You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
ParentData is expanding and hiring a writer
- Thread starter churchface
- Start date
@moriarty777 That should be your problem with “people”, it sounds like
@moriarty777 Wait, your criticism of Oster is that people misconstrue or misuse the data she presents? Why is that her fault and not theirs?
tparkinson012
New member
@moriarty777 "New study proves fatal head wounds prevent death by cancer!"
....
If people think that makes head wounds a form of preventative care that's not the datas fault.
Or to quote:
Elimination! Lack of education.
....
If people think that makes head wounds a form of preventative care that's not the datas fault.
Or to quote:
Elimination! Lack of education.
jgross45743
New member
@churchface Are they actually paying? It doesn't look like a paid position, but it's very hard to tell.
@jgross45743 I was thinking of applying but the lack of information on pay — I’m not gonna waste my time
jgross45743
New member
churchface
New member
@jgross45743 I certainly hope they’re paying!
@churchface I love Emily Oster and I am ready for the downvotes! Especially since my own OB advised me strongly against an epidural because it was “not natural”. Emily oster fills a needed purpose in society. I have a PhD in social science and even I have a hard time deciphering the literature. Having someone break it down for me is so so useful!
believerinchrist32
New member
@churchface FDA see
thepaintedbeat
New member
@churchface Please don't shill this here. Prof Oster makes millions from her books and blog subscriptions telling parents what they want to here, whether the science supports it or not.
One example: during COVID, she wrote in the Atlantic that “Children are not at high risk for COVID-19… Although scientists don’t quite understand why, kids seem to be naturally protected. As a result, you can think of your son or daughter as an already vaccinated grandparent” That's exactly what stressed out parents wanted to hear, but isn’t true and wasn’t supported by the studies at the time or our understanding of diseases. Most epidemiologists panned it:
“This is a horrible horrible garbage take. I can’t believe @TheAtlantic published this nonsense. It’s not remotely true and it’s extremely dangerous message—it might even make some skip their kids vaccinations later. horrid! #CovidVaccine”
This article covers more of her problematic COVID takes:
https://prospect.org/coronavirus/wh...come-the-most-fraught-debate-of-the-pandemic/
This has no place on a Science Based Parenting forum.
One example: during COVID, she wrote in the Atlantic that “Children are not at high risk for COVID-19… Although scientists don’t quite understand why, kids seem to be naturally protected. As a result, you can think of your son or daughter as an already vaccinated grandparent” That's exactly what stressed out parents wanted to hear, but isn’t true and wasn’t supported by the studies at the time or our understanding of diseases. Most epidemiologists panned it:
“This is a horrible horrible garbage take. I can’t believe @TheAtlantic published this nonsense. It’s not remotely true and it’s extremely dangerous message—it might even make some skip their kids vaccinations later. horrid! #CovidVaccine”
This article covers more of her problematic COVID takes:
https://prospect.org/coronavirus/wh...come-the-most-fraught-debate-of-the-pandemic/
This has no place on a Science Based Parenting forum.
@thepaintedbeat How was her statement in any way incorrect though? A fully-vaccinated 70-year-old is much more likely to be hospitalized or killed by COVID than an unvaccinated 10-year-old. This is an undisputable fact based on the data. In fact, the US is one of the only developed countries that has recommended COVID vaccination at all for children under the age of 10 because they are at such low risk.
thepaintedbeat
New member
@hancha Children are definitely not "naturally protected" from getting COVID and schools were/are definitely a source of spreading COVID. Telling an older teacher with health respiratory problems they need to get back in the classroom and teach kids who won't be wearing masks during the height of a pandemic is as anti-science as you get.
And that's my real problem with Oster's work. She makes a pile of money telling parents what they want to hear, even if zero credible epidemiologists agree with her and it risks lives. And even if the money comes from far right billionaires like Charles Koch and Peter Thiel, she'll happily take it.
And that's my real problem with Oster's work. She makes a pile of money telling parents what they want to hear, even if zero credible epidemiologists agree with her and it risks lives. And even if the money comes from far right billionaires like Charles Koch and Peter Thiel, she'll happily take it.
@thepaintedbeat The crux of your argument is you deliberately misconstruing what she meant in that article when she stated that children are naturally protected from COVID. She explicitly stated what she meant (I.e. "unvaccinated children have as much risk as a vaccinated grandparent").
Seems like this is pretty much the root of all criticism against Oster - she makes a nuanced statement/recommendation that is complely accurate based on the data/science available, and she thoroughly explains the nuances and the quality/quantity of data involved. Then a bunch of people who don't understand nuance (or who refuse to accept the fundamental realities of cost/benefit-based and risk-based decision-making) turn her statements into straw-men to argue against.
Seems like this is pretty much the root of all criticism against Oster - she makes a nuanced statement/recommendation that is complely accurate based on the data/science available, and she thoroughly explains the nuances and the quality/quantity of data involved. Then a bunch of people who don't understand nuance (or who refuse to accept the fundamental realities of cost/benefit-based and risk-based decision-making) turn her statements into straw-men to argue against.
churchface
New member
@thepaintedbeat See above comment threads
@churchface Emily Oster: no thanks.
churchface
New member
@churchface Besides her problematic methods (and thus conclusions), she accepts funding from Peter Thiel and Charles Koch.
Edit: fixed a typo.
Edit: fixed a typo.
desperatehokie
New member
@churchface Her opinions on COVID have been controversial.
churchface
New member
@desperatehokie Yes, and some of her other opinions have been controversial too. Overall, a lot of her writing has not been and it’s just sharing data and numbers and having readers apply that however they want. I think this is a cool opportunity for someone who’s inclined to interpret studies about a topic they’re passionate about. Hell, they could even propose writing directly contradicting her opinions and stir the pot!