Discussion:
A good read
Add Reply
Rich80105
2020-04-29 21:41:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2020/04/pandemic-confusing-uncertainty/610819/
Tony
2020-04-29 22:37:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2020/04/pandemic-confusing-uncertainty/610819/
Most unlike this left wing rag to post anything that is readable.
Rich80105
2020-04-30 00:28:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2020/04/pandemic-confusing-uncertainty/610819/
and another:
https://arcdigital.media/debunking-coronavirus-trutherism-c290fc660a12
James Christophers
2020-04-30 21:47:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2020/04/pandemic-confusing-uncertainty/610819/
English author Ed Yong's academic background is University College London and Cambridge University.

For me his piece is too detailed and fact-filled to take in all in at one go, but but I'm well engaged with it and making progress.

Yong's work takes the form of an academic paper rather than that of an article or opinion piece. So there's neither time nor room for controversy or polemics, **the** sine qua non when approaching any complex scientific topic.

In a nutshell, intellectual rigour - indeed, what else is to be expected from UCL and Cambridge?

In any discourse at this level peer input is essential; so Yong also introduces and discusses research, conclusions and comments drawn from specialist scientists and epidemiologists of the highest calibre.

Yes, a good read, so thank you.

It's to be hoped that Peter Drew writing for the Rangitikei Environmental Health Watch has also read Yong's piece.

Yong's work appears without fuss or flapdoodle and rightly so, since this allows both its quality and its integrity to speak for themselves.

However, in another thread "Something for Rich to dismiss without a thought", the first three words of the encomium Drew receives from his publisher - "This excellent article..." - prejudices anything of his that then follows; not that this completely damns him as such, but such crass and opinionated pre-loading of his piece by a third party can only diminish whatever stature and integrity it may have had, so undermining both Drew and his best intentions.

If he's wise, by now he'll have made sure this never happens again.

(Readers of the Rangitikei Environmental Health Watch's publications take note.)
James Christophers
2020-04-30 22:18:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by James Christophers
Post by Rich80105
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2020/04/pandemic-confusing-uncertainty/610819/
English author Ed Yong's academic background is University College London and Cambridge University.
For me his piece is too detailed and fact-filled to take in all in at one go, but but I'm well engaged with it and making progress.
Yong's work takes the form of an academic paper rather than that of an article or opinion piece. So there's neither time nor room for controversy or polemics, **the** sine qua non when approaching any complex scientific topic.
In a nutshell, intellectual rigour - indeed, what else is to be expected from UCL and Cambridge?
In any discourse at this level peer input is essential; so Yong also introduces and discusses research, conclusions and comments drawn from specialist scientists and epidemiologists of the highest calibre.
Yes, a good read, so thank you.
It's to be hoped that Peter Drew writing for the Rangitikei Environmental Health Watch has also read Yong's piece.
Yong's work appears without fuss or flapdoodle and rightly so, since this allows both its quality and its integrity to speak for themselves.
However, in another thread "Something for Rich to dismiss without a thought", the first three words of the encomium Drew receives from his publisher - "This excellent article..." - prejudices anything of his that then follows; not that this completely damns him as such, but such crass and opinionated pre-loading of his piece by a third party can only diminish whatever stature and integrity it may have had, so undermining both Drew and his best intentions.
If he's wise, by now he'll have made sure this never happens again.
(Readers of the Rangitikei Environmental Health Watch's publications take note.)
Plus, this has just come to my notice:

Yesterday, this query from one "Brian Stephenson" appeared on Facebook. I cite verbatim:

'Has anyone heard of a New Zealand journalist called Peter Drew? Someone is peddling for publication a 2,677-word “Open letter to Jacinda Adern” (yes, surname spelt wrongly)...

(John Bowes also, and in his case consistently, i.e. two of an unfortunate kind)

'...purportedly written by “New Zealand journalist Peter Drew.”

'Neighbourly (St Heliers and nearby areas) has published it as a posting from a Neighbourly member (whose name is not Peter Drew), as have Waikanae Watch (a local web-based newsletter) and Envirowatch Rangitikei.

'The “letter” propounds a conspiracy theory – that the World Health Organisation’s figures were fraudulent, that the seriousness of COVID-19 was exaggerated, the NZ government has been taken in, and that restrictions should cease.

'The links in the article connect with conspiracy websites.

'I’m posting this here to see whether anyone in KJA knows of a New Zealand journalist called Peter Drew. Some curious features:

'1. He seems to have no internet presence other than this “letter”.

'2. The misspelling of the PM’s name throughout is notable.

'3. He begins with, “I write this letter as a patriotic Kiwi with best intentions for my country and for the future health and welfare of my fellow Kiwis” and signs it “Patriotic kiwi” – improbable language for a journalist.

'4. The conspiracy websites that he cites don’t instill confidence.

'Anyone heard of him?'

Mmmm...quite so...
John Bowes
2020-05-01 05:58:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Post by Rich80105
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2020/04/pandemic-confusing-uncertainty/610819/
English author Ed Yong's academic background is University College London and Cambridge University.
For me his piece is too detailed and fact-filled to take in all in at one go, but but I'm well engaged with it and making progress.
Yong's work takes the form of an academic paper rather than that of an article or opinion piece. So there's neither time nor room for controversy or polemics, **the** sine qua non when approaching any complex scientific topic.
In a nutshell, intellectual rigour - indeed, what else is to be expected from UCL and Cambridge?
In any discourse at this level peer input is essential; so Yong also introduces and discusses research, conclusions and comments drawn from specialist scientists and epidemiologists of the highest calibre.
Yes, a good read, so thank you.
It's to be hoped that Peter Drew writing for the Rangitikei Environmental Health Watch has also read Yong's piece.
Yong's work appears without fuss or flapdoodle and rightly so, since this allows both its quality and its integrity to speak for themselves.
However, in another thread "Something for Rich to dismiss without a thought", the first three words of the encomium Drew receives from his publisher - "This excellent article..." - prejudices anything of his that then follows; not that this completely damns him as such, but such crass and opinionated pre-loading of his piece by a third party can only diminish whatever stature and integrity it may have had, so undermining both Drew and his best intentions.
If he's wise, by now he'll have made sure this never happens again.
(Readers of the Rangitikei Environmental Health Watch's publications take note.)
'Has anyone heard of a New Zealand journalist called Peter Drew? Someone is peddling for publication a 2,677-word “Open letter to Jacinda Adern” (yes, surname spelt wrongly)...
(John Bowes also, and in his case consistently, i.e. two of an unfortunate kind)
BULLSHIT! I may have done two and a half years ago Keith but these days it's a very occaisional mistake!

<further crap from the RNVR golden rivet polisher snipped>

Loading...