As you've demonstrated, there was no need for self-reference as there is other material in the field. That the author would first go to self-reference remains a red flag to me.
I encountered this years ago on the Dunning Kruger Effect. For two decades almost everything in the field was written, or collaborated on by one or the other or bo…
As you've demonstrated, there was no need for self-reference as there is other material in the field. That the author would first go to self-reference remains a red flag to me.
I encountered this years ago on the Dunning Kruger Effect. For two decades almost everything in the field was written, or collaborated on by one or the other or both. As you know, the gold standard is replication of results. For decades no one was ever able to replicate the results, until a team loaded random data into the model. THAT duplicated the results.
If you don't want to address the issue and answer my question just say so. At least that way I can try and find a different scientist to get an opinion on this potentially huge issue that no one is talking about. After your first comment talking about all the times you were right and censored in regards to covid I was hoping you would at a minimum, have an opinion.
I surrender. You're right, I'm a complete hoax, a liar, and am embarrassed to answer your question. Does that satisfy your need for victory? If not, tell me what your demands are before I spend any more time on a fight about footnotes.
Science doesn't rely on opinions. Mine are worth the same as anyone else's. So, let's use your opinion. If you want to claim it's better than anyone else's, go for it.
I'm not trying to be right you fool. All I want is a scientist's opinion on the issue. You said you were a scientist so I asked twice and you didn't answer. All you defensive projection is lost on me. I'm not interested in your personal hang ups and self esteem issues, FFS. I am simply looking, for the third time, an opinion on the difference of RRR vs ARR in relation to covid vaccines.
RRR assumes everyone is infected. ARR assumes only those most likely to be infected. The transmissibility of COVID19 among humans is scary strong. Everything I can find about the Delta Variant tells me it's even more contagious, but shares a similar profile for serious consequences. Frankly, at a high level, COVID19 just isn't a really scary bug; it's going to infect almost everybody and kill off a bunch of old folks maybe six to eight weeks before their natural deaths. So, becoming infected isn't important for most. It's very important for a small slice of people largely`defined by age. My opinion is that the contagion level makes RRR and ARR nearly identical. If you wish to go through an academic exercise be my guest.
Effectiveness of a vaccine against COVID19, a highly-contagious/minimally-harmful virus is, in my opinion, best determined by measuring hospital admissions. The hoax wasn't that there is no virus nor that it isn't to be taken seriously. I have every reason to be worried since I'm 73, have incurable stage three COPD, incurable normal pressure hydrocephalus that has robbed me of my balance, my dignity and most of my mind, and a range of other issues for which I take sleep-inducing medications that let me stay awake for up to six hours a day if I'm lucky. I can no longer work, type, walk, drive (due to seizures, strokes and something that resembles Parkinson's), am crippled by Rheumatoid Arthritis, have been thru two bouts of cancer, a heart attack, cardiac arrest, a triple bypass, multiple strokes, and this is the limit of the effort I will put into answering your questions.
As you've demonstrated, there was no need for self-reference as there is other material in the field. That the author would first go to self-reference remains a red flag to me.
I encountered this years ago on the Dunning Kruger Effect. For two decades almost everything in the field was written, or collaborated on by one or the other or both. As you know, the gold standard is replication of results. For decades no one was ever able to replicate the results, until a team loaded random data into the model. THAT duplicated the results.
If you don't want to address the issue and answer my question just say so. At least that way I can try and find a different scientist to get an opinion on this potentially huge issue that no one is talking about. After your first comment talking about all the times you were right and censored in regards to covid I was hoping you would at a minimum, have an opinion.
I surrender. You're right, I'm a complete hoax, a liar, and am embarrassed to answer your question. Does that satisfy your need for victory? If not, tell me what your demands are before I spend any more time on a fight about footnotes.
Science doesn't rely on opinions. Mine are worth the same as anyone else's. So, let's use your opinion. If you want to claim it's better than anyone else's, go for it.
I'm not trying to be right you fool. All I want is a scientist's opinion on the issue. You said you were a scientist so I asked twice and you didn't answer. All you defensive projection is lost on me. I'm not interested in your personal hang ups and self esteem issues, FFS. I am simply looking, for the third time, an opinion on the difference of RRR vs ARR in relation to covid vaccines.
RRR assumes everyone is infected. ARR assumes only those most likely to be infected. The transmissibility of COVID19 among humans is scary strong. Everything I can find about the Delta Variant tells me it's even more contagious, but shares a similar profile for serious consequences. Frankly, at a high level, COVID19 just isn't a really scary bug; it's going to infect almost everybody and kill off a bunch of old folks maybe six to eight weeks before their natural deaths. So, becoming infected isn't important for most. It's very important for a small slice of people largely`defined by age. My opinion is that the contagion level makes RRR and ARR nearly identical. If you wish to go through an academic exercise be my guest.
Effectiveness of a vaccine against COVID19, a highly-contagious/minimally-harmful virus is, in my opinion, best determined by measuring hospital admissions. The hoax wasn't that there is no virus nor that it isn't to be taken seriously. I have every reason to be worried since I'm 73, have incurable stage three COPD, incurable normal pressure hydrocephalus that has robbed me of my balance, my dignity and most of my mind, and a range of other issues for which I take sleep-inducing medications that let me stay awake for up to six hours a day if I'm lucky. I can no longer work, type, walk, drive (due to seizures, strokes and something that resembles Parkinson's), am crippled by Rheumatoid Arthritis, have been thru two bouts of cancer, a heart attack, cardiac arrest, a triple bypass, multiple strokes, and this is the limit of the effort I will put into answering your questions.
Thank you. That is an argument I hadn’t considered.