Trying to summarize: EVs still seem to be a net gain, but non-exhaust emissions are still a significant problem. We don't know how bad that problem really is because there's not enough research yet.
> It’s telling to me that the most-watched shows on these networks are often sitcoms from the 90s and 00s, despite a mountain of newer content going unnoticed.
There was also huge glut of forgettable content back then. Most 90s and 00s shows were low quality crap too. No one is watching those now. The handful of shows that survived and made it onto today’s streaming services are the greatest of that era.
In fairness, the study was retracted not due to the data but because "The European Respiratory Society, as a leading medical organisation in the respiratory field whose mission is to promote lung health and alleviate suffering from respiratory disease, has bylaws in place that do not permit individuals with ongoing relationships with the tobacco industry to participate in its activities" and in other situations, "The journal editors acknowledge that COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) guidelines state that failure to disclose a potential conflict of interest is not normally sufficient grounds for retraction of a published article."
I understand the journal's actions but I'd hesitate to say the study is wrong or has been retracted for anything beyond politics.
I’m not sure what you mean by “politics” here, so I’d rather be explicit and say what it looks like to me.
The tobacco industry has a rich history of trying to manipulate public opinion in their favor, and this article and authors’ undisclosed conflict of interest fits that pattern well: a study shows cigarettes are actually good for you in some way, and might even save you from the current pandemic; and then whoops, authors were getting paid by the tobacco industry, and then whoops again, they didn’t mention it when submitting for publication.
If the study was retracted even though the CoPE guidelines don’t require a retraction, it implies to me that this case was more egregious than just some protocol mixup or forgetfulness. The most generous reading is that the retraction was made out of an abundance of caution and concern for the journal’s reputation. I suppose that’s possible, but I don’t see any further evidence in favor of exonerating the article, especially knowing the industry’s history.
>I’m not sure what you mean by “politics” here, so I’d rather be explicit and say what it looks like to me.
I mean that they explicitly said they retracted the study (in the journal, the authors haven't retracted anything) because they refuse to take any research from anybody who has ever accepted money from tobacco companies regardless of the rigor of the data or research. Non-academic reasons.
I understand their stance because, as you said, the tobacco companies have a long sordid history of research and it's a journal of lung health with a strong "anti-smoking" bent, but calling the study "retracted" implies that it was somehow false or disproven when it has not been.
Why would you trust the authors, though? They really should know better. To me, the omission is either the product of general incompetence (they forgot?), or intent to deceive. Both of those seem pretty disqualifying.
Worth noting that this may or not have any bearing on the conclusions...
"The manuscript presents some new data on, and provides a section of discussion of, the effect of tobacco consumption on patient susceptibility to COVID-19, and cites other studies that claim SARS-CoV-2 infection is less prevalent in smokers or tobacco users." Perhaps reading those other studies would be prejudicial.
I once spend the better part of a day online looking for actual data on the known dangers of second-hand smoke. I found the not-so-surprising answers in a hard-to-find article in Lancet. It ... contradicted the mainstream tale.
A vaccine mandate has about 80% support in Germany. OP is axe-grinding for a pretty small minority here.
I don’t know if people are generally any more stupid now. I think it’s just that our media elevates these uninformed voices and amplifies these stupid points of view, treating both sides as possibly right, when one is so obviously wrong.
I used to believe this, until one of our political parties officially adopted the position that the 2020 election was stolen from them, and states like Florida and Alaska put vaccine and mask skeptics in charge of their health programs.
The people who believe this nonsense still aren't a majority, but they are now a large enough constituency to affect actual public policy. They are enabled by another large group who choose to ignore the insanity because it is politically convenient for them. I find all of this beyond terrifying. I stand by my statement: Smallpox could never be eradicated in 2021.
> I used to believe this, until one of our political parties officially adopted the position that the 2020 election was stolen from them
That's not new, though, really; it's new for the US, but it's a pretty common thing in the developing world (and was somewhat common in Europe pre-WW2).
The right sort of leader could absolutely have caused a similar reaction in the US 70 years ago, and the US _did_ have another weird political moment around that time; the McCarthyist panic. If McCarthy had been a weird narcissistic president rather than a paranoid, and then lost re-election, what do you think would have happened?
> It was either forcefully vaccinated or forcefully infected by the unvaccinated. I’m thankful we’re making the right choice.
False dichotomy.
Also what if you are wrong? You seem very certain. Why? No meaningful discussion is allowed, so how is it that you feel you have all the information you need to make the decision -- first for yourself, and second, for every other person in your country? It seems like you are just thankful your fears about your neighbors have been tranquilized? Where did those fears come from again?
It’s been discussed to death, literally. It’s hard to believe you’re asking for a discussion in good faith, when there’s clearly no evidence on your side, and your baseless “skepticism” has been indulged for almost 2 full years by the government and media. The outgoing German government bent over backwards for you Querdenker, and that’s why we’re still in this mess.
You’re simply wrong. You’re entitled to your wrong opinion, but you’re no longer entitled to force the rest of us to suffer for it.
The list of times when scientists and politicians have been wrong or just lied is a long one.
Are you so sure they are right this time? You are probably no expert so it seems like you are just taking their word for it. Good thing they are telling you it's the right thing to do!
> You’re simply wrong. You’re entitled to your wrong opinion, but you’re no longer entitled to force the rest of us to suffer for it.
The only one making you suffer is you not some 'other'. You are choosing to let fear become a wedge.
As a moral exercise, consider that when you force people against their will to do anything, you necessarily assume responsibility for the results, unless you are an immoral person. Are you willing to assume that responsibility? The manufacturers of the products are not. This in particular is a big red flag.
How would you feel if the roles were reversed and it was you who did not want some medical procedure? What if others just discounted your position out of hand?
But meth is already illegal, and your neighborhood is still in that situation. That sounds awful, but not really like a reason for sticking with the current policy.
In fact most of the crime around it would be a result of it being illegal. High prices, marginalisation etc.
Not saying we should legalise meth as it seems to be one of the nastier drugs around. But the war on drugs does seem to create problems itself. By moving the drugs into the criminal zone you're creating a lot of crime around it. It's not the right way IMO. For example supplying unrecoverable addicts with seized drugs stops them from having to steal. It was a success in Europe.
It's kinda ironic that this policy comes from the US which learned a valuable lesson during its prohibition period.
Why? because the unit price is lower? Can't zillow just... buy less houses? I don't see anything different between zillow buying a $500k house and one hundred used cars worth $5000 each.
The equivalent for houses is the land they sit on. In metros that could easily be worth more than the house, and in most cases it's worth more (in % terms) than the scrap value of a car.
I can’t speak for everyone, but that’s certainly a technical part of it. Another big part of the problem is that it’s insulting to presume everyone guilty, and make them to use their own resources (own phone, own battery cycles) to investigate them as if they were suspects. But that’s been discussed plenty on other threads here at HN.
https://www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com/p/electric-vehicles-...
Trying to summarize: EVs still seem to be a net gain, but non-exhaust emissions are still a significant problem. We don't know how bad that problem really is because there's not enough research yet.