At this point I'm convinced that you're seeking to either deliberately misconstrue what I'm saying or stay hung up on detail, so it's pointless to have a conversation. To me it's obvious that you haven't got anything to support your claims at this point. If I want to read Nature (even though I don't), I don't need you for that, I very much know the publication and know where to find it.
Capn Jack wrote in post #19051404
Actually, it isn't small a detail at all. It shows how the experiment was conducted, the methodology used, and the original data from the equipment used. Supplemental data is one tool to prevent scientific fraud, and also reduces errors in interpreting the data.
Yes, that's the methodology, as we call it in the social science and in statistics (where you would discuss death rates, etc.), and it would naturally form part of what it reviewed in a peer review i.e. its purpose. In no way was I trying to make an exhaustive list of everything that could be reviewed in any and every possible scientific discipline.
I never said anything about the government figures in this thread. I'm trying to get people to recognize there are different "sources" of data from China. One of them hasn't shown itself to be trustworthy, but the other have been truthful.
Then rest assured that I understand the difference, as I've already told you ad nauseam, so no need to waste anymore breath on that with me.
I'm only asking you to be a little more specific when you say Chinese data can't be trusted. Some it can be, and some of it can't be.
Just to make it clear, I don't care what you're asking me, and I remain comfortable with my statements, and you haven't yet provided anything that can allow us to substantiate your claims that 'data' coming from China can actually be trusted.
I've only been talking about the scientific data in my posts.
This hasn't been the subject of any of my posts.
No, you haven't made it clear. And you still tar everything with the same brush. It's OK if you don't care for the science, just make it clear which data you mean when you say you "don't trust anything coming from China".
I'm talking about the COVID-19-related information. That should be clear enough - and I will again send you back to my original posts where we first had an exchange on this, which I still stand by. And I'm really sick of your condescending attitude here. Really, really sick.
Please let me refresh your memory (emphasis mine):
The government doesn't produce those. The scientists do, just like they do in Canada.
The reason is that I'm able to separate the information sources from the trustworthy and the untrustworthy. If we want to cure or manage this thing, it would be wise to look at their scientific research, and that doesn't come from their government. They have been running about 6 weeks ahead of us. Likewise, their economy is still fouled up. Granted their economy is more export oriented than most countries, and their markets are all shut down. However, my friends, colleagues, and collaborators who live there tell me their economy isn't recovering quickly. We are likely to have a second wave of infections as people caught overseas come home when borders reopen, as has happened there. As for numbers of sick and dead, the USA really doesn't know, either. I don't think it is due to government malfeasance.
In terms of the science, my trust is first and foremost in Canada's public health officials and researchers (and the provincial counterparts), and if they feel that whatever part of what has been produced in China (or elsewhere) is useful then that's perfectly fine by me, and that's all I'll say about this.