Something notable from this chart comparing U.S. COVID wastewater levels by year, is that we've never seen levels this high at this time of the year!
(indicated by the black line representing current levels, crossing the blue line representing Omicron levels in 2022)
🇳🇱
@luckytran Viron particle count seems like a horribly misleading way to measure the severity of the pandemic.
@freemo @luckytran How is it horribly misleading?
Certainly it is less accurate. Obviously actually tracking infections is the only sensible way to track the progression of the pandemic. But since it "looks bad" and was hard to fight the local governments (like Florida) who want to hide the truth, the government has basically abandoned everyone on this, so this is the most accurate metric. It's not perfect, but should be still pretty accurate overall. Any reason you disagree?
> Obviously actually tracking infections is the only sensible way to track the progression of the pandemic.
You seemed to already have answered it.
@freemo @luckytran No I do not. How is it specifically "misleading"?
Yes it's less accurate. Not so much so as to mislead. It still gives a good overall view of trends among other things.
Because it's literally not a metric for infection severity. Your question is valid, but I'm just tired at this point explaining this stuff to non scientist just to have them argue from ignorance. Not saying your doing it per se. I just don't have the energy for this stuff.
@freemo @luckytran Let's put aside the appeal to authority/reverse/etc stuff please. The discussion at hand is whether it is valid as a metric for getting an overall view of current trends in new infections. Yes it is less accurate than proper tracking. I fully agree. (Though even proper tracking has its own hurdles.) There are things where this is an issue, but an overall view as we are doing here looks roughly the same whether viral loads or tracking.
When did I use appeal to authority. I mentioned your question is valid but since my profession deals with educating the public daily I'm burnt out on the discussion. How did you twist that into an appeal to authority? Never asked you to just trust me
@freemo @luckytran Appeal to authority: I am an expert.
Reverse appeal to authority: you are not.
Thus the combination: I'm the expert and you are not, so you're wrong and I'm not even going to discuss it. (Which accomplishes the "just assume I'm right" part.)
I mean sure except I never said that. I never said if you were an expert or not, nor did I claim me being an expert makes you wrong. In fact quite the opposite, I pointed out you made a valid question that deserves an answer but I just dont have the energy to answer it for you/
I mean its a lot of effort your putting in to puts words in my mouth I never said. Which is just telling me not engaging you was probably the right move to be honest.
Oh and by the way the "reverse appeal to authority" is called the Ad Hominem fallacy, in the general case. A more specific fallacy is called the Courtier's Reply Fallacy
