Watching combat between competing PhD is always fun. But it takes careful analysis to find truth, since inflated egos that often go with academic credentials inhibits scientific discovery. When their minds are made up there's little room for facts.
It is unfortunate that the relevant data are unreliable and incomplete. One would hope for better competence from a science based operation like the medical establishment. But, of course, politics has certainly been the primary adjudicator of science during this episode, so the neglected records are at least partly purposeful. But data is never perfect, and we always make do with the best data available, accounting for the shortcomings of sparse data mathematically, and inaccuracies with probabilistic estimation. Careers will be made for generations of researchers trying to explain what happened in this episode.
The most important errors have been corrupted risk analyses. The risk decision for young people is only partly consideration of vaccine unjuries. Risk is not just whether the vaccine causes harm, but whether the risk of adverse infection warrants any vaccine risk at all. The covid risk for young people is very small. Moreover, we seem to have a pretty good handle on the conditions that predispose people of all ages to serious illness. The worst malpractice has been the presumption that all people are identical, and one treatment size fits all. Every doctor understands the fallacy of that, yet most seem willing to accept it.
"Angry cardiologist" certainly thinks it's a good idea to ignore comorbidity, so that medicine will become less "cold" and "American," which everyone understands is a desirable goal.
As for Gorski, I don't know much about him, but he doesn't appear to have a reputation for what might be called "disinterested" epistemic obstinacy.
Ignoring data diminishes results in any scientific quest. Feelings seems to be more important than results for a lot of people these days, including many who should know better.
Watching combat between competing PhD is always fun. But it takes careful analysis to find truth, since inflated egos that often go with academic credentials inhibits scientific discovery. When their minds are made up there's little room for facts.
It is unfortunate that the relevant data are unreliable and incomplete. One would hope for better competence from a science based operation like the medical establishment. But, of course, politics has certainly been the primary adjudicator of science during this episode, so the neglected records are at least partly purposeful. But data is never perfect, and we always make do with the best data available, accounting for the shortcomings of sparse data mathematically, and inaccuracies with probabilistic estimation. Careers will be made for generations of researchers trying to explain what happened in this episode.
The most important errors have been corrupted risk analyses. The risk decision for young people is only partly consideration of vaccine unjuries. Risk is not just whether the vaccine causes harm, but whether the risk of adverse infection warrants any vaccine risk at all. The covid risk for young people is very small. Moreover, we seem to have a pretty good handle on the conditions that predispose people of all ages to serious illness. The worst malpractice has been the presumption that all people are identical, and one treatment size fits all. Every doctor understands the fallacy of that, yet most seem willing to accept it.
"Angry cardiologist" certainly thinks it's a good idea to ignore comorbidity, so that medicine will become less "cold" and "American," which everyone understands is a desirable goal.
As for Gorski, I don't know much about him, but he doesn't appear to have a reputation for what might be called "disinterested" epistemic obstinacy.
Warm non-American blood clots for everyone!
Ignoring data diminishes results in any scientific quest. Feelings seems to be more important than results for a lot of people these days, including many who should know better.