nortex97 said:

---

Ok, respect your opinions, but agree to disagree. The saddest thing to me is that the medical establishment has burned so much credibility/trust with this, that in the future no 'mandate' or public health response will be trusted by so many.

I don't think the science or facts were followed well, but again am willing to just respectfully disagree.

---

You're welcome to your opinion, but the medical establishment has pretty much followed our MO when it comes to how we work. Basically risk/benefit analysis of treatments, careful review of evidence, usually following the guidance of professional organizations, and being better safe then sorry when the data isn't clear.

As far as I can tell, we doing what we always do, just under extreme circumstances. The loss of trust seems to be due to our field in general not jumping on board with various purely political narratives

People seem to assume that the answers are all right there from the beginning and it's willful ignorance or negligence that mistakes are made. There seems to be no thought that maybe it takes time to fully determine best practices. And, of course, as soon as you figure out one aspect of the virus, it changes.

Quote:

---

Now we are vaccinating population groups who do not have a risk for serious impacts with vaccines that present equal/greater risks to them.

---

That being said. I think the number needed to treat to prevent any kind of meaningful morbidity endpoint for covid19 in youths is probably really frickin high.

I gotta hand it to you...you are relentless.

A living breathing relentless right-wing talking point. It's almost if you have all these goofy links saved and catalogued so you can get to them quickly and post.

Quote:

---

This is entirely false. WHO/CDC guidance throughout this process has changed, with the politics, throughout. This is why so much faith in the 'public health' community has been lost.

---

It's cool man. Thanks for the correction. It's not like I have been doing this for over a decade before covid hit or anything.

No one in the US gives 2 flips about the WHO. The CDC is obviously a very important resource when dealing with any nationwide disease, but they're mostly pencil pushers. We get the vast majority of our guidance from studies and our doctor friends who've seen more than us. Which is pretty standard for us.

I figure I'm as much as expert on "we're doing things the way we always have" as anyone. If that sounds condescending then too bad. I know how the medical field worked 10 years ago, because I was doing the same thing then. I don't think nortex has any idea of what the medical system looked like in 2009. So I have no problem directly refuting and dismissing his opinion. The only thing that has changed is the extreme nature of the problem, not how we operate.

I've had older docs say this is pretty much how the AIDS crisis went during the 80s. New disease, everyone working with the best information they have at the time, being calm, being extra careful when uncertain, and most of all, being ready to change and adapt at a moment's notice.

diehard03 said:

---

Quote:

---

It's cool man. Thanks for the correction. It's not like I have been doing this for over a decade before covid hit or anything.

---

Im with you overall, but i think bears mentioning that the powers that be have put on a masterclass on how not to communicate in this situation. When you present yourself as an expert and use condescension as a tool, you lose the ability backtrack when the science leads you in another direction.

---

We are experts. Even when we end up being wrong, our wrong is based on tons of similar experience combined with all the most current information. When the most current information changes, then we update our opinions making them less wrong. That's how this works. We only know when we're wrong when new information proves it.

Compare that to a layperson. They can pretty much say anything with no evidence or experience and end up being right eventually. Even broken clocks are right twice a day. But it's not like we're going to take Joe Blow's unfounded opinion seriously even if he eventually ends up being correct.

I'm not always right, and no doctor or part of our medical system is. But my wrong opinion is better informed and judged than any layperson's accidentally correct opinion

nortex97 said:

---

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

Quote:

---

This is entirely false. WHO/CDC guidance throughout this process has changed, with the politics, throughout. This is why so much faith in the 'public health' community has been lost.

---

It's cool man. Thanks for the correction. It's not like I have been doing this for over a decade before covid hit or anything.

No one in the US gives 2 flips about the WHO. The CDC is obviously a very important resource when dealing with any nationwide disease, but they're mostly pencil pushers. We get the vast majority of our guidance from studies and our doctor friends who've seen more than us. Which is pretty standard for us.

---

There we go with the condescending "we just know a lot, and have seen a lot" storyline. I bet you also look down on Ivermectin and HcQ.

I would never see a doctor who had an attitude such as yours. Your profession has shamed itself over the past 2 years, and your combination of arrogance and ignorance befits your position about this.

---

We've gone over, ad nauseum, the problems with Ivermectin and HCQ. Your hold to that is not evidence of a scientific mind, it's evidence of your obsessive politicization of a public health crisis. And of course you are completely incapable of admitting that. Which is why your posts are useless save as a window into the unthinking corner of the right wing world.

First, and most importantly, its the Office.

Second, I don't need to provide a source. You put out a claim, I'm saying the claim is false, you need to support your claim. Please provide evidence, anything, that suggests that the covid19 vaccines present equal or greater risks than covid to any age group.


[url=https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-2021-12-16/05-COVID-Su-508.pdf][/url]

Quote:

---

At least two young American girls have died from the vaccines from a comparatively tiny sample group,

---

This is factually incorrect, and two seconds of reading the slides would make that obvious. You're clearly intelligent enough to read the slide and see that it is misleading to say that these girls died from the vaccines.

Female, age 5 years with complicated medical history:
Twin-to-twin transfusion, spastic cerebral palsy, seizure disorder; continuous positive air pressure (CPAP) at night
Admitted to PICU for respiratory failure from rhinovirus and Mycoplasma infection; stabilized. Observed overnight day of vaccination, discharged home. At baseline when put to bed two nights later. In the morning, found pulseless and not breathing. Unable to resuscitate.

Female, age 6 years with complicated medical history:
Hypoxic encephalopathy, spastic cerebral palsy, dysautonomia, neurogenic bladder, frequent urinary tract infections
Ten days after vaccination, developed fever and lactic acidosis; progressive weakness, flaccid paralysis and loss of gag reflex; ultimately, experienced respiratory failure and hypotension; subsequently died; autopsy unrevealing

Causality is not established - these are events in VAERS which is only for safety signal detection and hypothesis generation. Even if they did, its incorrect to generalize these cases. And it is incorrect to assume that the risk of the vaccine was greater than the risk of covid for these two girls.

Quote:

---

the risk to healthy young kids from the actual virus, let alone Omicron, seems marginal at most.

---

You're also smart enough to understand the difference between relative and absolute risk reduction, which is why I qualified my statement by saying that while the vaccines aren't higher risk than covid for children, the number needed to treat (i.e., 1/absolute risk reduction for whatever endpoint) is probably very high.

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

diehard03 said:

---

Quote:

---

It's cool man. Thanks for the correction. It's not like I have been doing this for over a decade before covid hit or anything.

---

Im with you overall, but i think bears mentioning that the powers that be have put on a masterclass on how not to communicate in this situation. When you present yourself as an expert and use condescension as a tool, you lose the ability backtrack when the science leads you in another direction.

---

We are experts. Even when we end up being wrong, our wrong is based on tons of similar experience combined with all the most current information. When the most current information changes, then we update our opinions making them less wrong. That's how this works. We only know when we're wrong when new information proves it.

Compare that to a layperson. They can pretty much say anything with no evidence or experience and end up being right eventually. Even broken clocks are right twice a day. But it's not like we're going to take Joe Blow's unfounded opinion seriously even if he eventually ends up being correct.

I'm not always right, and no doctor or part of our medical system is. But my wrong opinion is better informed and judged than any layperson's accidentally correct opinion

---

Wow. That's a whole new level of arrogance. Does this mean lay people with different opinions don't have friends that are doctors that they rely on? Are their doctor friends not as smart as you and yours? Is statistical analysis, data collection, and experimentation something exclusive to the medical field that no one else can grasp and analyze? Is a lay person not smart enough to read literature and historical studies to derive an informed opinion? Are you ok with doctors of a different opinion talking this condescendingly to your lay friends?

Edit: if your wrong opinion hurts a lot of people with policy implications does any of that matter? This torbush level wow.

have you seen any evidence that the general population is willing or able to critically review and digest medical literature?

Zobel said:

---

have you seen any evidence that the general population is willing or able to critically review and digest medical literature?

---

This is why credentialism is garbage: it assumes friendships and social networks don't exist outside of a profession. Ramblin is basically someone's aunt's cousin's medical source posted on a forum. That doesn't mean he's not a doctor: it just means that's how his opinion comes across from his friends and family, the same way others post about it here. He's an anecdote for most people but a legitimate source per himself.

Edit: I'd follow up by asking if every doctor towing the line has put in the same amount of time or if they just rely on someone else to tell them what it all says. Not that they can't but they don't so they absolve critical thinking to a chosen gatekeeper. It doesn't mean they're dumb or wrong, just that they suffer the same constraints as every other human being.

AGC said:

---

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

diehard03 said:

---

Quote:

---

It's cool man. Thanks for the correction. It's not like I have been doing this for over a decade before covid hit or anything.

---

Im with you overall, but i think bears mentioning that the powers that be have put on a masterclass on how not to communicate in this situation. When you present yourself as an expert and use condescension as a tool, you lose the ability backtrack when the science leads you in another direction.

---

We are experts. Even when we end up being wrong, our wrong is based on tons of similar experience combined with all the most current information. When the most current information changes, then we update our opinions making them less wrong. That's how this works. We only know when we're wrong when new information proves it.

Compare that to a layperson. They can pretty much say anything with no evidence or experience and end up being right eventually. Even broken clocks are right twice a day. But it's not like we're going to take Joe Blow's unfounded opinion seriously even if he eventually ends up being correct.

I'm not always right, and no doctor or part of our medical system is. But my wrong opinion is better informed and judged than any layperson's accidentally correct opinion

---

Wow. That's a whole new level of arrogance. Does this mean lay people with different opinions don't have friends that are doctors that they rely on? Are their doctor friends not as smart as you and yours? Is statistical analysis, data collection, and experimentation something exclusive to the medical field that no one else can grasp and analyze? Is a lay person not smart enough to read literature and historical studies to derive an informed opinion? Are you ok with doctors of a different opinion talking this condescendingly to your lay friends?

Edit: if your wrong opinion hurts a lot of people with policy implications does any of that matter? This torbush level wow.

---

Correct. I have absolutely zero stock in the opinion of any layperson, no matter how educated or researched. I regularly make decisions and direct teams were the outcome is life and death. If you don't, then I don't care what you think.

The closest equivalent is an military officer in the middle of a conflict. Not a single one is going to start letting a civilian plan their operations, strategy and tactics, no matter how much independent research they've done. Any soldier would trust that officer over any civilian at every single point, and rightly so.

I'm not arguing for credentialism. I'm making an observation.

My observation is that the average person in the US is some combination of unwilling or unable to have an informed opinion on medical research.

This doesn't guarantee that the average doctor's opinion is better, but the average doctor is undoubtedly better equipped to have an informed opinion.

Again, I'm asking you. Have you seen any evidence that the average person is willing or able to critically review medical literature? Consider that this forum, mostly college grads and even further college grads interested in philosophy and science is at least one standard deviation above average IQ... and the average MD is one standard deviation above the average college grad.

LOL, I think I'm done with this thread but the 'I don't care about the CDC, or laypeople, or kids, I make life or death decisions' is about the definition of what is wrong with our healthcare system/doctors' attitudes today.

nortex97 said:

---

LOL, I think I'm done with this thread but the 'I don't care about the CDC, or laypeople, or kids, I make life or death decisions' is about the definition of what is wrong with our healthcare system/doctors' attitudes today.

---

That's not what he said, and you know it.

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

AGC said:

---

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

diehard03 said:

---

Quote:

---

It's cool man. Thanks for the correction. It's not like I have been doing this for over a decade before covid hit or anything.

---

Im with you overall, but i think bears mentioning that the powers that be have put on a masterclass on how not to communicate in this situation. When you present yourself as an expert and use condescension as a tool, you lose the ability backtrack when the science leads you in another direction.

---

We are experts. Even when we end up being wrong, our wrong is based on tons of similar experience combined with all the most current information. When the most current information changes, then we update our opinions making them less wrong. That's how this works. We only know when we're wrong when new information proves it.

Compare that to a layperson. They can pretty much say anything with no evidence or experience and end up being right eventually. Even broken clocks are right twice a day. But it's not like we're going to take Joe Blow's unfounded opinion seriously even if he eventually ends up being correct.

I'm not always right, and no doctor or part of our medical system is. But my wrong opinion is better informed and judged than any layperson's accidentally correct opinion

---

Wow. That's a whole new level of arrogance. Does this mean lay people with different opinions don't have friends that are doctors that they rely on? Are their doctor friends not as smart as you and yours? Is statistical analysis, data collection, and experimentation something exclusive to the medical field that no one else can grasp and analyze? Is a lay person not smart enough to read literature and historical studies to derive an informed opinion? Are you ok with doctors of a different opinion talking this condescendingly to your lay friends?

Edit: if your wrong opinion hurts a lot of people with policy implications does any of that matter? This torbush level wow.

---

Correct. I have absolutely zero stock in the opinion of any layperson, no matter how educated or researched. I regularly make decisions and direct teams were the outcome is life and death. If you don't, then I don't care what you think.

The closest equivalent is an military officer in the middle of a conflict. Not a single one is going to start letting a civilian plan their operations, strategy and tactics, no matter how much independent research they've done. Any soldier would trust that officer over any civilian at every single point, and rightly so.

---

As an engineer, I need to start referring to the non engineer peasants in my life as laypersons or civilians. I know far more about everything there is to know about structures regardless of anyone else's education and experience.

Did I do it right?

AGC said:

---

Zobel said:

---

I'm not arguing for credentialism. I'm making an observation.

My observation is that the average person in the US is some combination of unwilling or unable to have an informed opinion on medical research.

This doesn't guarantee that the average doctor's opinion is better, but the average doctor is undoubtedly better equipped to have an informed opinion.

Again, I'm asking you. Have you seen any evidence that the average person is willing or able to critically review medical literature? Consider that this forum, mostly college grads and even further college grads interested in philosophy and science is at least one standard deviation above average IQ... and the average MD is one standard deviation above the average college grad.

---

You've both sidestepped what I said. People have friends and relatives that are also doctors and do the same thing but have different opinions. However they don't share this forum with Ramblin and have the special badge so anything brought here from them is disregarded because his entire job is life or death every day and texags certified him.

---

Except those people who heard from someone else don't have the years of school plus the years of clinical practice to understand what precisely their doctor friend said or why. And they definitely lack the background to critically engage with what they heard.

Quote:

---

Well if you are going to Parks and Rec me at least kindly provide a source.

---

Of all the weaponized ignorance on this thread, this one is the worst

Sapper Redux said:

---

AGC said:

---

Zobel said:

---

I'm not arguing for credentialism. I'm making an observation.

My observation is that the average person in the US is some combination of unwilling or unable to have an informed opinion on medical research.

This doesn't guarantee that the average doctor's opinion is better, but the average doctor is undoubtedly better equipped to have an informed opinion.

Again, I'm asking you. Have you seen any evidence that the average person is willing or able to critically review medical literature? Consider that this forum, mostly college grads and even further college grads interested in philosophy and science is at least one standard deviation above average IQ... and the average MD is one standard deviation above the average college grad.

---

You've both sidestepped what I said. People have friends and relatives that are also doctors and do the same thing but have different opinions. However they don't share this forum with Ramblin and have the special badge so anything brought here from them is disregarded because his entire job is life or death every day and texags certified him.

---

Except those people who heard from someone else don't have the years of school plus the years of clinical practice to understand what precisely their doctor friend said or why. And they definitely lack the background to critically engage with what they heard.

---

Amazing. As soon as ramblin's relatives talk about what ramblin thinks outside of ramblin's presence, all of this knowledge becomes worthless. That's the implication of your post. There is a single source for this knowledge and it's Ramblin. It can't be shared and disseminated but only used and acknowledged within his presence.

I assume zobel stopped responding because he understood this. Social networks involve lay people even if it's your knowledge. The knowledge isn't invalidated because of who brings it.

No, I don't accept borrowed understanding. There's a world of difference between "I asked my friend who is a doctor and he said x" and understanding based on personal review and analysis of available evidence.

Sapper is correct. If a person is unwilling or unable to critically review medical research, they are not a reliable source of hearsay from someone who is. The best case scenario is that they accurately understand and repeat what they were told. The worst case is is that they completely lack fidelity to what they were told, or that they asked the wrong question, or misunderstood the answer, or are applying the information they received incorrectly.

The knowledge isn't invalidated because of who brings it. Again, this is not something I would say. You're not answering the question though.

Have you seen any evidence that the average person can critically review medical literature?

Given that the average doctor is much better equipped to review medical literature - but that this is no guarantee they will do so any better - how is second hand information received by a person who is unable to critically review that information an improvement?

You're just moving the source of the information from medical literature to a doctor. So we can just restate the problem statement that the average person is unwilling or unable to critically review medical information received from a doctor. Abstract it as many times as you like... they can't critically review medical information found on twitter third hand, or in a news report second hand, or on a forum. It's the same problem.

That's not what's being said. And I assume Zobel, like most of us, has life outside of TexAgs at times. The point being made is that equating what a layperson understands about a pathological or pharmacological process with what an experienced and trained MD/DO understands is, frankly, stupid. It doesn't mean Docs aren't often wrong. It doesn't mean you shouldn't check that their advice is within best practices. But it does mean you or I can't pretend we can go toe-to-toe with a licensed medical professional because we read an article or listened to our buddy's friend.

Howdy Dammit said:

---

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

AGC said:

---

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

diehard03 said:

---

Quote:

---

It's cool man. Thanks for the correction. It's not like I have been doing this for over a decade before covid hit or anything.

---

Im with you overall, but i think bears mentioning that the powers that be have put on a masterclass on how not to communicate in this situation. When you present yourself as an expert and use condescension as a tool, you lose the ability backtrack when the science leads you in another direction.

---

We are experts. Even when we end up being wrong, our wrong is based on tons of similar experience combined with all the most current information. When the most current information changes, then we update our opinions making them less wrong. That's how this works. We only know when we're wrong when new information proves it.

Compare that to a layperson. They can pretty much say anything with no evidence or experience and end up being right eventually. Even broken clocks are right twice a day. But it's not like we're going to take Joe Blow's unfounded opinion seriously even if he eventually ends up being correct.

I'm not always right, and no doctor or part of our medical system is. But my wrong opinion is better informed and judged than any layperson's accidentally correct opinion

---

Wow. That's a whole new level of arrogance. Does this mean lay people with different opinions don't have friends that are doctors that they rely on? Are their doctor friends not as smart as you and yours? Is statistical analysis, data collection, and experimentation something exclusive to the medical field that no one else can grasp and analyze? Is a lay person not smart enough to read literature and historical studies to derive an informed opinion? Are you ok with doctors of a different opinion talking this condescendingly to your lay friends?

Edit: if your wrong opinion hurts a lot of people with policy implications does any of that matter? This torbush level wow.

---

Correct. I have absolutely zero stock in the opinion of any layperson, no matter how educated or researched. I regularly make decisions and direct teams were the outcome is life and death. If you don't, then I don't care what you think.

The closest equivalent is an military officer in the middle of a conflict. Not a single one is going to start letting a civilian plan their operations, strategy and tactics, no matter how much independent research they've done. Any soldier would trust that officer over any civilian at every single point, and rightly so.

---

As an engineer, I need to start referring to the non engineer peasants in my life as laypersons or civilians. I know far more about everything there is to know about structures regardless of anyone else's education and experience.

Did I do it right?

---

if you weren't already believing this, I don't believe you are actually an engineer.




*I say as a Licensed PE