Note that the situation would have exploded already in the last 5 years but the COVID pandemic stamped down on all infectious diseases.
Now we have active spread, antivax messaging at the highest levels of government, and repeated COVID infections that has certainly damaged everyone's immune system - adults and babies alike:
>Sickness levels in people working for the NHS is pretty specific and is very likely not to generalise.
"The canary in the coalmine just fainted, but this is pretty specific to canaries and very likely not to generalise to us human coal miners."
Your fundamental mistake is that you think "correlation does not imply causation" when the correct sentence is "correlation does not prove causation" - but it does certainly imply it. That is the job of statistics and experiments to prove it beyond doubt, but it always starts with a correlation that the researchers then dig into.
Perhaps unfortunately, math and computer science have redefined "imply" and the "=>" implication operator to mean "certainly follows", which does means "prove".
The OP is probably using those fields terminology, rather than casual commonplace meaning of imply, which is as you were arguing, merely "suggests".
Also, "beyond (a reasonable) doubt" is a legal standard, not a scientific one. Science almost always maintain some doubt :)
(The alt text: Correlation doesn't imply causation, but it does waggle its eyebrows suggestively and gesture furtively while mouthing 'look over there'.)
"Make America Great Again" by reliving the vaccine-less past again.
Now as many cases as the 2019 outbreak, and the year is only half-way:
https://archive.ph/Qltl3
Note that the situation would have exploded already in the last 5 years but the COVID pandemic stamped down on all infectious diseases.
Now we have active spread, antivax messaging at the highest levels of government, and repeated COVID infections that has certainly damaged everyone's immune system - adults and babies alike:
https://nitter.net/1goodtern/status/1928177827750265259
https://nitter.net/1goodtern/status/1942296270854344998
https://nitter.net/1goodtern/status/1935394752918110367
The most damning thread of all:
https://nitter.net/1goodtern/status/1918723962701312389#m
Sickness levels in people working for the NHS is pretty specific and is very likely not to generalise.
Also, correlation does not imply causation, even more so with something like Covid where there were a lot of other changes as indirect results.
With this kind of argument, nothing ever happens!
>Sickness levels in people working for the NHS is pretty specific and is very likely not to generalise.
"The canary in the coalmine just fainted, but this is pretty specific to canaries and very likely not to generalise to us human coal miners."
Your fundamental mistake is that you think "correlation does not imply causation" when the correct sentence is "correlation does not prove causation" - but it does certainly imply it. That is the job of statistics and experiments to prove it beyond doubt, but it always starts with a correlation that the researchers then dig into.
Perhaps unfortunately, math and computer science have redefined "imply" and the "=>" implication operator to mean "certainly follows", which does means "prove".
The OP is probably using those fields terminology, rather than casual commonplace meaning of imply, which is as you were arguing, merely "suggests".
Also, "beyond (a reasonable) doubt" is a legal standard, not a scientific one. Science almost always maintain some doubt :)
Yes, exactly how I was using it, because it is a widely used phrase in discussing statistics, and especially when teaching statistics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_cau...
It is also of particular importance when discussing time series statistics because spurious correlations are extremely common.
https://xkcd.com/552/
(The alt text: Correlation doesn't imply causation, but it does waggle its eyebrows suggestively and gesture furtively while mouthing 'look over there'.)