There's been a lot of commentary on JW's glib affect, but medical people talk casually about things that outsiders would deem horrific. It's their day to day reality, and they speak of it as such.
And after a few drinks, if you're pursuing sex, you'll communicate differently than if you were being interviewed by a reporter.
There's been a lot of commentary on JW's glib affect, but medical people talk casually about things that outsiders would deem horrific. It's their day to day reality, and they speak of it as such.
And after a few drinks, if you're pursuing sex, you'll communicate differently than if you were being interviewed by a reporter.
So, the response to that aspect is overblown.
[One way to do this, would be to infect bivalent-vaccinated animal models with current virus lineages, and observe which escape mutations emerge.]
Whether it's mathematical models or in vivo experiments in a controlled laboratory environment, I can't see how either, or a combination of the two, could possibly hope to replicate what might happen in the REAL world, with its uncontrolled setting and endless variables, and unpredictability of both people, circumstances, and events.
From that perspective, "science" appears to be a pretend game, a fantasy: even if you can narrow variables to one, what bearing does that have on REAL life?
What real predictive value does it offer?
"We made this happen in a lab, we ran this simulation on a computer, we created a model, so now we know that despite her staggering anti-charisma, Hillary Clinton will beat Donald Trump, and a kajilion people will die from COVID, despite its infinitesimal death rate."
Back up a claim with the magical spells such as "laboratory experiment" or "funfair model," and somehow we disengage our intellect.
Humans are endlessly fascinated by those who predict the future. "Here are my Top 10 predictions for 2023," and most people lean in for a listen.
But whether it's soothsayers or psychics, astrologers or prophets, Fed watchers or stockpickers, economists or scientists, they all seem on equal footing:
Different methods, same track record.
Abysmal.
What we do have irrefutable evidence of is that expert predictions are often less inaccurate than those from laypeople. That's been tested a number of times and is well-established.
People crave certainty in times of trouble, but confidence- and even expertise- is not correlated with accuracy.
In theory, theory and reality are the same. In reality, theory and reality are different. (Attributed to Albert Einstein).
Whether a model has predictive value or not depends entirely on how well the model predictions reconcile to observation. That much is certain. Some models do have predictive value, although the COVID models do not number among them.
This does not mean that all science is intrinsically fantasy. It means that all good science must be disciplined by real world data. Even Einstein's theories on relativity had to be confirmed by solar observations.
That is a standard much modern "science" has abandoned, and we are living the results of this folly.
You're right, listening to conversations behind the curtain in an ER or near a nurses station...my mother was a nurse for 30y and indeed there are arrogant flipoant unkind people in every profession..we tend to put medical professionals up on a pedestal, but intelligence does not equal kindness. Some Dr's can be quite nasty https://forums.studentdoctor.net/threads/2021-all-over-again.1472844/#post-23672051
Having worked in a few hazardous situations (voice and data network engineering inside a petrochemical plant can put you uncomfortably close to a number of substances with a disturbing capacity to detonate), as well as having worked in hospital emergency rooms, I can well attest to the gallows humor.
JW's glibness is not troubling in and of itself. It's the topic in which he is being glib that is cause for alarm. It's one thing to joke about feeding people into a woodchipper, but it's something else entirely to joke about one's experiences washing the blood and guts out of the gears.
Glibness is one thing. Glibness about bad behavior is sociopathy.
More than a few bioethicists have raised cogent arguments against GoF experiments. Making new pathogens to study old pathogens is just not a wise idea. Yet Pfizer confirmed what JW said: they are making new pathogens to study old pathogens.
Which makes the glibness a cause for more than a little concern.
Yes, if he didn't, one might expect Pfizer to note that in any statements. But again, if he did, it's not at all clear he had Director-level responsibilities for mRNA tech.
There's been a lot of commentary on JW's glib affect, but medical people talk casually about things that outsiders would deem horrific. It's their day to day reality, and they speak of it as such.
And after a few drinks, if you're pursuing sex, you'll communicate differently than if you were being interviewed by a reporter.
So, the response to that aspect is overblown.
[One way to do this, would be to infect bivalent-vaccinated animal models with current virus lineages, and observe which escape mutations emerge.]
Whether it's mathematical models or in vivo experiments in a controlled laboratory environment, I can't see how either, or a combination of the two, could possibly hope to replicate what might happen in the REAL world, with its uncontrolled setting and endless variables, and unpredictability of both people, circumstances, and events.
From that perspective, "science" appears to be a pretend game, a fantasy: even if you can narrow variables to one, what bearing does that have on REAL life?
What real predictive value does it offer?
"We made this happen in a lab, we ran this simulation on a computer, we created a model, so now we know that despite her staggering anti-charisma, Hillary Clinton will beat Donald Trump, and a kajilion people will die from COVID, despite its infinitesimal death rate."
Back up a claim with the magical spells such as "laboratory experiment" or "funfair model," and somehow we disengage our intellect.
Humans are endlessly fascinated by those who predict the future. "Here are my Top 10 predictions for 2023," and most people lean in for a listen.
But whether it's soothsayers or psychics, astrologers or prophets, Fed watchers or stockpickers, economists or scientists, they all seem on equal footing:
Different methods, same track record.
Abysmal.
What we do have irrefutable evidence of is that expert predictions are often less inaccurate than those from laypeople. That's been tested a number of times and is well-established.
People crave certainty in times of trouble, but confidence- and even expertise- is not correlated with accuracy.
Even if the prediction is "backed by science."
In theory, theory and reality are the same. In reality, theory and reality are different. (Attributed to Albert Einstein).
Whether a model has predictive value or not depends entirely on how well the model predictions reconcile to observation. That much is certain. Some models do have predictive value, although the COVID models do not number among them.
This does not mean that all science is intrinsically fantasy. It means that all good science must be disciplined by real world data. Even Einstein's theories on relativity had to be confirmed by solar observations.
That is a standard much modern "science" has abandoned, and we are living the results of this folly.
Love that quote.
Didn't mean to suggest that all science is a fantasy, but the exceptions prove the rule.
You're right, listening to conversations behind the curtain in an ER or near a nurses station...my mother was a nurse for 30y and indeed there are arrogant flipoant unkind people in every profession..we tend to put medical professionals up on a pedestal, but intelligence does not equal kindness. Some Dr's can be quite nasty https://forums.studentdoctor.net/threads/2021-all-over-again.1472844/#post-23672051
I wouldn't label it one hundred percent nasty,for many it's just a coping mechanism. "Gallows humor."
Having worked in a few hazardous situations (voice and data network engineering inside a petrochemical plant can put you uncomfortably close to a number of substances with a disturbing capacity to detonate), as well as having worked in hospital emergency rooms, I can well attest to the gallows humor.
JW's glibness is not troubling in and of itself. It's the topic in which he is being glib that is cause for alarm. It's one thing to joke about feeding people into a woodchipper, but it's something else entirely to joke about one's experiences washing the blood and guts out of the gears.
Glibness is one thing. Glibness about bad behavior is sociopathy.
More than a few bioethicists have raised cogent arguments against GoF experiments. Making new pathogens to study old pathogens is just not a wise idea. Yet Pfizer confirmed what JW said: they are making new pathogens to study old pathogens.
Which makes the glibness a cause for more than a little concern.
This guy is not a high level decision maker, and if he had ethical standards, he'd be collecting a check elsewhere.
I'm baffled that we would expect someone in his position not to be glib. "Should" vs reality.
He's a part of Pfizer and therefore a reflection of their culture.
Maybe others expect them not to be glib, but my concern is the seeming unethical behavior about which they are being glib.
"He's [Dr. Jordon Walker] a part of Pfizer"
Has this been established? To this day, I'm still unsure if a) he worked for Pfizer and b) if so, in what specific role(s) and job title(s):
https://twitter.com/aronro/status/1618823095397285889
Yes, if he didn't, one might expect Pfizer to note that in any statements. But again, if he did, it's not at all clear he had Director-level responsibilities for mRNA tech.
Yes, it has been established that he was a mid level manager at Pfizer.
Thanks, Peter! Any good cite you came across for that, that you can share?