Omicron-where things stand lately

[RWT1405]

I think, the word you are looking for is: interpreted.

Why thank you, it was.

I'm sure you never typed a word incorrectly, or had spell correct do it's thing.

I'm sure if I was an IT guy, you'd be fine with it.

 

[Poppy]

You are welcome. Was it sarcastic? Yes. Just matching tone of comment to tone of comments.

Have a nice day.

 

[RWT1405]

You are welcome. Was it sarcastic? Yes. Just matching tone of comment to tone of comments.

Have a nice day.

I'm not the one without any medical education, or experience, trying to come off as an expert.

Matter of fact I didn't make any statements about COVID, just called out what I saw.

You have a nice day also.

 

[jtr1962]

However, that doesn't change the fact that someone who "reads stuff" on the internet is NOT a professional and needs to NOT present their information as if they are.

That depends upon what that "stuff" is. Links to peer-reviewed papers may not qualify one to be a professional, but they're basing their source of information on those who ARE professionals.

Just so that I'm sure I am correct in what you are saying, you'd prefer to take your medical advice from a guy on the internet, that's an IT guy, and no medical education or experience, over people that are actual medical professionals, with a medical education, and experience treating patients?

Did you miss the part where he said he has regular contact with those who are? Granted, that's one level below actually being a medical professional, but I'll trust his musings on the subject a lot more than a random talking head on TV, or a politician with an axe to grind.

 

[RWT1405]

That depends upon what that "stuff" is. Links to peer-reviewed papers may not qualify one to be a professional, but they're basing their source of information on those who ARE professionals.


Did you miss the part where he said he has regular contact with those who are? Granted, that's one level below actually being a medical professional, but I'll trust his musings on the subject a lot more than a random talking head on TV, or a politician with an axe to grind.

Actually, there is more to it then "just reading links to peer-reviewed" articles.

Fully/really understanding those peer-reviewed articles can be difficult without the correct base line knowledge and can be easily taken out of context.

If you really believe that an IT guy, with NO medical education or experience, is "one level below actually being a medical professional" because he knows/has regular contact with "medical professionals" and reads a few peer-reviewed articles, that is simply unbelievable!

So no, I didn't miss that at all.

That you think that makes him "one level below actually being a medical professional" is simply amazing, WOW!

 

[bykfixer]

Remember kids debate the post, not the poster.
Ok? Pretty please with sugar on top.

 

[scout24]

RWT- Amused that you gave Byk's post, above, a thumbs up. By way of introduction in this thread, what's your relevant backround?

 

[jtr1962]

Actually, there is more to it then "just reading links to peer-reviewed" articles.

Fully/really understanding those peer-reviewed articles can be difficult without the correct base line knowledge and can be easily taken out of context.

The "conclusions" of these types of articles are generally written in plain English, even if the research leading to those conclusions might be in technobabble which those out of the field may not be able to comprehend. My point here is I'll take using such articles as a basis for forming a viewpoint over other much more questionable sources.

If you really believe that an IT guy, with NO medical education or experience, is "one level below actually being a medical professional" because he knows/has regular contact with "medical professionals" and reads a few peer-reviewed articles, that is simply unbelievable!

So no, I didn't miss that at all.

That you think that makes him "one level below actually being a medical professional" is simply amazing, WOW!

Feel free to call it two steps below if you want. This is sort of like the pointless semantic argument earlier about vaccines versus shots. I don't take every word turbodog or any else posts as gospel. I'm always free to do my own research on any points I may find questionable. But in general most of what he says matches info I've gotten from other sources.

For what it's worth, there are places where actual medical professionals have posted things. And been abused in the process by people who just didn't want to hear it because it conflicted with their world view. So as a result a lot of these medical professionals just started avoiding social media.

 

[RWT1405]

RWT- Amused that you gave Byk's post, above, a thumbs up. By way of introduction in this thread, what's your relevant backround?

I had told Byk, in a private message, that I would not respond further in here, but I hope he will understand my response to your question, as it seems appropriate.

My background is in EMS since 1979 and a career Paramedic since 1984, working full time on the "street", and teaching part-time.

I work ground (911), Critical Care Transport, and as a Flight Paramedic, maintaining my certification in all.

I also teach (part-time) Paramedics, Nurses, and Physicians in Emergency care and Critical Care at a University Hospital, a Pediatric Hospital, and a tertiary-care teaching Hospital.

Again, I apologize to Byk, and this will be my last response in this thread.

 

[bykfixer]

In post #148 you make my earlier point jtr.
The one about varying viewpoints of facts and who cares what it's called.

When you ask someone what time it is and they respond "4:22"and you ask another who says "nearing 4:30" neither is wrong, are they?

 

[jtr1962]

Again, I apologize to Byk, and this will be my last response in this thread.

Given your background, I really wish you would continue to post regarding your personal experience, as opposed to trying to discredit what some others are posting. Experience always trumps "reading about it on the Internet", or "knowing so and so in the field".

 

[jtr1962]

In post #148 you make my earlier point jtr.
The one about varying viewpoints of facts and who cares what it's called.

My real point there was that it's easy to focus on minute details while getting lost on the major points of a discussion. Call it a vaccine or a shot. I don't really care which. I just wish more people would get it. And also follow other protective measures.

When you ask someone what time it is and they respond "4:22"and you ask another who says "nearing 4:30" neither is wrong, are they?

They're both technically right but there are times when precision matters, and a response of "nearing 4:30" simply isn't good enough. So context matters as much as anything.

 

[bykfixer]

And again you make my earlier point.

I did not see a previous series of posts as belittling anyone. What I saw was one member asking another "so what makes you such an expert?" then others going "woah, woah waoh don't you dare argue".

I knew the background of the op and just waited to see how others would handle the question raised.

 

[Poppy]

And again you make my earlier point.

I did not see a previous series of posts as belittling anyone. What I saw was one member asking another "so what makes you such an expert?" then others going "woah, woah waoh don't you dare argue".

I knew the background of the op and just waited to see how others would handle the question raised.

Antagonistic I think is the adjective I would use.

Now, given his medical background, and boots on the ground experience, I would welcome his thoughts and comments. On_the_subject.

Poppy

 

[JimIslander]

To naysayers calling out people for listening to someone without specific credentials, that doesn't make your case. All YOUR work is still ahead of you. Clearly there are a bunch of people reporting on Covid who are not medical professionals, who put far, far, far more time and effort into analyzing the data than most medical professionals.

What counts is how accurate these "content experts" have been shown to be, how they present their findings, and how they back up any conclusions. Whether the reporting is coming from an MD, PhD, or CCM, we as individuals need to do our own work to put context into their claims and evaluate their conclusions. And these days there are tons of primary data sources to help accomplish that.

 

[Empath]

We are a board with extensive and expert experience in lighting. That has nothing to do with subject of this thread. In fact the present discussion of expertise and credentials has little to do with the theme of this thread. It does, though, encourage behavior that is outside the expectations of this board.

The Cafe exists purely as an off-topic forum for light off-topic discussion by those interesred in the interests pf the board.

The Underground is proving to be a great place for discussing this topic. Many areas of the Web are well suited for the topic. Let's return to friendlier discussions expected in a CAFE type setting.