just when you thought you knew what stupid was

[5030]

And yet another thread headed for the infamous MC lock.

 

[oosik]

My take - - Man am I glad he is sheriff of Marion Co., FL & I live up here in NE WA state.

 

[ruffdog]

"Just before the patient died, they looked at their nurse and they said, 'I think I made a mistake. I thought this was a hoax but it's not,'"

 

[RSR]

And of course, there is no agenda there. Nope. Not a bit.

Actually, there isn't. I realize that can be very hard to believe, as government in general often does have an agenda. But, scientific funding is a very open process, and is very carefully separated from political influence. It works as follows (using NSF as an example. Other funding agencies may vary slightly, but the general process is the same).

A full explanation would be lengthy, although I'm happy to give it, or answer specific questions, if interested. The Cliff notes version is this:

1) Solicitations for grants can be targeted, or unsolicited. Most are unsolicited meaning "submit whatever idea you have for research, we'll evaluate it, and decide if it is worth being funded." (No agenda on what they are looking to fund). Targeted solicitations are looking for particular topics. For example, they'll say, "we are looking to fund research on COVID-19." That's basically it. No agenda.

2) A program manager, a temporary 2-4 year position filled by a scientist from a university or research lab (not a government bureaucrat), in a particular focus area convenes a review panel of scientists to evaluate proposals by identifying experts in the field and asking them to review proposals.

3) A panel is usually comprised of 8-10 individuals that will review about 30 proposals. Each proposal is reviewed in detail by 3 panel members, and then discussed by the entire group. The discussion is based solely on specific review criteria that only evaluate the scientific merit of the proposal. Period. This focus on only reviewing if it is good science, and ignoring any other influences, is a fundamental tenet of review, anywhere. There is zero discussion or even consideration of anything even remotely political. Mandatory training prior to serving on a panel emphasizes how to identify any biases you may have, and how to avoid them at all costs. The money comes from the government, but they don't get to choose who is funded. The independent panel of experts does that.

4) Each grant is given a score, based solely on the review panel. The program manager is not allowed to provide any input on this. Any conflicts of interest are closely vetted, and those panelists are removed from the room during discussion, and not allowed to review or discuss those proposals.

5) The grants are ranked by score, and the top ones, based on available funding, get funded. The others are denied. At NSF, about 10% of submitted grants are funded. 90% are turned down. Only the top, carefully vetted proposals make it through.

6)The panel members volunteer their time. Serving on a panel is usually about 30-40 hours of work, which you have to squeeze in over about a 4 week period in addition to your other job responsibilities. You are paid $200 for that time ...

7) Panel members destroy all copies of proposals when completed, and are not allowed to divulge what panel they served on (so no one knows who reviewed which grants). They are only allowed to say, "I was a reviewer for an NSF panel".

 

[Industrial Toys]

Maybe it's just me. But at the end of the day, I would sooner believe a mechanic or brick layer over some academic.

 

[RickB]

Maybe it's just me. But at the end of the day, I would sooner believe a mechanic or brick layer over some academic.

About mechanics or masonry, yes. But when you use experts in those fields for guidance on important unrelated topics such as pandemic medicine you prove that you really do not know what stupid is.

 

[ProjectKing]

I will respect and accept the moving target of science as it battles to understand a new disease far more than a herd of jacklegs with no training, experience or relevant education that parrot Facebook memes and pretend to know all.

Lmao! Best post ever!

 

[ProjectKing]

About mechanics or masonry, yes. But when you use experts in those fields for guidance on important unrelated topics such as pandemic medicine you prove that you really do not know what stupid is.

You can’t fix stupid.

RSR thank you for your work and trying to educate folks here on the forum.

 

[shooterdon]

I trust Dr Fauci because he is the top expert.

He always speaks the truth except when he needs to lie to save humanity from normal people who want to use up N95 masks when medical workers lives were more important.

He has been consistent throughout this pandemic. Consistently modifying recommendations as new facts emerge that counter the facts he had mere days ago. It is difficult to Be an expert when the science and data keep changing.

Thankfully we can depend on the WHO and it痴 expertise and transparency for those times Fauci makes a rare error.

 

[deezler]

Well said, Don.

It's just so strange to me, the prevalence of folks who actively distrust scientists and the general news media who still generally reports their findings in a largely accurate manner. Of course there is some bias and marketing going on, but it doesn't seem that hard to acknowledge and look past. Newspapers work really, really hard to avoid losing your trust, because then their income disappears. The New York times, for example, does NOT want to issue corrections or be caught in a lie or conspiracy. They are accurate.

So you don't trust scientists, yet you probably take prescription pills for something or other. You don't trust scientists, yet you happily get in your car and burn hydrocarbons in a fascinatingly complex engine as you drive into town. You eat food thats been engineered in a laboratory, maybe every day. You watch with pride as we send astronauts into space and dock into our international space station.

And then, when society asks you for ONE MEASLY sacrifice to help humanity, you'd rather distrust science to avoid a tiny inconvenience. I dunno, there's not much to call that kind of thinking beyond the word selfish.

 

[Citydude]

Here in Wyoming, it is suggested that masks be worn. We don’t classify or label people who do or don’t wear them.

It’s an illness of a society to do so and fits in with the cancel culture.

 

[RSR]

I trust Dr Fauci because he is the top expert.

He always speaks the truth except when he needs to lie to save humanity from normal people who want to use up N95 masks when medical workers lives were more important.

He has been consistent throughout this pandemic. Consistently modifying recommendations as new facts emerge that counter the facts he had mere days ago. It is difficult to Be an expert when the science and data keep changing.

Thankfully we can depend on the WHO and it痴 expertise and transparency for those times Fauci makes a rare error.

I have the utmost respect for Fauci. He has been placed in an unimaginably difficult position of providing accurate information in a rapidly changing pandemic, where our understanding is continually evolving. Furthermore, he's had to convince a skeptical public to comply with measures that, while easy in principle, are a serious readjustment to how individuals go about daily life.

Even so, he has been remarkably adept at doing so while garnering the trust of a nation (76% of the Nation trust him). That is the type of leader I want directing the medical response to a pandemic.

As can be seen from my posts on here, I don't have that kind of patience.

 

[/pine]

I don't know if you thought better of your earlier comment and deleted it, or if moderators pruned it, but a few comments.

1) A wise friend in college once told me, you can tell who is on the wrong end of a discussion/argument when they resort to name calling.

2) The global research community is not exactly your band of big foot hunters. Again, your lack of understanding continues to confound. The databases I referenced are not pro-anything. They are simply a repository where scientific articles are indexed so they can easily be found in one location. It's basically a virtual library.

3) You claim I have an agenda because I am supported by industry, and that research in general is. Again, completely wrong. The vast majority of scientific research is actual funded by the government. NIH, NSF, DOD, ONR, etc. I have never been funded by industry. My work on COVID-19 is funded by the NATIONAL Science Foundation. A Federal entity, as in, sponsored by the government. Guess where the government gets their money to fund me? Taxes. Guess who pays taxes? You. So, thank you for funding my research.

Do I have an agenda and bias? Well, if keeping people alive is an agenda and bias, then I guess so.

FYI...Making observations is not name calling...crackpots are crackpots...and you fit the zealot description...
Oh and there is nothing I don't understand about this topic being mostly about opinions and not scientific fact...

Since distancing and volunteer quarantining was obviously not working the powers that be had only one option and that was to reverse the original summation that masks were of little benefit to the general public...it's a fact that if the virus is close enough for an inferior mask to have any effect it is just as likely to be on a person's hands or exposed parts of the face like the eyes etc...

The world is full of gullible peeps...that much is obvious just from reading some of the comments...:laughing:

 

[/pine]

FYI...In general...people mostly distrust or question "science" when politics are involved...and other than the climate change debate it is hard to imagine another topic as political as COVID...

 

[square1]

..out the the spotlight businesses are NOT complying with mask regulations.

Effective last weekend I will walk out of non-compliant businesses. Sadly, these are typically the establishments that need local money to walk in their door to purchase product or services.
They are making the choice for me. It's unlikely they will get a 2nd chance. I'll return to the locations that were practicing proper precautions.

 

[Industrial Toys]

Someone always trying to "EDUCATE" others.

There is a group in Toronto that has marched and protested, and not worn masks for sixteen weeks, At days end, they go down to the beach for further celebration with music, til dawn. None has gotten sick (apparently).

Funny, two guys with chainsaws attacked their DJ equipment the other morning. Seen on REBEL NEWS.

As far as academics go. Many just can't see the forest for the trees. Reminds me of that Sellers movie, "The Gardener" I would believe him.

I don't ENVY anyone put in the Public Spotlight to make decisions on such matters. And I don't trust or listen to anyone, where power over others or Politics is at play. Live free or Die.

 

[MossRoad]

"The Gardener" was not the name of that movie. It was "Being There".

Being There - Wikipedia

 

[Industrial Toys]

I thought I might have got that wrong. Thanks for that. YES, what would he say about COVID?

I was reading a USA Today piece about the Swedish handling of this situation. Supposedly trying to establish herd immunity, with many deaths. But NOT A WORD about the stats on those deaths. Drives me nuts!

 

[MossRoad]

I thought I might have got that wrong. Thanks for that. YES, what would he say about COVID?

I was reading a USA Today piece about the Swedish handling of this situation. Supposedly trying to establish herd immunity, with many deaths. But NOT A WORD about the stats on those deaths. Drives me nuts!

He would have said, "I like to watch."

 

[RSR]

I thought I might have got that wrong. Thanks for that. YES, what would he say about COVID?

I was reading a USA Today piece about the Swedish handling of this situation. Supposedly trying to establish herd immunity, with many deaths. But NOT A WORD about the stats on those deaths. Drives me nuts!

It's not clear from your comment what exact stats you're looking for (by age, etc.) but the overall numbers are pretty revealing of that approach:

Sweden: Total: 83,842 infections, 5,776 deaths. Current: ~ 250 cases/day.

Their neighboring Nordic countries with similar lifestyles, population densities, etc., except they embraced lockdown, social distancing, and mask wearing:

Finland: Total: 7,700 cases, 333 deaths. Current: ~ 10 cases/day
Norway: Total: 9,850 cases, 261 deaths. Current: ~ 50 cases/day

There was an interesting article a few weeks ago looking at the economic fallout. They showed that there has been no difference in economic impact between the two approaches. Finland's and Norway's was severe, but short. Sweden's was slower, but drawn out (and ongoing). All countries are in the same place economically. The difference is Sweden had 10 times the deaths, and is still dealing with outbreaks and infection, while Finland and Norway have largely returned to life as normal.