Originally posted by blackiwid
View Post
The actual paper is https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-87692-z
If you look at the graph provided it is highly debatable (just look at the spread). To be clear I am not saying that is a bad study, but it is clear from their data that it is only a vague hint in the direction, not a serious proof (I mean, 1 point of data per country, not even per area? no critical analysis over the data from poor countries? the graph is meaningless if you can't trust the number of cases of so many countries). But this study was serving your point, so you decided to trust it.
Originally posted by blackiwid
View Post
So it is more 0 vs 0 at the moment. And that's normal, it takes times to produce quality analysis. And no, the number of studies has nothing to do with the truth (or we would just have a flood a bad studies to prove points). As a general rule, peers reviews and cross reviews are the norms, specialists need time to establish consensus.
Originally posted by blackiwid
View Post
Originally posted by blackiwid
View Post
Originally posted by blackiwid
View Post
Originally posted by blackiwid
View Post
But yeah, seeing people misusing data or studies for justifying their behaviours is something I can't help but to point out.
Originally posted by blackiwid
View Post
Originally posted by blackiwid
View Post
Oh, I though children almost couldn't die from COVID, according to you, after all it is only 0.004%, now they need filters? Nah, better find some better use of the money, what about some money for the roads, after all car crashes are more important right?
Just kidding, you know what, I give you this one, because good filters would also help with air pollution, which is a big problem in the cities we live in, and children deserve it.
Leave a comment: