I don’t know. I left a comment on PZ Myers’s blog asking for clarification. (If you are a Discovery Tuter You shouldn’t be talking about unreliable sources of information.)
Since I don’t know what a Tuter is I’m sure I’m not one.
And since I’m reading the book I can give a first hand assessment.
“The Price of Panic” is a rational assessment of the Covid-19 response based on current and historic data. I recommend it to all Biologos readers and thank you for drawing my attention to it.
All I can say, because I’ll never read the book since it’s from DI or connected to them or whatever. In general of something is put out or supported by AIG or DI I don’t waste my time on it. If a decent books slips by me because of that, I imagine that someone from a more informed group of acquaintances, such as here at BL, will draw positive attention to it.
It seems that the book in general is outlining the path we took handling this virus was wrong. Those things are:
- Vaccines.
- Wearing masks.
- Social distancing.
- Fighting disinformation.
- Showing compassion towards the vulnerable.
I can’t imagine any of those things were worse than doing them.
2 Likes
Do you have a particular point from the book that you think they did a particularly good job at? I went through the hour-long video they did on it found a lot of very poor analyses like the one that I highlighted above.. You might note that I also wondered how the book was anti-vaccine so your zealous frustration about that was maybe not so necessary.
1 Like
I’m pretty sure that is a fallacious argument and your confidence not logically founded. 
(You don’t want me to give counterexamples. 
)
2 Likes
I’m now at page 208 of 306. I can confirm the book is a sober assessment of the available evidence. The only problem with it is that it was written last year and the additional data since then might result in different conclusions; or they might confirm them.
I see no evidence that the book is anti-vax or anti-science, and it appears I’m the only person in this thread who has actually read the book.
Since I consider neither PZ Myers nor the DI reliable a reliable source of information, I am unable to form an opinion on the book.
1 Like
Or perhaps the book chooses not to discuss data that might contradict the conclusion they want to push you towards. I do not presume this happened; I mention as a possibility that you appear not to have considered.
For example, many high-quality studies on the effectiveness of certain kinds of social distancing and the effectiveness of mask wearing had become available as of October 2020. But the book might have chosen (I do not know, this is hypothetical at the moment) to exclude those studies and to instead include lower quality studies that lead to the opposite conclusion.
Since I do not have the time to read the book at the moment, what can you tell me about whether high-quality studies demonstrating the effectiveness of social distancing and mask wearing were included in the book?
Thanks,
Chris Falter
1 Like
Neither author is a doctor or a public health professional.
Don’t think that’s ever stopped someone from Dunning Krugering their way to a good grift.
I guess somebody has to stand up to the experts!
Why not start with a bit of gaslighting.
They include relevant data available at the time.
I watched the video of the book (link above and with a particular timestamp for the topic of my post) and found a very poor job at analyzing data given what was published and available at the time. The types of analyses were nowhere near what researchers were publishing at the time and were no more than if you or I, with little background in epidemiology, fiddled around with some data with the presumption that we’re competent enough to draw correct conclusions from it better than actual experts.
4 Likes
You changed the meaning of my statement by omitting the context of the next sentence. That is not cool.
This vague statement does not answer my question. Let’s try again with this study:
Title: A rapid systematic review of the efficacy of face masks and respirators against coronaviruses and other respiratory transmissible viruses for the community, healthcare workers and sick patients.
Authors: C Raina MacIntyre, Abrar Ahmad Chughtai
Conclusion: The study suggests that community mask use by well people could be beneficial, particularly for COVID-19, where transmission may be pre-symptomatic. The studies of masks as source control also suggest a benefit, and may be important during the COVID-19 pandemic in universal community face mask use as well as in health care settings. Trials in healthcare workers support the use of respirators continuously during a shift. This may prevent health worker infections and deaths from COVID-19, as aerosolisation in the hospital setting has been documented.
Was this review study referenced in the book?
Thanks,
Chris
2 Likes
The following systematic review and its constituent studies were available at the time:
Facemasks in Community for Reducing the Spread of COVID-19: a systematic review
And this systematic review was also available:
Conclusion:
Societal norms and government policies supporting the wearing of masks by the public, as well as international travel controls, are independently associated with lower per-capita mortality from COVID-19.
Did the book cite these studies?
Thanks,
Chris
3 Likes