It has something to do with a controlled group, according to Wookie. He never showed any proof that the flaw was fixed or that the version is vastly different as he claimed it was. I’m not saying it isn’t, but he merely said that as a fact without showing any proof from the two available prints.
1 Like
That’s what I was looking for by comparing the materials and methods section of the two versions. They seemed the same to me but I’m very much a total layman in this area so I easily could have missed something.
1 Like
Who says it needed a complete rewrite?
Good point, we’re just trying to figure out what the significant flaw was in the preprint was that was fixed in the Science version. So completely rewritten? Not necessarily. But if a big flaw in the preprint had to be fixed then it’s probably more correct to say there was a substantial revision, not necessarily a total rewrite.
CN did label it ‘useless’ which would lead most to believe large sections, at least, require substantiial amendment if any of it was indeed still usable.
1 Like
Damn, it sounds like CN is being hyperbolic on the internet! Guards, seize him!
heh, reminds me of the time Jal posted that UK experts stating AZ gave (as good as) no protection after x months and the thread guards really did go ballastic! Jal said this!
Hyperbole… noted.
Last thing I’d want is a doc that practiced hyperbole.
1 Like
As far as I can tell, CN has done back-of-the-napkin work due to the supposed “flaw” and reached the conclusion that Pfizer efficiency was 70-82%, in line with other published work, once accounting for the asinine flaw.
The published work on Science have Pfizer efficiency at 45% if I understand correctly.
While I might be wrong in my understanding of his post and he did say it was rough work, it appears the hyperbole continued to his numbers that were not challenged.
1 Like
Whoa, a wookie responded? The plot thickens…
1 Like
We’ve caught Wook and CN red-handed!
Thanks!
These replies seems far off from obvious flawed, asinine useless paper response in the thread. Just seem like a standard discussion of various ways to analyze an interesting amount of data.
Have the authors break down that 5th group in the Science published paper and do you think experts in the field would rate that change as taking the paper from useless to Science worthy?
Did the assumed correction (if it indeed happened) change their numbers similar to what you had in mind? Am I correct in my understanding that ikes idea of the revised numbers was way, way off?
It seems obvious that you and ikes are well respected within the covid thread. Clearly not without reason. When ikes call this paper useless and write unchallenged work of rough math, When talking about the important of misinformation, I feel this is a great example worth discussing.
You and ikes were the only ones other than @catfacemeowmers to comment on the content of the paper. Your quick, aggressive and seemingly unjustified dismissal of it has caused numerous people 8 months later to brush off the paper as “flawed” (again, not a measurement). The addition of the wrong estimation by ikes only furthers shows the problem.
man I don’t got it in me to read yuv’s posts
The literature as a body of work is clear here, and this shit paper with obvious flaws is a massive outlier. the fuck would I know though lol
1 Like
Nice! That’s what i like to hear.
So now we have a real match on our hand –
Team Wookie has said this is an important piece of work that was corrected and he’s glad it was published.
Team ikes hold firm at “shit paper”.
I suggest a cite or ban dual.
lol, yeah not going to waste time with this nonsense. Have fun.
2 Likes
You don’t need to. You literally destroyed Wookie right here.
Yuv, I just want to say that this is an impressive performance.
3 Likes
Look, we have one rule in this community: don’t exaggerate the methodological flaws in a preprint. And if you can’t abide by that rule maybe you shouldn’t post here.
1 Like
Wait, he exaggerated back then or now?
I thought the pre-print was useless, but it was corrected and it’s now good, as per wookie.
But ikes just said it’s a “shit paper”.
Which one is it?
1 Like
Completely unacceptable for CN to call a paper “useless” when clearly it just needed corrections, and I expect an immediate apology from him.