mightcommentsometime t1_j0kez1d wrote
Reply to comment by MUCHO2000 in The new omicron boosters are very effective at preventing seniors from being hospitalized with Covid. The latest omicron boosters are 84% effective at keeping seniors 65 and older from being hospitalized with Covid-19 compared with the unvaccinated by Wagamaga
> That's not remotely close to what has happened.
You need to qualify this assertion with data and research.
> Second, COVID currently is not more deadly than the flu if you're vaccinated
Clinical mortality rate isn't, nor has it ever been the only determining factor of when vaccines should be used. The effective R value is always considered. Covid is over 1 and past the bifurcation point for epidemic spread. Influenza teeters around 1. Comparing the two doesn't make any sense from an epidemiological standpoint. The dynamics of covid spread is very different than that of influenza spread.
> Finally, the hope is for a fast spreading strain that is as deadly as the common cold which is to say not at all.
What? Where did you hear/read this nonsense? The hope is to push the effective R value below 1 so that we can get past the bifurcation point of epidemic spread.
> A virus becomes less deadly over time when it starts with a high mortality rate.
Where are you getting this from? That highly depends on multiple factors of the virus. Including how stable the virus is.
> Either way if you're vaccinated you have little worries of death.
Why are you so focused on death and ignoring the infection rate? Measles has a pretty low death rate but has absurd infection rate. That's why it's important to vaccinate against it.
MUCHO2000 t1_j0llbon wrote
Sorry kid I am making comments on Reddit. No citations needed. Go kick rocks.
Regardless I am not focused on anything but rebutting the post I responded to. Since you asked though the main concern I have (and think most people should have) is with long COVID. That said feel free to write up a research review on my post history.
mightcommentsometime t1_j0lu78u wrote
> Sorry kid I am making comments on Reddit. No citations needed. Go kick rocks.
And I'm free to call you out for being a kid who makes things up, then balks when asked to back up your BS.
MUCHO2000 t1_j0lvuya wrote
I'm not balking in the slightest. You're being critical due to lack of citations and incomplete information but I'm not writing a thesis here. I'm responding to a comment on Reddit.
You have refuted nothing. Where are your citations that I am wrong about anything?
Hypocrite.
mightcommentsometime t1_j0lwepv wrote
I'm being critical because you're making things up and passing that garbage as knowledge.
> You have refuted nothing. Where are your citations that I am wrong about anything?
My flair on this subreddit is citation enough when we're talking about simple things like your comments.
mo_tag t1_j0ov1ug wrote
>My flair on this subreddit is citation enough when we're talking about simple things like your comments.
Cringe
mightcommentsometime t1_j0yp8e2 wrote
It's oh so cringe that I have a verifiable and proven education. Lol.
mo_tag t1_j0yuloz wrote
You're being obtuse.. It's cringe that you're appealing to your mathematics degree which you think makes you an authority on epidemiology after literally just criticising someone for not citing sources... And the other commenter needs to cite sources because they don't have a flair? I think you'd be surprised how many flairless ppl have "proven education".. so yeah, cringe
[deleted] t1_j0yv46q wrote
[removed]
mightcommentsometime t1_j0yw7p9 wrote
> You're being obtuse.. It's cringe that you're appealing to your mathematics degree which you think makes you an authority on epidemiology
Do you know what epidemiology is? Do you know what applied computational mathematics is? Do you know what mathematical and computational biology is?
Yes. I'm appealing to my extensive study and my research on epidemiology.
> And the other commenter needs to cite sources because they don't have a flair?
The other commenter made many dubious and questionable claims. Asking them to prove said claims instead of accepting them as fact is prudent and proper for scientific discussion.
> I think you'd be surprised how many flairless ppl have "proven education".. so yeah, cringe
Then these people should be able to back up their assertions and claims. As all of us have had to do.
mo_tag t1_j0z924i wrote
>Do you know what epidemiology is? Do you know what applied computational mathematics is? Do you know what mathematical and computational biology is?
Dude, just stop.. you know damn well that an applied mathematics degree doesn't make you a subject matter expert in any field that happens to enploy applied mathematics.. Are you also an expert on structural engineering and genomics?
>Yes. I'm appealing to my extensive study and my research on epidemiology.
..and that a masters degree hardly qualifies as "extensive research". I'm not saying you haven't done but that's hardly self-evident from your flair, mate.
>Asking them to prove said claims instead of accepting them as fact is prudent and proper for scientific discussion.
Yeah, and noone said it wasn't, it's the fact that you think you're exempt from it that's weird
>Then these people should be able to back up their assertions and claims. As all of us have had to do.
Except from you apperently
mightcommentsometime t1_j0zarjz wrote
> Dude, just stop.. you know damn well that an applied mathematics degree doesn't make you a subject matter expert in any field that happens to enploy applied mathematics..
Do you know what applied computational mathematics actually is?
> Are you also an expert on structural engineering and genomics?
Structural engineering and genomics aren't epidemiology. Nor are they even remotely as specifically based on dynamical systems.
> ..and that a masters degree hardly qualifies as "extensive research".
Uh-huh. I just had to write a masters thesis on the subject. I guess I didn't do any research at all. Right?
> I'm not saying you haven't done but that's hardly self-evident from your flair, mate.
Unless you understand the field, and what it is.
> Yeah, and noone said it wasn't, it's the fact that you think you're exempt from it that's weird
What specific claims did I make that required me to cite/prove because they were beyond baseline knowledge of the subject?
> Except from you apperently
I repeat my previous question.
mo_tag t1_j12oya4 wrote
>Do you know what applied computational mathematics actually is?
Yes, I did my second masters in computational chemical engineering.. but I'm not continuing this silly conversation, I'm cringing at myself for even engaging w you
mightcommentsometime t1_j12pxvg wrote
> Yes, I did my second masters in computational chemical engineering..
Which is not even remotely the same at all. It's funny you think it is though.
> I'm not continuing this silly conversation, I'm cringing at myself for even engaging w you
Have fun!
MUCHO2000 t1_j0lx23a wrote
You have literally refuted nothing. Don't break your arm patting yourself on the back.
mightcommentsometime t1_j0lyplz wrote
You're trying to shift the burden of proof to me because I called your bullshit out, and you dont have the ability to actually back up the nonsense you keep making up about epidemiology.
Grow up. If you want to spout uneducated nonsense in the science subreddit, be prepared to be called out for it.
MUCHO2000 t1_j0m05mh wrote
I'm sorry? Go look at your replies to me. Now you're whining that I am not respecting your authority? Honestly it's pathetic.
You're mad because I'm not providing citations for my decidedly (I admit) unscientific post. Yet you refuted nothing and you missed the point on more than one occasion.
So either refute me or don't. I'm happy to learn new things but so far I have only learned you have a fragile ego.
[deleted] t1_j0m1kct wrote
[removed]
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments