad vetenskap”.

Inlägg av dann » tor 01 apr 2021, 10:46

Thermal skrev:
ons 31 mar 2021, 19:16
Din referens: Efter 4 timmar blev 5 personer smittade men bara 4 om de hade haft munskydd, vilket ger en skyddseffekt på 20 %.
Maybe you should spend a little more time playing around with the different parameters in the ]Norwegian article: Room size, number of people, time, activity, face masks, ventilation and virus variants. You don't seem to comprehend that a room fills up with aerosols over time without proper ventilation.
Givetvis är munskydd en barriär. Problemet är att de inte alltid ges rätt plats i hierarkin av alla skyddsåtgärder. Att hålla avstånd och undvika trängsel är väldokumenterade metoder.
And who exactly came up with your alleged hierarchy of protective measures? Anders Tegnell? Or actual evidence-based science? You don't seem to understand that your alleged hierarchy of protective measures is imaginary and only exists in Sweden where you have been led to believe in it because Anders Tegnell has repeated it over and over without reference to any actual evidence. His manta seems to be something along the lines of:
[Tegnell mode]You can use face masks if you feel like it for whatever reason, but the only real important thing is social distancing and washing your hands! [/Tegnell mode]
(As somebody said yesterday about the latter: Washing your hands to protect you from an airborne virus is like using mouth wash to protect you from athlete's foot.)

Hugging, for instance, is obviously a bad idea during this pandemic. So is standing close to people, particularly when talking, but sometimes standing close to people is not a matter of choice: on public transport, for instance. Meeting people indoors should be avoided because even when you keep a distance, a room fills up with aerosols - more so if people are talking and singing.
Limiting the time you spend in such settings helps.
Ventilation helps.
Face masks help.
Social distancing doesn't help much against aerosols, however. It only helps against droplets when you are standing close to people.

So why invent a hierarchy of preventive measures? I am asking because I would really like to know how you came up with this idea, so I look forward to your answer.
USA : “This is deadly serious,” Biden said, urging governors to reinstate mask mandates and other restrictions that some states have been easing.
I have no idea what you want to tell us with this quotations.

ETA: Notice the article from Nature, March 30:
Twelve people became infected at the party, but only four had close contact with the infected person. More recent outbreaks at gyms in Chicago, Illinois, and Hawaii have also occurred despite physical distancing of attendees and capacity limits on fitness classes.
This is not a competition as Anders Tegnell seems to think: There can be only one. It is the same attitude he exhibits when he belittles actual scientist who know much more about this than he does. That he fears them as competitors is a sure sign of his inferiority complex, not of his superior expertise.
I am amazed that this is so hard to see for people who have joined the cult.

Thermal
Inlägg: 504
Blev medlem: tor 17 maj 2007, 10:43
Ort: Marseille France
Kontakt:

Re: ”vilseleder kring etablerad vetenskap”.

Inlägg av Thermal » tor 01 apr 2021, 19:01

Nemesis skrev:
ons 31 mar 2021, 22:08

Det är ingen som säger att munskydd är hela lösningen. Det är ett halmgubbe-argument från Tegnell.

Man bör hålla avstånd och undvika trängsel i den mån det går. Man bör även bära munskydd i kollektivtrafiken och inomhusmiljöer. Dessa utesluter inte varandra.
Enligt denna artikel
https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/2021030 ... ectiveness
minskar smittsamheten med 2% om ansiktsmasker används i restaurangmiljö.
En definition är per definition alltid korrekt. Frågan är om den är ändamålsenlig

dann
Inlägg: 982
Blev medlem: sön 24 maj 2020, 17:18

Re: ”vilseleder kring etablerad vetenskap”.

Inlägg av dann » tor 01 apr 2021, 19:57

Thermal skrev:
tor 01 apr 2021, 19:01
Enligt denna artikel
https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/2021030 ... ectiveness
minskar smittsamheten med 2% om ansiktsmasker används i restaurangmiljö.
No, you should read the article again. It says nothing about the use of face masks in restaurants. However, it does say that
When states and localities lifted restrictions on in-person restaurant dining, they experienced a 1.1% increase in new coronavirus cases and a 3% increase in coronavirus-related deaths within 100 days of the lifting of those rules, the study said.
That is a 3 percent increase in overall Covid-19 deaths when lifting restrictions on in-person restaurant dining.
But it's correlation, not causation, which the restaurant industry used as an argument against the CDC report.

Notice what the report said, according to the article:
As more states drop COVID-19 restrictions, the CDC issued a report Friday saying coronavirus case counts went down when states mandated face masks and that coronavirus-related deaths went up in places when indoor dining resumed.
1) "coronavirus case counts went down when states mandated face masks," i,e. it doesn't say that face masks were mandated in restaurants specifically.
2) "coronavirus-related deaths went up in places when indoor dining resumed," i.e. Covid deaths went up when restaurants reopened, but this doesn't seem to have anything at all to do with the question "om ansiktsmasker används i restaurangmiljö."

dann
Inlägg: 982
Blev medlem: sön 24 maj 2020, 17:18

Re: ”vilseleder kring etablerad vetenskap”.

Inlägg av dann » fre 09 apr 2021, 12:20

Thermal skrev:
lör 27 mar 2021, 20:17
Håll avståånd!
Video recordings of the church services showed that the 12 people identified as secondary cases, while sat in the same general section as the chorister, were approximately one to 15 metres away from him and behind him – suggesting airborne transmission.
(...)
All secondary-case patients sat within a 70 degree section below the man in the choir loft and between one to 15 metres away from him. The man used a microphone, was facing away from them and masks were not worn.
COVID-19 transmission study finds evidence of airborne spread by physically distant church singer (April 6, 2021)

Skriv svar