Biden Orders Sweeping Review of Government Science Integrity Policies (sciencemag.org) 162
sciencehabit shares a report from Science Magazine: President Joe Biden today created a task force that will conduct a 120-day review of scientific integrity policies across the U.S. government, including documenting instances in which "improper political interference" interfered with research or led to the suppression or distortion of data. The review is part of a lengthy memorandum from Biden on his plans for "restoring trust" in government by emphasizing scientific integrity and the use of evidence in policymaking. The memo also calls on federal research agencies to name Chief Scientific Officers, and for all agencies to spend 90 days reviewing the role of dozens of panels that provide scientific advice to government. Agencies will also determine if they want to recreate technical advisory panels dismantled under former President Donald Trump.
"Scientific and technological information, data, and evidence are central to the development and iterative improvement of sound policies," states the memo. "Improper political interference in the work of Federal scientists or other scientists who support the work of the Federal Government and in the communication of scientific facts undermines the welfare of the Nation." Today's memo largely restates policies outlined in laws passed by Congress and in memos released by former President Barack Obama in 2009 and by his science adviser, John Holdren, in 2010. In general, those policies attempt to create uniform practices across the federal government for handling and sharing data, using technical evidence, and insulating researchers from political concerns.
"Scientific and technological information, data, and evidence are central to the development and iterative improvement of sound policies," states the memo. "Improper political interference in the work of Federal scientists or other scientists who support the work of the Federal Government and in the communication of scientific facts undermines the welfare of the Nation." Today's memo largely restates policies outlined in laws passed by Congress and in memos released by former President Barack Obama in 2009 and by his science adviser, John Holdren, in 2010. In general, those policies attempt to create uniform practices across the federal government for handling and sharing data, using technical evidence, and insulating researchers from political concerns.
Good (Score:5, Insightful)
The whole US govt needs disinfecting after Trump.
Re:Good (Score:5, Interesting)
It sure looks like Biden is starting a good round of detrumpification. I normally have zero confidence in any politician of any kind, but I must admit I'm warming up to this one - until he screws up or disappoints that is, which I'm sure will happen sooner than later.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We need studies of governments looking for reasons to get in the way so their donations can increase and their wealth curiously increase much faster than their salaries, because they and their spouses become investment geniuses.
I wonder what the results of this study would be...oh god dammit. It's the entirety of human history.
Re: (Score:3)
Not every country allows such fund raising as America seems to. Real campaign limits, only flesh and blood citizens allowed to donate and such can be done. There's still the revolving door for the important politicians but even that can limited.
Gotta be careful with this one (Score:2, Interesting)
I could see this particular order / initiative going well or going wrong, depending on who gets their hands on it. It could very well end up defeating the purpose, either making the science worse or creating the appearance of that.
Biden (politician numero uno) is ordering them look at changing the science - if his appointees decide there was a political influence. Well that IS a political influence! That's the top politician ordering them to reconsider how science is done. Which looks a heck of a lot lik
Re:Gotta be careful with this one (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course the main change under the Trump adminstration was the requirement to show your work.
That bullshit sure must taste good because you sure swallowed a lot of it.
Re:Gotta be careful with this one (Score:5, Informative)
I could see this particular order / initiative going well or going wrong, depending on who gets their hands on it. It could very well end up defeating the purpose, either making the science worse or creating the appearance of that.
Biden (politician numero uno) is ordering them look at changing the science - if his appointees decide there was a political influence. Well that IS a political influence! That's the top politician ordering them to reconsider how science is done. Which looks a heck of a lot like politics influencing the science.
Ordering politics to not interfere with science is also a political decision! That's awkward.
Of course, it is not such a one way or the other situation, so my bet is that overly aggressive interference is what's in the crosshairs. The problem such as it is, is that the previous occupant's administration actively interfered with science https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Some of the interference almost certainly contributed to the USA having a remarkably outsized number of coronavirus deaths compared to it's population. Altering or removing data, refusal to enact a mask mandate, promotion of irrelevant drugs for treatment. Admitted suppression of the situation, presumably to not cause fear. Politicize the Covid-19 flu by calling it a hoax perpetrated by his enemies.
Ordering the NWS to alter their Hurricane Dorian science to make a incorrect Tweet by Trump to be retrocatevly be considered accurate. That level of pettiness that level of narcississim to demand that the science is subservient to twitter is amazing.
I could go on, there are EPA changes, moving NIFA to Oklahoma from DC in retaliation for publishing data showing some negative results of Trump policy. And of course, there is the 500,000 times increase in exposure level of trichloroethylene, and ordering stricken any references to cardiac toxicity of the chemical.
So it would be criminal to not have a review of the damage the previous occupant had done regards science.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, if Biden could do something for the NIFA guys, that would be amazing. But I don't even begin to know how you would unboil that egg :-(
Talk about shooting the messenger.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course the main change under the Trump adminstration was the requirement to show your work.
Yes it was. People had to show their work under the Trump administration for fear that it would destroyed, deleted, trashed, or otherwise just covered up when it didn't suit the Orange Idiot's agenda.
Show your work is what we saw briefly before Trump ordered a fuckton of science done by various departments to be expunged from governmental websites.
To his credit not all work got removed. The studies which passed "political review" as he ordered in 2017 were okay. Not scientific review, political review.
You p
Re: (Score:3)
> You people who defend him make me sick. I thought my fellow humans were better than that.
The policy is what it is, regardless of whether the president was a jackass or not. The policy was federal agencies can't make new regulatory law based solely on studies for which they aren't willing to show the data.
It seems you are forced to try to change the subject and attack the man (which is easy) because you can't find anything wrong with the policy.
Re: Gotta be careful with this one (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, like I said, there are studies with privacy concerns.
Which doesn't explain why over the last 24 years, Democrat Senators have voted to cut science funding 74% more often than Republicans have.
> designed to break potential research participants' faith in their privacy being protected & thereby creating a chilling effect on research. It'd also require research ethics boards to rewrite their guidelines for approval & scrap many of those that are designed to protect people.
It does neither of tho
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Gotta be careful with this one (Score:5, Insightful)
Fauci is to many people a living god. When he reads the newspaper back to you, it's treated as the word from the burning bush in some quarters. Not a good idea when time proves him right, and terrible when time proves him wrong.
You make the typical right wing lack of understanding of science, by attemptinng to make it about individual personalities. Fauci has very little to do with Covid 19 - because your personality President had control. And lookk at the wonderful joog Trump has done.
Masks are a totem. I was picking up takeout at a restaurant with a tent last summer and there was a line to be seated. Two women, who were presumably waiting to dine together, were chatting while wearing surgical masks over n95s. I guess they figured if they double masked before they ate, for as long as they ate, then on average they would have been wearing one mask the whole time.
I'lll play your personality game with two acquaintances that I hear via radio. .These guys would warm the hearts of the January 6th Terrorist attack on the capital. Trump won by a landslide, QAnon is the arbiter of truth, social distancing and covid response is a hoax by the Democrats. Masks do nothing, and are a show of non-support for Trump. Hardly anyone dies from Covid-19. I'm going to live my best live, and not in fear. All of the proper thoughts.
Both of these guys contracted Covid-19. Both ended up in the ICU. They are out of the hospital now. They didn't die. However, they suffered heart damage, and they are both on oxygen for the rest of their likely shortened lives. They live in constant fear of death now,( possibly due to the confusion based on the brain being starved for oxygen for a long time) and apparently their "best lives" include walkers, and 24/7 oxygen. And one is worried about going bankrupt now.
But enough of that. For this isn't just about Covid. This is about almost the entirety of science. This is about one man who exerted his personal view over science. The facts are in that link. Ironically, the level of political control demanded and received by Trump rivals the old Communist ideologial doctrine of Lysenkoism.
Re: (Score:2)
You make the typical right wing lack of understanding of science, by attemptinng to make it about individual personalities.
No, I'm accusing the media/left of making that mistake when they say "listen to this particular scientist!" when it's plainly obvious that whoever fills the role of that scientist at any time cannot possibly have any information that isn't already circulating in the public sphere.
The media tells people to listen to some particular scientist because: a) he/she probably has access to information that people in general do not; b) he/she probably has the training and experience to make sense of the information, whereas people in general do not.
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
It sure looks like Biden is starting a good round of detrumpification. I normally have zero confidence in any politician of any kind, but I must admit I'm warming up to this one - until he screws up or disappoints that is, which I'm sure will happen sooner than later.
Biden is certainly not perfect. He is a politician you know. But what I do know about him is that he is a very competent policy wonk, just the sort of person to pick up the pieces after the previous occupant nearly ruined the place.
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Just the sort of person to know where to put a plug of clay to keep the swamp water from all draining out.
Trump drained the swamp. Unfortunately, he refilled it with sewage.
Re: (Score:2)
Trump drained the swamp in order to find his cabinet.
He refilled it with broken promises and the tears of the poor members of his base.
Re: (Score:3)
Trump drained the swamp in order to find his cabinet.
He refilled it with broken promises and the tears of the poor members of his base.
The base that still worships him.
Re: (Score:2)
The base that still worships him.
I've never understood this. What is about this man that makes 1/3 of the country worship his ass like the second coming? At the same time I don't understand why 1/3 of the country hates him with such a passion that it boarders on the holy. He was a bad president, sure, but he wasn't anywhere near as bad as some people think he was. In the same vein Obama wasn't any where as good as a president as people think he was.
Why do people want to worship politicians so much?
Re: (Score:2)
The base that still worships him.
I've never understood this. What is about this man that makes 1/3 of the country worship his ass like the second coming? At the same time I don't understand why 1/3 of the country hates him with such a passion that it boarders on the holy. He was a bad president, sure, but he wasn't anywhere near as bad as some people think he was. In the same vein Obama wasn't any where as good as a president as people think he was.
Why do people want to worship politicians so much?
All presidents are ordinary mortals with the same problems as "normal folk".
But Trump stands alone with regard to cult status. Many of his followers have pledged their life to him.
It is sort of a situation similar to cults. A charismatic leader who preys upon some people's weaknesses. Jim Jones, Charles Manson, Marshall Applewhite.
Trump had an interesting following. To many or most of us, he was a buffoon, a failed businessman and grifter with enough interesting ties to interesting money to keep himse
Re: (Score:2)
I've never understood this. What is about this man that makes 1/3 of the country worship his ass like the second coming?
"Reality" television.
Re: (Score:2)
I've never understood this. What is about this man that makes 1/3 of the country worship his ass like the second coming?
"Reality" television.
Which in itself caters to the most stupid. Strange thing is Hollywood makes these shows that cater to the Trump cult, yet are overwhelmingly rather far left.
Far left enough that comedian Ricky Gervais - a liberal himself - makes a habit out of skewering the deserved crap out of them at their award shows. Although the way he took a flamethrower to them at the last one, I doubt he'll be asked any more.
Re: (Score:2)
Just the sort of person to know where to put a plug of clay to keep the swamp water from all draining out.
Oh completely. And also the sort of person who knows what plug to remove to drain it and keep it empty. To be able to fix something, you have to know how to break it. (The opposite, sadly, is not true; a sledgehammer breaks almost anything).
So we know that he can be very corrupt or very honest. But which is he? We should look at his history. He spent decades as one of the poorest Senators. He was VP in an admiinistration which had almost no corruption scandals. There is some evidence that his son us
Re: Good (Score:2)
I'm HUGELY relieved that Biden won the election, but I also agree he's gotta be held accountable. We should be treating all of our politicians with a healthy dose of skepticism. They work for us, not the other way around.
Re: (Score:3)
he looks much like Trump v2.0, but on cocaine and steroids.
Well, I guess this is an improvement over the "Sleepy Joe" and "Dementia Joe" bullshit that was being slung about. They've moved to factual complaints.
Also, it's good to see conservatives back in the "executive orders are bad" schtick. Next thing you know, they'll also rediscover that deficits are bad! It's a Christmas miracle!
I agree that the executive orders are not a good way of dealing with issues, and I hope that he moves on to legislative solutions. Though if conservatives continue the "no legisla
Re: (Score:2)
And a vaccination program for the future to defend against his ilk.
Re:Good - for all (Score:2)
Re: Good (Score:2)
Probably because there's still no evidence to justify the behavior that went down at the Capitol and apparently nobody's learning the lessons they should be from that.
Re: (Score:2)
Riiiight, Biden, the guy who says there being more than 2 genders is scientifically factual, says we need "proper science" from the government. Mmmhmm. Remember, his team in the media lied about how voting machines work, COVID, his son's laptop, and a laundry list of everything else.
Can't tell if not-quite-silly-enough satire or below-average conservative talk-show listener.
Biden will find... (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Since there's never full agreement about what constitutes "science" this is just a way to legitimize what scientists call "selecting from random data" whatever outcome is desired.
Note, government investigating itself (partisan or not) tends to turn out like say, Fast and Furious investigation. I investigated myself and of course did nothing wrong. Sorry about the dead guys.
And no one ever goes to jail, no matter how much proof they broke laws is available.
Law for thee but not for we - usually a big sign t
Will he though? (Score:5, Insightful)
Biden will find a handful of environmental studies paid for by oil and gas companies, and conclude that science is actually fine-just-fine
You see awfully sure about that considering he just cancelled Keystone XL and has made it a point to center his entire administration around the climate change problem. It's only been a week and he hasn't been pulling his punches.
Great move (Score:2)
I fully support this, assuming it holds politically popular narratives, left and right, to the same standard. Bye bye climate change denial, critical race theory, oppression narratives, and gender nonsense.
Content-free virtue signalling (Score:3)
Biden is resorting to the usual politician's dodge. He wants everyone to think he stands for integrity and honesty, and the way he will promote this impression is by forming yet another committee to study the problem and make recommendations. (He already announced that he would be doing this for Covid vaccine distribution when asked about his plans, for example.) Then he can go back to doing nothing about it and be confident that the public saw him DOING SOMETHING and then will forget about the whole thing. The committee will meet for a couple months, file a report that the media probably will ignore, and the whole thing will quietly fade away.
a long way to go (Score:5, Interesting)
I am a scientist.
Trump wasn't wrong that science was politicised in the most general sense. Of course, he had no solution and lacked an actual understanding of what's been wrong.
The problem is the granting system. Science is dominated by the contract research market, and scientists are focused above all else on landing their next grant. This incentivises framing research results for committee approval, while gaining positions in and connections to those committees. Independently provable results mean less than political maneuvering, press releases, and the social media following of the lead investigator of a project.
A review of how Trump distorted scientific results isn't going to solve these fundamental issues (but making the National Science Advisor a Cabinet level position might help - something Biden is also doing).
The system put in place in the 1990s at the end of the cold war has done great things for science. It's brought us a long way, but it's run its course. It's been 30 years. It's time we start working on the next system.
That's the short version. If you're wondering what happened in the 1990s, a few big changes were made in an effort to reduce waste in government spending and refocus scientific work away from defense related spending:
- We moved away from a system that emphasized block grants (limited SOW, open ended) to a system that emphasized categorical grants (detailed SOW, task oriented).
- We removed the requirement that federal contractors spend 15% of their budget on auditable basic research.
- We moved the focus of national labs from research to contracting and tech transfer.
- We consolidated government agencies responsible for transitioning research into technology into the agencies responsible for basic research.
- We removed most restrictions on using international students to work on federally funded research.
The result was that we reduced the cost/paper and cost/PhD trained. We also reduced the costs for non-scientific materials purchased by the government. We reduced the overall amount spent on government R&D while quantitatively increasing scientific output. We also increased international cooperation in science. These are all good things.
We've defined R&D in industry for tax purposes to include writing commercial software. While that's great, it distorts the numbers and makes it appear that industry has picked up funding for basic research when that's not happening at all.
Now, we have an oversupply of experienced scientific labor, while funding too training projects. We've abused the "amateur status" of most working scientists (students, postdocs) to justify exempting scientific work from many labor laws. We have placed too much power in the hands of the scientific journals and in the hands of grant selection committees. This has prioritized work that is "interesting" over work that is useful. Science is now something the government drives, from salary ranges to research priorities, with a few notable selections. For most scientists, progressing in your career requires getting the right results at the right time and having the connections to get those results published in the right journals. We have created an incentive structure that values short term "feel-good" results over long term progress.
We (in science) have seen the results of this - a real reproducibility crisis, a lack of trust or meaningful interaction between scientists and everyone else in society, and a bunch of former colleagues and students who feel mis-used by the system for good reason.
Instead of moving backward, I think we should adjust what we have now. Require grantees to treat scientific workers on R&D grants as internal full time employees (this would be a very big change). Separate the R&D tax credit into science and technology and adjust incentives to prioritize science. Include more diversity on grant review committees - at least 20% non-scientists, at least 20% non-academic scientists. Pay grant review committ
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Immune system science (Score:4, Insightful)
How about looking at the science surrounding covid-19 for starters
Scientists should make that decision, not politicians.
Politicians should only give broad guidelines, like "Fix the frickin' pandemic," and then let the scientists take if from there.
Governments have been obsessed in preventing the spread of COVID and have put all of their attention into vaccines
That seems like a reasonable policy.
to the exclusion of all else.
I have seen articles about other Covid research.
Re: Immune system science (Score:2)
You comments looks like you two are agreeing.
He didn't say it was unreasonable. Just that other stuff was reasonable too, yet ignored.
And you say you have seen it. Well, I have seen a black swan too. One and countless white ones.
So basically you are agreeing that it's quite a little amoint compared to the reasonable weight it should have been given.
Especially since none of any of thar is mutually exclusive.
You could, for example, easily make the minimum ratio of prebiotics on food legally mandatory, without
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's also interesting to note that every day there is nothing but "covid fear" messages repeatedly coming out of all of the news agencies. "Stay at home. Don't visit people. Wear a mask. Get a vaccine." Lather, rinse, repeat.
Where are the positive affirmations? The body's immune system is incredible. Where is the encouragement to boost your immune system by eating properly, exercising. etc. ?
The biggest problem with the news isn't "fake news" or "spin". The biggest problem with
Re: (Score:2)
At best it's a massive failure of communication. Maybe we will learn from this but given how the democratic governments have spent all year making the same mistakes over and over again, I don't think they've learned much.
Re: (Score:2)
My head of health keeps encouraging people to get outside, while staying clear of crowds. Mostly for peoples mental health. And of course they've always been pushing eating better and exercising. My government has even banned junk food being sold in the buildings they control such as schools, the legislature and such.
Re: (Score:2)
Seems like sane policy. Which country?
Re: (Score:2)
BC, Canada, health is mostly Provincial with the Feds supplying funds, which are used to keep the Provinces in line. Feds have been pushing exercise on and off as long as I can remember and did better then average updating the food guide recently despite the extensive lobbying by various industries. It's the head of Provincial health who has been pushing us to spend time outside, and the Province that has banned selling junk food on government property and such.
The BC government has also mostly let the Prov
Re: Immune system science (Score:4)
Re: (Score:2)
You can get cancer from somebody's breath (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, COVID's on track to kill 500,000 in one year and that with us doing a lot to stop it, so your point doesn't even stand up to scrutiny.
Also, this is a really, really old talking point. Don't you COVID deniers ever get new material? I'd like to say you lost (Biden's election was a rebuke of this entire line of thought) but then you're still out there, not wearing masks and refusing vaccines and listening to the foreign propaganda from out enemies designed to make you spread the virus and hurt the country because you lack the critical thinking skills not to...
Edit "can't" not "can" (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The "above statistics" are only what they are because Canada had a lock down. I find it telling that you didn't quote stats from the US or other countries that did worse at controlling the virus
Re:Immune system science (Score:4)
Have a look here. Look at the nice excess deaths of +20-30% during peaks of infection (overall the death rate for 2020 was about 11% higher than expected and Covid wasn't even all that active for the first two months).
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htm
A new disease that creates more than 10% more deaths than normal (and this is with many active attempts at reducing how many people get it) is definitely something that is extremely serious and worthy of a strong response. There may be other causes of death that are larger, but a brand new cause that "scores" that high is definitely worth a bit of a frenzy (perhaps to prevent it from becoming #1), wouldn't you think?
Note, too: there are enormous resources dedicated to reducing cancer, heart disease and accidents. It isn't as if these problems are being ignored. We have indeed taken very large and expensive preventative measures for these problems as well (e.g. reducing smoking, safety requirements in vehicles...).
A communicable disease has at least an obvious way to prevent it: stop the spread by creating physical barriers (masks, social distancing, quarantine, etc.).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Friend got diagnosed with cancer last summer, needed surgery and ongoing chemotherapy, she'll likely be fine, largely because there was room at the hospital for her surgery etc. When the hospital and intensive care units are full of covid patients, people die from other causes.
Besides if you break down deaths by Province instead of nationally, you'll see in places like Quebec a way higher ratio of Covid deaths. And the opposite for the Atlantic Provinces.
Re:Immune system science (Score:5, Insightful)
How does the virus spread - study every aspect in detail.
Let me see if I understand you clearly. Instead of spending the available amount of limited funding and time proscribing general ways to prevent a virus infection and researching a vaccine, you wanted the government to spend that money in what might have been purely academic research in the spread. 1) You do realize money has been spent on this but the priority was vaccines. 2) What good would it have been in the midst of a pandemic?
What measures stop the virus from spreading, again study every method in detail.
You do know "In detail" might have taken years right? Years that the world does not have.
Who is vulnerable? This wasn't studied hard enough.
You do know everyone is generally vulnerable right? You want to spend years of research to learn what? Some people like the elderly and those with autoimmune disorders are more vulnerable for what?
What is affective against the virus. The governments displayed a bizarre bias again minerals and vitamins here, they were clearly only interested in new and old drugs if they weren't things we get naturally. This bias has now resulted in hundreds of thousands of extra unnecessary deaths.
You do know that decades of research says vaccines are generally the only countermeasure against viruses right? By unneccessary deaths, you are actually asking people to try methods known not to work.
They clearly did not do these things effectively, for example we here on Slashdot spent months arguing about the details of what would stop the virus. Some governments like South Korea knew exactly how to deal with the virus, so why did western governments pay no attention to people who clearly knew what to do?
Because here in the US, we had an idiot in charge who refused to admit the virus was real. Also in places like South Korea, they instituted heavy quarantine procedures which "FREEDOM!" loving Westerners are not likely to embrace. You are aware that there is a large group of Americans refusing to wear masks in public, right?
Vaccines are very expensive to research and produce, many of the other studies and measures cost a tiny fraction of the amount, we have no need to cherry pick measures when we can take all measures.
Why didn't you present your cheap and easy solutions to a scientist since you seem to have had all the answers. Isn't the deaths of all those people who died of CoVID on your head, then?
Re: (Score:2)
Limited time and funding!! Time maybe but governments has been throwing vast sums of money at vaccine producers.
Your post just looks like an excuse to argue every point and I don't see the point in that. I stand by my original post.
Re: (Score:2)
Limited time and funding!! Time maybe but governments has been throwing vast sums of money at vaccine producers.
You do understand that vaccines are the one of the only sure methods of fighting vaccines, right? You did study science in school, right?
Your post just looks like an excuse to argue every point and I don't see the point in that. I stand by my original post.
I had to point out every single point of yours that either made no sense or was no backed by any logic or science. By the way, have you contacted all the scientists of the world on how you could have prevented millions of deaths but did not?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I already said I linked the studies previously, honestly I don't think you care what they say and you'll come back with some fallacious nonsense so I'm not linking them again.
Re:Immune system science (Score:4, Insightful)
The government has been putting money into vaccine research stretching back at least as far as Reagan. In fact, the current vaccines wouldn't have arrived so quickly if they hadn't. Both Rs and Ds supported that funding.
Governments, at least the U.S. and Western govs, are very large and multifaceted. NiH, NSF, DoE, and the national labs would surprised to hear they have been spending all their time on Covid, they didn't and you are talking out of your ass.
And if you wanted a global effort, who precisely would lead this? WHO, which the former administration (alleged) pulled out of. The former (alleged) administration, which declared America First and Forget You Rest of the World? The former (alleged) administration, which has lost 20 million vaccine doses that the Biden Administration is attempting to track down, was worse than a bunch of crack addicts.
Re: (Score:2)
You say I'm talking out of my donkey but your post mostly is at a tangent to mine. Oddly you are saying that we should address global virus outbreaks globally.
I stand by what I said already.
Re: (Score:2)
Correction: Oddly you are saying that we shouldn't address global virus outbreaks globally.
If all these labs have been studying COVID that why the four-star didn't they quickly come out with some useful information with regards to how the virus spreads and is prevented from spreading? People have been arguing for a year about what is and what isn't effective to prevent the virus's spread and how it spreads.
Re: (Score:3)
If all these labs have been studying COVID that why the four-star didn't they quickly come out with some useful information with regards to how the virus spreads and is prevented from spreading? People have been arguing for a year about what is and what isn't effective to prevent the virus's spread and how it spreads.
Maybe because it is a very, very difficult question to answer? It isn't as if would be ethical to do double-blind studies of people in various social situations with an infected person (probably the only way to quickly answer such questions). Any study that is done is likely going to have to deal with lower-quality data and so the answers aren't going to be as accurate as one would like and there is a lot of room for interpreting the data (i.e. much will be flawed). So studies will both come to conclusions
Re: (Score:2)
There is no perfect path when it comes to ethics and viruses, vaccines ultimately can not be tested without the testers taking risk.
There was a lot of discussion about whether it was ethical to do so-called "challenge" trials of the vaccines (i.e. exposing people to live virus). As far as I know, this was not done anywhere - presumably because the consensus was that it isn't ethical. So if you don't do it for vaccines, you're not going to do it for masks. Ethics is one of those things where it comes down to a collective judgement (i.e. you may believe something is ethical but if 99 out of 100 people don't, it isn't - this isn't fixed an
Re: (Score:2)
" many governments have messed up their response and continue to do so, but thinking that you could do better is rather arrogant "
You're going with appeal to authority but forgetting that if I was running the government then I'd also have access to a pool of experts and knowledge and the ability to pick and choose who advises me. I strongly believe in learning from past lessons and learning from others mistakes.
I'm sticking with my original assertion that governments across the world did a lousy job of brai
Re: (Score:2)
to the exclusion of all else. There are many scientific studies showing
How can you claim something is to the exclusion of "all else" and then immediately start listing the development of some of the "all else" you claim was excluded?
It boggles the mind that at the beginning of a global pandemic there was no global effort to study all aspects of this virus and the human body's response to it.
Maybe you should read more. There were many studies on all aspects of the virus.
A year later and still the response has been a complete shambles.
Jesus make up your mind, did governments put too much effort into the response, or too little. Your username is MrL0G1C but your post has about as much actual logic as your username has vowels.
Re: Immune system science (Score:2)
Wait, so THAT is why vitamin D is sold out everywhere?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If the governments had a little more balls and would have advised taking Vitamin D, given the current rate of infections
Common cause fallacy.
People with vitamin D deficiency are more likely to be those who spend all day cooped up in an office or other building with other people, and being indoors prevents vitamin D synthesis.
It's not that vitamin D helps fend off the virus, it's that a set of circumstances leading to vitamin D deficiency makes the virus more spreadable.
Re: (Score:3)
The studies are on people that are infected. Those with proper Vitamin D levels (either to begin with or given) had a much better chance of healing.
Re: (Score:3)
Here's a randomized double-blind clinical trial:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Oh but it's small you say. Did we engage in giant studies before deciding to distance, wash hands, or wear masks? No, we move forward and gain data along the way. Hell, we still clean surfaces despite zero evidence of transmission via surfaces:
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/n... [harvard.edu]
And of course there are a lot of studies and evidence piling up on vitamin D, nearly all pointing in the same direction:
Re:Immune system science (Score:5, Insightful)
When I see a study that says vitamin-d supplementation made a fifty-fold difference to patient outcome
Really? A 50-fold difference? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, so [citation needed].
Re:Immune system science (Score:4, Informative)
Ok:
Of 50 patients treated with calcifediol, one required admission to the ICU (2%), while of 26 untreated patients, 13 required admission (50 %) [sciencedirect.com]
New studies suggest vitamin D supplements could reduce the threat of Covid-19 by 54 per cent [independent.co.uk]
In conclusion, SARS-CoV-2 NAAT positivity is strongly and inversely associated with circulating 25(OH)D levels, a relationship that persists across latitudes, races/ethnicities, sexes, and age ranges. [plos.org]
Re: (Score:2)
What do 1918 sailors and modern hobos have in common? [wnycstudios.org]
July, 2020
Re:Immune system science (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, it certainly looks like they are looking into it if there are studies being conducted on it. That being said, these are EXTREMELY limited studies, which means no one should be basing any policy on these. A study comparing 50 people treated with 26 untreated is far from definitive. And the last is a retrospective study, which again points in a direction but is far from definitive and something that should be acted upon by itself. And just to point out, neither of these studies show a 50 fold decrease. Until science comes out and says these are promising ideas that should be acted upon, no one should be acting on them. That is how we get stuff like the HCQ debacle.
Re:Immune system science (Score:5, Insightful)
How prudent of you..
The studies mentioned are limited, however these are not the only studies. There are quite a few more, including a much larger one in Spain that all have similar outcome: Vitamin D has a very positive effect. Especially Calcifediol which is the active version. If you take Vitamin D it apparantly takes about three days to turn into the active version. There are other studies in hospitals that have shown that almost all deaths had a deficiency.
So the facts are:
- we know Vitamin D is a safe supplement. That's where this differs completely from HCQ. In fact in the Netherlands it is officially considered safe to take 2000 IU with prolonged use. Other countries have higher limits
- it is already known for much longer that it has a positive effect agains respitory infections. This not new
- the effect on controling the cytokinestorm is also well known
- in multiple studies the effects have been shown
So under normal circumstances, not yet enough to base policy on. I do agree on that. However there is a crisis. We should base policy on science. But policy makers and even doctors should not practice science... The policies that are implemented such as masks, social distancing are probably based on less solid science. They have to deal with what is known and especially what is safe.
I am not saying that they should say that taking Vitamin D is the answer and that the focus should not have been on the other measures and the vaccines. I am saying that if people are encouraged to take vitamin D with the stipulation that we don't know for sure how well that works but that it is a safe supplement anyway, it would have quickly given us the facts the data that is now missing. That is something that politicians are afraid to do: stating that they are uncertain.
So if you want to wait until the science is definitive, fine. I consider the fact that it is officially a safe supplement combined with all the positive studies as enough to err on the side of caution. And considering the seriousness of this virus, I think it is prudent to advise this.
Re: (Score:2)
So what you're saying is that people with Vitamin D deficiency have poorer immune systems, cool that is common knowledge. What does this have to do with COVID again? Nothing because you just moved the goalposts spectacularly while completely ignoring the criticism was not that Vitamin D isn't good as a supplement (jesus man doctors recommend it in winter to even healthy people), but the OP's claim that there's a 50fold improvement in outcomes for COVID-19, a claim not even remotely supported by anything you
The problem with folks pushing Vitamin D (Score:3, Insightful)
There's 2 reasons to do this:
1. It sounds simple, and people like the path of least resistance.
2. It pushes the responsibility for the virus to individuals. i.e. you're suffering because you don't eat well, get enough sunlight, etc.
The second one is key, and it's why you hear it so often from the American Right Wing. The goal is always to frame matters of public policy as personal decisions. This is pa
Re: (Score:2)
"tend" would imply it's more common than not. Also, YouTube is a right-wing rabbit hole, echo chamber, so we should be able to find lots of videos backing up your stance. Let's see:
https://www.youtube.com/result... [youtube.com]
I scrolled through about 100, and none of them make the claim you say supporters "tend" to push.
I see doctors, scientists, a few news items, and random people all saying about the same thing. This could help if you have a vitamin D deficit, in particular as many people spend more
Re: (Score:3)
he should start by pardoning Snowden/Manning
Manning's sentence was commuted by Obama.
Pardoning Snowden is not particularly popular and is not going to help Biden with swing voters in the 2022 midterms.
dismantling the Federal Reserve
The wingnuts who think that is a good idea will never vote for Biden.
However, Biden is an establishment stooge.
After 4 years of Trump, we could use some establishment.
broken campaign promises
Biden didn't make many campaign promises. He mainly focused on not being Donald Trump.
Re: Restoring Trust? (Score:2)
Bullshit. You keep confusing NSA propaganda with what people actually think if they get to actually do that by themselves.
Like when some yellow press or Fox News declares "America thinks $x", not because it is true, but to *make* it true.
Declaring Snowden a hero is extremely popular. Because that's what he is.
Re: (Score:2)
Declaring Snowden a hero is extremely popular. Because that's what he is.
This seems to be a universal problem. People think that because their circle of friends like something, that most of humanity agrees. Spoiler: it ain't so.
Snowden is simply not actually terribly popular. Hell, most non-technical people have no idea who he is, and many people who know who he is dislike what he did. I'm not going to argue about his heroism or villany; that's not the point. The point is that if you think doing anything with Snowden would help Biden, you're rather confused.
Re:In other news... (Score:5, Insightful)
Nah, you have him confused with that Orange Dust Bunnie in Florida. Just mention Pelosi around him and he wets his pants.
Re: (Score:3)
Ya, because the right-wingnut jobs have miraculously become all minority welcoming. Funny how that happened. When should we start hearing announcements on how they are going to counter the systemic racism that is part and parcel of their philosophy? Get back to us soon.
Re: (Score:2)
The study should include the "dismal science" of economics. Any economic system that has repeatedly demonstrated that it impoverishes a nation (evidence) should be discarded. Fiscal and monetary policy should be evidence and science-based.
Re: (Score:3)
Why are conservatives so frightened of Kamala? Is it because of the double whammy of being a minority woman? Are you scared that Biden will send her out to rough you up until you buy solar panels?
Re: So far... (Score:2)
Given you're apparently too stupid to make basic logical deductions from my post -ie im not a yank so I dont have a dog in this race - arguing with you would be a pointless endeavour.
Re: So far... (Score:5, Interesting)
I suspect that Biden will actually get more things done than Obama. Obama became president too early, before he had accumulated enough legislative/governing experience and so he wound up being a lot less effective than he could have. Trump was similarly ineffective - aside from tax cuts, what legislative accomplishments did he have? Most of what he did was via executive orders which are far less enduring. (I'll grant that a lot of judges got confirmed, but I think that was mostly McConnell's agenda rather than Trump's.)
Biden REALLY knows congress well. I wouldn't be surprised if he winds up being closer to Lyndon Johnson - also a long-time senator before he became president - who managed to get Civil Rights and Medicare passed (and a host of other things). Hopefully Biden won't have the equivalent of the Vietnam War, though.
Re: (Score:3)
And you know this how, precisely? Or is this just another Conservative talk show wet dream?
Re: President Biden is just (Score:2)
Does it hurt that he's doing a good job anyway?
Does it hurt thst it does not actually matter if he is a puppet or doing it himself, because in the end, 1. if the job is done good, it is done good, and 2. that *is* what we call "Biden".
(Same reason it does not matter if our reality is a simulation or therr is a god or a universe outside of our universe or whatever. Because we cannot tell the difference... which is the definition of non-existence.)
Re:Is Biden science the same as Biden history? (Score:5, Insightful)
Ah, the old "our guy is bad but your guy is badder due to this anecdote pulled out of the right-wing media trashbin". Care to compare the former alleged president's list of over 30,000 falsehoods compiled by the WashPost compared to Biden?
Errr. . .you haven't been drinking the bleach again, have you? Bad for you. Maybe get another wheelbarrow full of hydroxychloroquine and wallow around in it. Better yet, order a wheelbarrow full for your hero, I hear he loves the stuff.
Re: Is Biden science the same as Biden history? (Score:2)
Now you're partisan too. Trump way -10000, and Biden may be -50 in the end perhaps, bit even if he'd be just -1 ... That's still below zero! And zero is the line between acceptable and unacceptable.
Biden is better, definitely. But the USA still got a long way to go ...
Re: (Score:2)
I am not being partisan. Trump is likely going to down in history as one of the worst US presidents ever (for so many reasons). However, saying Biden is better than Trump is like saying Trump was better that Hitler. Judging a president by comparing him to the worst past president either doesn't tell you much, unless you argue they are worse.
Re: (Score:3)
Edison himself did not create the light bulb concept (the arc lamp), he improved on it with the idea of a filament. Latimer improved on the filament and sold the patent to US Electric Lighting.
I think it's fair to say that the success of Edison's bulb can be attributed to the improvement from Latimer. Since we give credit to Edison (even though Humphry Davy invented the arc bulb some 7 decad
Re: Is Biden science the same as Biden history? (Score:3)
And like all Americans they forget Swan. Clue the first house in the world to be lit by electric filament bulbs was in England, with zero input from Edison.
Re: (Score:2)
Biden claiming "A black man invented the light bulb" since it just isn't true whether you credit Thomas Edison, or Humphry Davis (as you say). Crediting Latimer is neither here or there either, as there were many patents improving light bulbs after that too. Just because Trump made up his own "facts" (no argument there), it doesn't give Biden a pass on inventing his own "facts". If he continues to make up "facts" to suit his base narrative, science based on such made up "facts" is meaningless.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you denying that Lewis Howard Latimer didn't have patents on the light bulb?
https://www.biography.com/inve... [biography.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Many people and companies have patents in improving light bulbs, throughout the 20th and probably 21st century. So what? Saying "A black man invented the lightbulb, not some white guy named Edison" is akin to saying "A white man was the USA president between 2009 and 2017, not some black guy named Obama" then arguing that since Biden was the VP during those years, it's ok to say that because he "improved the presidency", therefore deserves the full credit for the presidency instead of Obama like Latimer des
Re: Is Biden science the same as Biden history? (Score:2)
Edison did indeed not invent the light bulb. That is like saying Musk invented the electric car or Jobs the smartphone.
Those are business people, handing money to people, saying "invent something!". And Edisom was quite a dick about it.
I haven't heard it being a black person yet... not that the color of the skin should matter (MLK turning in his grave) ... Though it was Tesla ;) ... But instead of partisanship, how about we look this up and actually find out?
Re: Is Biden science the same as Biden history? (Score:2)
It wasn't even an American.
Re: (Score:2)
One of the people credited is Lewis Howard Latimer, https://www.biography.com/inve... [biography.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Edison did not invent the light bulb and probably infringed on a couple of patents. What Edison did was make a better and practical light bulb by using a better filament.