Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Turning the dimmer switch slowly to the right in order to see what kind of outcomes occur. Likely in conjunction with testing, tracing and isolation of those positively tested and well as those closely
associated with those who test positive.
I thought this was an interesting Q & A with Epidemiologist Knut Wittkowski who was the head of Biostatistics, Epidemiology, and Research Design at The Rockefeller University’s Center for Clinical and Translational Science.
I thought this was an interesting Q & A with Epidemiologist Knut Wittkowski who was the head of Biostatistics, Epidemiology, and Research Design at The Rockefeller University’s Center for Clinical and Translational Science.
It’s interesting if one is seeking bias confirmation, yes - which, in today’s internet culture is very easy to find. There are always outliers. The key to clearing bias is to balance one’s research.
Dr. (PhD, not MD) Wittkowski is a well credentialed biostatistician - not an epidemiologist, for starters. But he has certainly worked with leading epidemiologists. That clarified, he is in a considerable minority of scientists holding the opinions he promotes relating to CV 19.
Quite interesting: the Rockefeller University, where Wittkowski is no longer employed but which is being used as a resume’ validation for him, felt compelled to issue a statement distancing the institution from his views:
Quote:
The opinions that have been expressed by Knut Wittkowski, discouraging social distancing in order to hasten the development of herd immunity to the novel coronavirus, do not represent the views of The Rockefeller University, its leadership, or its faculty.
Also interesting is the media you source for the interview you are linking:
Quote:
Spiked (or Sp!ked if you're 13 years old) is a British online magazine of libertarian persuasion, founded in 2000. It has a curious history tracing back to a bunch of dissident marxists from the British Revolutionary Communist Party who previously wrote a magazine called Living Marxism. Spiked has a variety of eccentric contributors who have expressed contrarian opinions on topics such as child pornography, global warming, transphobia, feminism, corporate regulation, and hate speech.[1] It opposes free speech restrictions on university campuses, such as no platforming, to which end it compiles annual Free Speech University Rankings.[1] It is generally pro-science but is strongly anti-environmentalist even extending to global warming denialism.
It is linked with a number of other organisations, many related to science and science policy, including Sense About Science. To its enemies (including George Monbiot, Nick Cohen, Peter Melchett, and public transparency campaigners Lobbywatch), these bodies form a vast secret network of entryists; to others, it's just "a loose, informal group of people, some of whom have known each other a long time".[1]
Media Bias/Fact Check rates it as "right bias" and Factual Reporting: "MIXED".[2]
...
According to journalist George Monbiot, Spiked "appears to hate leftwing politics. It inveighs against the welfare state, against regulation, the Occupy movement, anti-capitalists, Jeremy Corbyn, George Soros, #MeToo, 'black privilege' and Black Lives Matter. … Its articles repeatedly defend figures on the hard right or far right: Katie Hopkins, Nigel Farage, Alex Jones, the Democratic Football Lads’ Alliance, Tommy Robinson, Toby Young, Arron Banks, Viktor Orbán."[3]
It has taken an extreme libertarian view, opposing:
gun control[7]
restrictions on tobacco and tobacco advertising[7][1]
taxes on sugar and other legislation to promote healthy eating
all corporate regulation generally[1] bans on child pornography[7]
legislation on hate speech and anything else that restricts freedom of speech even of the most unpleasant and hateful people[1]
The #MeToo movement, which it claims is misogynistic[8]
The European Union[9]
It has argued that global warming could be a good thing —
... Breitbart has celebrated Spiked as part of a new range of "cultural libertarians" alongside Milo Yiannopoulos, Katie Hopkins, Carl Benjamin, Christina Hoff Sommers, Cathy Young, Bill Maher, Maajid Nawaz, Jon Ronson, and actor Adam Baldwin.[11]
Any “media” that promotes conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, opposes restrictions on child pornography, and is “celebrated” by Breitbart is NOT a good reference.
Please tell me you just happened upon this media interview and are NOT a regular reader?
Meanwhile, here are a couple credible responses to Wittkowski’s view:
And finally, there is no guarantee that any immunity can be achieved against CV19. This morning’s news includes a report that 5 sailors aboard the USS Roosevelt, who had the corona virus, and survived, were retested multiple times and cleared to return to duty, have now fallen ill again a month later and been re quarantined. It may prove to be that the testing that cleared them was faulty. Or it may be that CV19, like many other viruses including what is referred to as the “common cold”, can’t be immunized against.
I thought this was an interesting Q & A with Epidemiologist Knut Wittkowski who was the head of Biostatistics, Epidemiology, and Research Design at The Rockefeller University’s Center for Clinical and Translational Science.
Isn't this the fellow that used to work at Rockefeller University (never as a professor) as a biostat, and that the university's administration and faculty recently published a letter to the public stating he was no longer associated with with the university and his views do not represent those of the university? He has no apparent background in infectious disease studies, research or bio-chem. That is correct, isn't it?
Isn't this the fellow that used to work at Rockefeller University (never as a professor) as a biostat, and that the university's administration and faculty recently published a letter to the public stating he was no longer associated with with the university and his views do not represent those of the university? He has no apparent background in infectious disease studies, research or bio-chem. That is correct, isn't it?
Yes. As I just linked in the post previous to yours.
The disassociation is not a disproof of “the fellow’s” views, of course. Just one of several eyebrow raisers worthy of leading any interested party to look deeper
And finally, there is no guarantee that any immunity can be achieved against CV19. This morning’s news includes a report that 5 sailors aboard the USS Roosevelt, who had the corona virus, and survived, were retested multiple times and cleared to return to duty, have now fallen ill again a month later and been re quarantined. It may prove to be that the testing that cleared them was faulty. Or it may be that CV19, like many other viruses including what is referred to as the “common cold”, can’t be immunized against.
The Roosevelt news report is interesting, and there have been anecdotal accounts from Korea and elsewhere of reinfection. That is the frustrating thing about studying a new, fast moving virus. We simply don't know anything about it, and little changes the fact that conducting rigorous biological studies just takes time.
In the meantime, we should conduct robust testing, tracing and isolatation as we slowly open. As I stated before, we need to understand how to co-exist with this 'uninvited guest'.
Yes. As I just linked in the post previous to yours.
The disassociation is not a disproof of “the fellow’s” views, of course. Just one of several eyebrow raisers worthy of leading any interested party to look deeper
The Roosevelt news report is interesting, and there have been anecdotal accounts from Korea and elsewhere of reinfection. That is the frustrating thing about studying a new, fast moving virus. We simply don't know anything about it, and little changes the fact that conducting rigorous biological studies just takes time.
In the meantime, we should conduct robust testing, tracing and isolatation as we slowly open. As I stated before, we need to understand how to co-exist with this 'uninvited guest'.
Completely agree. My personal view on the whole catastrophe isn’t that the measures taken by most states (and countries) to ‘shut down’ are the best solution for this reason or that blah blah yadda yadda (as if I am some scientifically qualified epidemiologist or even a biostatistician) ... my view is exactly as you express: we need to do whatever it takes to buy the time necessary for science to acquire the research and data needed for a battle plan. We aren’t there ... yet.
Need more intel before marching into the jungle ...
Completely agree. My personal view on the whole catastrophe isn’t that the measures taken by most states (and countries) to ‘shut down’ are the best solution for this reason or that blah blah yadda yadda (as if I am some scientifically qualified epidemiologist or even a biostatistician) ... my view is exactly as you express: we need to do whatever it takes to buy the time necessary for science to acquire the research and data needed for a battle plan. We aren’t there ... yet.
Need more intel before marching into the jungle ...
Agree. In the meantime, reconnaissance in force and interdiction.
At the beach now. Way more crowded than when we have tourists
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
