If you wanted to defend laws against jaywalking then perhaps it would best to back it up with something other than an appeal to emotion, and - on HN of all places - an appeal against using scientific research.
I'm impressed how you jumped from me using a reasonable commonsense estimate (deceptive people tend to be less trustworthy) to conclusion that I must be anti-science.
Reminds of the droning crowds who claimed in March 2020 that masks don't work "because there is no supporting research".
Cheating on a spouse has nothing to do with deception, it only becomes deception if they don't tell their spouse about it afterwards. If a person did cheat on their spouse and told their spouse about it then that is a sign to me that I can trust what the person say. I wont be able to trust that they can control themselves in the moment, but at least I'll trust that they will tell me about important things.
So you wouldn’t be angry if they screwed you in a business deal by lying to you as long as they told you about it after the damage was done? The only way a cheater could be ethical about cheating is to inform their spouse about it before it happens and give them an opportunity to approve, divorce, or discuss.
What am I supposed to take from that? That you're for the use of scientific research here?
> Reminds of the droning crowds who claimed in March 2020 that masks don't work "because there is no supporting research".
Since you brought it up, maybe if you supported looking into the research more often you'd be aware of how little supporting evidence there is - not research, there's been research but it has failed to find the evidence you seem to believe exists.
From[1]:
> This recent crop of trials added 9,112 participants to the total randomised denominator of 13,259 and showed that masks alone have no significant effect in interrupting the spread of ILI or influenza in the general population, nor in healthcare workers.
> It would appear that despite two decades of pandemic preparedness, there is considerable uncertainty as to the value of wearing masks.
From[2]:
> Evidence from 14 trials on the use of masks vs. no masks was disappointing: it showed no effect in either healthcare workers or in community settings. We could also find no evidence of a difference between the N95 and other types of masks but the trials comparing the two had not been carried in aerosol-generating procedures.
> But what of the folk walking down the road, going to the supermarket or watching the ducks in the pond?
> The answer is simple: we do not know.
From[3]:
> Unlike other studies looking at masks, the Danmask study was a randomised controlled trial – making it the highest quality scientific evidence.
> In the end, there was no statistically significant difference between those who wore masks and those who did not when it came to being infected by Covid-19.
> When it comes to masks, it appears there is still little good evidence they prevent the spread of airborne diseases. The results of the Danmask-19 trial mirror other reviews into influenza-like illnesses.
> But overall, there is a troubling lack of robust evidence on face masks and Covid-19.
They go on but I think that's enough, even for someone who appears to abhor research as much as you. If that's not the case then I suggest making yourself clearer in future rather than trying to pass off the blame through straw man responses.
Oh wow so you're an antimasker too, didn't have that on my bingo card. Thing is I did wonder how last years WHO-antimaskers cope with the advise reversal. Now I see they didn't.
We found that communities with high reported mask-wearing and physical distancing had the highest predicted probability of transmission control.
Not a shocker really given how all successful containment measures over the pandemic did include masks (same for earlier SARS outbreaks). And we literally had a hundred years worth of practice using masks for airborne transmission diseases to draw conclusions from.
> What am I supposed to take from that?
That it's entirely possible to use common sense to gauge everyday risks without demanding a peer reviewed study. Crossing into traffic is dangerous. Mechanical barriers help catch particles. Deceptive people are less trustworthy. A formal study would often quantify that, but coming to opposite conclusion than common sense concept happens very infrequently and then usually warrant a replication study.
However the dynamic with online peertards is they use proof requests as an attempt to shut down the discussion, knowing all well that finding supporting research (which often does exist!) in unfamiliar field is a lot of work. When people object to that, the perfect trifecta of cookie-cutter strawman, ad-hominem and non-sequitir accusation follows.
In our case you didn't seem to bother looking for peer reviewed research that cheaters are more (or even just as ) trustworthy as baseline, which would be a really remarkable, counter-intuitive result worth sharing. Nope, you'd rather latch on an entirely reasonable comment and insist that not playing along with your foolishness is anti-intillectualism.
> That it's entirely possible to use common sense to gauge everyday risks without demanding a peer reviewed study.
It's also entirely possible to be wrong, and divorce or being cheated on is not an "everyday" risk, hence the challenge you encountered.
> In our case you didn't seem to bother looking for peer reviewed research that cheaters are more (or even just as ) trustworthy as baseline
Why should I need to? I know you want to make this personal as you keep engaging in rudeness and ad hominem but it's got nothing to do with your claim, and I'm not making a claim.
Just try backing it up instead of deflecting and being rude.
As to your study in the Lancet, did you read it? Even glance across it?
> Methods
> Serial cross-sectional surveys were administered via a web platform to randomly surveyed US individuals aged 13 years and older, to query self-reports of face mask-wearing.
Amusing. I really think you should read the articles written by the esteemed epidemiologists I supplied, especially where they talk about what makes a good study.
Non sequitur; a better question would be “do you consult psyarxiv every time jaywalking is discussed”. This site being the kind of place it is: https://psyarxiv.com/yfsed/
Back to the topic, I found this interesting, though I am unqualified to judge it and only read abstract and conclusion: https://psyarxiv.com/2stcv/
