Jump to content

Talk:Jay Bhattacharya

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Focused protection is not "Fringe"

[edit]

Prior to 2020, the notion that protective measures can be selectively applied to elderly and higher-risk individuals was not fringe. In fact, it was (and is) a commonplace notion:

https://www.care.com/c/senior-health-cold-and-flu-season/

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/professionals/infectioncontrol/healthcaresettings.htm

The word fringe should be deleted along with the low-quality, non-scholarly opinions which are offered as justification. Jcandy (talk) 15:21, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How strange! Did anything happen in 2020 that might have provided new information and led the world to reevaluate their assumptions? MrOllie (talk) 15:27, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Some tragic things happened in 2020, primarily propaganda and pseudoscience, that caused a deviation from classic pandemic protocols that should have been followed. Now, in 2023, these unscientific/untested deviations from well-established pandemic guidelines are being highly criticized. Thus "actually fringe" notion was the assertion that a respiratory virus would disappear if we made up some strange and performative new protocols like maintaining 6 feet of distance. Jcandy (talk) 16:11, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome to hold that view personally, but Wikipedia cannot reflect it since the encyclopedia follows the scientific mainstream, right or wrong. MrOllie (talk) 16:52, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Recent mainstream events now clarify that "6 feet of distance" was performative pseudoscience. Obviously there never was any scientific basis for the rule. 75.83.25.58 (talk) 05:56, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How is that unsourced insight of yours relevant to improving the article? --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:58, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a paper calling for focused protection. Fringe?

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(22)01530-6/fulltext — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcandy (talk • contribs) 16:15, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, a letter that doesn't mention focused protection. So Nope. The idea that COVID-19 could be left to rip through the population while vulnerable people were somehow to be excluded from the wave of infection is just dishonest hopium. If anything, calling it fringe is a bit kind considering what the sources say. Bon courage (talk) 16:26, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Incredulity is not an argument. And the letter mentions "to protect older people" which is exactly what is meant by focused protection. The idea that you can preferentially protect vulnerable cohorts is not new, not fringe and not refuted by appeals to incredulity. Hospital systems put in place measures of this type every year. We are seeing returns to focused protection as hospitals again institute mask orders. In fact, I think we can trace back the politically-loaded notion of "fringe" to a now-discredited attempt to smear GBD authors.
The word "fringe" needs to be removed. Jcandy (talk) 20:51, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Suggesting that we should try to raise vaccination rates among older people (which are lower than hoped for non-medical, social reasons) is not remotely the same as what the Great Barrington Declaration was advocating. We cannot accept WP:OR here. If you want to show that the GBD is not fringe, you will need sourcing that is directly on point and as authoritative as the sources that say it is. (that would be something like the WHO saying 'The Great Barrington Declaration was not fringe'). To my knowledge such sourcing does not exist - in fact the WHO still says the opposite. Again, Wikipedia will follow the scientific mainstream. If you think the mainstream is wrong, this website is not the place to try to change it. MrOllie (talk) 21:52, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's a WP:SBM article from this year[1] that goes into more depth about this. But this is a page about one the "disgraced trio of scientists" touting this stuff, not the GBD itself. So to satisfy NPOV all we need to do is briefly note that the bollocks is bollocks before focusing on the more biographical aspects of Jay. What we have is fine (though I do like this[2] source's use of "fatuous" which may be a better word than fringe?) Bon courage (talk) 03:42, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here is an excellent paper that shows age-targeted mitigations are mathematically optimal:
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0236237
WHO pandemic guidance (not a fringe position) also warned against non-targeted restrictions, particularly school closure for more than a short period. Scandinavia's extremely low pandemic ASMR showed that this particular type of focused protection (open schools) was optimal. In Europe children were not masked. The real-life examples that refute the "fringe" claim are numerous and persuasive. Jcandy (talk) 06:41, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
More slowly, so you may finally get it: That. Would. Be. Something. Like. The. WHO. Saying. 'The. Great. Barrington. Declaration. Was. Not. Fringe.
Understand now?
Please read WP:OR and WP:RS. We cannot replace sourced statements by your own conclusions. It's the rules. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:07, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Quite. GBD was fringe (or daft, stupid, eugenic, whatever) idea as all authoritative sources say. Wikipedia doesn't indulge crap but calls it out concentrates on relaying actual knowledge. Bon courage (talk) 08:02, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sourced statements on the editorial statment describing "focused protection" as "fringe" are opinions of individual scientists, not general scientific conclusions. There were multiple other scientists who held different opinions on the effectiveness of focused protection or similar actions. For evidence, see this article from Nov 2020 describing a debate on the topic sponsored by Johns Hopkins University: [3]. Additional evidence would be Sweden's approach, which was essentially focused protection: [4]. Given the clear varied opinions among scientists at the time, those arguing to leave the word "fringe" should provide more than simply opinions from individual scientists. Otherwise the word should be removed as it is an editorial rather than factual statement. Srdone (talk) 05:05, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's very interesting that we apparently have to pull in economists and business school people in order to find support for the essentially fictitious* idea, and this is supposed to be evidence that this is not fringe in the relevant scientific fields. Seems somewhat reminiscent of certain arguments in favour of letting climate change do whatever actually.
* since as has been repeatedly pointed out by many sources, including the authors themselves, that it lacks A comprehensive and detailed list of measures. Or was it a comprehensive strategy for—a detailed tactical strategy? Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:48, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adding his participation in the US Supreme Court case Murthy v Missouri

[edit]

I really need the world to know about his participation in Murthy v Missouri and his failure to come clean with his multiple mistakes during the early years of the COVID pandemic (https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/every-time-dr-jay-bhattacharya-talks-about-covid-he-proves-he-was-totally-wrong-about-covid/), however other users remove my edits as soon as I can put them on. I am getting the impression that some people don't want any negative commentary on his Wiki page (Plenty of other Wikipedia pages state negative things but this particular page seems to be getting censored for those kinds of edits).

How can I add this in such a way that describes both his participation and his dishonesty? GarconCanadien (talk) 02:48, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits have been running afoul of WP:NOR - anything you add must be directly supported by cited, reliable sources. What you've been doing is giving your own interpretation of primary sources. If you want to add something, especially on a living persons biography, which have special rules (WP:BLP), you must use a reliable source and stick to what it directly states. MrOllie (talk) 03:28, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is it permitted to say that Jay Bhattacharya was a plaintiff in the Supreme Court Lawsuit Murthy v. Missouri? GarconCanadien (talk) 03:33, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Correctly describing his training

[edit]

The subtitle of the wiki page says he is an American virologist, despite having no completed degrees in virology.

I keep changing it to economist, which more closely reflects his current work.

However, mysterious users keep on changing it back to virologist without acknowledging his actual degrees. What gives? GarconCanadien (talk) 03:09, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

False statement about Battacharya

[edit]

From the article: "According to an anonymous whistle blower, David Neeleman, the former owner of Jet Blue, donated $5,000.00 to Stanford University towards funding this research, which the scientists involved denied all knowledge of.[21][22]"

Reference [22] contains the following (about quarter of the way down), which would appear to contradict the last eight words of the above.

" The Stanford researchers and the airline executive have not concealed having a personal connection to each other. On April 12, the entrepreneur appeared with two of them — Bhattacharya and Bogan — on the Fox News show The Next Revolution, whose host laid out a strategy to end the economic shutdown and introduced his guests as “the people who put it together.” Referring to his elderly parents, Neeleman said, “We need to figure out a way to protect them but also to get people back to work in a more safely manner.” "

On a related note, does it makes sense that the CEO of JetBlue, who is said to be worth a billion dollars, would have contributed only $5,000 to the research? That wouldn't even cover the administrative overhead of sending the original proposal to its funders, let alone any of the subsequently funded research itself. Something is very strange there. Vaughan Pratt (talk) 19:21, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no contradiction between "A and B have not concealed having a personal connection to each other" and "A denies knowledge of B donating something". Even if there were, it would be WP:OR. "Something is very strange there" is also OR. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:12, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Gorski comments should be removed

[edit]

It reads like opinion and WP:BLPGOSSIP. SmolBrane (talk) 00:34, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I support removal. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:38, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. The Declaration was a controversial political document. It is WP:SKYBLUE to call it political, so there is nothing gossipy about what Gorski is saying.DolyaIskrina (talk) 03:13, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cautiously support, though not due to BLPGOSSIP but due to WP:DUE. Presently 65% of the BLP of this 56 year-old man is about a three-year period in his life. The level of detail here is way out of sync. This (and, honestly, a lot of intricate detail) might be better to move to Great Barrington Declaration. Chetsford (talk) 03:44, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
His notability has thus far been due to his COVID contrarianism. His page was created in 2020. DolyaIskrina (talk) 05:48, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the case, then this sounds like BLP1E. Chetsford (talk) 06:06, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the NIH stuff didn’t come out this might be 1E terrritory. I agree the article weight is off balance. SmolBrane (talk) 16:26, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great Barrington Declaration already covers it. The added material from Gorski is definitely Wikipedia:UNDUE in 2024. Iljhgtn (talk) 19:28, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see it's a pretty old source. SmolBrane (talk) 23:03, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
GBD did not get less wrong, less fantastic, or less stupid since then. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:51, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jay_Bhattacharya&oldid=1263665694"