Vaccine

My new favorite scientist.
Nice to see a scientist that doesn't take himself too seriously. Welcome change from the arrogance of the last two years.
 
Nice to see a scientist that doesn't take himself too seriously. Welcome change from the arrogance of the last two years.
The scientists are mostly the same.

It only strikes you as arrogant when one of them says something you don’t want to hear. I’m sure plenty of people also see climate scientists as arrogant, and for essentially the same reason.
 
The scientists are mostly the same.
BS. You even said the ones in the public eye are different from those working in the background. If you are unhappy that more of those in the background aren't better represented, blame the press who decides who to cover or the scientists who refuse to speak out. Also, it's more than a bit presumptuous to assume "scientists are mostly the same." If they are, it is an environment ripe for "group think" - which may explain some things.
 
BS. You even said the ones in the public eye are different from those working in the background. If you are unhappy that more of those in the background aren't better represented, blame the press who decides who to cover or the scientists who refuse to speak out. Also, it's more than a bit presumptuous to assume "scientists are mostly the same." If they are, it is an environment ripe for "group think" - which may explain some things.
Coocoo.
 
BS. You even said the ones in the public eye are different from those working in the background. If you are unhappy that more of those in the background aren't better represented, blame the press who decides who to cover or the scientists who refuse to speak out. Also, it's more than a bit presumptuous to assume "scientists are mostly the same." If they are, it is an environment ripe for "group think" - which may explain some things.
Did you think a scientist was going to step in to block publication of that “surfing risk from covid” article?

That’s not really how it works. There is a peer review process, but it doesn’t apply to local newspapers. If you want the peer reviewed version, that exists, too.

It’s like that in every field. There are serious statistics behind Man City’s latest trade. Then there are the sports reporters filling columns. The newspaper version isn’t very deep or very accurate there, either.
 
The scientists are mostly the same.

It only strikes you as arrogant when one of them says something you don’t want to hear. I’m sure plenty of people also see climate scientists as arrogant, and for essentially the same reason.
Show me some scientists that retracted or apologized for an erroneous Covid prediction, or was disciplined or fired for making false and misleading Covid statements and I will change my opinion. In the real world you would get fired for some of the things that came out of the so called experts mouth. However, in academia you can't get terminated for making false statements because of tenure and under the guise of academic freedom. Although lately it seems you can be fired for true, but un-woke statements. It's an upside down world lately.
 
Did you think a scientist was going to step in to block publication of that “surfing risk from covid” article?
So, that's the only alternative? There are other forms of dissent that have been historically used on occasion in this country. You know, like expressing an alternative opinion. The "surfing risk" and the "hurricane of covid" Osterholm predicted were opinions. I don't suppose it should be surprising that less authoritarian approaches to dissent elude you and others. It's what happens when promoting a desired response is the primary objective of publically presenting information is combined with an elitist attitude of "we know what's best for people" and "people can't handle the truth." Add to that ostracizing other opinions, and here we are.

I agree. The media has long lost any sense of unbiased integrity. It would be a shame to see science go down that same path.
 
So, that's the only alternative? There are other forms of dissent that have been historically used on occasion in this country. You know, like expressing an alternative opinion. The "surfing risk" and the "hurricane of covid" Osterholm predicted were opinions. I don't suppose it should be surprising that less authoritarian approaches to dissent elude you and others. It's what happens when promoting a desired response is the primary objective of publically presenting information is combined with an elitist attitude of "we know what's best for people" and "people can't handle the truth." Add to that ostracizing other opinions, and here we are.

I agree. The media has long lost any sense of unbiased integrity. It would be a shame to see science go down that same path.
Alternative opinions were expressed. I don’t remember anyone other than Osterholm going in for the hurricane of covid theory. And one Scripps researcher is not the same as a scientific consensus.

Of course, the existence of alternative opinions does not necessarily mean that you’ll like them any better. If someone had told you that Beta would lead to another 100,00 deaths, would you have believed it or chalked it up to “group think”?
 
Amazing how LA Co case rates have been dropping so quickly despite no mask mandate……
That's weird, its almost like the virus does whatever it wants to do and doesn't care what we do. Of course, that's not possible because we all know we can control any virus with vaccines, masks, closing schools and not going out to eat or drink.
 
That's weird, its almost like the virus does whatever it wants to do and doesn't care what we do. Of course, that's not possible because we all know we can control any virus with vaccines, masks, closing schools and not going out to eat or drink.
You’re right. The virus is going to do whatever it wants.

Why does the virus hate us so much more than it hates Australia and Japan?
 
Back
Top