🎓 Dr. Freemo 🇳🇱 @freemo@social.cleverlibre.org

@realcaseyrollins yea the plain FE is a killer for me too, but knowing there are other frontends fixes that well enough id imagine (havent used it to really say but seems like it would)

@realcaseyrollins Pleroma sounds like a nice platform. I need to experiment with it again soon.

@cwebber

What an adorable picture :)

@mlemweb

@realcaseyrollins True, though in an ideal world (The legal world isnt always ideal) it would be the user who bypassed the block who is responsible, not the server which put reasonable protections in place to identify and make clear the fact that the server had inappropriate content.

@realcaseyrollins Agreed. Similarly I dont mind mastodon instances having server-level blacklists, but I do feel users should have the option of opting out of any server suspensions in place, just as they can add their own personal suspensions to the list.

Censorship isnt censorship unless someone else is enforcing it on you.

@realcaseyrollins free speech is about choice, not making people listen to you, and not censoring you from people who want to hear you... its about choice to say what you want and hear what you want.... so we agree on basically.

@icedquinn Then you have either poor sources or sources working in very unusual circumstances. My career has me working with quite a few in the medical community from doctors to nurses and when this topic has come up not a single of the dozens of different professionals have ever said anything that reflects what your saying now.

@icedquinn Except they dont, that is a complete fiction. The cause of death is listed with respect to if a doctor has reason to believe the disease contributed to the death, period.

Now you could always find some anomalies in the data (and this is why many studies will acquire their own data rather than rely on a third-party reporting). But by in large, no, this isn't in line with the reality.

@js290

What the patient thinks isnt where the statistics come from.. we dont figure out how many people with vaccines get infected anyway by going "hey buddy do you think you have covid". Moreover placebo effect (which can in fact cause real physiological protection and isnt just a mental state) is tested against, its the whole point of double-blind studies.

So no, that is completely nonsensical, we already adjust for placebo effect and measure actual infection rates compared against placebo to insure a vaccine is truely effective.

None of that of course requires a vaccine to be 100% effective either.

@yaksha @wa__em

@js290

> If we agree no drug is 100% safe & effective, then the vax is likely a short term placebo for most people w/unknown long term effects.

This statement makes no sense to me. Why would something that is <100% effective, for example something 99.9999% effective suddenly just be a placebo?

@yaksha @wa__em

@js290

"the fact that you aren't"

I'm not? I ask that question all the time, and work pretty heavily with that question.. It simply wasnt relevant to the point being made.

“Statistics isn't about discovering correlations, it's about eliminating coincidence."

Exactly, which is why all the science on this topic which has passed peer review does exactly that, not just look at correlation but have quite a bit of procedure designed to eliminate coincidence. In fact I elaborated on a small snippet of that already in the thread.

If you think im missing some points, by all means, feel free to explain it. But you seem to talk in sound bites and links so as to avoid any critical interpretation; not much I can do with that honestly.

@yaksha @wa__em

@js290

the probabilities are how risk is measured, risk is how we quantify consequences.

@ademan @wa__em @yaksha