Comments
Wagamaga OP t1_j0i4o0t wrote
The latest omicron boosters are 84% effective at keeping seniors 65 and older from being hospitalized with Covid-19 compared with the unvaccinated, according to a study published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on Friday.
And seniors who received the omicron booster had 73% more protection against hospitalization than those who only received two or more doses of the original vaccines that were not updated to target omicron, according to the CDC.
The study was conducted from September through November when omicron BA.5 and the even more immune evasive BQ.1 and BQ.1.1 variants were dominant. About 800 seniors with a median age of 76 were included in the analysis.
In a larger study that looked at more than 15,000 adults ages 18 and older, the omicron booster was 57% effective at preventing hospitalization. Adults who received the booster had 38% additional protection compared with people who only received the original shots.
Neither study examined how well people were protected against hospitalization if they were vaccinated and had natural immunity from a previous Covid infection.
TheFriendlyFelcher t1_j0i54de wrote
Could the new path be to just keep the vulnerable well boosted? We are never going to get herd immunity with covid, and most are refusing shots at this point. From what Ive heard from friends visiting stateside, nobody even covers their mouths when they cough, and booger faced kids with wet coughs are everywhere, so spread prevention seems impossible
dbx999 t1_j0i6rka wrote
It's a strategy that we may not win due to the significant portion of the population that will not vaccinate. This permits the virus to remain in wider endemic circulation which creates an incubation process to give rise to mutations that can become more successful at evading the vaccine as well as natural immune response. In effect, the virus will continue to "improve" and attempt to infect those vaccinated and eventually will find a strain that possesses evasion traits and high transmissibility to move back into the vaccinated population.
Meanwhile mRNA vaccine developers may or may not continue to develop new vaccines to address the newest versions of circulating covid viruses. I say "may not" because some of those choices may be driven by variables such as governmental financial support to guarantee volume purchases for the population - which could evaporate - and populations that develop vaccine fatigue and shows low demand for continued rounds of upgraded boosters.
But one thing is certain - covid IS endemic and will be a permanent part of our ecosystem.
The light at the end of the tunnel is that it is also *likely* that each new successful strain that develops in the future will carry a lower mortality rate meaning that they'll be less deadly and more in line with what the seasonal flu does in terms of death rates.
TheFriendlyFelcher t1_j0i77v6 wrote
As to what you said on your last paragraph, it seems omni is a bit of a blessing in that sense. Anecdotally, delta wrecked everyone I knew that caught it, but omni was a brush off to moderate flu for all but seniors. Is that attributed to the initial rounds of vaccinations?
dbx999 t1_j0i9ov2 wrote
It’s both. Vaccines helps give the immune system the genetic information to pinpoint the exact way to make antibodies specific to fight off Covid.
The natural immune system without vaccines first launches a generalized response against it because the body doesn’t have the blueprint for what antibodies to produce yet. So this gives the virus a head start and a longer time window to successfully reproduce inside your body and infect more of your organs since it appears it can affect multiple systems and not just one area (such as the cold virus staying mostly in the upper respiratory area).
Vaccination lets the body direct a more effective attack and a faster response to infection so this gives the patient a much better chance at avoiding severe infection and will shorten recovery. Vaccines don’t prevent infection but they do allow a rapid immune response that should effectively kill off the virus to make the infection short lived and not severe.
At the same time these newer strains SHOULD (this is no guarantee but generally a virus that doesn’t kill its host is more successful since it can spread more widely) become less lethal. And this SHOULD continue as a trend. The disclaimer being that just like with the flu, you could see the appearance of a evasive strain that has a high lethality trait too just as we saw with the 1917 Spanish flu epidemic.
DopeDetective t1_j0id1wa wrote
that might be where we're headed but ideally everyone should be boosted due to the long term affects that covid can cause even in the young & healthy which, over time, could have extremely negative consequences on us as a population
[deleted] t1_j0idxrc wrote
[removed]
bluecamel17 t1_j0iegsm wrote
Dumb question, but I feel like the messaging around boosters is poor. Is there a new booster or are these still the same ones from last year?
kslusherplantman t1_j0igcha wrote
Essentially we have the seasonal flu, but now with Covid… not enough people vaccinate or stay home when sick with the flu, leading much to the same situation we are seeing with COVID.
There were doubts really early whether herd immunity was even possible due to the nature of coronaviruses. Again, much like how herd immunity with the flu is also impossible
[deleted] t1_j0ihniq wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j0iikpk wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j0ijd7w wrote
[removed]
wahchewie t1_j0ijo0m wrote
FYI because the article is infuriatingly long and waffling, the bivalent vaccine is referring to the new Moderna vaccine.
I had it last week after finding out it has been updated for new strains. Very tired after but no horrible side effects. Would recommend because people are dropping like flies to covid at work again
TrumpsBoneSpur t1_j0im9j9 wrote
There is a new booster that also works against omicron
MoobyTheGoldenSock t1_j0ioqvh wrote
Original vaccine = 100% wild type
Fall booster (bivalent) = 50% wild type, 50% Omicron
[deleted] t1_j0iq8pk wrote
weaselmaster t1_j0iqr5j wrote
What about the new BQ flavor, um… variant, though?
[deleted] t1_j0irhvc wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j0ivojh wrote
MUCHO2000 t1_j0iymfy wrote
This is a bizarre post. You seem to be pinning COVID becoming endemic on the unvaccinated. That's not remotely close to what has happened. Second, COVID currently is not more deadly than the flu if you're vaccinated. Finally, the hope is for a fast spreading strain that is as deadly as the common cold which is to say not at all. However this is not more likely with each strain because it's mortality rate is already so low. A virus becomes less deadly over time when it starts with a high mortality rate. With COVID it's just as possible to mutate into something more deadly as it is less. Either way if you're vaccinated you have little worries of death.
[deleted] t1_j0j1959 wrote
[removed]
dbx999 t1_j0j1inl wrote
It’s not a bizarre post at all. It’s bizarre you think it’s bizarre. You’re also restating much of what I said. I said generally viruses evolve into higher transmissibility and lower lethal versions over time. I also said vaccines lower mortality.
I also don’t see what is bizarre about stating that a significant portion of the population remaining unvaccinated will offer an incubating pool for more mutation opportunities. Anything that lowers the chances to establish meaningful and effective herd immunity logically means that endemic prevalence and mutation over time is a natural consequence of such an ecosystem - one that will eventually back flow into the vaccinated population when a strain with sufficient evasion and transmissibility surfaces.
[deleted] t1_j0j735r wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j0j84y5 wrote
[removed]
MUCHO2000 t1_j0j9era wrote
Which mutation came from those unwilling to get vaccinated? We suspect Delta came from India and Omicron from Africa. The current strains of COVID escape immunity to a high degree. Your statement is bizarre about the unvaccinated having anything to do with the state we are in.
Second, while it's true that the goal of a virus is to survive, replicate, and spread it therefore tends to evolve toward being more infectious and less deadly context still matters. COVID is rarely deadly so while fast spreading mutations will be favored less deadly is far less relevant. It's not likely (your word) that each strain will be less deadly. The only likely thing is that the next mutation will be better able to replicate and spread. So yeah, bizarre.
[deleted] t1_j0j9vqg wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j0jaeqb wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j0jalur wrote
[removed]
dbx999 t1_j0javyi wrote
You need to reread my comment. I said it is LIKELY that each new successful strain that develops in the future will carry a lower mortality rate. Those are the exact words. And your comment states that I am saying the exact opposite.
[deleted] t1_j0jcf0a wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_j0jdhjv wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j0jfbhy wrote
[removed]
MUCHO2000 t1_j0jft5o wrote
No I read you loud and clear. The problem is you're wrong.
It's not LIKELY because the death rate of COVID is so low. If COVID had a higher mortality rate it would be LIKELY to see less deadly variations over time.
I'm not interested in debating the meaning of likely.
[deleted] t1_j0jg21u wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j0jhd1h wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j0ji07h wrote
[removed]
kzbx t1_j0ji7kt wrote
Boosters were for BA.5 variant in the US. Average percent share of BA.5 in the USA during the study period: 65%(Would be even higher if I included a lag time for infection -> hospitalization). Current percent share BA.5: 10%. Useless as a prognostic study as no new boosters are being developed to currently circulating strains.
js1138-2 t1_j0jik9g wrote
Are we sure covid is becoming less deadly, or is it less deadly because nearly everyone has had some exposure?
[deleted] t1_j0jjlz9 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j0jl7jk wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j0jom3x wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j0jorhp wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j0jp9ji wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j0jpj5k wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j0jqimi wrote
[removed]
MUCHO2000 t1_j0jrjpo wrote
I am not arguing it has become less deadly. Maybe reply to the guy I am disagreeing with
[deleted] t1_j0jrsal wrote
[removed]
js1138-2 t1_j0js1wr wrote
It’s not intended as a rhetorical question. I thought you might have an answer, or at least know why there isn’t one.
[deleted] t1_j0jv2rr wrote
[removed]
MUCHO2000 t1_j0jv8gp wrote
It hasn't. This is an old article but a good read.
tengosolonada t1_j0jw1hm wrote
They said the vaccine was 99% effective originally. They said you wouldn’t get infected or transmit. Biden said this live on CNN news. Can’t trust anything regarding these experimental treatments.
js1138-2 t1_j0jx1is wrote
Maybe my reading comprehension is deficient, but it looks to me like the article implies omicron is less deadly because it doesn’t attack the lungs as severely. This is counter to the headline.
Also, the article was written shortly after omicron appeared, and we now have a year of experience with it.
The death rate around the world for the last six months has been the lowest for any six month period, and doesn’t seem to be rising with winter.
The question remains, is this because the disease has changed, or because people have adapted. Perhaps after a non-fatal infection, the immune system no longer goes into storm mode.
Or perhaps the most vulnerable people have already died.
shwag945 t1_j0k89zj wrote
Why not just offer yearly or bi-yearly boosters to everyone? What is the point of restricting it?
mightcommentsometime t1_j0kez1d wrote
> 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.
KillerManicorn69 t1_j0kf0er wrote
I’m not against the shot. But here is the reality. The vaccine doesn’t prevent you from getting it nor does it prevent you from spreading it. Because of that, no matter how many shots are given to each person, there can not be herd immunity. Only 24% of the hospitalizations in my area are unvaccinated. The other 75% are vaccinated. Over half of those are up to date on the vaccine. At that point, it’s up to the individual. If you are concerned or are high risk, get the shot. If not, go live your life.
mightcommentsometime t1_j0kf6to wrote
> There were doubts really early whether herd immunity was even possible due to the nature of coronaviruses. Again, much like how herd immunity with the flu is also impossible
Lol. No. Herd immunity is possible with the flu, but the infection rate and mortality rates combined have never warranted it.
We literally wiped out a flu strain in 2020 due to all of the covid restrictions.
mightcommentsometime t1_j0kfyn0 wrote
Yes and no. A higher infection rate bad in its own way. Even though there's a lower mortality rate.
The flu is mind and has a low infection rate. That makes it have wildly different dynamics in how it spreads through a population.
mightcommentsometime t1_j0kgxgv wrote
> Your statement is bizarre about the unvaccinated having anything to do with the state we are in.
Higher transmission and infection rates create a higher probability of mutation. The only bizarre thing is ignoring that well documented and well observed outcome.
> therefore tends to evolve toward being more infectious and less deadly context still matters
You seem to be trying to give some intelligent and predetermined goal to a virus. Mutations are random. Whether one mutation dominates another may depend on this, but the actual evolutionary path of the virus does not.
Where did you hear that it would?
> The only likely thing is that the next mutation will be better able to replicate and spread.
According to what?
> So yeah, bizarre
Your assertions are extremely bizarre indeed. I'd like to know where you get them from and what evidence you have to back them up.
mightcommentsometime t1_j0khnnt wrote
The only point in restricting is it when supply concerns come into play. You want the most vulnerable to be the most protected. If that's not an issue, restrictions don't make sense.
shwag945 t1_j0ki0be wrote
I highly doubt there will be any major vaccine shortages in the future. I bet that the vaccine will be as available every year as the flu vaccine is.
mightcommentsometime t1_j0kibv6 wrote
Agreed. That's why future restrictions probably don't make sense. The restrictions when it first came out made sense due to the smaller supply. But now that it doesn't require as much R&D to produce a vaccine which can match the new variants (aka mRNA vaccine technology is incredible), there really isn't a need for the restrictions as much
[deleted] t1_j0kjaez wrote
[removed]
mightcommentsometime t1_j0kk6uu wrote
> I’m not against the shot. But here is the reality. The vaccine doesn’t prevent you from getting it nor does it prevent you from spreading it. Because of that, no matter how many shots are given to each person, there can not be herd immunity.
You need to learn some basic epidemiology. Herd immunity doesn't, nor has it ever relied on 100% effective vaccines (which have never existed). It requires the vaccine efficacy to reduce the effective R value below 1 so that the virus dies out and can't properly spread.
You're trying to apply static, reductionist and simplistic reasoning to a complex nonlinear dynamical system. That will never work. Nor is it a remotely reasonable thing to do.
> Only 24% of the hospitalizations in my area are unvaccinated. The other 75% are vaccinated. Over half of those are up to date on the vaccine. At that point, it’s up to the individual.
You're now trying to compare numbers which require calculus without the use of calculus. That's not how math or statistics works at all.
I suggest you try to learn the bare bones basics of epidemiology (including the necessary mathematical prerequisites) before trying to comment in the science subreddit about it.
[deleted] t1_j0klbi9 wrote
[removed]
Carnifex t1_j0klqco wrote
Actually there are at least two, both focus on a different sub strain. Omicron.. Something was the first and then Omicron 4/5 I believe?
Carnifex t1_j0kltln wrote
They didn't. And if u understood it like that, you gotta work on your language comprehension skills.
[deleted] t1_j0kmlfp wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j0ko61h wrote
[deleted]
ThrowawaysROKYea t1_j0kr8zv wrote
I'm amazed I haven't had covid yet, I look forward to the future of mRNA cancer vaccines. Not that I have cancer just the amazing technology of modern medicine.
Ghosted19 t1_j0ktche wrote
Well I guess the public beta tests will change your mind. In all seriousness, 20?! That’s not enough to create accurate data. In my line of work we make high tolerance low volume parts….to try to assess our CPK based on PPM is impossible due to the skew one failed dimension would put on the rest of the analysis. I cannot see how extrapolation of data from 20 samples could accurately gage anything.
istillofferbutter t1_j0ky2sd wrote
They definitely started off saying it would be 100% effective
Kyomujin t1_j0kzkry wrote
Vacination costs money and while the doses are cheap the nurses needed to administer them aren't.
These costs and seeing how younger people appear to have strong protection against serious disease after at least 3 shots, make it questionable to continue giving shots to anyone younger than 65 in perpetuity. As for the older it can be worthwile to consider if making sure to prescribe paxlovid or other effective medicine early to anyone old is a better use of resources than making biannual covid vaccinations a permanent affair. You can also include considerations for the potential damage of vaccination exhaustion in the population as well.
Bathroomious t1_j0kzr5w wrote
Alwayshasbeen.jpg
Carnifex t1_j0kzwbg wrote
Oh look another few days old account.
No official government body did. Provide sources.
[deleted] t1_j0l0669 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j0l4kuw wrote
[removed]
HiHiHiDwayne t1_j0l7oj8 wrote
Next update will be needed soon since china opened up we are looking at exponential development of new variants
j86abstract t1_j0ldpis wrote
Do you have to be a nurse to administer the shot? My last booster was done at a pharmacy.
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.
Fast_Blueberry_4043 t1_j0lqj9f wrote
My doctor refused to give me paxlovid when I had covid, as I was 64 and there were "questions about the side effects of the drug." It would be great if physicians would get educated about the resources available now, too.
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.
MUCHO2000 t1_j0lx23a wrote
You have literally refuted nothing. Don't break your arm patting yourself on the back.
mountain_man30 t1_j0ly101 wrote
Even having a "qualified" nurse doesn't guarantee a good job. I've watched quite a few videos showing nurses inject before asperating to ensure they don't inject that spike protein inside a vein or artery.
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.
karlkrum t1_j0lypu0 wrote
Myocarditis risk in males <40 still poorly understood
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]
shwag945 t1_j0mbp1k wrote
The risk of death or long-term complications from COVID is higher than the Myocarditis risk. The vaccines wouldn't be on the market if they had a net negative.
mybrainisgoneagain t1_j0mcndu wrote
Seriously!!!!
Total contrast for me. Have a doctor friend that doesn't know my age. Was speaking with them just casually. Thinking about going to a large event. I am vaxxed and boosted and will mask. But I have a couple comorbidities What happens if I get Covid? Paxlovid was mentioned as a possibility ..
Note this was just in a conversation exploring possibilities in a just in case scenario. As knock on wood, fingers crossed, still a Covid virgin.
[deleted] t1_j0mdgdy wrote
[deleted] t1_j0mdify wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j0mdkaz wrote
[removed]
mybrainisgoneagain t1_j0mfh88 wrote
I found this on immunize BC hope this helps you.
The Moderna bivalent COVID-19 vaccine targets the original COVID-19 virus strain and the Omicron BA.1 subvariant. This vaccine is expected to provide better protection against Omicron subvariants (including against BA.4 and BA.5) than the original COVID-19 vaccines.
In clinical trials, a booster dose of the Moderna bivalent vaccine triggered a strong immune response against Omicron BA.1 and the original COVID-19 virus strain (the two strains it targets). It also generated a strong immune response against the Omicron BA.4 and BA.5 subvariants.
With the new Pfizer bivalent BA.4/BA.5 vaccine recently approved, people may wonder if it is superior to the Moderna bivalent BA.1 vaccine. At this time there are no clinical data available comparing the immune response from the BA.1 bivalent vaccine to that from the BA.4/BA.5 bivalent vaccine. There is no evidence that the Pfizer bivalent is better than the Moderna bivalent vaccine. Both Omicron-containing COVID-19 vaccines have been shown to cause stronger immune response to Omicron variants and compared to original mRNA vaccines.
As the original mRNA COVID-19 vaccines are very effective at protecting against severe illness and death from COVID-19, it is expected that the bivalent vaccines will also be very effective at protecting against severe illness and death from COVID-19.
[deleted] t1_j0mfjp8 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j0mfu2r wrote
[removed]
Ok_Inspection_2799 t1_j0mi192 wrote
I'm the only one in my family to get the vaccine and I'm the only one that keeps being effected by covid. Seriously I wish I didn't take that vaccine
HairyHutch t1_j0mmbuj wrote
Eh, for people who arnt really at risk of Mycarditis sure, but those same people, the elderly mainly, are way more likely of death and long term complications. The younger generations, the ones with a higher chance of developing Mycarditis, have a almost negligible risk of death from covid and risk of long term complications.
Forsaken_Rooster_365 t1_j0moqd5 wrote
I thought that when Omicron went into places with limited vaccination and limited experience with prior covid-exposure, they had similar to WT mortality? Like, it may have been less deadly than some of the other mutants (like Beta and Delta), but I don't think it was much different from WT. Been a long time since I've heard anything though.
shwag945 t1_j0ms4y9 wrote
If a medical professional determines that the risk of complications from the COVID vaccine outways its benefits they will not allow that person to receive the vaccine. They also seek informed consent from all patients. A sweeping restriction on covid vaccines is absurd.
[deleted] t1_j0mvhc1 wrote
[removed]
js1138-2 t1_j0n4ugs wrote
That’s hard to study, because the most vulnerable people are also the most vaccinated. But, when omicron had its first enormous peak, most of the people hospitalized were unvaccinated.
Now it’s hard to find anyone who is neither vaccinated nor a survivor.
sethbr t1_j0nrbzp wrote
In the actual study, 79 had received the bivalent booster.
mo_tag t1_j0otmo7 wrote
Already happening in other countries.. just got my 4th dose.. the vulnerable groups get first priority and then everyone else.. so it's not really a restriction
shwag945 t1_j0ottvx wrote
The redditor implied that only the vulnerable get fully boosted in the future. They were not talking about the typical staggered rollout.
mo_tag t1_j0ov1ug wrote
>My flair on this subreddit is citation enough when we're talking about simple things like your comments.
Cringe
mo_tag t1_j0ox802 wrote
My interpretation of their comment is that they're saying the focus should be on keeping the vulnerable boosted regularly instead of trying to focus on achieving heard immunity, not that the vaccines would no longer be available to anyone who isn't in a high risk group.. like flu vaccines, they're available to everyone but pretty much no healthy young adult takes flu shots in practice
Coenclucy t1_j0p0woj wrote
First adress "unknown fatalities" which most people understand to be vaccine deaths before jabbing everyone with the next experimental vaccine tested on a way too small group. What a coincidence: people dropping like flies with similar symptomologies after a large scale rollout and meanwhile pharma companies refusing to release full data. Not sus at all... gotta be pretty naive to trust companies that are notorious for putting profit over human lives.
Optimal-Spring-9785 t1_j0qa2vt wrote
Because there are hundreds of other subjects in this early release study
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!
AutoModerator t1_j0i4itb wrote
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our normal comment rules apply to all other comments.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.