Quote:
Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins
I don't really give a shit about what you feel; that's the problem: some of us are trying to debate facts, and others act like uninformed opinions have equal validity as data-driven research.
This is just an elaborate rationalization for ignorance and intellectual laziness. It reminds me of a bad student paper wherein the writer doesn't attempt to construct a counterargument because, "everyone has a bias."
There are a lot of things we don't know, but there are also a lot of things we can say definitively.
*We know that social distancing works. This has been proven in the past and with studies of the virus' spread after the initiation of lockdowns.
*We know that the virus is spread primarily through respiratory droplets and that fomite transmission is much less likely
*We know that mask wearing reduces transmission of the virus
*We have learned a lot about the pathophysiology of the disease, which allows clinicians to treat it better (proning, coagulopathies, cytokine storm)
*We know that risk is correlated with age and comorbidity
We don't yet know if we'll have a vaccine, and there are no therapeutic silver bullets, but to say that nobody knows anything speaks to a gargantuan level of ignorance that you're projecting onto the rest of the scientific community when it's really just your own.
|
Why didn’t you include the fact that the flu is twice as deadly in anyone younger than 24? Seems like that would be vital information when berating someone for comparing it to the flu. I agree that overall this is much worse than the flu, but you can’t argue that for certain ages that’s just not true. So, yeah, younger people have a right to think the flu is more dangerous because it is for them.