This is similar to demanding to see a control group in a parachute test because you don't want to accept the science and engineering behind drag, atmospheric pressure, and gravitational force being responsible for the success of the parachute. The years of foundational education that even prime someone to search for empirically valid repeatable truth are lost on you.
My "opinions" are based on math, the actual laws of thermodynamics, and a foundational understanding of life sciences and chemistry that's pretty on point with the topic at hand. The blogs you point at are narrow views presented narrowly, ignorance feigned and leaving known knowns to a benefit of a doubt [see the control group for parachutes]. They distort high levels of certainty as not being 100% certain and therefore uncertain so they can say whatever they want really. Actually it's worse because they speak to mathematical models that can be initialized with assumptions based on the above and leaving certain things out.
For example, the recent one about unvaccinated drivers being far more likely to have accidents. Leaves out distance driven and it turns out the unvaccinated cohort had an order of magnitude more kilometers driven. It told us that people who drive 10 times more have more accidents. But we leave that part out saying, instead prefacing that "if we just look at people's vaccine status and adjust for age because we need to flatten that distortion because the boosted cohort is older, but we just do it person to person instead of adjusting for km commuted", well then we can create a sexy sounding study that feeds people's confirmation bias that those risk tolerant asshole crazies are killers on the road too and maybe they're so evil that they should probably pay more for insurance so they don't drive up the premiums of good people.
This is similar to demanding to see a control group in a parachute test because you don't want to accept the science and engineering behind drag, atmospheric pressure, and gravitational force being responsible for the success of the parachute. The years of foundational education that even prime someone to search for empirically valid repeatable truth are lost on you.
My "opinions" are based on math, the actual laws of thermodynamics, and a foundational understanding of life sciences and chemistry that's pretty on point with the topic at hand. The blogs you point at are narrow views presented narrowly, ignorance feigned and leaving known knowns to a benefit of a doubt [see the control group for parachutes]. They distort high levels of certainty as not being 100% certain and therefore uncertain so they can say whatever they want really. Actually it's worse because they speak to mathematical models that can be initialized with assumptions based on the above and leaving certain things out.
For example, the recent one about unvaccinated drivers being far more likely to have accidents. Leaves out distance driven and it turns out the unvaccinated cohort had an order of magnitude more kilometers driven. It told us that people who drive 10 times more have more accidents. But we leave that part out saying, instead prefacing that "if we just look at people's vaccine status and adjust for age because we need to flatten that distortion because the boosted cohort is older, but we just do it person to person instead of adjusting for km commuted", well then we can create a sexy sounding study that feeds people's confirmation bias that those risk tolerant asshole crazies are killers on the road too and maybe they're so evil that they should probably pay more for insurance so they don't drive up the premiums of good people.
Your bloggers are publishing in a similar spirit.
Everyone's an expert on social media, unfortunately. Supporting links are one way of helping to identify discussions that enlighten.
Where have I pointed at a blog? I can't recall doing that offhand although I suppose it's possible. I don't want to go through all my past comments.
How hard would it be to support that comment?