Timeline for Did WHO publish a bulletin stating that COVID-19 is “equivalent in lethality to seasonal flu”?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 14, 2021 at 15:36 | vote | accept | Zhro | ||
| Jan 14, 2021 at 9:23 | comment | added | Oddthinking♦ | @Zhro: I think this answers your question. You asked whether the WHO published a paper that said X. This answers says "Well, yes, there was a paper published on the topic (and here's a link), but it didn't say X, so the claim is strictly incorrect." | |
| Jan 14, 2021 at 9:19 | comment | added | Oddthinking♦ | @DavidHammen: Please consider posting an answer to the related meta-question with your views. | |
| Jan 13, 2021 at 20:49 | comment | added | days of love iff good genes | In re "Bhakdi correctly quotes the numbers given from the paper presented on the WHO website". Does he actually do that? I didn't watch the whole video. The brief sequence where he says the WHO's bulletin shows less danger form Covid than from flu that doesn't quote any concrete numbers. | |
| Jan 13, 2021 at 12:58 | comment | added | Zhro | I didn't ask for validation in the question. I asked where to find the bulletin. Those are two completely different questions. | |
| Jan 12, 2021 at 21:24 | comment | added | LangLаngС | @DavidHammen I'd like to agree to your view, but was recently burned by seeing effort for needed FC redacted when doing just so. // The main problem with the paper is imo that it is already also outdated, being not from Oct but first half '20 (plus other problems I'd list then). // For your angle, I see two options: 1. alter this Q to necessitate such an answer ()so I'll hav to edit or del), 2. ask directly a Q about the validity of Ioannidis paper (although I'm unsure how well that would fly here)? (or add an A to your liking?) | |
| Jan 12, 2021 at 21:07 | comment | added | David Hammen | Others are, I suspect, plants, and intentionally do not ask whether the paper is valid because they know it is not. It is our responsibility to answer that unasked question. | |
| Jan 12, 2021 at 21:07 | comment | added | David Hammen | I agree with @Fizz here. This site has far too many questions where someone asks "I watched a video where someone claims a scientific paper was published that says X. Was a scientific paper published that says X?" They never ask whether the paper is valid. Sometimes that might be because some people do not know that Most Published Research Findings Are False; it is our responsibility to help these people understand science and answer that unasked question. | |
| Jan 12, 2021 at 10:11 | comment | added | LangLаngС | @Fizz That is entirely intended. And the consequence of the question asked and how I have to read it. The Q-title is not 'is that WHO bulletin correct, content-wise', or 'what is the 'true' IFR/CFR'; it is primarily 'did they publish such a bulletin'. | |
| Jan 12, 2021 at 5:42 | comment | added | days of love iff good genes | This answer is a bit too much both-siderism for me too up-vote given en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ioannidis#COVID-19 etc. Basically Ioannidis' conclusions are based on seroprevalence studies, which generally the least precise. (I'm not sure if he's even including excess mortality in the "IFR"... after all since we're extrapolating infections, why not extrapolate deaths too.) | |
| Jan 11, 2021 at 15:25 | history | answered | LangLаngС | CC BY-SA 4.0 |