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 This source was not yet peer reviewed and subsequently (edit: published with corrections) because of significant flaws (edit: in its orignal pre-print).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.
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?
I’ll say it slowly, a 2nd time, so maybe you’ll notice…
I gave a link to the pdf study, whc=ich was flagged and deleted. I did not do this immdiately because the postrs in the thread were only concerned with the source of the screenshot.
And this is bullshit. Dr John has a reputation for spreading covid information early, putting all studies out there without bias, some of which turned out to be bullshit. This is akin to what the best medical minds in this forum have stated early, e.g the vaxxed won’t transmit, vaccines won’t waning which has largely been disproven (or maybe those 666,000 vets didn’t really get a vax) - hence why they’re uppity with me)
Unstuck ain’t no medical forum - you dont need to be a Dr to post a study
Actually, here’s what people were saying about the vaccine waning. Incredible work by non-epidemiologist and poorly-credentialed Wookie anticipating that the preprint numbers would be revised upward!
Not really. I see the study is fairly legit. Publicized. I think also pointed out stuff that turned out to be common knowledge now.
I feel it’s quite reasonable to be results oriented when it comes to these things. If the study turned out to be done in a libertarian think tank and never seen the light of day i’d be a little more concerned. It seems that the source (the infamous Dr John who i’m unfamiliar with) is utterly irrelevant to the study, unless you have hard evidence that the oakland public health system are all anti-vaxxers.
Speaking of results oriented, every time I stopped in the covid thread i’ve seen that the consensus opinion on a subject had turned out wrong (from the danger of variants to mask mandates to the lack of need of boosters to the extreme need of boosters). As someone who still plays poker I’m very sympathetic to running bad and small sample size, but it’s fairly dangerous to rely on that at all times.
The study wasn’t posted orignally though. The screenshot was. I’m in agreement the study has a place for discussion. We don’t need to be results oriented. If the study was introduced as you suggested I’m not in here posting.
I have no idea what the hell you’re talking about for mask mandates, but for boosters and variants it’s almost like new data was acquired and things changed!
Churchill is essentially Greear screaming the same thing over and over again. Sure variants were a problem, but he was screaming about alpha which turned out to be precisely dick and the data showed that. Churchill doesn’t become ‘right’ about delta because he fearmongered wrongly about alpha.