NFR Do Yourself a Favor.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Canuck from Kansas

WFF Supporter
Mathematical modeling is not a medical study.
OK, I guess I am not done. I don't know if it's intentional or you are just semi-literate, but in multiple instances you have mischaracterized what has been written:

1. Where did I say mathematical modeling or the JAMA paper was a medical study (you seem to keep moving the goalpost - first it was "not scientific" now it is "not a medical study") - I never even stated the paper was "a science paper" (my statement was "As the studies pile up..."), though it is, and yes, mathematical modeling can be medical science, what do you think epidemiology is based on?

"Sir Ronald Ross, who received the Nobel prize in 1902 for elucidating the life cycle of the malaria parasite, used mathematical modeling to investigate the effectiveness of various intervention strategies for malaria." (my bolding)

PMC7178885


I can supply you with many more if you need.

2. You implied the because the because the JAMA paper did not undergo IRB review, it was somehow illegitimate - you either don't know what an IRB is or what its functions are, or you deliberately misled - the paper did not require IRB approval because it did not enroll any human subjects - it did undergo peer review

3. You misstated the results, either deliberately or because you you didn't understand what you read. You stated the JAMA paper concluded that "75% of all cases are spread from asymptomatic carriers." - that is not at all what it concluded, it concluded 24% - you were only off by a factor of 3 - you never corrected or owned up to you error, which was very misleading on a very important topic.

As stated previously, if you are seriously going to try and debate the validity of something, the least you can do is take the care to make sure you understand it before you attempt to disparage it.

Apology accepted, and now I am done with you.

Cheers
 
Last edited:

Gary Knowels

Active Member
You need to own the fact that the "study" you quoted is not a scientific study of asymptomatic transmission but a mathematical model of how transmission would occur IF the assumptions made in the study were true.

This is not scientific evidence support "evidence for asymptomatic transmission gets stronger and stronger".
Quibble with that study all you want. However, this review and meta-analysis identified multiple studies that showed asymptomatic and presymptomatic transmission. They also note studies that show while less transmission occurs (about three-fold decrease) from asymptomatic individuals, it does occur. Presymptomatic individuals also transmit COVID at a lesser rate (about 2/3 as much) than symptomatic individuals.

 
Last edited:

jccady

WFF Supporter
OK, I guess I am not done. I don't know if it's intentional or you are just semi-literate, but in multiple instances you have mischaracterized what has been written:

1. Where did I say mathematical modeling or the JAMA paper was a medical study (you seem to keep moving the goalpost - first it was "not scientific" now it is "not a medical study") - I never even stated the paper was "a science paper" (my statement was "As the studies pile up..."), though it is, and yes, mathematical modeling can be medical science, what do you think epidemiology is based on?

"Sir Ronald Ross, who received the Nobel prize in 1902 for elucidating the life cycle of the malaria parasite, used mathematical modeling to investigate the effectiveness of various intervention strategies for malaria." (my bolding)

PMC7178885


I can supply you with many more if you need.

2. You implied the because the because the JAMA paper did not undergo IRB review, it was somehow illegitimate - you either don't know what an IRB is or what its functions are, or you deliberately misled - the paper did not require IRB approval because it did not enroll any human subjects - it did undergo peer review

3. You misstated the results, either deliberately or because you you didn't understand what you read. You stated the JAMA paper concluded that "75% of all cases are spread from asymptomatic carriers." - that is not at all what it concluded, it concluded 24% - you were only off by a factor of 3 - you never corrected or owned up to you error, which was very misleading on a very important topic.

As stated previously, if you are seriously going to try and debate the validity of something, the least you can do is take the care to make sure you understand it before you attempt to disparage it.

Apology accepted, and now I am done with you.

Cheers
You OP was "As the studies pile up, the evidence for asymptomatic transmission gets stronger and stronger." and you attached this study suggesting that this study is in fact evidence for asymptomatic transmission.
 
You OP was "As the studies pile up, the evidence for asymptomatic transmission gets stronger and stronger." and you attached this study suggesting that this study is in fact evidence for asymptomatic transmission.
Jccady,
As the one in this argument who does not accept the prevailing scientific opinion on COVID transmission, the onus is on you to provide a preponderance of evidence that overturns that opinion. Thus far, you have offered misinterpretations of a couple of reports and an unwillingness to explore the evidence further, or to accept the considered opinion of the scientific/medical/public health community. Joining our forum as a troll even further reduces your credibility. Why not take a break and make some posts about fly fishing.
 

jccady

WFF Supporter
Jccady,
As the one in this argument who does not accept the prevailing scientific opinion on COVID transmission, the onus is on you to provide a preponderance of evidence that overturns that opinion. Thus far, you have offered misinterpretations of a couple of reports and an unwillingness to explore the evidence further, or to accept the considered opinion of the scientific/medical/public health community. Joining our forum as a troll even further reduces your credibility. Why not take a break and make some posts about fly fishing.
1) I'm not here seeking your validation, I could care less about your assessment of anyone's credibility.

2) I'm not and have not argued what is or isn't the prevailing scientific opinion on COVID transmission.

3) I haven't offered misinterpretations of a couple of reports because I've only addressed a single report - the report that was initially posted as "the evidence for asymptomatic transmission".

4) The report dealt with 2 variables - infectious periods and transmission proportions from individuals who never had COVID symptoms. They used a fixed 10 days for the infectious period. They varied the values for the transmission proportions.

5) The study says - "Uncertainty also remains about the proportion of individuals with infection who are never symptomatic (pns) and the relative contribution of these infections to transmission"

6) The study says - "Uncertainty remains regarding the magnitude of both presymptomatic and never symptomatic transmission."

7) The study says - "Therefore, these results lack quantitative precision, but they demonstrate the qualitative roles of these 2 components and show that across broad ranges of possible assumptions, the finding that asymptomatic transmission is a critical component of SARS-CoV-2 transmission dynamics remains constant."

So what this says is that IF their assumptions are true in a range of the assumptive values, that asymptomatic transmission cannot be ignored and must be part of the responsive strategy.

8) The study conclusion is - " In the absence of effective and widespread use of therapeutics or vaccines that can shorten or eliminate infectivity, successful control of SARS-CoV-2 cannot rely solely on identifying and isolating symptomatic cases"

9) None of this supports "the evidence for asymptomatic transmission gets stronger and stronger". The study doesn't even come close to making this claim.

10) My words of the results of this study are - if, the 10 day infectious period is accurate, and if our assumptions of transmission proportions are anywhere near true, then you must deal with the asymptomatic transmission of COVID.


Now you can call me whatever you want, because like I said already, I could care less about your opinion of me. I joined this forum to talk fly fishing because I think fly fishing is theraputic and in the current environment the more people can do to keep their sanity the better. But if you think that I'm going to abstain from commenting on someones post that says here's the evidence for asymptomatic transmission when it clearly isn't evidence for asymptomatic transmission, I'm not going to curb my tongue just so that I can be in your good graces.
 

Salmo_g

WFF Supporter
The best part of this whole thread (and others like it) is the personal attacks against others who don't agree with ones point of view. Gotta love it
The personal attacks can be entertaining, but they are a violation of what each one of us agreed to when joining this forum. Attack the argument, not the person. If we can't stick to that, we're not supposed to be here.

I can say that your argument is that of a dunderhead, but I can't say that you are a dunderhead.
 

Griswald

a.k.a. Griswald
The personal attacks can be entertaining, but they are a violation of what each one of us agreed to when joining this forum. Attack the argument, not the person. If we can't stick to that, we're not supposed to be here.

I can say that your argument is that of a dunderhead, but I can't say that you are a dunderhead.
I agree and have edited my answer earlier. Apologies.
Griswald
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Support WFF | Remove the Ads

Support WFF by upgrading your account. Site supporters benefits include no ads and access to some additional features, few now, more in the works. Info
Top