A partially effective measure will not only select for the subset of the problem it doesn't address, but the very existence of the measure can worsen the problem by creating the impression it's under control, encouraging people to let their guard down.
1. ADE:
A partially effective vaccine will not only select for the subset of the variants it doesn't kill, but the very presence of antibodies can worsen the infection by giving the virus the body's own signature, encouraging cells to let their guard down.en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antibody-…
2. Journalistic best practices not only select for the subset of disinformation they don't address, but their very existence can worsen the problem by creating the impression journalistic outlets have disinformation under control, encouraging people to let their guard down.
3. Regulation
Partially effective regulation will not only select for the subset of corruption it doesn't address, but the very existence of the regulation can worsen the problem by creating the impression it's under control, encouraging authorities to let their guard down.
4. Education
A partially effective education system will not only omit the deep insights it can't provide, but the very existence of the education system can worsen the problem by creating the impression one is educated, encouraging people to stop seeking deep insights.
5.Performance inventives:
A partially effective performance incentive will not only disincentivize good behavior it doesn't incentivize, but the very use of the incentive can worsen underperformance by creating the impression we're performant, encouraging us to stop trying.
6. Therapy
A partially effective therapist will not only create space for the cognitive distortions they can't correct, but the very practice of therapy can distort perception more, by creating the sense one is sane, encouraging people to be more confident in those distortions.
7.Insider trading laws
Partially effective insider trading laws not only select for insider trading they don't catch, but the very existence of the laws can worsen the problem by creating the impression there's no insider trading, encouraging investors to let their guard down.
I must say this pattern bugs me quite a bit, because it seems to advocate for doing nothing. I think I'd like to figure out which actions or policies actually do make things better. Overall, it seems to advocate for 1. Address the root cause or don't even try. 2. Precise naming.
Afterall, even though ADE can be an issue, the body still has an immune system, presumably because it enhances survival overall. As such, we need to distinguish between ADE that makes the original problem worse overall, and ADE that is an unfortunate side-effect.
A spicy one:
A flawed ivermectin critique will not only select for the subset of the arguments it doesn't address, but the very existence of the critique can increase use by creating the impression it's been scrutinized, encouraging people to trust the unrefuted arguments.
In other words, if shitty IVM critics say that IVM proponents have blood on their hands, then, by their own standard, their shitty critiques are just as culpable. Oops.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The trial says (implies) that it's using "shared control patients". In the "recruitment over time" slide, it shows that the placebo group was recruited in both "stages". Does this mean placebo patients from either stage were used to form control groups for each drug tested?
It also says (last bullet) that this is a "planned interim analysis of the fluvoxamine arm with the data cut from August 2nd, 2021". Does this mean the trial isn't done? What's the rationale for sharing data on other drugs if this was supposed to be about fluvoxamine?
So, this is probably the worst rebuttal I've seen recently, and this says a lot. I suspect I'm going to have a few things to say so it's time to reach for that 🧵emoji.
So, first strike for a Professor of Ethics, he doesn't link to the video he is responding to. The tweet he quotes doesn't link to it, and the article the tweet links to doesn't link to the video. It's all meta-commentary. So here's the original:
Second strike for a Professor of Ethics, he mentions that he "led WHO's policy brief on the ethics of vaccine mandates". Professor, that's what's called a "conflict of interest". You're supposed to acknowledge it makes your position a little tenuous, not use it as an argument.
Upon request of @april_harding I will attempt to list some off-the-cuff principles for how my 🧵s come together.
I'm sure others do it differently, this is about how I do it.
That's right. It's a 🧵 about 🧵s.
1. Understanding the medium is important. A thread is not a blogpost. As much as possible make each tweet stand out as a stand-alone idea. The best part about threads is that each tweet can reach different people and generate different conversations.
2. The characters are limited, but you have attachments, QTs, links, etc. Try as much as possible to cite your sources and give people a path to learn more about each of your claims.
I think I know why I was uncomfortable about this one. Her tweet is built on a false fact claim. The evidence is not being hidden, it's right there. So in this case inversion is not making a symmetric tweet. The response is genuinely superior, since it's actually true. Huh.
... And I think this may be the first #tweetInversion that will exceed the original in likes, and it's going to do it in less than an hour. This is somewhat confirmatory of my suspicion above.
I've started trying something that may look irritating, but is testing a hypothesis. Namely:
If a tweet, with minimal modifications, can become a perfectly coherent reply to itself, then the original is vacuous meta-commentary that can be discarded without further consideration.
I've been noticing quite a few of these on-high "pretending to be wise" kind of quips that sound wise until one realizes that they are entirely free-floating and cannot be distinguished from their negatives, which also sound just as wise.
It's perfectly possible that I myself have written stuff like this in the past, though I usually try to write with reference to facts, such that a simple reversal wouldn't work. I'll continue to investigate and refine the hypothesis.
So, our friend "will", is one of the most stubborn, dishonest arguers around. Peruse his tweets if you like: @su3su2u1. If you hear him tell it, he's here to find arguments to convince his family to get vaccinated.
What really attracted my attention though, is that he didn't seem to want my help in that regard. Very, very strange.