m0zg appears to be implying that in the collaboration between Derek Lowe and the professionals he has talked to to write this article, nobody is aware of remdesivir, or, alternatively, that they are aware, that they explicitly chose not to write it / to accord their contribution to the article without requiring that it is mentioned, and that makes them unqualified hacks.
Because if that is not what was implied, I don't get why the words 'epic fail' are used.
And that is an extraordinary claim, at least in the mind of user hprotagonist, given that he is aware of Derek Lowe's expertise levels. Disregarding it without further proof is _NOT_ an appeal to authority.
The point that hprotaganist is making is NOT: "remdesivir is useless; Derek Lowe did not mention it here which is proof enough for me". Their point is simply: "I am not convinced that remdesivir is an obvious answer, because I find it highly implausible that if it is such a slam dunk answer, that Derek Lowe would fail to mention it."
In other words, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence; your claim that remdesivir could be a plausible route to a quick fix for the problem and that Derek Lowe isn't aware of this is extraordinary. Your evidence of basically nothing other than the word of random joe hackernews commenter + the word 'remdesivir' (so, I guess, the wikipedia entry which anybody can search the web for armed solely with the word?) isn't sufficient proof for it.
That's all. This is not an appeal to authority fallacy in my book, simply a request that you provide a little more direct indication that remdesivir is likely to be a panacea here, especially if you start insinuating that the article author has 'epic failed' here.
...yeah it is. Remdesivir has improved patient outcomes in the majority of cases it's been used so far - no, it hasn't been subject to comprehensive peer-reviewed study quite yet, but that's an awful reason to ignore our eyes in an emergent situation like this where death may be the alternative, and highly irresponsible for Derek Lowe to ignore. You're appealing to it being proper to ignore because authorities feel they haven't gone through enough red tape yet.
Am I wrong in observing that the public health response to the outbreak seems to be far less oriented towards solving the problem, but rather using psychological tactics to convince people that everything is fine, "the risk is low", and doing nothing is the proper response? (but also you're probably going to get the virus, so prepare for that, but only by washing your hands and certainly not preparing in a way that disrupts globalism)
m0zg appears to be implying that in the collaboration between Derek Lowe and the professionals he has talked to to write this article, nobody is aware of remdesivir, or, alternatively, that they are aware, that they explicitly chose not to write it / to accord their contribution to the article without requiring that it is mentioned, and that makes them unqualified hacks.
Because if that is not what was implied, I don't get why the words 'epic fail' are used.
And that is an extraordinary claim, at least in the mind of user hprotagonist, given that he is aware of Derek Lowe's expertise levels. Disregarding it without further proof is _NOT_ an appeal to authority.
The point that hprotaganist is making is NOT: "remdesivir is useless; Derek Lowe did not mention it here which is proof enough for me". Their point is simply: "I am not convinced that remdesivir is an obvious answer, because I find it highly implausible that if it is such a slam dunk answer, that Derek Lowe would fail to mention it."
In other words, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence; your claim that remdesivir could be a plausible route to a quick fix for the problem and that Derek Lowe isn't aware of this is extraordinary. Your evidence of basically nothing other than the word of random joe hackernews commenter + the word 'remdesivir' (so, I guess, the wikipedia entry which anybody can search the web for armed solely with the word?) isn't sufficient proof for it.
That's all. This is not an appeal to authority fallacy in my book, simply a request that you provide a little more direct indication that remdesivir is likely to be a panacea here, especially if you start insinuating that the article author has 'epic failed' here.