"Am I understanding correctly that you're saying that because you can't get a perfectly random sample you shouldn't try to minimize selection bias?"
No, you're not. I was explaining why your argument is a truism in disguise.
"OK, this is the second time you've implied that I'm uninformed, or am acting in bad faith or with bad motives (or whatever "lowbrow reasons" means). None of these are true. I've ignored the personal nature of your vague dismissals up to now in the interest of conversation, but I'm done doing so."
I don't know if you're doing it in bad faith or not, but you're definitely making a highbrow lowbrow dismissal. You've set up an argument that can never be refuted, for reasons I've explained.
> You've set up an argument that can never be refuted, for reasons I've explained.
I'm arguing that the selection mechanisms they're choosing to use are bad compared to what they could and should be using, namely, random sampling as was used in Germany. Yes, those still have problems as you've mentioned, but they are much better overall. I'm sure there are reasons these studies didn't use those mechanisms -- some bad, like that it's hard to get a good random sample, and it's easy to run facebook ads or camp out at a grocery store, and probably some good, like that it's easier enough that it makes results available sooner.
I'm also arguing that because of this bias, and because we are now seeing a few of these studies with similar biases despite different methodologies, and because, of the papers we could read (namely just Stanford's), the accounting for selection bias is weak, it's risky to make statements about trends indicated by these papers.
You could refute my argument by explaining how these not-very-random selection mechanisms could be effectively accounted for post-selection. I've asked you to do this several times, and you have not done so.
I am not making an argument that can never be refuted. I'm asking you to refute it, and I've given you one potential argument, and you have chosen not to do so, repeatedly.
I'm sorry, but in this exchange, the person putting forth arguments that amount to vague dismissals that can't be refuted was, um, not me.
No, you're not. I was explaining why your argument is a truism in disguise.
"OK, this is the second time you've implied that I'm uninformed, or am acting in bad faith or with bad motives (or whatever "lowbrow reasons" means). None of these are true. I've ignored the personal nature of your vague dismissals up to now in the interest of conversation, but I'm done doing so."
I don't know if you're doing it in bad faith or not, but you're definitely making a highbrow lowbrow dismissal. You've set up an argument that can never be refuted, for reasons I've explained.