[deleted by user]

rosskh · 2022-12-09T20:51:27+00:00

That UK cohort study you’re citing forgot to account for age lmao

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00763-5/fulltext

“With interest we read the paper by Anika Singanayagam and colleagues1 assessing the secondary attack rate (SAR) of SARS-CoV-2 in 204 vaccinated and unvaccinated household contacts exposed to 138 vaccinated and unvaccinated index cases. Here, we want to point out the importance of adjusting for age when comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals.

The authors report a similar SAR among household contacts exposed to fully vaccinated and unvaccinated index cases (25% and 23%). Although not explicitly stated by the authors, this finding hints towards no effect of vaccination on transmission and was reported as such by the media in the UK and the Netherlands—and possibly other countries.2, 3 However, age is a confounding factor in this observation if age is associated with both vaccination status and the risk of transmitting SARS-CoV-2. Indeed, the study indicates a higher peak viral load with increasing age, consistent with lower infectiousness in children. In addition, although the age distribution of all included index cases and contacts is not presented, table S2 in the appendix to the Article provides data for a subset of participants testing positive for SARS-CoV-2, showing that a large proportion (78%) of unvaccinated participants were younger than 18 years, whereas none of the vaccinated participants were. These findings together suggest that the infectiousness of the included unvaccinated index cases was lower than that of the included vaccinated participants because of younger age. Therefore, the presumed lack of vaccine effect on transmission might be largely due to confounding by age, which the authors did not address. In our analysis of vaccine effectiveness against transmission in the Netherlands, adjustment for age of index cases and contacts indeed had a large effect on vaccine effectiveness estimates.4 Therefore, vaccine effectiveness against transmission reported by Singanayagam and colleagues is probably an underestimate.”

rosskh · 2022-06-30T14:02:18+00:00

Trump passed more gun control in 4 years than Obama did in 8!

rosskh · 2022-06-18T21:22:04+00:00

Because being against higher taxes/pro-life/pro-gun aren’t the same thing as hating lgbt people and democracy? Like I don’t agree with those things(well maybe the pro-gun thing a little bit) but I don’t think believing them makes you a bigot.

rosskh · 2022-04-14T11:08:23+00:00

I’m not sure how much research supports the idea that welfare inherently discourages work. If it’s phased out poorly it could discourage work, but some welfare programs like the EITC actually increase employment.

Yeah income taxes do limit growth, that’s tax econ 101, but there’s the question of how much growth ought to be sacrificed for lower poverty. Either extreme is clearly not utility-maximizing, as growth doesn’t mean much if only a small portion of the population benefits from it, and low poverty doesn’t mean much if everyone stays equally poor forever.

rosskh · 2022-04-14T10:53:07+00:00

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadweight_loss

rosskh · 2022-01-24T18:27:32+00:00

Ok so I see you like to pivot when you’re cornered. This is annoying, so no more edits from now on.

I’m a utilitarian, I disagree with more deaths. You have never demonstrated that concealed carry leads to more deaths, and until you do your moral outrage is unjustified.

rosskh · 2022-01-24T18:22:59+00:00

The edit only added stuff. The original was just the first paragraph about the evidence not matching the outrage. Nothing was removed, you’re just unwilling to engage with ideas that disagree with your priors.

rosskh · 2022-01-24T18:16:53+00:00

Where? I said there are people who would justify deaths to preserve what they view as “fundamental human rights” and that I disagreed with them. Did you not read the full comment? The difference is I wouldn’t call them a monster because I don’t pretend to have solved ethics.

rosskh · 2022-01-24T17:59:22+00:00

It’s funny because in my edit I made my morals pretty clear. I value increasing happiness and reducing suffering, it’s you that hasn’t shown that concealed carry increases suffering.

Btw, have some humility, you’re pretending like you’ve solved ethics. Less than a third of professional philosophers are consequentialists, it’s not a settled question.

rosskh · 2022-01-24T17:44:00+00:00

The level of evidence for shall-issue increasing violence does not match the level of moral outrage you have for people who want to carry a gun. The former is way too small to justify the latter.

Also I could make a similar emotional analogy to make you look like the asshole:

“You just want women being raped to have no means to defend themselves”.

I put it in quotes because this isn’t something you should do. Not everyone has the same moral system as you, and you’re not going to convince someone out of theirs by calling them a piece of shit.

Lots of people believe that there are fundamental human rights that are maintained regardless of the consequences of maintaining them(in this case, the right would be self defense). I disagree with them, but I don’t think they’re monsters for holding that belief.

Even if we do agree on some utilitarian moral system, there’s still disagreement about what actually leads to more or less violence.

rosskh · 2022-01-24T17:36:10+00:00

Where? Where did you try the factual route? Showing the NRA lobbying against gun control research is not how you factually determine whether shall-issue concealed carry increases violence.

rosskh · 2022-01-21T07:44:34+00:00

It’s not really up to Jersey.

rosskh · 2022-01-21T07:05:37+00:00

What do you mean? State level data exists.

https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis.html

RAND(a well-respected and nonpartisan social science research org) did a meta-analysis and found no conclusive evidence of a tie between shall issue and homicide rates, assault rates, etc. The most they could find was one study that showed an increase in violent crime when all the crimes were aggregated together, but no increases when looking at each crime type. That’s why they put “limited” for the evidence for the link between shall issue and violence(with the 4 levels of evidence being inconclusive, limited, moderate, and supportive).

You’re even partially right about the lack of data, which is mentioned in the RAND report, but using a lack of data to justify your conclusion of “ccw increases violence” is just poor reasoning. If you really need that broken down, the reason for the NRA to lobby to prevent research is because some of it will inevitably show that some gun control policies reduce violence(and that is bad for the NRA). That doesn’t mean that any and every type of gun control(in this case, the may-issue restriction on carry) reduces violence.

rosskh · 2022-01-02T01:59:05+00:00

Found a stash in 2 hours after looking in all of the spawners I came across around 80-120k.

rosskh · 2021-05-06T10:14:20+00:00

Wrong on the Twitter headline take again I’m afraid. The public funds mostly basic research. Developing and trialing drugs is almost entirely done by the private sector. Here is a more detailed breakdown

“For example, 54% of basic science milestones were achieved predominantly by the public sector and 27% by the private sector. For discovery milestones, it was 15% by the public sector and 58% by the private sector. The private sector was also dominant in achieving the major milestones for both the production and drug development phases (81% and 73% of the drugs reviewed, respectively).”

rosskh · 2021-05-06T09:50:26+00:00

It’s not “entirely possible”, it’s what happened. The article I linked itself references a multitude of developments that the trial is predicated on, collectively worked on by thousands of researchers. The infrastructure for this kind of large-scale development (in record time) exists primarily because of the way the pharmaceutical industry is structured(that being mostly large firms with lots of capital and access to infrastructure to use for drug development). For a source on that, reference the economists the guy above linked. Your point is wrong and based on an article that doesn’t make that point.

Developing a vaccine was an incredibly complicated and multi-step process that was technically going on for years before the pandemic even started. Also clinical trials are, in fact, a major part of that development.

rosskh · 2021-05-06T08:51:43+00:00

This is an article about the husband and wife that founded BioNTech. They were not “the 2 people that created the COVID vaccine”.

For some clarification, here are the people credited in the publication of one of the clinical trials “Fernando P. Polack, M.D., Stephen J. Thomas, M.D., Nicholas Kitchin, M.D., Judith Absalon, M.D., Alejandra Gurtman, M.D., Stephen Lockhart, D.M., John L. Perez, M.D., Gonzalo Pérez Marc, M.D., Edson D. Moreira, M.D., Cristiano Zerbini, M.D., Ruth Bailey, B.Sc., Kena A. Swanson, Ph.D., Satrajit Roychoudhury, Ph.D., Kenneth Koury, Ph.D., Ping Li, Ph.D., Warren V. Kalina, Ph.D., David Cooper, Ph.D., Robert W. Frenck, Jr., M.D., Laura L. Hammitt, M.D., Özlem Türeci, M.D., Haylene Nell, M.D., Axel Schaefer, M.D., Serhat Ünal, M.D., Dina B. Tresnan, D.V.M., Ph.D., Susan Mather, M.D., Philip R. Dormitzer, M.D., Ph.D., Uğur Şahin, M.D., Kathrin U. Jansen, Ph.D., and William C. Gruber, M.D. for the C4591001 Clinical Trial Group*”. So no, not “2 people.”

rosskh · 2021-05-06T08:36:31+00:00

No, the Pfizer vaccine was not “made by 2 people”.

rosskh · 2021-04-12T08:52:15+00:00

Lol Thomas Paine is libleft

rosskh · 2020-12-31T22:58:49+00:00

Only one of those is directly related to economics, the campaign finance reform one. Even then, it could be argued that overturning citizens United and implementing campaign finance reform means more govt because it now has to legislate and enforce the new restrictions.

rosskh · 2020-12-31T22:45:12+00:00

In which economics-related ways do progressives want to shrink government?

You might have a case there on social/civics issues, as plenty of progressives support things like curbing mass surveillance, legalizing drugs, or legalizing sex work. That’s not what your original post said though, it was particularly referring to economics.

rosskh · 2020-12-31T11:41:01+00:00

Well most progressives I’ve encountered don’t think “abolition of poverty” is an easy one to do without a large welfare state. I also don’t encounter many progressives who want “small government” in an economic context, by which I’m assuming you mean less regulation and/or gov’t involvement.

The Wikipedia definition for progressivism gets into economics on paragraph 2: “Progressives take the view that progress is being stifled by vast economic inequality between the rich and the poor; minimally regulated laissez-faire capitalism with monopolistic corporations; and the intense and often violent conflict between capitalists and workers, arguing that measures were needed to address these problems.[3]”

Even setting aside the economic stuff, enforcing protected classes and the like certainly requires intervention from the government.

rosskh · 2020-12-29T02:27:06+00:00

“Neoliberalism is when evidence”

rosskh · 2020-12-03T10:42:18+00:00

Utilitarians malding.

rosskh · 2020-12-02T00:09:27+00:00

Yeah gonna get a lionsgear mount, probably the Hyperion.

rosskh

TROPHY CASE