The actual study cited was fundamentally flawed, in that it didn’t control for prior infection in the control group, which makes the vaccines look less effective than they actually are.
Also, it was a preprint, so it is especially irresponsible to not post the source.
You keep Louis Riel out of this
Edit: I was ponied by Clovis, sad days.
This is a really important point and I can honestly say the same about every post I’ve ever made. I have accused you or trolling in the past and I was clearly wrong. My apologies.
There is just a fundamental problem with online communication:
And
This leads some of us (me for sure) to way overestimate how often someone is actually trolling rather than either actually disagreeing or communicating poorly.
I can only control myself so I am pledging to assume the best intent of posts from people I’ve known online for years.
Jesus I’ve known some of you for more than a decade now!
Hey what is this? People being reasonable in the bickering thread?
Churchill withheld the source because it was from a moron named Dr (of nursing, not medicine) John Campbell who regularly spread misinformation about Covid and got internet famous because of it. Churchill didn’t share the source specifically because he knew it was bad. I only figured it out because other people had posted clips of Campbell’s idiocy and I noted how weird it was that he took videos of him taking notes on paper.
‘The thread’ was going after me for posting a screenshot of the findings of a study? They seem far more interested in the source of the screenshot, than the actual source of the findings. Which I posted, which you seem to have left out of your post.
Just about every study I have ever posted has been ‘problematic’, especially the studies that found vaccines waned over time. It was almost like certain posters thought I wrote the studies myself, rather than just me putting them out there for discussion.
Here’s the screenshot I deleted, why don’t you compare that to the stats above. Maybe wonder if the Anti-Vax dog (woof, woof) was necessary, why Trolly was so concerned about a screenshot rather than the findings of the report and just why CN wanted to discredit a youtuber and not focus on the findings.
That’s because it was a long running source of covid misinformation and unwarranted vaccine skepticism. You know this.
No you didn’t, and anyone can see you refusing to give the citation after being asked several times where these numbers came from. I’m not sure if we ever did find out what journal it was from.
The link is still in the CN twitter post below my post in the covid thread? It was a study of 620,000 US veterans. I think a mod deleted my post with the link at the same time as handing out another ban (as the reported post contained more than just the link). Here it is again.
Breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infections in 620,000 U.S. Veterans, February 1, 2021 to August 13, 2021
As stated, y’all seemed a lot more interested in the ‘source of the screenshot’ than the actual study at the time. Another pile on in return for posting probably the largest US study on covid.
You were asked multiple times for a link to that study. Given that it was a paper that didn’t pass peer review, it seems the skepticism was entirely warranted.
The whole episode shows why citatation in the COVID thread particularly is so important. This source was not yet peer reviewed and subsequently (edit: published with corrections) because of significant flaws (edit: in its orignal pre-print). The source of the source also proved important because the youtuber has a record of spreading misinformation. And still, these lapses are forgivable. That this behavior is in retrospect still not acknowledged by the OP as being problematic is the takeaway that may be useful to those who are unfamiliar with the thread.
*edit to correct that it was published with corrections
As long as we’re revisiting this episode, I’ll point out that the March numbers in the screenshot are all wrong. That was another reason for increased (and completely reasonable) scrutiny, skepticism, and confusion about the source.
“Heres a study i found that might be interesting”
“It has flaws that are this and that and its not peer reviewed”.
Seems like quite an easy conversation and maybe even useful.
Indeed, this is how conversations typically play out in that thread. And it’s been very useful to me, I’ve learned quite a bit from that thread over the past two years.
Except it’s not when someone hides their source because they know it’s from a misinformation peddling moron. Almost like churchill wasn’t engaging in good faith!
I agree there is value in discussing these studies. The study however was not introduced to the thread with citation so that it was clear that it came from a source that had yet to be peer reviewed or so people in the thread could easily respond and highlight concerns. I fully support and encourage discussion as you have outlined it.
Unfortunately, that’s not what happened. The problem, as I see it, is that data from this pre-print was introduced to the thread without disclosure of where it was from. The study wasn’t posted, a screenshot from the study was. The source had to be requested.
I’m still not sure what is happening here, as this conversation is in about moderation. Are you trying to imply that showing a screenshot from a study, that as far as i can see was done fairly close to my home by an epidemiologist in the Oakland public health department, is a cause for moderation involvement?
I’m a complete ignorant when it comes to covid, but isn’t the waning of J&J vaccine fairly known fact by now?
Are you confident that if I look at the covid thread (I won’t, you can lie if you want), this will be a complete outlier in terms of proper citation etiquette?
Is churchil a good poster? I have no idea. Is the case you shown a reason for moderation involvement and something that will convey me to permaban a user? I find it hard to believe anyone would think that, but I’ll just go with no.
As someone who was a nervous bystander for the lengthy review process in a Nature publication for the past few months (got published, yay), it seems fairly reasonable that something as time sensitive as covid paper would be looked at while in preprint.
Also i find it genuinely quite scary that a paper done by an epidemiologist in the public health service near me is so abnormally bad that it can be shred apart by non-professionals epidemiologists (but clearly well informed in adjacent fields) in an online politics forum.
Do you feel that withholding sources is a problem that should be addressed in threads such as the COVID one, when the source could be a pre-print that lacked peer review, and was publicized by someone with a track record of spreading COVID misinfornmation?
If so, do you feel that OP’s response to me highlighting these issues, acknowledges that this behavior is problematic so as to be confident that it will not persist?
Interestingly, the 3% figure in the version that didn’t pass peer review is now 13% in the reviewed version.
Remarkable that untrained randos on the internet can sniff out methodological flaws in a research paper like this.
