Originally Posted by Excargodog

Finally got around to reading this. It’s the most poorly written allegedly ‘science’ article I have ever read, and does not even define an hypothesis before meandering off into chicken-little like ‘very bad consequences’ that are alleged but by no means proven and are pretty much unsupported by any data. Even an attempt at what appears to be some meta analysis (of what I’m still not sure) doesn’t make any sense, conflating statistical significance (under certain conditions of variability going from 100% blood oxygen saturation to 99% might actually be statistically significant - ie, two standard deviations off the mean - but physiologically unimportant since the human normal is 95-100% saturation anyway and going from San Diego to Albuquerque will likely take it down to 93%) with biologically significant which for all but those only not tenuously clinging to life with end stage COPD is really not a problem.

Nor does this appear to have any connection with Stanford and it actually isn’t a ‘study’ at all, more of a diatribe comes to mind. And that from someone who believes are society as a whole, the Public health people in general, and our politicians in particular have grossly over reacted to COVID.

But bad “science” (although I hate to dignify the article with the word) is still bad, no matter which side of the argument it allegedly supports, and this article is so bad it doesn’t qualify as science at all.