For me, the most important sentence is "[Farr] tried to fit his observations into miasma or zymotic theory [...]". In my humble opinion - humble because I'm not a medical doctor - this sadly widespread attitude*) leads at best to the failure of explaining 'what is' by trying to fit it into 'what I think it should be'. At worst it leads to suppression of observed data which 'don't fit', or worse, to the falsification of the observed data.
*) For other, non-medical examples, simply take a look at the 'models' for 'climate emergency catastrophe' ...
Dear Both - you possibly have come across this posting already, but in case not I thought I should share it. Given your republishing of the excellent 'Transmission Series', is the study referred to below a revival of the MRC Cold Unit experiments but with more up to date diagnostic technology? Potentially, it appears it could well provide greater understanding in who gets COVID and who doesn't. Or, am I missing something? Certainly, I would value your comments. See the following links - https://theconversation.com/we-finally-know-why-some-people-got-covid-while-others-didnt-233063? Published: June 28, 2024 4.46pm BST. Authors. Marko Nikolic Principal Research Fellow/Honorary consultant Respiratory Medicine, UCL. Kaylee Worlock Postdoc Research Fellow, Molecular and Cellular Biology, UCL. The full results of the study can be found at https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-07575-x
many thanks; I was going to say many thanks for each lecture,for producing bit-sized and digestible pieces of learning; but as I read through paragraph by paragraph, there is so much for me to take on; so much more depth and things to reflect on in each paragraph; humbled to part of this wonderful educative process that you offer us all; many thanks
To reiterate others, thanks. I've a growing inkling that there are at least two sides to statistics: (1 - that I find easier) some calculation you perform on a contingency table or something, that you might reproduce in an exam question, and (2) the (mathematically negligible question) where the **** do these numbers come from? Why *these* columns and rows? Monozygotic or dizygotic twins vs "criminality"? How are these things detected or measured, why are the data gathered according to *this* protocol, or even the very concepts taken seriously? Never mind, should "causality" or "probability" be invoked, are these mathematical abstractions, or philosophical chimera? I suspect chimera.
I'm an longstanding idiot, and not alone. You seem like human beings, and patient individuals. It might be kindest if you just delete this "comment". Or as medical people, prescribe me some reading that might address the disease I hereby exhibit.
Hi Peter, it’s difficult to know what reading to advise apart from the references in the series. The concepts are basic and well explained by all the various authors. Snow’s tables are not populated by nonsense data. As you will see in the future instalments, Snow went to extraordinary lengths to make sure he had solid numerators and denominators. He was thorough and focussed. He must have been extraordinary fit too. He walked from York to London via Liverpool to train at the Hunterian School. He personally went door to door in the summer of 1854 as you will see, criss crossing London in his enquiries. Perhaps reading MCC2 would be a good start. Me? I am studying early Etruscan architecture.
Thanks, again, for this lecture.
For me, the most important sentence is "[Farr] tried to fit his observations into miasma or zymotic theory [...]". In my humble opinion - humble because I'm not a medical doctor - this sadly widespread attitude*) leads at best to the failure of explaining 'what is' by trying to fit it into 'what I think it should be'. At worst it leads to suppression of observed data which 'don't fit', or worse, to the falsification of the observed data.
*) For other, non-medical examples, simply take a look at the 'models' for 'climate emergency catastrophe' ...
Dear Both - you possibly have come across this posting already, but in case not I thought I should share it. Given your republishing of the excellent 'Transmission Series', is the study referred to below a revival of the MRC Cold Unit experiments but with more up to date diagnostic technology? Potentially, it appears it could well provide greater understanding in who gets COVID and who doesn't. Or, am I missing something? Certainly, I would value your comments. See the following links - https://theconversation.com/we-finally-know-why-some-people-got-covid-while-others-didnt-233063? Published: June 28, 2024 4.46pm BST. Authors. Marko Nikolic Principal Research Fellow/Honorary consultant Respiratory Medicine, UCL. Kaylee Worlock Postdoc Research Fellow, Molecular and Cellular Biology, UCL. The full results of the study can be found at https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-07575-x
many thanks; I was going to say many thanks for each lecture,for producing bit-sized and digestible pieces of learning; but as I read through paragraph by paragraph, there is so much for me to take on; so much more depth and things to reflect on in each paragraph; humbled to part of this wonderful educative process that you offer us all; many thanks
To reiterate others, thanks. I've a growing inkling that there are at least two sides to statistics: (1 - that I find easier) some calculation you perform on a contingency table or something, that you might reproduce in an exam question, and (2) the (mathematically negligible question) where the **** do these numbers come from? Why *these* columns and rows? Monozygotic or dizygotic twins vs "criminality"? How are these things detected or measured, why are the data gathered according to *this* protocol, or even the very concepts taken seriously? Never mind, should "causality" or "probability" be invoked, are these mathematical abstractions, or philosophical chimera? I suspect chimera.
I'm an longstanding idiot, and not alone. You seem like human beings, and patient individuals. It might be kindest if you just delete this "comment". Or as medical people, prescribe me some reading that might address the disease I hereby exhibit.
Hi Peter, it’s difficult to know what reading to advise apart from the references in the series. The concepts are basic and well explained by all the various authors. Snow’s tables are not populated by nonsense data. As you will see in the future instalments, Snow went to extraordinary lengths to make sure he had solid numerators and denominators. He was thorough and focussed. He must have been extraordinary fit too. He walked from York to London via Liverpool to train at the Hunterian School. He personally went door to door in the summer of 1854 as you will see, criss crossing London in his enquiries. Perhaps reading MCC2 would be a good start. Me? I am studying early Etruscan architecture.
Best wishes, Tom.
Every time I read one of your substacks, I get smarter. Thank you for this.