Definitely makes one want an alternative to first past the post voting, which encourages not only the two party system but the "you're either voting for someone you don't like, or you're voting against someone you really don't like" end game.
The two party system is a result of the "major minor" party laws in each State. The ballot access laws effectively force a two party system by squeezing competing parties financially and with administrative filing duties.
So we have established that housing and homelessness need to be solved at the national level. As such, the influx of people to California to begin with stemmed from within California along with other parts of the country—it has always been a national issue but only visible at the local level.
I think we should assume he was talking about LeVar Burton because he's famous for his love of knowledge and beloved by Americans, and very much fits the role and culture of the show. Have you ever seen Reading Rainbow? (Or even TNG?) Everyone's been talking about how apropos that'd be, try googling "LeVar Burton Jeopardy".
If I didn't know better, I'd think you were trying to make this about race.
As controversial and as energizing as the 2020 election was, and despite breaking voter turnout records, 33% of the voting eligible population still did not show up to vote!
With Covid, person id verification apps became common. Can't they be used for voting? Instead of registering and going to polling stations, just get a popup "Do you want more houses built - Yes/No". Press a button, done.
No because such things should never become digital. Voting should never become digital or rather processed via the internet.
To get a National ID system done there should be an earnest effort to ensure that EVERYone gets one free of charge , at the fastest connivence and earnest effort and no future legislation can infringe on its obtainment and replacement. Anything lesser would be I adequate.
Comedian Bill Burr said it best: "I'm not gonna sit here with no medical degree, listening to you with no medical degree, with an American flag behind you smoking a cigar acting like we know what's up better than the CDC." [0]
This. I just wish he'd take his enormous reach a little more seriously when he entertains quack pseudoscience as if it's an equally valid POV to real peer-reviewed science.
Being a comedian does not magically relieve a person from their responsibility to not credulously spread around dangerous pseudoscience during a pandemic. Plus, that's simply not very funny. By the way, GP did not say "be more serious", as you likely know. They said he should take his enormous reach more seriously.
That metaphor doesn't work though because Joe Rogan is a person, not a monkey. Give a person a machine gun and if they shoot someone you do blame them.
"Being a comedian does not magically relieve a person from their responsibility to not credulously spread around dangerous pseudoscience during a pandemic."
Yeah, I think it does. Has he been cancelled? Nope. Does he stop making jokes about almost anything? Nope. Do you listen to his podcast? Nope.
You know how he became so popular? From talking and being open minded. That's _all_ he does. He ain't doing it to be an influencer yet "journalists" actually waste time writing articles like this. I guess the haters need something to read too?
Sure experts can make mistakes. Which is why it makes an enormous amount of sense to avoid taking the opinions seriously from people that are not even experts because they are significantly more likely to make mistakes based on incomplete knowledge or poor understanding of it.
Imagine drowning: If we were talking about expert lifeguards vs. some random beach goer and you had to choose which would try & save you, would you choose the expert lifeguard or the random person?
And sure, Lao Tzu may be right about compassion. It's also irrelevant in this discussion.
Every influential social network already has disclaimers with links to authoritative information about C-19 for those who choose to inform themselves.
"Visit the covid 19 information center to learn more"
These are all over and post on Facebook, Youtube, Twitter, etc whenever certain keywords trigger it.
I think this is not enough. We need to replace all right of center entertainment with videos of Dr Fauci reminding us to wash our hands, wear masks, get our shots and do the right thing by staying home. Not enough people are getting this message.
Yeah that's Joe's classic defense. He's part of the "Intellectual Dark Web" (lol...) and he tries to have serious discussions and opinions on important matters. But as soon as someone points out how stupid and misleading some of his takes are, he falls back on the "I'm just a comedian" excuse.
Like someone else pointed out, Bill Burr is exactly what you describe. He's a comedian that discusses these topics but never gives the illusion that he is somehow qualified and someone that should be listened to. Joe does.
It's fair that the 'just a comedian' excuse should not work - but - it's fair to say 'he's just an podcaster with discussions of varying seriousness mostly for the purposes of entertainment'.
The overwhelming majority of his content is along those lines, to the point wherein you really have to scrape to find scare quotes. I mean, it's easy to Google because of supposed controversy, but really disagreeable stuff would be hard to find lest you to have to actually sit down and listen to him.
I wish he took a slightly different tact on vaccines (i.e, at the end of every show say 'Folks, it's 100% choice, but vaccines are safe, I've taken, everyone I know has, make the choice for you, your family and community, that's all, goodnight' kind of sign-off), but I don't think he's in condemnation territory either.
All of this said, I'm not sure how he is received in different cultures around the world where he might have influence we're not aware of.
> but - it's fair to say 'he's just an podcaster with discussions of varying seriousness mostly for the purposes of entertainment'.
I think that would be fair, if he didn't constantly insert himself into these culture battles and debates we are having as a society. If he just hosted guests to get their perspective, that would be one thing. But he actively pushes his own ideas. He's established himself as not only a source of news, but also a "voice of reason" for many of his followers.
Saying that he gets a pass because he's just there for entertainment is a cop-out. That's the same excuse Fox News uses for their "opinion" segments (most of what they air).
I also think you might be underestimating how many people base their opinions off of Joe.
I've listened to 4-5 Joe Rogan episodes and not once got the impression that he was trying to be a comedian. Now I may be an idiot, but I don't think I'm _exceptionally_ idiotic compared to most folks who might come across his content.
Comedy is a profession. Professionals should take their job seriously. Just because the product is fun and games doesn’t mean social responsibility ends.
Comedy is an occupation, not a profession. Actual professions have specialized training, a defined body of knowledge, ethical standards, and a formal certification process. For example: law, medicine, teaching, architecture, accountancy. Comedians have no more social responsibility than any other random person. There's no comedian's guild that's going to kick out a comic for being irresponsible.
Yeah he's not making a comedy podcast and often for his wilder guests like Alex Jones when confronted will say he's "fact checked" a claim. The fact check only extends to skin deep, one claim about coronavirus the fact check was that the article Jones was referencing existed nothing beyond that because it was a misinterpretation of a misinterpretation and completely wrong.
That's what Joe Rogan's show is all about. It's pretty much him talking about the same nonsense that anyone else would talk about when hanging out with their friends. He never pretended to be anything else, and it's why his show is so popular. That said, since he moved to Spotify I've hardly seen anything other than the occasional clip on AdTube.
If you want high-brow stuff there's Lex Fridman's channel.
Fridman is slowly going down the same route with more and more comedians and nutritionists and ufo people on his channel. I wish he just had sticked to interview scientists because nowadays I probably archive 2/3 of his episodes.
There's an effect to that effect called Gell-Mann amnesia. Nutshell by Michael Crichton:
> “Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray's case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cause and effect. I call these the "wet streets cause rain" stories. Paper's full of them.
In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.”
I was cringing during his discussion with Rogan because of this.
It’s a common pitfall for a certain type of nerd to think that expertise in one area allows them to make claims in completely unrelated fields.
That and he didn’t challenge Rogan’s mostly unfounded claims about the COVID vaccine among other things. I understand that it must be difficult I do so as a guest, but for someone who fancies himself “rational” it was disappointing to say the least.
The shtick is not limited to covid matters either. Most of his non-MMA takes start with him not saying he's an expert followed by a very naïve and unnuanced summation of a problem. Lex Fridman does the same thing for non-robotics/AI issues.
I don't care about Rogan but that's an argument from authority and he avoids answering what he knows/thinks. Using his same logic, you would have to immediately dismiss anything he says regarding this because he's a comedian, not an expert in epistemology and natural science. It's a self-refuting idea, one would have to be a religious believer in the CDC to fall for that.
For it to be the schtick that'd have to be sort of the pont of the show, but it's only a topic of discussion so long as it's made relevant by those in our society, and even then that ignores the large diversity of guests and topics in his show.
There's nothing wrong with listening to two regular people have a conversation regardless of their qualifications for the topics they're discussing. They don't pretend to be professionals. (Hence why that quote can be said and why they can laugh about it.)
I think we all know JRE is not about two people having shit conversation. I used to listen to it since 2016. In the past couple of years, JRE is all about let's bring out what triggers the other side; no matter what the other side is all about.
I have friends I have lost because of this, whom I have no idea how to respond to their messages anymore; Intelligent and educated ones.
I agree. He used to have interesting guest, and I felt the conversations were more organic. I quit watching a few years back because I did not enjoy the direction the podcast was going in.
Joe is "regular people"? He's a sitcom actor. He makes a couple hundred million a year on podcast ad revenue alone. He only presents himself as a "regular" person because that's the demographic he's targeting.
He does not make "hundreds of millions a year" on podcast ad revenue, that's a ridiculously high number. The entire podcast ad market is barely $1B total.
I don't agree with you guys at all. I like Joe a lot - but I do not always agree with him, nor his guests - but here is why he is one of the best interviewers I have witnessed:
He doesnt talk over his guests - he never pontificates to them, and lets them have their piece...
Additionally - he is actually really well read, and has a great memory and can recall how things he had read in the past relate to the conversations at hand.
You put joe rogan up against literally any television "interviewer" in the history of television, and you will see they are all hacks. Soundbyte driven hacks.
Ill take joe over ANYONE on television today.
Also - there are far too many podcasts, and its great to have very interesting people on his show - where they talk openly about anything for 3 hours.
as opposed to a 1 minute sound byte on complex world affairs where reporters are interviewing reporters about what some other reporter said and then claiming that "experts" "officials" and "sources close to the matter" say... and then every single person on their cast is "Senior correspondent this or that" - with zero creds shown as to why they are senior...
News is FAKE.
At least the interviews on JRE are uncut, there is only ONE other staff member in the room whos only job is to switch cams and look up something if either the guest or joe have doubts about what they are saying.
I find it funny how people can bitch about someone if there is something they dont agree with, as if one must have a 100% ideological map to anything they watch/see/listen to or else its all 100% fake.
Says people who don’t watch joe rogan. Joe rogan has two kinds of guests: experts/scientists and show biz people. The former are why I watch the podcast. And I think it’s important because it gives a platform to people are being ignored by the mainstream. Take for example Paul Saladino. Watch that podcast and tell me it’s pseudo science. You can’t because he’s meticulously citing a paper and bringing up that paper to the screen practically every five minutes. And he’s an MD. And he’s been proven right by CAC score. And he’s planning an angiogram which if it comes out clean will be incontrovertible… he was right. It annoys me that people want to shut down joe rogan for harmless speculation he makes. If you think of Galileo and his conflict with the church, he’s very much like a joe rogan guest. Has a controversial but correct scientific insight, clashes with authority and the old dogma. There’s definitely been a handful of people like that. The MAPS guy comes to mind. His vindication was massive and joe rogans contribution to that was probably not insignificant.
I came across a very thorough analysis of the Paul Saladino episode [0] the other day when I was researching him after a friend recommended his book. Seemed like he was cherry picking evidence pretty hard and that the majority of the evidence doesn't agree with his stance at all
Was going to link this exact article, but you beat me to it. :) My biggest problem with Saladino's episode was that early in it became clear that he is a zealot, and almost by definition zealots are rarely generally "right" or "not pseudoscience" as GP claims in this specific case. Especially when their object of zealotry is an extremely complex field that we're only just beginning to understand. It's difficult to trust anything a zealot says. I surely don't have time to dig into all the ways in which they're using the "science" to support their perspective.
Saladino isn't so much a zealot as he is a salesman. He's building a personal brand and business around being the contrarian carnivore guy. He wants you to buy his books, buy his supplements (which cost as much as $68 per bottle for trivially cheap ingredients), and sign up for his newsletter so he can pitch you more stuff.
He may actually believe what he's pitching, but he's so drowning in financial conflicts of interest and personal brand-building that I don't think he could accept contradictory evidence from anyone. He only sees what he wants to see because that's how he makes his money and builds his fame.
It's fascinating to see him cited by the grandparent comment because Saladino is a notorious quack among the actual nutrition communities, including keto communities. He presents himself as a doctor but conveniently forgets to mention that he's a psychiatrist. He cherry-picks citations from papers that he knows listeners won't actually read and then presents them out of context.
And most of all, he sells his brand and products hard, which should be a huge red flag for anyone being delivered this uniquely contrarian information that defies mainstream medical science. It's fascinating that this person concluded he's an expert in the field simply because he was on the Joe Rogan podcast. I suppose that is the problem with the JRE podcast: Too many of the listeners think they're equipped to identify the real truth, while Joe Rogan serves up a steady diet of convincing quacks interleaved with actual experts.
I’ve reviewed that link as well as the debate that they had on YouTube and I think you should apologize for wasting so much of my time. The guy hit his vape pen in the middle of the debate — I think that pretty much sums it up. He doesn’t know chemistry or biochemistry, but Paul clearly is very well educated medically. There isn’t a single argument this guy makes that stands up. And Paul isn’t a zealot by any stretch of the imagination. Not yielding to arguments that are demonstrably false is not zealotry… zealotry is what you are doing: not yielding to inconvenient yet incontrovertible facts. And by the way, nature agrees with me, not you.
This is the problem with misinformation nowadays. Everything is "backed by studies." The problem is, the same study can be interpreted to support two opposing views.
Hell, I'm sure if this Saladino guy just completely made up a study and presented it as fact, the vast majority of the users will never bother to check if that study even exists, let alone verify the claims. Most listeners are just there to reaffirm their preexisting beliefs.
Personally, I just don't trust people that push such narrow solutions to complex systems (nutrition in this case).
I was commenting on the state of public debate, not his specific claims. I have no idea the accuracy of his claims. I do know that in most cases, such narrow solutions can't be applied to the population at large.
As far as trying it, I have no need. I eat a balanced diet and I feel, and look, great. Glad it worked for you, but I've heard the same about dozens of other diets.
I will read the full thing later but I find it hard to believe when you see this
“Moreover, the current western lifestyle is characterized by high fat intake”
Which is stated as fact when it’s not even true. Fat has been stripped out of everything. Even milk has the fat taken out of it. Look anywhere and you will see “fat free”
And while I agree that a lot of what saladino says doesn’t have enough evidence to be totally sure, what everyone always ignores is when saladino points out that there isn’t enough evidence to be sure of the lipid hypothesis of heart disease. There has never been a randomized, interventional study that proves anything anyone says about meat, fat, heart disease and health. Not one proper study. Meanwhile, him and other people have zero CAC on a diet that should have killed him according to the current model. And there are many other people who have done this. I can’t dig into the “debunk” right now but that’s the value I take out of saladino
> And while I agree that a lot of what saladino says doesn’t have enough evidence to be totally sure, what everyone always ignores is when saladino points out that there isn’t enough evidence to be sure of the lipid hypothesis of heart disease.
This is a common, but lazy, trope trotted out by people like Saladino. It's the same "It's just a theory" argument that climate change deniers use.
There is a lot of evidence showing that things like elevated LDL cholesterol has a cumulative (area under the curve) negative effect on heart health, and that saturated fat consumption is directionally negative for heart health. You'd be hard pressed to find an actual cardiologist or researcher who believes these things aren't true. So why do you choose to believe a known salesman with a conflict of interest in promoting his expensive supplements and books on the topic?
You seem to be assuming a specific conclusion is true and cherry-picking the single person who wants to sell that conclusion to you. There are plenty of citations to the contrary, many of which are in the article linked above.
These are extremely valid points. Even Shawn baker doesn’t like the fact that Paul directly profits from promoting carnivore.
It’s funny you say there’s a lot of evidence showing LDL is bad etc, ok then show me the randomized interventional study regarding animal fat. Regarding carnivore. You can’t and so whenever you say “there’s lots of evidence” you also have to say “but it’s still unproven.” And yes, there is a difference between me and people who deny gravity or global warming because in my case, the study is absolutely trivial to perform! But it never happens because the academic community refuses to put people in (hypothetical!) danger by feeding them animal fat. It would be immoral and most importantly very unfashionable to perform a study like that.
Here’s the rub: nobody I know or have seen has experienced a decline in their health from carnivore. There’s no hard evidence that it’s bad for you. That guy from the grateful dead did it for 40 years and never had a heart problem. I want a randomized controlled and interventional study that simply shows us what difference it makes to be carnivore rather than something else. I will happily shut up forever if we did that and I was wrong.
It's very disingenuous to declare that "there's no hard evidence that it's bad for you" when the vast majority of experimenters have barely been doing this for about 3-4% of their expected lifespan.
And I disagree anyway. Heart disease might take a long time but your CAC score wouldn’t stay 0 for a long time. Two years in two cases and CAC of zero. That’s not anecdotal, that’s two clearly measured examples of something that shouldn’t exist under the current model. And you continue to keep your head in the sand. All you have to do is openly support some kind of real interventional study. Not agree with me, but just acknowledge that fact that it isn’t settled and that something so fundamental should be settled. The study will cost a pittance. So are you in favor of that or not?
The carnivore diet was a thing for the Comanche people for centuries until they were massacred and confined to reservations. We obviously don't have data on their rates of heart disease but overall they were healthier than others living at the same time.
> Which is stated as fact when it’s not even true. Fat has been stripped out of everything. Even milk has the fat taken out of it. Look anywhere and you will see “fat free”
Stripped of everything including pizza, burgers and fries?
So I watched the debate that they had which I think is better than reading this guy snipe Paul from his blog. It’s pretty clear to me who won. This guy was super childish during the debate and was pulling stunts with vegetables. And it’s also clear that paradoxically he doesn’t seem to have deep knowledge of chemistry or biology. But Paul’s medical background really shines in places. I’ve seen a lot of Paul’s content and, as a person with a Background in biology, I have never detected intellectual dishonesty let alone BS.
> Joe rogan has two kinds of guests: experts/scientists and show biz people. The former are why I watch the podcast.
Many of us have tried to listen to Joe Rogan for the former category. When I catch an interview with someone I already know and respect (e.g. John Carmack), it's not bad.
But Rogan is also notorious for bringing on over-confident "experts" who present their pet theories as done deal research. Saladino is a perfect example of this over-confidence. Citing papers and having a medical degree doesn't automatically make someone infallible or even correct.
> And he’s an MD.
Saladino has a medical degree, but did you know he's a psychiatrist? Perhaps a good degree to have for manipulating people, but I prefer to get my nutrition research from nutrition researchers, not psychiatrists who have webstores selling $60 supplements.
Saladino profits by building his brand: He sells books. He sells coaching. He sells extremely overpriced supplements. He has a branded web page with his Joe Rogan interview as the background and a "Join my Tribe" link at the top.
Saladino is a salesperson who is pitching you on his theories to sell you products and extract money from you. Joe Rogan is unqualified to push back on it, so he gives these people a huge audience with which to push their agendas.
And it works! Here you are, completely convinced that everything he said is true and accurate, while it's trivially easy to find fact checkers showing how he made incorrect claims all through that podcast ( https://www.biolayne.com/articles/research/paul-saladino-on-... ).
>Says people who don’t watch joe rogan. Joe rogan has two kinds of guests: experts/scientists and show biz people.
As someone who has been listening to Joe (on and off) for ~5 years, it's hard to believe that you haven't noticed a trend in the type of guests Joe has on in past year. I really feel it used to be that Joe would have on a wide range of people but now it seems that he's created an echo chamber. For example, at the start of the pandemic, in March, he had Michael Osterholm on his show - a top epidemiologist. He took it seriously at first, but once he was tired of lock downs, he has had several more "alternative" scientists to appease his world view and is pretty much antagonistic to anyone else.
I was listening him talk to Rhonda Patrick this morning (who's been on the show multiple times) and I was completely flabbergasted about how incredulous he seemed to be then Rhonda talked about vaccines. Think about that - this is one of his most credentialed friends and now he's incredibly skeptical as he's gotten even more dogmatic in his views.
And I'm sorry, diet fads are as old as America. You can pull up medical papers justifying almost anything when it comes to gastronomy. I hate this idea that has creeped further into the American psyche that people are pushed out of the mainstream because of the liberal boogeyman. You have quacks that are backed up by as much data as Saladino saying that going vegan will give you super powers. Some people are just wrong, and I'd be critical of the praise Joe gives a guy like Saladino given that Joe also has a vested interest in Saladino being correct as well.
Dogmatic... really? It's hard for me to think of a less dogmatic public figure. His views are all over the place, change frequently, and aren't at all consistent with each other. His critics (on both right and left) generally seem to want him to be more dogmatic, not less; they want him to be consistent with their own preferred dogma.
To me Joe comes across as someone who's figuring it out as they go and doesn't have a filter. I personally find this refreshing compared to zealots who are certain they have all the right answers on very nuanced and complex topics.
Edit: Ok downvoters, what is Joe Rogan's "dogma"? Honest question.
His views are only all over the place if you try to bucket him in the American "Democrat/Republican" binary bucket. If you listen to him for a long time he is surprisingly consistent a number of issues. For example, Joe is a huge supporter of public welfare. He grew up, temporarily, on food stamps and has always pushed back when even the most right of guests would call people on welfare lazy. Likewise I feel he has an incredibly poor track record on trans rights and can be very transphobic. That said, it's very difficult for people to communicate outside the "Democrat/Republican" playing field and people seem to love team sports more than discussion. Now that said, Joe is a human being and is welcome to his own beliefs, but whereas before I felt like Joe would have a mix of people on, his newer guests tend to be people who reaffirm his beliefs.
I don't see how any of that would make him dogmatic. Dogma implies a shared set of principles that are followed without question. His beliefs seem to be an idiosyncratic patchwork stitched together from personal experience and a diverse set of influences. And while he is attached to certain beliefs, as you say, he'll also change his mind easily in other areas. Whether or not you agree or disagree with his specific opinions, that's just about the polar opposite of dogma.
>Dogma implies a shared set of principles that are followed without question.
FWIW, Merriam Webster defines dogma as a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds. That's the definition I was using, that I thought was more colloquial. Simply holding a strongly help opinion on shaky grounds is dogmatic. I don't believe that definition is at odds with what I'm describing.
Even if I cherry picked the one I thought was most clearest, none of them are even imply a shared set of principles that are followed without question, nor do any of the definitions under (1) contradict what I was saying.
>Also, when has Joe Rogan ever claimed, or even implied, that his beliefs are "authoritative"?
If you literally watch JRE today he does with regards to keto.
He can speak with legitimate authority on diet, exercise, martial arts, and other similar topics. He knows more about those things than 99% of people. The point is he doesn't claim authority on topics related to politics and science where he's out of his depth, or at least does it a lot less often than typical partisan commentators.
You seem to be reading a different definition than I am, but ok /shrug.
The various health authorities told people not to use masks at first because:
Hospitals were in danger of running out of protective equipment.
The public was panic buying anything and everything. Remember empty grocery store shelves? Price gouging people who were hoarding all the hand sanitizer?
When those circumstances changed, so did the advice.
There's no one on earth who gets everything right first time, and thus never needs to change their mind. Not one single person.
Why do you value an opinion or advice that never changes?
> The various health authorities told people not to use masks at first because: Hospitals were in danger of running out of protective equipment.
We pay the CDC. Not the reverse. And we don’t pay them to give us socially engineered advices depending of the politics or economics of the day. We have other federal organizations to screw up that part of our life already. And it always ends up badly when you don’t tell the truth to people. Never in history we never came to conclusions “What a relieve we lie to the people.”
> The various health authorities told people not to use masks at first because:
> Hospitals were in danger of running out of protective equipment.
They said: "We need the masks for hospitals. Please don't use masks, because they don't work for you, they only work for us in the hospitals".
Why would anyone take from that that masks don't work? How/why did people believe that? They literally say that masks work. This is one of the greatest mysteries for me.
Could you maybe also pull this off in some other context, too? "We want the good stuff. But it doesn't work, so please don't buy it. Leave it for us"? Could it be made to work?
I don't recall them saying 'hospitals need them more,' but rather 'masks have no proven effect' while people inside the CDC later admitted the concern was the first bit. I'm pretty sure that's a lie; while maybe they can argue about foment size effects etc. meant it technically wasn't a lie, I think we can all agree the public heard none of that nuance.
The CDC did not say "don't buy masks because healthcare professionals need them". The CDC falsely claimed they were not effective.
This false narrative persists even today.
How many thousands died because they were told by an authority masks don't work?
Your point of view seems to suggest that the ends justify the means. I ask you how many deaths are an acceptable amount of collateral damage to protect the health system's access to masks. 1,000? 5,000? 50,000?
It persists, because procedure/surgical masks do virtually nothing to stop SARS2. [0] I won't even mention cloth masks.
In sum, of the 14 RCTs that have tested the effectiveness of masks in preventing the transmission of respiratory viruses, three suggest, but do not provide any statistically significant evidence in intention-to-treat analysis, that masks might be useful. The other eleven suggest that masks are either useless—whether compared with no masks or because they appear not to add to good hand hygiene alone—or actually counterproductive. Of the three studies that provided statistically significant evidence in intention-to-treat analysis that was not contradicted within the same study, one found that the combination of surgical masks and hand hygiene was less effective than hand hygiene alone, one found that the combination of surgical masks and hand hygiene was less effective than nothing, and one found that cloth masks were less effective than surgical masks.
N95 are better, but those are not generally available to civilians.
Umm, perhaps I'm mistaken, but I'm fairly certain that, at least in the US, it's always been fairly easy to obtain N95 masks, up until the pandemic. I realized I had a box of them lying around which my ex-girlfriend had purchased for painting.
Yeah, so did I. I use them for sanding and sweeping.
But early in 2020, they disappeared off the shelves. Amazon, in particular, only sold them to medical professionals. Same thing, if you went directly to 3M.
I was able to buy a few more at about ten times the usual price.
A few are available at reasonable prices now, but it's still very limited. When I wear a mask, it's an N95. You can dry them out and reuse them - SARS2 is very fragile.
CDC is working with limited information on a novel virus. As they are learning more they are shifting their guidance to match the current understanding about how the virus spreads.
During that episode I have came to conclusion that Bill Burr is who Joe Rogan sees as himself. Eloquent, humorous, says-he's-stupid-but-he-is-actually-smart, able to step back and look at all the stupid stuff everyone does (including himself).
> During that episode I have came to conclusion that Bill Burr is who ~~Joe Rogan~~ people on the internet see~~s~~ themselves as~~himself~~. Eloquent, humorous, says-he's-stupid-but-he-is-actually-smart, able to step back and look at all the stupid stuff everyone does (including himself).
FTFY
Side note, on /r/Math the other day I saw a great joke.
People in real life: Ops, I'm bad at math. I need a calculator to calculate a tip.
People on the internet: Allow me to demonstrate to you why I'm bad at statistics but confident I'm right and all the scientists are wrong.
I've noticed that a lot of overly-confident people do this. They essentially have a list of preferred topics and always try to bring the conversation to those topics.
> What's your rap these days? Most of us have one. Is it a disquisition on the stupidity of television, the rapacity of multinational corporations, how the Yuppies had it coming to them, the thrills of motorcycling, the perils of tuna fish? Some people are always ready to mount the soapbox. (It's the twelfth time you've heard this guy's tirade and it was already boring the second time around.)
> The worst sort of rap is the pet peeve. Pet peeves manage to smuggle their way into every conversation, no matter what the topic. Marty is hung up on America's foolishness in not imposing tariffs against the Japanese. It's not clear why he takes this so personally, but he's definitely obsessed with the problem. The topic of conversation is Monday-night football? Marty contrives a quick segue to the state of television in America, orchestrates a smooth turn to the subject of the future Japanese control of the entertainment business, and— presto— tariffs. Marty's rap is boring for the same reason the preacher's is— it's predictable— but it's also an imposition. He uses friends as a sounding board for his venting.
- From the book Everyday Ethics by Joshua Halberstam
Everyone wants to climb to the top of the nearest hill and scream and shout that he has The Truth, but more often than not we'd be better off just shutting up: striving to understand rather than trying to preach, remaining curious rather than telling others what to think.
"In every man sleeps a prophet, and when he wakes there is a little more evil in the world."
I don't mind this as much. At least they are talking about things that they are knowledgeable about. What I don't like is when people are overly confident about their YouTube degree. The armchair experts that need to prove how smart they are, even if you're an expert in the field they're talking about. It is excruciatingly painful.
Wow, that is a classic example of an "internet researcher" who read some articles and then told the people trying to correct to "do research."
I just looked up this story and the apes in question were regular eastern chimps with some regional variation. They've been studied for nearly two decades. The whole 6 foot lion killer thing was a few sensationalized articles from 2003 or 2004 due to a member of the research group making excited claims. The member wasnt even a primatologist and was kicked out.
Joe Rogan's research was literally some popular articles from a decade and a half ago... And he dares tell the person on the phone they aren't "current" and to do research.
(EDIT: I mean there are link to reddit caricature / joke lists etc. since when do we do this here?)
I don't think Joe Rogan is very interesting ... but the 'haters' say more about themselves than anything, it's a bad look on them.
Rogan is what is he is. He has a variety of guests, he entertains them and let's them speak, he popularized a fairly new format where people can come on and actually make their case for as long as they like. Turns out it's very refreshing and frankly 'important' thing.
All of these podcast/celebrity etc. people take themselves probably a tad to seriously, but I don't think Rogan lacks the self awareness to not recgonise he's not an intellect, that seems apparent.
For those screaming about his subtle wavering on vaccines, first, he hasn't really, and second, our beloved Lex Friedman has gone a bit into the weeds on that one as well so you'll have to throw him into the cauldron as well.
The possibility of a 'dude bro' who's broken the mould and is more influential, and in most ways legitimately so, than many others who are supposed to be more deserving ... seems to bother a lot of people. I don't care that much one way the other about Joe, but I'm annoyed by those people.
Some of the criticisms of Rogan are legit, a lot of it seems to me like something else going on under the surface.
I have listened to quite a lot of his podcasts. There are times where he is straight up wrong and hiding behind the "I am just a guy asking questions" facade. You know what's even more tiring than "haters"? Fanbois who refuse to admit their idol might have a few flaws...
This is the most frustrating thing about Rogan for me... if he were talking to people as an uniformed layman and sharing his opinion in an effort to weed through his thoughts and become more informed, that would be great! We need more people who are willing to be wrong and learn from that. This is often how Bill Burr comes across (to me, anyway).
But Rogan's not that. He likes to hear himself talk, throws his opinions at experts as if they're equally valid, invites charlatans on and equates them with experts, rarely changes his mind, and comes out of it just as dumb as he came into it. Then people emulate him and end up in a state where they're less able to learn, and frankly, bigger assholes.
It's barely even a shtick, it's the same old pseudo-intellectual machismo that has always plagued society.
The problem people have with Joe Rogan, and everyone else like him, is that they're spreading misinformation without having an ounce of education in the subject at hand. People should be listening to the CDC, the FDA, getting vaccinated, wearing masks, and washing their hands. That is best solution we have to the problem, end of story. No amount of agreeable platitudes will make any difference if this disease continues to mutate among the unvaccinated population. Arm chair commentators are not more capable at understanding virology and immunology than the CDC, and their beliefs are completely irrelevant when it comes to fighting this disease.
The best solution is not a vaccine that works for a few months requiring multiple booster shots meanwhile the rest of the world cannot get enough for one shot. And then allowing the rest of the world to fly in.
Putting all your faith in the CDC and choosing not to allow yourself to form your own opinions is an interesting strategy. It absolves you of any responsibility. Do you vote? Choosing someone to make decisions on things you are not an expert on would seem like a huge responsibility you wouldn't be qualified for. Do you leave those decisions for others?
That's the thing, opinions are not science. No amount of bike-shedding will be useful in this situation. Your "own research" does not outweigh the clinical trials that have gone into developing these vaccines.
the health experts a year ago said vaccines would make this go away, and before that they predicted that masks and social distancing would flatten the curve. With the exception of a few countries, none of that happened. At this ponit, I don't think anyone knows anything.
due to rampant downvoting, I will respond to individual replies here:
"This worked perfectly basically anywhere people actually complied. "
Italy had among the strictest lockdowns in April but saw a huge resurgence at the end of2020
" Largely it did happen, we just don't see the counterfactual. It could have been a lot worse. "
That is moving the goalposts. The claim by the experts was that the vaccines were 95% effective at stopping the spread. It seemd that way until a few months ago when Deltacame along.
> The claim by the experts was that the vaccines were 95% effective at stopping the spread.
No, vaccines are not expected to prevent infection or spread, and almost none do. For example, flu vaccines don't keep you from from getting infected, and the virus still spreads successfully even when vaccination rates are high. What the flu shot does is (hopefully) cause you to have less severe symptoms.
Vaccines are designed and tested to prevent disease in spite of infection. This is a universally understood principle in the field of immunology, regardless of the CDC's confusing messaging.
The current evidence indicates that the vaccines are doing a good job of preventing hospitalizations due to covid.
If that is such an universally understood principle then a lot of people are badly misinformed. I can’t count how often I hear “if everybody just took the vaccine the virus would be gone within insert timespan” even in academic circles.
> if everybody just took the vaccine the virus would be gone within insert timespan
No, the expectation is that a successful vaccination campaign will end the pandemic, by making the burden on healthcare systems manageable. Nobody serious thinks we can eradicate the virus like we did with smallpox. It will always be with us, causing infection.
This is how all vaccines work, with the exception of HPV and possibly measles. Vaccines are not expected to provide sterilizing immunity, and they don't need to as long as they prevent serious disease due to the infection.
Within the field of immunology this is common knowledge, and I wish the CDC would message it more clearly.
First, places with high vaccination rates are crushing it. There basically isn't a fourth wave in Waterloo Region [1], and we have 85% one dose, 78% two doses at present.
Second, those predictions were made ahead of a year of mutation— delta in particular.
> First, places with high vaccination rates are crushing it.
Israel has an epic Delta outbreak and Britain's Delta outbreak keeps rolling on. So no, they're not crushing it at all.
Israel's weekly Covid counts have soared back near record highs.
Britain's weekly Covid counts are not dropping. They're at 200,000+ weekly cases and sustaining. They've been up there for about a month now.
The vaccines are primarily changing the mortality rate, which is of course critical. The current vaccines can't entirely stop Delta even if you vaccinate 100% of the population.
Vaccines, masks, and restrictions did all work to "flatten the curve". Your assertion that they did not is a very minority opinion and the onus is on you to back that up with data.
It should be fully intuitive that anything that reduces the r0 value for spreading the disease flattens the curve compared to what it could have been. That somehow it is not obvious to you suggests your sense making apparatus has been hijacked by something. Take a good hard look at yourself.
It's not enough for vaccines to exist. People have get vaccinated. That has not happened (enough).
How do you know the curve wasn't flattened? I don't know whether it was or not. It seems the only way to find out for sure is to compare the curve to what it would have been in an alternate timeline.
Bill Burr might be right, but there are, for example, people who think satirical news shows are actual credible news. I don't think what Joe Rogan does is much above a step beyond that sort of entertainment.
Fox news has news in its name and the daily show got emmy's every single time, not to mention that time The colbert report tried getting a super pac and managed to get it.
If she is restoring to sex work to feed her son, what is she spending the father's child support money on? That seems like the entire reason child support is required by law.
"Required by law" as not as powerful as it sounds.
Law is not powerful enough to protect someone from a violent partner. Restraining orders don't stop violence from taking place. They only promise punishment afterwards.
So you do not pursue a violent partner for child support, even with the law on your side. It is too dangerous.
Online sex work is the safer option.
Oh, also, you seem to have the idea that child support money is enough by itself for the costs of raising a child decently. It often isn't, you need another income source to cover it. In the example we are talking about, the person could not do a typical job, so they had to find an alternative and OF provided it.
> If she is resorting to sex work to feed her son, what is she spending the father's child support money on?
That implies:
(a) there is father's child support (a sweeping assumption that is often wrong), and
(b) the father's child support is sufficient by itself to feed her son without needing to resort to sex work.
It's also suggesting that the mother is misusing funds somehow.
The distinction between "feeding" and "raising" you might have picked on would be, in my view, a quibble over a technicality. Child support is to contribute to the costs of raising a child, it's not earmarked to specifically cover food, and if you need extra income to raise a child, it's acceptable common language to phrase that as earning money to feed a child.
Stop. The problem is you need to feed your kid today. Not when the judge or law gets around to deciding you’re right. Just stop arbitrating other people’s lives. It’s not hard.
